I've seen, in many venues, the McCain-Supreme-Court fear argument for getting Obama elected at all costs, and I'm sick of it. Is that what this quote represents?

You can be sick of it all you want, but that won't change the fact that it's true. I have yet to see someone respond directly and logically to this question: What does your not voting or voting for a third party accomplish, if not letting McCain win? What did it accomplish in 2000? All I hear is childish tantrums and evasive abstract rhetoric. The question is not whether you like the 'lesser of two evils' approach, it's 'what are you doing about it?'.

There are other ways to change this system. You can donate to PAC's that push the issues you want addressed. You can donate to local-level primary candidates that are closer to, say, someone like Kucinich. You can try to push for referendums on electoral reform. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you're making any kind of positive difference by staying home on Election Day or supporting a single-digit candidate. Swallow your goddamn pride and think about the effect a McCain presidency would have on the country as a whole rather than focusing on making your own futile little statement. Or at least admit that you're staying home because you don't want to miss the latest Project Runway and stop trying to parlay into a principled stance.

Let me preface this by saying I often bring up countervaling points to provoke a discussion, not just to provoke. When I believe something or have developed a premise, I like to see what smarter, better informed people have to say about it. So I hope you will opine, and in the spirit of how this is offered:

You decried the concept of lumping all leaders as corrupt, throwing up hands, and saying one is done with it. I think you are right on this point, and I have agree with Mr. Chomsky for a few years now on that one (though I used to live comfortably on the other side of that position which required me to do nothing). Whenever I think of the vast difference between Carter's foreign policy and Reagans, i don't see how you can argue otherwise.

But on the very specific question of Iraq: Isn't it possible that the invasion of Iraq was going to happen no matter who was in office? I remember, and there is substantial record on line about this, Kerry insisting that we invade Iraq and put boots on the ground as early as 1998. He claimed that this position put him ahead of the president, and ahead of the American people, but that it was the right thing to do. Clinton, his boss, also locked us into at least an escalation in Iraq, aiming foreign policy in the region to Iraqi regime change. And without needing to go to deep into it, and also quoting Shakespeare, there was a "dost protest too much" thing going on within most of the senate and much of the house.

Isn't it possible that we've believed too deeply that Democrats were forced into this position in order to seem strong on security? Perhaps this was and is and always will be a purely bi partisan matter.

Glenn,

Speaking of DailyKos, this is an excellent response by Hunter:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/21/1545/63989/473/539564

I emailed Barton. Let him know my disappointment and urged him to get Obama to filibuster. I won't hold my breath. But I think it's important that Obama and others know we know what this is all about, and that we're not amused.

Again, I think Obama is making a huge mistake, on soooo many levels. It's the wrong thing legally, ethically, and morally. And it's even bad politics. Filibustering this attack on the Fourth Amendment is the right thing to do and it would electrify the base.

It might be useful to compare what's happening in America in 2008 with what happened in Australia in 2007. John Howard, the encumbent Prime Minister went in bigtime on the wedge. He tried to wedge the opposition leader Kevin Rudd in any way he could on issue after issue, especially national security but Rudd just kept on agreeing with him and refused to be wedged. The government then ran a campaign strategy of saying Rudd was just like Howard: reciting 'me too' in a childish way at every opportunity. It didn't make any difference in the end because the government had passed its use by date but if Rudd had stood on principle and voted against Howard's often extreme measures the media would have torn him limb from limb. Yes, we have a mainstream media just like yours. They march with only one foot, right, right, right, right. The big problem for Howard(one of many) in the end was that Rudd's party had voted against the Iraq war. This proved to be not only ethically correct but politically correct as well. But how often is the ethically correct applauded by the media? In my experience almost never. They applaud politicians for being devious, dishonest and foolish.

For years they discussed how cleverly Howard lied, manipulated and relentlessly took the low road and took the country with him down that road. I only ever heard one politician refer to this and he said that the media spent its time praising Howard for doing appalling things well. Needless to say he was from the opposition party. The FISA laws can still be changed.

Changing them in the climate of a general election is probably not going to happen. If the Democrats are in government with control of both houses, that's a different matter. The point is Rudd has now signed the Kyoto Agreement and taken our combat troops out of Iraq and given a nationally televised apology to Aboriginal Australians for past wrongs. Three things Howard would never have done.

Once the Democrats are in the White House things will change because unlike Bush and his deadheads, they know things HAVE TO CHANGE. The real problem is that the Republicans are untrainable and never learn anything and still don't know that Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman's economic theories are what delivered the sub prime mortgage crisis and economic disaster, not only for America but for the global economy.They still don't understand that oil is yesterday's fuel or why Nixon had to be fired. They still don't understand why they lost the Vietnam war or that they have lost the Iraq war. If they get back into the White House they will continue down the path of disaster. To avoid a McCain government it might be necessary to avoid the wedge and keep your powder dry to fight another day. It's not right but it's how it is. I don't believe Obama actually supports these laws at all but he doesn't want to be wedged on them either. Expect a flood of stories on Al Qaeda throughout the Presidential campaign. And worse. I don't think the Democrats can afford to be wedged on anything to do with terrorism at all.