The House recessed before 2:45 p.m., supposedly to enable the leadership to "prepare" the Iraq supplemental, according to C-SPAN. They were still out as of 4:00 p.m.

Meanwhile, the House Rules Committee adjourned at some point after 2 p.m., only to reconvene starting at 3:15 p.m., to adopt a floor rule for a revised Iraq supplemental amendment. [No sign of a FISA revision to the supplemental being the revision at issue.]

http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_supp_pp_amnd.pdf

Reports containing the Iraq and FISA rules have yet to be issued by the Rules Committee (I don't think they will be one package, but we should know soon). Apparently, once they have been issued, the House will then be reconvened to do its worst. [I had hoped that principled Democrats - more loyal to Constitution and country than to a political party - had moved to adjourn the House in an attempt to put obstacles in the way of these party leadership machinations, but apparently that was not the cause of the temporary recess.]

http://rules.house.gov/

As an aside: All talk of "third party" (or better yet, independent, no-party) candidates for federal office should differentiate between the presidency (which instantly brings cries of the "Nader" effect) and Congress, as Glenn's effort clearly does. The national obsession and empowerment of the presidency far beyond its actual mandate under the Constitution - as constantly advanced by the national media and now even by Congress itself - obscures the role (and threat to the status quo) that candidates not beholden to the two-party system could and would play in Congress, if more were elected.

1. Change back my voter registration from Democratic to Independent.

2. No more money for Democrats (or Repubs.) Henceforth, only for specific issue-based orgs, like GG's civil liberties coalition.

3. I'll vote for a Democratic President in the Nov 2008 elections. No other Democrat, and no Republican. My vote is available to 3rd parties; we desperately need a viable 3rd party.

Only when we voters can triangulate 3 parties against each other will we voters matter to the parties. Right now, they have the attitude - just what are you going to do? Not vote Democratic?

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?

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

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.

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).

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.