"Where the hell is OBAMA on this?" contingent.

Access to his campaign, anyone?

You might want to have your Acme Snark Detector™ recalibrated.

"We can’t talk to people who don’t believe in freedom. That’s called appeasement."

No, appeasement is when a party gives in to an opponent's demands at the expense of the party's own interests or in spite of the party's own principles. Diplomacy and appeasement are two very different things. Please familiarize yourself with the English language before you post again.

You, too.

"BigNose strikes again"

Folks, when something seems 100% idiotic, you might want to click the "letters" linky, and scope out the previous submissions.

Sometimes, the appropriate response is laughter, and sometimes [crickets].

Thank you so much for your contributions to the fact and truth. I have a problem with Blue Dogs who won't stand up. Indeed, they have a problem with their constituents. Any suggestions?

Don't we already have a leader on this issue (other than Glenn)? One who's the presumptive nominee of our party for President?

Count me in with the "Where's Obama?" crowd...

I'm sure GG has read this, but everybody else who's interested in the topic of this post ought to read it as well.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-fisa-debate-is-not-about.html

or click sig for linky

What happened to Eric Lichtblau? Based on his previous articles <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/eric_lichtblau/> and other publications <http://www.amazon.com/dp/037542492X>, I thought he was on our side...

Thank you so much for your contributions to the fact and truth. I have a problem with Blue Dogs who won't stand up. Indeed, they have a problem with their constituents. Any suggestions?

There is an easy thing to do concerning Blue Dogs: DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. Simple.

Vote 3rd party, abstain from voting, or vote for their rethuglican opponent. ANYTHING is better than voting FOR them because, you can count on this, if they win they WILL see this as support for their craven and disgusting positions.

You must not reward their bad behavior as representatives AND as human beings by voting to keep them in office.

Glenn - Is it too much to ask you to point out every now and then that the authorization of wiretaps by a secret court - the "old law" that Rockefeller/Cheney would change - a court that almost never turns down a request - that that law itself is a blatant violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments?

I fail to see how voting for republicans will help matters at all.

Maybe the Congress isn't being bullied so much as it is filled with a bunch of morons and establishment Kool Aid drinking cowards? Like, be afraid or something ZOMG, there is a war of terror going on!

Where is Obama? He is busy "changing". Changing his tune and reassuring Patriotic Zionists that he is ready and willing to be the tough guy and kill more scary people in order to protect the National Security Interests of the US and its Stalwart Ally. Who could have seen that coming???????? Obama is probably trying to sneak into the Bilderberg meeting without being seen so he can report to his masters and get his marching orders.

Appeasement makes us unable to see how bad our enemies are. It makes us blind, and it causes warts on the hands.

Not to mention severe Congressional gonadal atrophy.

Thank goodness the ACLU, EFF and Glenn & Co. in the blogosphere are compensating for that deficiency.

"it will not be because they were ocrerced or pressured into doing so, but rather, because they too favor warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty"

I think this goes to the heart of the debate over the last years. Blowing with the wind is harder to explain than the idea that they are capitulating in order to remain viable--for us their consituency!!! From the beginning, the center of gravity of the Democratic party has been pro-war and pro-fisa and pro-patriot act, pro-Israel as they claim that they must remain politically at the center to champion Democratic (big D) values. Which are by this time, almost idistinguishable from those of the Republic party. Democrats have insulted our intelligence long enough.

The conservative-Democrat cunumdrum is a tough one, but one that is an inevitable result of the 50 state stratagy.

Not that this is a bad thing. In the long run.

Getting people in once-red districts used to voting for Democrats is a big part of the battle, I think. In the coming elections (And especially between cycles) I would hope that Dean is examining these districts, to find suitable democratic primary challengers.

Sorry I got a few of you riled up about my previous post. This one is not snark, though, so have at it.

Also, a request: Can somone out there tell me, or lead me to a site that will explain how to do things like italics, bold, etc..? thanks.

A version of this piece was on the NYT site yesterday (but dated June 10), under the header "Impasse on Spying Could Lead to Tighter Rules". I tried to reacquire it to see if any changes were made during the interim (aside from the headline), but it's no longer available, of course. The two look the same.

What is so disappointing about this piece (and Lichtblau) is that the article actually manages to intensify the misinformation. It takes misleading information from the GOP, equally misleading crap from the Dems, adds a pinch of insubstantial, uninformative quotation from ACLU, notes vaguely that some sort of deal is near--condenses all the above, and seals the lid.

Anyone who had to rely on this piece in order to understand anything about the FISA debate would have gained absolutely nothing--in fact, they would have lost understanding of the issue, due to the incorrect information Lichblau simply dumps in there.

It's long been maintained that the longer one watches FOX, the dumber--the less informed--one becomes. But I didn't realize that this observation now applies to the New York Times as well.

Really depressing.