what the real story is. I mean, if you could get one of these spineless "leaders" a bit drunk in a bar, what would be the real reason for this self-induced defeat? I have heard the public statements (worthless pap) and a lot of speculation (interesting, however I am pretty good at making stuff up too.), but I wonder what the real reason is for passing this horrid thing? Does anyone have access to one of these cowards and a bottle of Grey Goose to find out? I am semi-serious, at least WRT to wanting to know. I'll even kick in $20 toward the Grey Goose (last I checked it was about $65 a bottle). We know they could have passed a bill to fix the international routing problem without amnesty and new spying powers (It would have been a smart play too), but they chose not to. Why?

In '06 I sent money to Jerry McNerney's campaign (he replaced Pombo), I just informed his re-election campaign that the money I intended to send to them went to ACT Blue instead and told them that I would be making note of his vote tomorrow.

Confound it! I need a drink.

Leaving aside the emotional impact we are all tumbling through, it is my guess that the cowardly, craven Democratic Leadership (Nancy "Everything is off the table!" Pelosi, Steny "I'd stoop to conquer"!, Rahm "Can I brown-nose anything for you?" Emanuel, et al.) had made the decision to:

Clear the tables!

Don't leave a scrap of anything icky, controversial, or potentially harmful if thrownup by the Repugs, to impede our 2008 election goals.

Clear the tables! Wipe it nice and clean!

If we just do want the Repugs want, then the Repugs won't have anything to use against us in the 2008 election.

Such is the Democratic Leadership Villager logic.

Whatever you do, hold it all in. Don't let even the smallest of farts escape, because if you do, the Repugs will tell everyone.

And what about the great unwashed?

Nancy says that they'll eventually forget all about the fact that they ever had a Constitution.

They'll go back to sleep soon...as long as we, the Democratic Leadership: Clear the tables!

Power trumps principle.

In the years since 9/11, have we seen another terrorist attack on our soil?

Yes. Anthrax. Everyone always forgets about the anthrax. There have also been abortion clinic bombings and shootings and whatnot and (if you can handle more depression) many, many other close calls:

http://www.globalincidentmap.com/map.php

(If you get a Login screen, just click the "Map" button)

Two words: Bull.Shit.

I'm too far not-updated. A sky is clear. Stars twinkle, and the slow clouds float along on a dark still and calm night.

A still sea is there,

and a calm heart .

I agree.`um "Worst."

Never underestimate 'um da' der`'um depravity?

'um need to know we know's 'um a`masturbate?

'um need the compromise bill, and we expectorate?

http://feeds.dailykos.com/%7Er/dailykos/index/%7E3/
315709360/6112

(or, link at sig)

I've not had any luck getting into FireDog Lake until now. I was kind of hoping cboldt would turn up. Below he is responding to an uncertainty Kagro had expressed.

cboldt June 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

A single solitary Senator objection can cause two serial cloture motions. Kagro says he’s not sure a second one (on final passage) can be forced. I’m sure. It can be.

Further, if there is as much as ONE amendment to be voted on, the same objection/cloture widget can be brought to bear there, as well.

I’m watching to see if Senator Reid gets the bill from the House tomorrow, in which case he may move to proceed to it, and if faced with objection, file a cloture motion tomorrow - the cloture vote would be Tuesday a.m., plus 30 hours is Wednesday late afternoon when the bill would become pending (motion to proceed being adopted).

The reason two cloture motions can be set up back to back is that this is a fresh bill. If it was one of those “ping pong” affairs, where a bill that the Senate had previously considered is being sent back to the Senate, there is NO motion to proceed (so no cloture widget), and debate rules are different so that cloture doesn’t work the same way even on final passage.

I don’t think the House has any vehicle to shortcut the “usual” process of handling a “new” bill that’s originated in the House. Where “new” and “originated in the House” results in an obligation to make a motion to proceed, and an obligation to allow debate on the bill until either all Senators agree to vote on passage, or cloture limits debate before voting on passage.

I'm not sure why I am so hung up on the procedures... unless, it's to further punish myself with the knowledge that this miserable excuse for a compromise could have been avoided, but the actors in this drama saw no reason not to capitulate.

By the way, here is how Republicans view the issue, as outlined in an appalling passage from Rep. Tom Davis's memo to the Republican leadership. Apparently, Republicans are waiting for a "major incident", after which they think "the lines between protecting our citizens and preserving privacy will crumble":

"We must continue to hammer on FISA every chance we get. Terrorism ranks sixth today as an issue, but one incident can propel it to first. Democrats will blame Bush for any problems, so it is important that the record on these issues be clear and concise.

FISA, intelligence funding, border security, etc. are critical and the lines between protecting our citizens and preserving privacy will crumble with a major incident. Although we all hope this will never happen, the Democrats have played partisanship with this issue since they took Congress. They cater to their college town, intelligencia constituency and, although no one may be paying attention today, it could be the issue in the fall. We should continue to build our record."

(From http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/post_38.html)

Probably Democrats are fearing precisely the sort of "major incident" that Republicans are waiting for, which would explain why they are so unresponsive to the opposition on this. We'll probably have to reflect on how we ourselves would react if "a major incident" occured, and credibly communicate to Democrats that we would remain steadfast in our support of those who stand up for the constitution and in our opposition to those who are undermining it.

And again (yeah, I'm repetitive) if Democrats pass this legislation we'll have to go against the Democratic party as a whole and on all fronts, including the presidential election.