Unless you have something of substance to add, from here on out, I'll be ignoring your mindless drivel. Put your binky back in your mouth.

I hope that was clear.

The operative conjecture is that he sold out to the perceived interests of other congressional dems who needed to hide their own enabling role in repub illegalities. He is now their leader.

PS BucksfromMcCain: didn't you say you had to go to your other job?

Wow, you really are a compelling arguer, aren't you? I can see lots of people being persuaded by your sneers.

If you think this principle (4th amendment, telecom lawbreaking, government above the law) is worth laughing about, then you don't have any principles worth a damn.

--Ron

<<I have to laugh at all the anger in here today over your cherished Democratic party siding with the Republicans on this bill. You far left folks really are the new minority in this country. Enjoy your unhappiness, there is plenty more to come.

>>

You people are such losers....

Coming from the career loser? That's almost a compliment.

I just love the sound of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth in the morning.

Take the ear-pods off and try listening to people who know what they're talking about for a change.

Meanwhile the Democrat penchant for ignoring national problems in favor of personal enrichment is exemplified today in the Subprime Six led by Senator Chris Dodd.

Pardon me while I laugh. Ha ha.

http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2569

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/the_subprime_six_1/index.html

Pardon me while I laugh again. Ha ha.

Why, conflicts of interest are against the law! They are absolutely guilty and should be sent to jail immediately. Oh, oooops. That's only for Republicans.

Pretty much, yeah. What? You don't believe in the rule of law. Color us all surprised.

Heh.

Get new material, will you? This is getting old.

PS. That is one butt-ugly ad.

But accurate. Tough on you.

Ass.

"Unless you have something of substance to add,"

-- bucks4mccain

There an extremely low possibility that anyone but you thinks you have added anything of "substance" all day.

Oh I realize there is no convincing the closed minded left of anything outside their version of reality, include you I suppose. I don't expect to accomplish that by any means but I will enjoy giving the more fair and balanced perspective on this blog since you folks can't seem to manage it.

Cretin, huh? That is a new one for today. Not bad, but still weak.

The republicans have been proving for years that just because people don't agree with you on the issues doesn't mean they won't vote for you.

What IS a problem for a presidential candidate is if the members of your own party in Congress don't support you. Remember, Hillary was the beltway candidate, especially among the right leaning Dems, and if Obama now castigates nearly HALF of the Democratic congressmen, most of whom are not very enthusiastic about him trouncing their Chosen One in the primaries, that is not a good thing for his campaign. He'd rather lose the small numbers of people who actually won't vote for him based upon him weaseling out of opposing FISA than on losing the support of a large fraction of the Democratic Congress, ESPECIALLY those republican-lite ones from the battleground states.

fair and balanced

-- bucks4mccain

Isn't that talking point patented?

A person who has no imagination or originality is doomed to fail. f**ks4mccain/bush fits squarely into that category.

And yet another personal attack. I think that is about 20 for the day so far. What is laughable is the uproar in here about your liberal leaders coming to an agreement over this bill, not the bill itself. Our 4th amendment rights are nothing without the security from those that mean us harm. While I don't like the bill, I do understand the purpose behind it and I'm willing to accept it in return for security against another 9/11. You can agree or disagree with me and that is your right. I think people here tend to over-react a bit and jump off the cliff.

I fundamentally don't get it. Obama sold out to take the UNPOPULAR position on FISA! If you're going to be a coward shouldn't you get something for it?

I'm sure one of the things he got was superdelegate support for the primary. The problem we on this side of the divide have is a structural information asymmetry that allows the insiders to make deals and present them in such a way that we don't know what went on, but in this case it's pretty easy to see the outline. When the primary was going hot and heavy and Obama was courting the supers, they held him to the fire over this issue, and he caved. There was probably some other stuff, like promising to "see what they could do" over healthcare and so on ("You want a good relationship with Congress once you get in, don't you big guy? Then you gotta play ball. You don't want to be like Jimmy Carter and alienate Congress with a goody two-shoes act, do you?"), but the core thing was almost certainly the superdelegates.

What gives? Why did Obama stay silent for so long, and why did he finally offer such a muted response to the bill?

The answer is simple:

Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of a Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office.

Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill? If it's done on Bush's watch, he doesn't have to worry about wasting political capital on it in the next year. Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them. And not to put too fine a point on it, once he becomes president, he will likely see civil liberties issues from a different perspective anyway.

It should now be clear why the Obama campaign has taken the position it has taken. And given what I have just said, Obama's supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he'll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions.

See sig