Thanks for the tip. I will contact the Johnsons.

Cheers.

Instead of takin your name off, why don't you join

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

there are currently over 2300 members. If it gets to ~2800, it will be in the top ten of groups, and will show up when you ask it to Show Me Groups with most Members. The top group has 13279 members.

If the most active Group on his own website is the one asking him to stop FISA, will he respond?

This is a test of the Obama's main claim.. that this is YOUR campaign, not his...

(Hmm.... I wonder how people would bet on his response (or lack thereof))

He couldn't have been pardoned, according to (what's left of) the Constitution: ...and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

One time was enough. It was QUITS. Ducks are mad as hellion mallards.

The last, and only time, I tossed duck pins. I broke ribs three lanes over.

The lawyers were bawling. And I could not concentrate, so I rolled balls.

They wanted to sue. I called the nasty GOP "trial Lawyers" gutter boys.

The lawyers left. Hey. They became left-wing, duck-bawlers that day.

I think I bowled a few strikes on a alley 4-lanes over on leftist lanes.

I shop lifted pairs of red, white, pink, and blue bowling shoes for DC.

I'll sell you a dozen bowling balls, shoes, and cool bawling travel bags?

I still have a pink cap. The National Bowling Baseball tin trophy? 300.

It's for a perfect score.

I bowled a perfect 300?

Honest. I need to sthu!

This bawl post? Failure.

Ten failures, lies, o after?

What happens next? Lies?

NO.

I bowled a ten. # 10 is bad.

Ed Rendell got the final word on FISA this morning (no follow-up challenges from host Chris Wallace or from the Republican guest). (And why should there be follow-up when Rendell is regurgitating one of the GOP's own talking points?)

From the "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace" TV show:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373443,00.html

FNS w/ Chris Wallace

Sunday, June 29, 2008
FOX NEWS

[...]

WALLACE: Well, I knew at some point we would get to the issue of flip-flop, so let's address it fully, because both candidates have accused the other of flip-flops, and from our reading of the record, both of them are right. [...]

RENDELL: [...] Barack Obama -- if you take, for example, wiretapping, he hasn't changed his mind. He believes there should be sanctions against the private companies who allowed individual Americans to be wiretapped.

He just voted for that bill because he thought the bill did other things. He's going to seek those sanctions later on in the Senate.

So a couple of things that you say are change of positions are, in my judgment, things where Senator Obama has a reasonable explanation for what he's done.

WALLACE: Well, I mean, just on the one example of FISA, several months ago he said he would lead the filibuster if there was [...] immunity for the telecom companies. Now he's voting for the bill that gives them that immunity. That's a pretty big switch, isn't it?

RENDELL: But remember, when you're in the Senate, you have to weigh the entire bill. The bill on FISA restored court supervision of wiretaps. That's a huge victory for individual rights in America.

- - from the "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace" TV show.

RENDELL: But remember, when you're in the Senate, you have to weigh the entire bill. The bill on FISA restored court supervision of wiretaps. That's a huge victory for individual rights in America.

I almost got through the whole day without being sick to my stomach. Thanks for making sure that didn't happen.

As much as I realized how historically significant it would be to have a woman and an African-American vying for the Democratic nomination, the only candidate who really inspired me was Edwards. With all Obama's talk about bipartisanship and Reagan having good ideas, and Clinton's record of going right-wing whenever it's expedient for her, I figured Edwards would be the only one to unapologetically sketch out liberal positions and passionately defend them. Unfortunately, looks like that was right.

Who are these hack advisors that Democratic politicians keep hiring? Are they all secretly Republicans, or are they just stupid? It's truly unbelievable that when 81% of people think our country is on the wrong track and the president's approval rating has been below 40% for the past 3 years our nominee still thinks he has to act Republican to win.

Of all people, Keith Olbermann should be in complete agreement with Glenn on this point. All his fire and brimstone directed nightly at the Republicans for the past few years will seem like nothing more than theatrics if he continues to excuse Obama's move to the center as necessary for not looking "soft" or "weak."

FISA was my acid test. Obama doesn't get my money, doesn't get my vote, and if (for which you may read "when" if he keeps this sort of behavior up) he loses the presidential election, I'll be volunteering for whoever runs against him for his seat in the Senate. And I've written to his campaign to tell him so.

Many Democrats support Bush policies because they believe in them. Others don't believe in them but are persuaded that they must support them in order to be re-elected. Still others have no beliefs at all other than their own re-election and do whatever they perceive is most likely to achieve that.

They also sometimes support things the Repugs want in order to get reciprocal support on things THEY want. It's not all about getting re-elected all the time, despite the way the media and many people on this comment section seem to think. In fact, for the VAST majority of them, re-election is pretty much a non-issue (even in these times, the incumbent is almost always a shoe-in if they just go through the motions).

It's horse trading. And they have decided FISA is a bargaining chip rather than a priority.

Also, do not think that your Senator has read what the House passed. Most have not. They are BUSY people, and do not have time to read every single piece of legislation. They rely on their staffers to do that, or they rely on committee members.

Do you really think Obama read the legislation before commenting on it? It's 114 pages and plenty of Constitutional lawyers seem to agree that it is not an easy read. Try to imagine everything that goes into his day. Lobbyists do not buy politicians, they buy ACCESS... a chance to be heard. Look at the daily schedule of the Senate and all the committees etc.

Obama has claimed to be a Uniter, not a Divider. What that says to me is he will generally try to compromise rather than confront. Virtually all Republicans are for this, and a substantial number of Democrats. Think of what that means to a "Uniter"

(note, none of this is to say that his position is defensible and his actions laudable, just that thinking that politicians only think about how something will affect their personal or party's chances in the election is naive in the extreme)