Who writes:

I have been searching my usual haunts like Diogenes, looking for someone who will rightfully criticize Obama for this shitty and cowardly move, and, indeed, all I see is people making excuses and defending Obama as "shrewd" and "smarter than us" or saying he will fix it later. Right. Keep dreaming.

Your search is over. As I said yesterday around here, I more than criticize Obama. I am through with him. I am voting third party.

There has to come a time when cynical Dem politicians stop selling out their principles on the grounds that, well, they'll vote for me anyway, because [fill in the blank] is even worse.

Do we stop that by continuing to allow politicians like Obama to sell us out?

I agree with Glenn that Obama is not as bad as McCain. But Obama has proven that he is just another power-mad control freak who will do whatever it takes to be The Boss.

I will watch, sadly, as the days go by and today's blind followers begin to wake up.

Obama is not change you can believe in; he is just another guy who, tantalized by the prospect of authoritarian power, reaches out with both hands.

I just hope if he is elected he waits a decent interval before bombing Iran. (because he doesn't want to offend his establishment pals)

Doesn't the constitution supersede all other branches? That is, since warrantless eavesdropping is unconstitutional, doesn't that mean that even if the houses and the executive branch say that spying is all cool and awesome, it just won't make it so?

Say in the worst case scenario (a scenario already taking place) there are no checks and balances in politics. Say there is only one party in power (which is basically true), then what?

Does the individual have the right to sue the President? I know that we can vote people out, but the reason why these people are in power is because there are staggeringly ignorant and, frankly, stupid voters, so dislodging these people in power will be tough, if not impossible, to do.

I am curious to know what rights an individual has against a corrupt government that has a complete stranglehold on power.

Bah, I am too depressed to even think. Thank you again, Glenn, for your articles! I learn a lot from you, as always.

David Davis is now a loony Bennite! (No not really)

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8jD2eUlBML4NJcB37yTfkYiUbFA

Benn praises Tory rebel's courage

Veteran left-wing politician Tony Benn said people will one day look back at David Davis' decision to force a by-election on the issue of civil liberties and say "thank God".

Meanwhile, continued mockery from the mainstream press:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2204.xml

David Davis's gamble looks like a very bad bet
By Iain Martin
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/06/2008

[...] There is not exactly a tidal wave of pro-Davis feeling sweeping Britain.

[...] Davis supporters used to like to think of their man as the grown-up and Cameron as being naive. In the last fortnight, the Tory leader's critics should have learned that the opposite was true all along.

- - The Telegraph

But the Sunday Express (a trashy tabloid) reports that Cameron may be trying to mend fences and make a show of support for Davis:

http://express.co.uk/posts/view/49331/Tory-big-guns-to-back-Davis

TORY BIG GUNS TO BACK DAVIS
Sunday June 22,2008

DAVID Cameron has ordered every member of the Shadow Cabinet to travel to Yorkshire to campaign for the maverick senior Tory David Davis in his “freedom” by-election.

- - Sunday Express

What's (the "grown-up") Cameron's scheme?

Formerly, by Rehnquist, which helps explain why they were such reliable rubber stamps. For the rest of my natural life, by Roberts, which guarantees that any new ones that come in will be fully on board with the unitary executive. No matter how many Constitution loving Presidents we manage to elect. And as we just learned, to elect the first of those, we'll have to wait at least four more years.

If this was about Guns (or even Gays, Buning Flags or Screaming Fetuses) the American people would be up in arms, (in some cases, with their arms)! But privacy issues? Come on. That De Tocqueville guy was French and I think he got his words lost in translation. He said we were a "nation of joiners". I think he meant VOYEURS! After all, it's not like the 4th was ever very popular with the federal courts or the federal gummint. They ignored it for over 100 YEARS! Not even the states got around to respecting it until 1960! You can thank Don King for that. You think I'm kidding, don't you?

I just saw this link on Democratic Underground

(Warning it will tick you off even more)

Behind the Compromise on Spying

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1816911,00.html

While I have always contended that Obama is a politician, I have to cop guilt to suggesting that we should lay off of him until he gets into the White House.

You rightly point out that we should not. I believed that we shouldn't hold his feet to the fire until after he was elected, but your persuasive arguments show how much that logic is flawed. You are correct, there will never be a "good" time for this so now is the time.

I ragged on Alex Koppelman about said subject yesterday (though I do think Alex gets a little too much glee over Obama's flaws and that his posts suggest that perhaps he is not yet over Hillary's loss). I guess I owe him an apology.

An excellent post Glenn. Thank you for injecting some sanity to the situation.

Obama showed us yesterday with his support for the FISA “compromise,” (and the immunity for the telecoms which will result from the “compromise.”) that he is, in fact, not serious about changing the way things are done in Washington. His support for that bill is just more of the same old Washington style politics of selling out the voters AND the constitution for political expediency. Trust him he says. After he's president he'll fix things. I’ll vote for Obama , or more precisely against McCain, but I am not fooled by that bullshit.

McCain is not a Maverick.

Obama, as a politician, is nothing new.