First, whoever thought of the name "Homeland Security?"

Tom Daschle, as I recall.

Nothing that this Democratic Congress does surprises me. It has essentially, as Senator Feingold stated, capitulated. It couldn't stop or slowed the war and has offered the American people little of an alternative to GOP policies.

Now, the "change agent," Obama, a man I'm favorably prediposed towards, has changed his position of using public funds and doesn't seem to be taking a lead on fundamental constitutional issues: unchecked executive power and law breaking.

And he's a constitutional law professor?

Surely, these are the days that try a person's soul...

I don't like this bill any more than anyone else...

But will someone PLEASE jam a pacifier into some of these whiny leftists?

I like to consider myself quite liberal and tolerant of many ideas, but some of the posts in this thread test my patience to the very limit. I can appreciate and respect the justifiable outrage over this bill. What I don't appreciate are some self-righteous people who feel they can hold the future of my country hostage in the name of ideological purity.

You people want to throw a temper tantrum in the voting booth? Go right ahead. But you'd better damn well be ready to take your share of responsibility if things turn out wrong in November. Unless you're willing to support an instant runoff voting system, you're not proving anything to me by running your mouths about how you hate the Democratic Party.

-- V.B. from MN

Just for the sake of clarity, while some of these angry people are what one might call "leftist" a good number are not "leftist" in any sense of the term. People concerned with individual and civil liberties come from all over the ideological spectrum.

OK, I support instant runoffs. Always did.

Now what, big guy? Am I saved?

I believe once any House version passes it goes to a joint Senate-House committee. Not sure if each house gets to vote on the full deal again or if the result is considered complete.

I guess our Golden Boy President just has the magic touch -- and so do those generous telecoms. Their ability to buy legislation shouldn't be overlooked when we seek to explain how this bill was cobbled together, and how it passed. Don't underestimate plain old corruption as a driving force for our politicians.

Instant Runoff voting is not actually a very good system. In order to give it a chance to claim legitimacy, you need all voters to rank all the candidates -- otherwise, you end up with the possibility that the election outcome still doesn't really reflect the preferences of the majority.

Furthermore, in a race between four or more candidates, IRV can result in a candidate winning who has fewer combined first- and second-choice support than other candidates, because they were not in absolute last place in the first round.

A much better system is approval voting (look it up in Wikipedia). You can vote for as many candidates as you like (so you don't have to compromise), and the candidate with the most votes wins, meaning that the winner is always the candidate who is supported by the largest possible number of voters (which is not guaranteed by IRV).

Does anybody know how the issue of domestic surveillance polls among the American people? Among Democrats? Republicans? I wonder what the Dems. supporting this resolution hope to gain. Do our lawmakers genuinely support this, or are they giving in to pure political calculus? I would tend to think that a majority of Americans are tragically indifferent to being surveilled, but I could be wrong - I hope so.

Glenn,

If Obama were to put a "hold" on this when it gets to the Senate, do you think that Reid & Co. would be willing to oppose their party's nominee on this?

I'm just trying to figure out what exactly Obama can do to stop this. Openly say that he'll join hands with Dodd and Feingold to Fillabuster, to the point of taking time off his campaigning to join the fillabuster on the floor?

Hoyer, Nancy and Reid are beyond our ability to pressure. But by turning it up on Obama, are they beyond *his* ability to pressure? Is this an issue where he can show that the Party is *his* and lead the Change he talks about rather than Business As Usual?

I think we're whistling dixie chasing the people who *we* can not impact at this late stage. Can pressure be brought to bear on the one person in the Democratic party who might be able to put a stop to it.

My thought would be that if you have any connections with Keith or Rachel that you get out the word that this is an issue that *immediately* warrants one of Keith's Special Comments, and rather than wasting his time aiming it at the Dems who will give away the farm, aim it at Obama as a moment in US History where for the first time he can show his ability to lead the country.

Yeah... I'm getting Jimmy Stewart here. But even as I was contributing $$$ to the efforts, I had a feeling given the rush of this that we were fighting with a pop gun when most of the heavy arms were already aimed from the Telecoms. There is only one heavy weapon that we can play, and it's the Nominee.

I don't know if he grasps the opportunity for showing leadership that is there for him. Someone needs to hip him to it. Feingold... Dodd... Biden... and fast.

John

This may not seem like a big deal, and if there is no one else interested in it, then I guess I'll live with it...

...when paying for anything online, I would much rather use PayPal than have to enter my credit card information. Any of you who use PayPal know that it is much simpler, and is also a more secure way of paying or donating.

Is it possible to make PayPal an option for those who wish to donate to ActBlue?