As a result, the next president will inherit powers much expanded since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. [...]

And, to the extent that many assume that next president will be a Democrat, regrettably, many would view that as a Good Thing. And, perhaps, are thrilled at the prospect. Nothing could define the difficulty of the uphill climb Glenn and the Coalition have undertaken better.

If you really wanna hit Obama in a meaningful way on this, that will catch his attention, publicize a fundraising moratorium for 72 hours or so to his campaign...when (if?) he sees the dent this campaign makes, he'll see who's really buttering his bread.

Eh?

I guess I'm just not smart enough to engage in WT's rigorous debates about the legitimacy of the post office.

Maybe I should care what tired old true believing petty party partisans think, but I really don't, especially ones that just sit there and talk in circles while never really saying anything except "these things happen", "elect better democrats", and the usual "don't rock the boat" nonsense.

But anyway, I enjoy watching all of these pragmatic apologists justify their utter lack of principles in order to "be realistic" and "play politics". These are the same people who claim that the supposed ideology they supposedly stand behind is superior to all others and can solve all the world's problems, except when they are compromising it in "baby steps", towards a police state. Completely absurd.

"What a shrewd strategy: "if we comply with all their demands, then they can't criticize us for anything." That's the Democratic Party's plan for winning, according to Hoyer."

Once you pay Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

Two other points.

1) This was a campaign strategy? Since when is winning an election more important than one's duty to country?

2) This was a campaign strategy? How does presenting yourself as the ally of a hated incumbant improve your election hopes?

3) Given the current poll numbers for the current government, what BETTER strategy could there be than "I opposed them"?

From firedoglake.com/2008/06/24/fisa-call-your-wobbly-fisa-senator/#more-26614

If one of the following is your Senator, give them a call and speak up:

Bayh (202) 224-5623

Carper (202) 224-2441

Obama (202) 224-2854

Inouye (202) 224-3934

Johnson (202) 224-5842

Landrieu (202)224-5824

McCaskill (202) 224-6154

Mikulski (202) 224-4654

Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274

Clinton (202) 224-4451

Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551

Pryor (202) 224-2353

Salazar (202) 224-5852

Specter (202) 224-4254

Feinstein (202) 224-3841

Webb (202) 224-4024

Warner (202) 224-2023

Snowe (202) 224-5344

Collins (202) 224-2523

Sununu (202) 224-2841

Stevens (202) 224-3004

Byrd (202) 224-3954

Lincoln (202)224-4843

Reid (202) 224-3542

Coleman (202) 224-5641

Durbin (202) 224-2152

Smith (202) 224-

Stabenow (202) 224-4822

Kohl (202) 224-5653

Leahy (202) 224-4242

Schumer (202) 224-6542

Standing firm on principles and not compromising them away, "compromise" such as letting the Government spy on you, to win elections, horde power when there is a strong possibility of getting those powers for their "party", and "elect Democrats", is for radicals, kooks, loons, nutbars, conspiracists, neoconfederates, etc.

And if you keep throwing your rattle out of the crib, there will come a time when none of the adults will return it to you, no matter how disconsolate your howling.

The Project on Government Oversight released a report in February titled: Inspectors General: Many Lack Essential Tools for Independence

This report does not inspire the confidence in Inspectors General that Pelosi, Hoyer, Obama, et al. seem to have. And lest anyone think the problems in this report are limited to the Bush administration:

Current OMB Deputy Director Clay Johnson III has, on more than one occasion, instructed the IGs that it is their responsibility to get along with agency heads, that they are part of the agency team, and that they should contribute to agency success.

Surprises are to be avoided. With very limited exceptions primarily related to investigations, the OIG should keep the Agency advised of its work and its findings on a timely basis, and strive to provide information helpful to the Agency at the earliest possible stage … OIG and Agency management will work cooperatively in identifying the most important areas of OIG work ...25

That viewpoint is not unique to the current administration. During the Clinton administration, then-OMB Deputy Director Alice Rivlin sent out a memo noting with approval that the IGs had recently adopted a “vision statement” for:

working more closely with agency management and focussing [sic] more work on program outcomes. To put it simply, the IGs have pledged to focus more on whether Federal programs are working (the “big picture”) and less on identifying individual, minor infractions of procedures (the “gotchas”).26

There is a subtlety here that echoes the dual nature of the IG’s existence: While a relationship between agency and IG of pure antagonism surely is not desirable, there are dangers associated with IGs being too closely identified with agency success.

http://www.pogo.org/p/government/go-080228-ig.html

Why don't the two of you go find a hotel room somewhere.

I have followed the FISA saga through Salon and other news sources. The shabby and cowardly performance of the Democratic leadership is unforgivable. I believe some just want any weak on (fill in the blank) from Repubs to be thwarted. Others probably want an opportunity for the Democratic leadership to weild some of this unchecked power. It is a sad day. We are told that we have to elect the Democrats to counter the Republican surge for power and control. I look at the FISA vote and wonder what purpose was served with the 2006 victory. Obama has been portrayed as a great change agent. He now has an opportunity to show that he has the integrity and the stones to wear the mantle. I fear that like with public finance he will come up sounding better than his actual performance. Glen is there a way to push for a change in the House and Senate leadership. From the last year, it does not look like this group would actually lead in our best interest, even if they had massive leads in House and Senate. Is there a way to petition the congress to change leadership, or can we only change our designation from Democratic to Independent.