You are exactly right. Ig legislators now give nearly everything the president demanded in the way of unchecked spying powers on Americans and telecom immunity voters will wonder why they wasted all this time and money by denying it in the first place. Dems in congress will be viewed as worthless and complicit in the corruption that envelopes the WH. Especially now that it has been proven that this administration lied us into a war/occupation and stupidly demands now that we just trust them with unchecked spying power that they won't abuse this power. They've abused every power they have assumed so far. There is absolutely no excuse to give in to this "compromise" except that they have been bribed to do so or spinelessly wish to avoid conflict.

Just look at what Rockefeller has done. Revealed Bush/Cheney lied us into war and then says trust them not to spy on Americans...or "Here are liars you can trust".

Do I have your permission to send your "Where is Obama" post to the campaign website? I think we need to be putting the pressure on now through every available means. Your post was succinct and very on point. A great template.

And "appeasing" paranoid Zionists. What a toady. Poor guy, capitulating in the face of powerful lobbies and exposing yourself as a fraud must be a huge strain on the man, what with his bullshit "change" meme and all.

Nancy Pelosi's gonadal atrophy was well advanced before she became speaker, no? A technical point, I admit, but truth in media and all that.... As for her male counterparts, well...maybe it ain't the state of anyone's gonads that we've got to worry about. The wise folks, GC! included, tell us that the soul can atrophy if it isn't exercised regularly. If you ask me, that's the real problem here.

Are these the same telecoms that removed illegal wiretaps when the bills were unpaid? THEY are what stands between us and chaos. Oh, lordy.

Are they secretly in favor? Are they getting bullied but tryingt their hardest? What is their motive? What is their plan?

Ever think that maybe our elected representatives are just ignorant Kool Aid drinkers that buy into the establishment fearmongering that most of America buys into? Whatever their motive, be it their fear of being perceived as divisive or it is all part of some malevolent scheme, it is all predicated on the fact that a lot of them are ignorant feckless morons who buy into and/or promote status quo propaganda.

I am willing to bet that most of the people that post in the comment section of GG's blog are more informed than most of our elected representatives.

Of course there are going to be people who will lie and distort the facts in the interest of people and organizations with power. However, the NYT does not have to give them the credibility of appearing on their paper.

Although the Times may hide behind this being an "opinion" piece (I haven't checked this) it still has an obligation to uphold its own credibility by mandating that all opinions be rooted in facts. That it has chosen to ignore this responsibility damages its credibility even further.

Perhaps it's time to change it's nickname from "The Gray Lady" to "The Painted Lady" since it is so eager to whore themselves out to power.

Good thing the counterrevolution is over and the liberals have already won, or I might really be worried.

Glenn:

You solution - have Congress present a bill that extends the PAA and exempts foreign-to-foreign call wiretaps from warrants - sounds like a good idea.

Why don't we all e-mail our congressmen, and, citing the above NYT article, demand that such a bill be immediately introduced.

And let the NYT know we're doing it.

And let the NYT know WHY we're doing it.

Well, they did. And I'm going to say the same thing about it this time that I said last time... don't go whaling on the Democratic leadership *too* quickly.

The Republican leadership in Congress is going to be bringing this up, constantly, right through the end of this session. They *need* telecoms immunity; it covers up their own criminal acts. It's only rational to expect James Boehner to try to drag Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer off and pitch immunity every single time he sees them. (They've gotta be avoiding him like the plague by now.)

Since it's genuinely important to them, every time Boehner manages to get Hoyer into a corner, one of his staffers is going to "leak" the "fact" of an "imminent compromise" on immunity. The corporate media then repeats what they're given; it's what they DO, these days, anybody who reads this blog knows that. You can always get some low-level staffer from some Blue Dog's office... hey, look, it's Rep. Carney!... to provide "bipartisan" gloss.

I'm NOT saying, don't watch the news stories. I'm saying, on this particular subject, watch for substantiated quotes from Democratic leaders. Nothing else matters. When, last week, Silvestre said he was "fine" with a bit of kabuki-theater language that would have effectively given the telecoms immunity, that was worrisome. Today's NYT story is nothing.

Letters to your Representative saying, "I know, the Republcans are still pushing on this issue, and all of us who are your actual friends appreciate your continued willingness to stand up to them", those are helpful. Letters saying "OMG UR CAVING AGAIN KILL YOU KILL YOU ALL!!11!!"... not helpful.

When the Democratic politicians agree to a compromise (as they surely will), thereby establishing that the Democratic Party, as Glenn has put it, "favors warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty", I predict there will be those who will continue to hold to an unsustainable claim: They will claim to be against the imperial presidency as manifest by Bush, while at the same time, claim to have faith that the Democratic Party will reverse the "accomplishments" of the Bush era with respect to unchecked presidential power.

The absurdity of this position can only be reconciled if one also believes that the rule of law is subservient to political expediency - in this case, that the law takes a back seat to that which is necessary for attaining the power of the presidency.

However, this is merely a re-statement of executive theory as developed under Bush/Cheney/Yoo. That presidential power is paramount, the rule of law secondary or subservient.

There is no effective or functional difference between, say, Bush, issuing a signing statement that ignores the intent of a law in order to preserve, for future exercising, his power as president, and the Democrats ignoring the intent of the law in order to preserve their bid to exercise presidential power in the future.

In both instances, the power of the presidency is seen to be the paramount concern, the rule of law a secondary or subservient consideration.

Despite this, there will be those who excuse the Democrats for ignoring the rule of law now (although they may curse them for being "lame" or "corrupt"), in order to attain presidential power.

Such persons will see a distinction where none exists, thus preserving and conferring the prerogatives of presidential power...at the expense of their own freedoms.

America's two-party system is a brilliant disguise - at least for those eager to be fooled.