Yes, that's a position which has been reiterated with more or less vigor by many here in the past week or so. For my own part, I concede that a Democratic Party which can count on unqualified support no matter what it does has no incentive to change.

Where I disagree with most of the commenters here, perhaps even with Glenn himself, is that I think that the party leadership simply can't continue to count on that kind of support. I see it on party councils every day. There is an insurgency, or maybe better, a reclamation project, going on in every party organization I have any knowledge of, and this reclamation project can claim with some justice that it's doing as much good as any third party you can name, at least so far.

Outside pressure, of the kind that Glenn is helping to organize, is also welcome. Interestingly enough, though, there may well be as many Democratic Party activists involved in it as there are independents.

Ralph Nader, in my opinion, overstates the case, and does so principally because it benefits his own agenda, an agenda which I've ever found persuasive simply because a large part of it seems to have more to do with his own narcissism than it does with either issues or practical politics.

Chris Sinnard, you are dumber than T. Suarez. A most prodigious achievement, to be sure.

Mona, isn't there a school of demure and rational libertarianism somewhere that you can send Chris to? I know that the current topic of discussion is embarrassing Democrats, but we're working on that. Mightn't we expect the same of you folks?

Chris Sinnard and I share a political label -- although I believe he capitalizes the "L," as I do not. While I've been through a period of great peevishness with LWM and some others here when their libertarian-baiting spews, I let it go -- well, at least 95% of the time.

Chris cannot seem to refrain from snarky "defenses" of Libertariansim, and today raises his hackles before the bait is even set out. However, LWM and some others are not innocent in this, either.

I choose to stay (almost always) out of the inane flamewars because they -- and some annoying antagonists, let it be noted, fight about other than libertarianism -- are a degradation of Glenn's comments section. Frankly, I read comments here less in part because of all this crap. (And know of at least one other very savvy regular who has also cut way back on commenting because of the declining quality of comments as they are taken over by snot-nosed, fighting kids.)

Is that we end with a President McCain, I'm going to be really pissed at those of you who couldn't bring yourself to support Obama.

Call me whatever you want, but it won't change the way I feel about THAT particular point.

We can improve Democrats. But empowering the worst subset of Republicans in order to do it is insanity.

Should we be focusing on how this needs to be a Constitutional amendment, requiring a greater majority of Congress in order to pass (as well as ratification by 3/4 of states)?

How do you stop someone from passing a law that really needs to be an amendment? SCOTUS?

How would a SCOTUS slapdown affect retroactive immunity after the fact? Does this avoid ex post facto, since when the crimes were committed they were illegal, as opposed to legal (when ex post facto would apply)?

This is an excellent piece! The part about a Democratic Congress with a higher approval rating among Republicans than Democrats is priceless!

I have been closely following this issue and cannot figure out what the heck Steny, Nancy and Obama are thinking! Back in February of this year, the Senate passed the FISA Modernization Act that included a provision granting telecoms immunity from lawsuits. The House voted against providing immunity and we were at a stand-still since then.

Recently, the House passed a FISA Bill that gives telecoms immunity, but now the Senate is saying they might strip away that provision.

This does not make sense. It is idiotic. Obama recently said he would support the House Bill (reversing his position). Are the Democrats really that hell-bent on losing the Congress and Presidency in November?! With the worst President in history and an economy in recession and a war with no end in sight, the Democrats are still making enough mistakes to insure they remain less popular (and effective) than Bush.

I completely agree with the strategy of only spending money on a short list of vulnerable pols. With limited resources, you have to focus.

That said, in addition to people's dollars, is there a way to harness their energy and expertise? It may not make sense to spend money going after Rockefeller, but why not have a contest to generate a youtube ad against him that might spread virally via email, local political blogs, etc.? Perhaps there could be a website with a list of the top 20 candidates where tech-savvy users could submit ads. A thought.

PS I see Politico still hasn't corrected that bogus quote, many hours after saying they would do so.

Damn near noble of Nancy Pelosi to now say that the same FISA amendments that she, personally, caused to be submitted to her House with a one hour "debate" limit on the day it was released, and which she then tried to characterize as a Democratic Party "victory", maybe ought to be debated a bit by the Senate because people are "mad" about it. How 'bout she just resigns her Chair instead?

Senator Feingold, who is coming to the fore and may end up filibustering this bill (assuming his Senate Democratic leaders are, as expected, spineless enough to ignore less disruptive and eminently legitimate "holds" that will be requested), is to be commended and supported. His suggestion, however, that this FISA bill may "hide" impeachable offenses needs to be clarified, though. The only way this FISA bill could be said to "hide" anything is to recognize it "hides in plain sight" what are obviously, and statutorily presumed to be, impeachable offenses!

The telecoms will be excused for accepting the President's word that the requested warrantless wiretapping was "legal." The bill does NOT say that the President's word was correct, true or even plausible. And it is only because "everybody knows that impeachment is off the table" -- which is not a constitutional standard, it's the contrivance of identifiable politicians who shall remain nameless -- that there is any reason the passage of this bill should not be Exhibit A at the impeachment of George W. Bush under Articles 24 and 25 of the Kucinich resolution for impeachment.

This bill assumes the President could be impeached over his warrantless wiretapping programs. It presumes he would be convicted by a rational body applying the facts to the Constitution and the law. It just also presumes, under it's breath, that nobody has got the guts to do it. And that's the way it is being received.