I believe what you saw about Obama saying he was going to vote against FISA was in one of the comment threads to one of the TPM reader posts on this issue. It was based on something that the commenter said he/she was told by a staffer. Someone else later contacted his Senate office, and the spokesman there said they did not know which way the Senator was going to vote.

Based on the number of times Obama has said staffers were mistaken about what they represented his positions on various issues to be (they have no better idea what he stands for than any of the rest of us, apparently), I wouldn't believe anything said about his position unless it came from Obama himself, and even then I would take it with a grain of salt.

My computer is snoring while it's slow at downloading.

I'll slip out to place banana peels on the welcome mats.

If some one who grows banana trees tries to enter. Slip!

I'll take it with two hand filled with Epson salt.

Pedinska is tucked into her bed with two cats.

She teaches her two felines to scratch her guest.

Never visit her home. Buy a cheap back scratcher.

I wouldn't believe anything said about his position unless it came from Obama himself, and even then I would take it with a grain of salt.

10-4

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has capitulated and vetoed the legislative pay raise that I mentioned to Holly a day or two ago.

All it took was a few active recall petitions and the rath of a whole pile of voters to get The Wonk to crawfish from his original position which was that he would not veto the bill.

It got to the point where legislators were begging him to veto what they passed because they realized they had signed their own political death warrants.

Maybe Jindal will be a good match for McCain after all.

The law professors employed at the DoJ tell all lawyers to: Get Immediate Therapy.

Wear socks that never match. Have Shoe Shine Contest. The Shined Shoe is Bright?

Whoever has no shined shoes and unmatched socks and wears scuffed farm boots?

I may then vote.

No clean shits.

No noose ties.

A big bear is outside?

The dogs are yelping.

While that may immunize them from liability and limit the amount the public will ever learn about the NSA programs, it will still be a "guilty" plea and a stain on the entire administration.

There are so many stains on this administration already, that you're going to be hard-pressed even to see where another one has been added.

As Dean -through Olbermann-pointed out, the admission of guilt was the reason Nixon never pardoned any of his aides.

Nixon, for all his faults, did at least care what posterity thought of him. Bush doesn't give a rat's ass. He doesn't care if people know he is guilty of breaking the law. He knows that we already know that. His attitude is, "But what can you do about it? Heh, heh, heh."

No stained sheets. No spell good. No stay up this late.

At the Capital Hill Daily Masquerade Party. We no fools.

Their boxer shorts are foul as if a bear made a big scat.

Bush does not -- pace Dean via Olbermann -- have to concede any guilt to issue blanket pardons. All he has to do is mumble about sparing "good people" the "grossly unjust" cost of criminal defense (even tho they'd oh-so-likely be acquitted *COUGH*), and then pardon the whole lot.

Olbermann just does not know what he is talking about, and spending however many minutes he did concocting some baseless plan whereby Obama could/would prosecute criminally for telecom and Bush Admin lawlessness, is so much horseshit.

If indeed Obama is moving to the center, if his FISA support means he's crapping out on us, I am very disappointed. I prefer to think (hope?) that the candidate simply must send a signal to the powers that be in the media and the mega-corps that he's not entirely inimical to their well-being. It's all very well to be a firebrand promising to bring the mighty low (when appropriate) but these entities wield so much power in so many insidious ways, it's plain foolish to incur their unholy enmity at this point in a campaign.

A blanket pardon will be absolutely vital to protect state secrets and ensure the nation's safety against terrorist threats.

Boo!

Olberman is definitely trying to wiggle sideways here, but the choice he laid out for Obama was simply:

vote for FISA if you are planning on prosecuting Bush, vote against FISA if not.

All the talk about stains, legacies, etc., is just blathering. Nobody gives a rat's ass about that. Granting pardons may be a dubious legal point, but that is (supposedly) Dean's point not Olberman's, and that's worth 25 GG's right?

[fantasy_begin] In a court of law, if evidence is presented that Bush broke the law AND in addition, he is asked why if he's innocent, did he pardon Telecoms, could he provide a reasonable answer that doesn't incriminate himself?[fantasy_end]

is so much horseshit.

Olbermann seemed like he just couldn't admit he was wrong last week but he tried.

Many folks don't realize that there are two separate and distinct things in play here.

One is the immunity question. That is a product of a desire for retribution and, IMO, isn't anywhere near as important as the lessening of our 4th Amendment protections. Keith, like most others, seems, also IMO, to have his priorities bassackwards also.

I'd rather seem them pass a clean bill with only immunity and stop the assault on the 4th Amendment dead in its tracks than do the opposite. Of course, I'd rather have neither but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Which is more important? Retribution or the 4th Amendment?

Question:

If a bill has a sunset provision, can Congress pass a new bill which cancels the provisions of the bill which is sunsetted - prior to the time of the sunset? IOW, could the Congress pass a new FISA next year which effectively restores the protections they are removing this year or do they have to wait until the current bill sunsets?