Ah, but they were mercs. -- L.W.M.

And the Republicans aren't?

Ah, well, enough of that. If we persist, we'll be chastised any moment for our irrelevant divertissements. The linked article is more interesting, but it does seem to me to flirt with belaboring the obvious.

After years of put-your-hand-on-the-radio fundamentalism and its funnels into the Republican Party; after the screaming Deanies and the fifty-state strategy, the only thing surprising about Mme. Skocpol's article is how late in the day it appears. The crepe paper is already being hauled down in the gym, the prom queen has already been deflowered, and unconscious teenage boys in lace-front dress shirts are being discovered on lawns all over town. At this point, do we really need to hear about new paradigms -- or cunningly re-jiggered ones, for that matter -- from our local Ms. Prim?

From a diary at DKos in an interview at Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/24/123511/197/852/541211

First of all, he doesn't seem to come out with a straightforward reply that he will indeed filibuster, which is seemingly why Goodman asked him twice. However, even if he does do this, considering the ridiculous bipartisan support and how easily this sailed through the House, how difficult would it be to get 60 votes to cut off the filibuster? Lastly, couldn't Reid just do his cute little procedural maneuvers around this like he did last time with Dodd anyway?

A notable effort by Feingold as always, but I'm skeptical it will amount to much of anything.

I'm wondering why you didn't emphasize this part in bold, too?

"They won’t be able to say that I supported an extension of the Iraq war into Iran"

Or are Tony Lake and Susan Rice not considered to be senior advisors or part of Obama's campaign at this point?

Congressional Democratic leaders' position seems to be:

"We must capitulate to every Republican position so that more Democrats will be elected."

With spineless, calculating Democratic "leadership" like that, who in their right mind would ever put their trust in the Democratic Party?

Are they idiots, corrupt or poltroons? No matter which, they've demonstrated time and again that they are incapable of effective leadership.

Here's a clue for Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, et al:

Power is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

What we have instead is the portrait of a Village hero, the ultimate master of the only game that matters --- ostentatiously capitulating to conservatism. It's the biggest accolade a Democrat ever gets, like winning a congressional Oscar, and the preening Hoyer is happy to make his acceptance speech in the pages of the Drudge Daily. This one is sweeter than most because he managed to capitulate to the congressional minority and the most unpopular president in history on an issue of fundamental constitutional principle which contained little political risk to uphold. A truly bravura performance. In fact, it's worthy of a lifetime achievement award. - Digby

It'd be funny if it weren't so blessedly grim.

Look Ma! No hands!

That he operated in secrecy with republicans and telecom lobbyists to make sure immunity got passed. That in fact he voted against the majority of House democrats who opposed the bill. He is a republican with a D after his name who stands against the dem party platform and ideology. All republicans praise and support him which should be a dead give away as to his "real" party affiliation. It's like he was hired by Cheney and AT&T to accomplish a certain goal...immunity at any cost...since Bush vowed to veto any legislation without immunity showing that security was secondary to immunity.

Hoyer will now go and join the republican party since it is the party he affiliates with...he just used the dems to get everything the repubs wanted. A black day for the democratic party that will last for 5yrs.

Hoyer never would have been elected if his constituents could have foreseen his republican capitulation. Only the republican celebrate Hoyer now.

Thus far I've been willing to wait and see what our Democratic nominee might do in reaction to the House's capitulation. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But after reading Glenn's account of the patronizing statements by an Obama official on the conference call, I'm seriously considering what I would have thought inconceivable only two weeks ago: voting third party.

I've never been a one-issue voter, but this whole deal just makes me want to vomit. If a politician can't commit to upholding the Constitution, what exactly can he/she be trusted with?

If he cared, Obama could use his position as the nominee to completely derail this thing. With two words - "I'm filibustering" - he could wreak havoc on Hoyer's detestable political calculus. But it looks like he'll dissemble along with the rest.

I've had all I can take of Democrats' collective pusillanimous pussyfooting. I'm not interested in being complicit in creating a half-assed, pallid "republic" where I have to beg politicians not to take away my civil rights, and where my party is interested in nothing but appeasing corporate interests and the far right. If crypto-fascist autocracy is the future of America, then let's just go ahead and get it done without all the pretense of these odious "Democrats".

I live in a swing state, and I guess I have a lot of thinking to do.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I think many people don't know that there were telecoms that refused to cooperate with Bush. I think the MSM makes it sound like ALL telecoms are being sued for doing what their President asked them to do but that is not the case, right? Some telecoms said, "show me the warrant" and refused to spy on their fellow Americans without one.

If more people understood that the telecoms did not HAVE to comply and some in fact did not, there may be better understanding and therefore more support for the "libertarian" view of this current mess.

On another note, it can be done - Democrats taking down Democrats. We did it here in our township back in the early 80s. We considered it "cleaning our own house" at that time. How perfectly that term fits today with the FISA issue.

We launched a successful recall campaign against the clerk, treasurer and supervisor of our township for malfeasance among other things after an audit of the township turned up ongoing corruption. We then moved on to our county commissioner who was representing our township who was also the chairman of the county commission at the time. He was in fact the "ring leader" over the township officials who were misusing funds and materials, etc. A group of us Democrats banded together, some publically, some privately and led the recall ourselves. All were voted out of office via recall. All had criminal charges filed against them. It sure surprised many in our community that Democrats did the dirty work instead of the local Republicans. To make it even more interesting, the recalled officials were black and most of the publically outspoken Dems were white; the black Dems in favor of the recall felt that they could only be privately supportive. The township population of Dems was overwhelming black at the time so it all worked out - not only did Dems vote out Dems but blacks voted out blacks in order for the recall to be successful.