I donated to quite a few House and Senate candidates in 2006, including some who are sadly wrong on FISA.

I'm going to let them know that this year, those funds are going to replacing them with men and women with integrity.

~

... I haven't seen commented upon, but which I think may be significant, is just how will Obama's young supporters react to his abandonment of his own stated principles? Young voters have been his core supporters. They obviously saw a man who intended to be something different in Washington. Now that he has been revealed to be just as cynical in his actions as the rest of them, how will these young people react? Will they become skeptical of his claims and lose their enthusiasm? It seems to me the Democrats and Obama in particular have calculated that younger voters will turn a blind eye to their actions. I'm not so sure that's the case. And if I am right, they all stand to lose this important base -- not just for 2008 but for years to come.

This story of how the Democrats joined Republicans to gut the Fourth Amendment has to be one of the leading suppressed stories of our time.

That the Democratic candidate, who ran on a civil liberties platform, immediately capitulated to Bushism upon securing the nomination should be front-page, above-the-fold, top-of-screen.

That the sole identifiable motivation of Obama and the Democratic leadership is to attract big-money donations, when Obama ran against those special interests, makes the lack of coverage look like collusion between the news and business side of the major media.

One aspect of the legislation hasn't been discussed much. In addition to the immunity provisions, Section 803 of the bill immediately preempts all ongoing state investigations, mainly being done by state Public Utility Commissions. This will happen automatically irrespective of the immunity determination by the federal district court. Six states were conducting investigations of the telecoms; DOJ sought injunctions against them. The federal district judge hearing the cases had rejected the preemption argument, but reserved judgment on the state secrets claim pending a decision by the ninth circuit in Hepting v. AT&T.

You sound like you're contradicting yourself, denying that anyone on the Right is unhappy with FISA, then pointing out that such people on the Right as Ron Paul supporters are in fact unhappy with FISA. Sure, learned people can see your point, but these apparent contradictions in your thesis will offer ample refuge for the Time writer to dismiss your claim that he's wrong in saying the right is unhappy with the FISA "reform."

One aspect of this fiasco...I haven't seen commented upon, but which I think may be significant, is just how will Obama's young supporters react to his abandonment of his own stated principles?

The problem will be whether they actually see it or not. The meme that politicians on either side of the aisle have real "principles", reinforced thanks to our McCain-loving/gotcha-loving media, may well undercut this.

Witness the recent, mindless parroting of how Senator Obama 'broke' his word to remain with public financing for the general election; he of course made no such blanket or absolute commitment, but you wouldn't know it by just listening to standard media outlets.

This "compromise" (I'm too polite to say what I'd really call it) is a major disappointment in both the man and his actions. I agree with Glenn we must make this a costly action on the part of the Democrats, if only to remind them on whose behalf they are supposed to be governing. But we must also do so without handing the keys back over to the Republican pseudo-caucus.

As disappointed as we are with Senator Obama here, a "President McCain" would only be worse for us all. And its not as if that geriatric warmonger is a bastion of ideological or ethical purity himself. Why anyone, least of all his own caucus, is considering him a legitimate candidate for high office is beyond me at this point.

Isn't this paragraph, broken down, also loaded with lies or mesrepresentations of what happened?

Pelosi had another reason for backing the compromise: unlike some on the left, she actually believes domestic surveillance laws needs updating in light of the new terror threats.

FISA has been updated numerous times.

"We can't go without a bill," she said on the House floor Friday.

We wouldn't be "going without a bill". FISA law would continue.

"That's simply just not an option," she said.

No, and that "option" would not have been the result of you doing something other than capitulating to everything asked for by the criminal administration.

Existing U.S. surveillance law, passed in 1978, needs to be improved, she believes, not just to protect Americans at home but to protect U.S. troops in the field. "Our troops in the field depend on timely and reliable intelligence," she said.

FISA law was and is not in danger of disappearing, and the FISA law of 1978 has been 'improved' again and again. They love to toss in that old number, 1978. Why don't they just say that old Constitution slapped together back in around 1776, needs to be tossed out on it's carcass, too? And finally, notice how she uses the "troops in the field" to top off her exploitation extravaganza.

Imagine the sweeping power that the Mafia could have gained by pulling what the telecom companies have been able to do.

Just imagine. Granted that the situation is slightly different, but only in degrees. The telecoms were 'asked' by the sitting retard for 'help' in rooting out those terrorists. Really, that's the biggest difference.

The result is the same: corporations, front companies, knowingly and willingly broke the law and flagrantly violated the constitution and for a handful of beads, the politically powerful bent the law.

This sets a HUGE bad precedent... What's next? The Halliburton immunity act? The Blackwater terrorist operation support act?

As a matter of fact, If I was in congress I'd sponsor and submit these and many other bills into the record and demand similar treatment to that of the telecom sellout that just oozed through. What the hell, strike while it's hot and you can get these 'hard working' and 'patriotic' corporations the political cover to protect them from lawsuits of over the electrocution deaths of soldiers and immunize them from pesky wrongful death lawsuits and accountability for the billions wasted for their corporate benefit.

I'd do it. The time is right to stifle the rule of law and help the suffering people of Iran by unleashing these corporate do-gooders onto the world unencumbered by the threats of democracy.