Nobody gives a shit about abortion anymore.

Are a majority of US citizens against giving the government the surveillance powers granted by the FISA bill passed by the House today?

This is a very important issue but it is similar to slavery or more recently, the abortion issue. That was largely out of sight out of mind until there were graphic pictures and ads and fanatics (yes, fanatics) and over time a movement grew and it became a wedge issue. With slavery it was easier to see the evils and pernicious effects of it but it took fifty years and a civil war. The right did it with abortion and gay marriage, but it took time for those issues to become priority wedge issues or "household names" that could decide elections. It is the same with this issue, but it just won't have a major impact on this election. It will take some time. JMHO.

souriscriant on harmless little old telecom amnesty

The retroactive immunity wasn't THE controversial part, it was just the "rub your face in monkey manure you total cowards" part.'

You're absolutely right, nearly everyone agrees that retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecom companies was really just a stunt designed to taunt liberals. It has no actual substance, and no real consequences in terms of justice, civil rights, and the rule of law. The civil liberties organizations that have been opposing the telecom immunity effort haven't given the amnesty provisions more than a passing thought.

note the THE in all caps emphasizing the singular nature of the word.... this was in response to "what's the matter with Obama's response, he is against the controversial part" that a bunch of knee-jerk defenders over there in the War Room were bleating.

And, to be honest, retroactive immunity isn't a problem if you buy into the basic logic of the bill... the "hey, those laws before were just outdated and silly, and since we now have finally gotten around to saying we really think that such wiretapping programs are ok, then in principle they shouldn't be punished just because we were slow about getting some old, no longer useful laws off the books..."

Now, you can talk about the rule of law, but, in general, if a law is really just detritus from another era, such as those laws about pulling your "horseless carriage" over to the side of the road if a horse balks at it, or anti-sodomy laws, or "whites only" laws during the 60s, enforcement of past infractions of these laws is not something you really want to strive for.

The basic problem is that this bill treats the 4th amendment as detritus from another era, and if you support that view, such as Obama is essentially doing with his statement, then what's the big deal about forgiving people who were just a few years ahead of you on that?

And everyone here, keep it up! The basic problem is that Presidential politics has completely overwhelmed local politics in this country (by dint of the national media), and it is your LOCAL representative where you have a chance of making changes. Congress is as powerful as it wants to be. The problem is, it is now largely populated by mindless rubberstampers.

Studancer said "My fervent hope is that Barack Obama will sweep this muck up"

Poor Stu. He hasn't heard the news.

The president is a crook and the Dems are complicit, so why should I vote for Obama with any expectation of meanigful change?

Dear Editor:

I heard on the afternoon news that Congress overwhelmingly supported legislation exempting the telecom industry from any liability for illegal surveillance of private citizen's communications records. While Speaker Pelosi is smoothing the road for George Bush, and blocking change for Barack Obama, perhaps she could railroad through legislation guaranteeing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. forever be held harmless for their many acts of treason the past eight years.

Telecom, after energy, insurance and finance, are just about the biggest political spenders on the planet and have gotten what they want from both parties so long they believe they have the right to expect it. Democratic leadership seems blithely unaware that there's a new consciousness that helps explain why Clinton is out and Obama is in, CHANGE! There hasn't been anything progressive about the democratic party since Robert Kennedy and uber wealthy lip synching, pseudo liberals marching in step with 21st century fascists seem unwilling to listen as taps is being played loud and clear around the globe.

Most Americans want the deception and disgraceful demagoguery of the Bush administration gone from the stage, as do the vast majority of human beings from every other nation on earth, and yet the democratic congressional and gubernatorial leadership keeps propping up Bush and Cheney as they give Telecom, Big Oil, Defense contractors, and money changers anything and everything they ask for in exchange for political contributions to keep them in the beltway until they can spend their ill got fortunes.

Change is in the air, and I believe change includes dispatching tired, sycophantic politicians who serve themselves and the special interests who lobby and enrich them. My fervent hope is that Barack Obama will sweep this muck up and start rebuilding the democratic party the same way Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton did in their respective times in history. No more free passes for traitors and criminals.

Respectfully,

Stu Smith

420 Berry Street # 421

San Francisco, CA 94158

415-923-1452

Somewhere between 10 to 20,000. No one is really sure. You'd be hard pressed to draw that many people today.

And Democrats are better for the country, as bad as some may think they are.

Article at economist.com in the aftermath of David Davis' resignation last week over proposed law allowing detention of terrorist suspects for 42 without charges:

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11594471

The article contains poll results showing fairly broad public support in the UK for encroachments on civil liberties.

Are a majority of US citizens against giving the government the surveillance powers granted by the FISA bill passed by the House today?

The founders who wrote the Constitution clearly wanted to limit the powers of government; they feared a tyrannical government that would deprive citizens their natural rights. Apparently our Congress thinks "We the People"e can trust the President to use these new surveillance powers appropriately.