http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6v1ClX_Cw0Ug1PdXvJaANAaSG_QD91R6HEG0

Now I'm even more fearful. Poor Israel!

At first, that's what I thought the headline said.

And, with a few exceptions, the House & Senate Democrats might as well have taken the time off to go bowling for all the good they did standing up for the 4th Amendment.

I'm sure Russ Feingold will try to lay the case out to Obama in January if Obama is elected. I'm just extrememly doubtful that any government that has given itself power will be giving it back. And Obama was perfectly willing to see most of this bill passed. Why give that up? Honestly, let's start naming the Presidents/Administrations/Politicians that, without being forced, in American history, said "I've been given this power by the Congress or the courts but gee, I think it's wrong". I mean, Washington gave up power twice willingly and set the precedent, let's come up with one after that....

Is this what you're referring to? From the transcript:

Turning what could have been a minor updating to let the U.S. eavesdrop on purely overseas calls that happened to come through switching stations, turning that into unchecked power to listen in on American calls to or from overseas as well.

This refers to foreign-to-foreign calls that pass through the US. This is the minor update you've heard about that wasn't covered by FISA.

1) Nader ran a ‘write-in’ campaign in the N.H. primary, where you can write in a candidate. The rules for the general vary from state-to-state. I incorrectly generalized my state’s laws. Thanks for setting me straight.

2) Yeah. Your math, and therefore your statement was wrong.

3) We could certainly argue about the direction the donkey is pulling in. In fact, that’s the sort of conversation I would prefer to you telling me how I have to vote.

Making this: "The Democratic congress does a poor job of standing up to bad Republican presidents. Therefore I will enable the election of another bad Republican president.”

logical requires exactly three assumptions. I repeat:

Why I am voting for John McCain

I observe, in essence, a political duopoly: the Democratic Party (D), and the Republican Party. I note that, generally, in regards to my concerns members of ‘D’ are more likely to both espouse and vote for the course of action I would prefer, while members of ‘R’ almost universally oppose it. I note that ‘D’ controls both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, yet my preferred courses of action are rarely enacted; therefore, I will assume that ‘D’ is either unable or unwilling* to effectively oppose ‘R’. I desire effective opposition to ‘R’.

Assume:

1)effective opposition can be provided either by a significant change in the nature of ‘D’**, or by the emergence of a new political party which is able to effectively compete, ‘X’.

2)change in the nature of ‘D’ is most likely to occur as a result of ‘D’s’ present nature becoming an inefficient political competitor.

My choices then are to vote for ‘X’, hoping that ‘X’ will be eventually able to break into the political market, or vote for ‘R’, hoping that ‘D’ will eventually change. The determining factors are likelihood and time required. Likelihood of my vote affecting any outcome in either case is effectively zero, so call likelihood a wash.

Assume:

3) the emergence of ‘X’ in opposition to ‘R’ is more likely to occur if ‘D’ is demonstrated as unable to compete with ‘R’ politically.

And my course of action is clear. Voting ‘R’ is the quickest path to either ‘D’ changing or ‘X’ emerging that runs through the voting booth.***

* I do not care which.

** Glenn Greenwald’s conclusion (I think), thus his fight to rid ‘D’ of the ‘blue dogs.’ Sounds good to me, but I am discussing my vote for president only.

*** At this point, voting and talking about voting is probably about as interesting as I would like it to get. However, for those very frustrated folks out there who are ready to do something else, take heart and remember that very often the first task facing the revolutionary is to make conditions worse in order to rally support for radical change. Consider how effective ‘R’ is at increasing American discontent.

I heard Rachel Maddow saying something along the lines of "what could have been a minor update to allow warrantless surveillance of foreign-to-foreign calls"...

I keep hearing this, and really wish I could show the people spreading this myth that Title 50 of the USC, Chapter 36 (FISA), Section 1802(a)(1) (see sig) permits the Attorney General to authorize eavesdropping on foreign-to-foreign calls without warrants.

Can anyone dispute this?

As renzo capetti often reminds readers,

Cheers,

and r.c., also remember: `Keep the fly up.

The public may not compliment you then.

Pedinska

(remain on the serious weak politico topic)

Pedinska wears both her socks inside out.

"But, you know what, Rachel? Having a Democratic president, in particular, Barack Obama—should allow us to greatly change this mistake. Barack Obama believes in the Constitution. He‘s a constitutional scholar. I believe that he will have a better chance to look at these powers that have been given to the executive branch and even though he‘ll be running the executive branch, I think he will understand and help take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions.

So, this isn‘t [sic] a huge setback and it would have been much better for Democrats to stand together and not let it happen in the first place because it‘s much harder to change it after the fact. But I do believe that Barack Obama is well-positioned, both in terms of his knowledge and his background and his beliefs to correct this.

And so, I do think that the people have a right to be disappointed, but they also have a right to hope for change on this issue, in particular, starting in January."

Just to be accurate, here's waht Feingold said a few seconds later:

FEINGOLD: No, it was a wrong vote. And any Democrat that voted that way was not voting according to what the people in the Democratic Party clearly want, but, you know, we‘ll pull together after the election and we‘ll lay the case out again.