I thought it was extremely charitable of the AP to say that the Democrats bowed, but to avoid mentioning that they also turned around and lowered their trousers.

Thanks for the citation.

Just 7 months ago, during the end-game negotiations for the fiscal year '08, Democrats got stuck with basically no additional funds and gave Bush his war funds and were on the verge of caving in completely on FISA.

See, that right there is why Kane's answer is not an answer.

"The Democrats are getting more than they would have gotten at the end of last year, which was nothing,"

is not actually a logically valid response to

"Why are the Democrats settling for so little?"

There are things I would understand getting in exchange for the White House's FISA bill.

I would understand the immediate dismantlement and subsequent investigation of the illegal kidnapping and torture operation the Bush regime has been running.

I would understand giving in on Iraq, professionalizing the administration of the occupation, starting an immediate withdrawal, and complying with an investigation into war crimes and war profiteering.

I'm sure there are other equally horrible things going wrong in America the rectification of which could be part of a deal like this. I might not agree with it personally, but I would understand my elected representatives agreeing with it for their own reasons. Part of being in Congress is making unsavory deals to get what you need. That's why we're all willing to have someone else do it for us.

But this? A few billion bucks and a few social benefits this year instead of next year? That's nothing. That's like selling your sister on the street for this month's rent and an advance on next month's pay. That's what that kind of money is for the federal government.

So Kane's non-explanation is nonsense.

One thing is clear — many of our legislators still don't take activism on this issue seriously. They appear to still believe that a year from now nobody will remember FISA.

Who is going to prove them wrong?

Even though Hillary and Obama were not very far apart on many issues in teh primary voters supported Obama because he talked about Unity and compromise. That is exactly what he did with his final FISA vote. He just dis not move farther to the left.

Regardless of what Glenn says, the Democrats did not just roll over for Bush. The new FISA bill was months in negotiations.

The only compromise the Democrats did not win on was stopping immunity for Telecoms thus ending many lawyers cases and income. Obama did vote with the for Dodds and Feingold's amendments that lost.

The biggest win for Democrats and the most important improvement in the new FISA bill is the Exclusivity Clause: The new FISA law states no president can authorize surveillance(like Bush did with the N.S. A. program) under exclusive powers. Authorization must be done under congressional powers.

* The new FISA bill expands the use of new technology for surveillance. (modernization).

* The new FISA law creates a SEVERN-day period for directing wiretaps at foreigners without a court order in "exigent" circumstances if the Government official assert important national security information would be lost.

* The new FISA law expands from THREE TO SEVEN days period for emergency wire tapping on Americans without court order if the AG certifies there is probable cause the targets are linked to terrorism.

This bill only expand wire tapping without a warrant on U.S. citizens by 4 days.

of these 3 basic types (and their combinations) which are the best potential targets for replacement in the next few election cycles?

That depends more on their district, their electoral strengths, etc., than it does on what motivates them to do bad things. Ultimately, I think it's really hard to know which individuals fit into which motive categories -- discerning motives is, in my view, one of the hardest things there is to do for anyone. And ultimately, motives matter less to me than actions, since most politicians (including ones with the bad pro-Surveillance-State beliefs) are motivated by the threat of losing their status/power/position.

I've learned more in the last 4 weeks about electoral strategies, districts, messaging, campaign tactics in the like than I have in my entire life combined before that. It isn't ultimately that hard to threaten their job security - most of them -- you just have to spend the time and energy devising the right approach. That's why I'm convinced it will work -- not overnight but rather -- like most political change -- slowly, incrementally, unglamarously.

1) You cannot write in a candidate for president

2) Voting for a “spoiler candidate” does not amount to voting for McCain. By your reasoning it is equivalent to not voting at all (Obama does not get one vote, neither does McCain- difference in McCain-Obama totals as a result of voting ‘spoiler’ instead of Obama = 1). Voting for McCain is equivalent to voting for McCain (difference in vote totals as a result of voting McCain instead of Obama = 2).

3) I think your donkey-elephant analogy is flawed. As far as I can tell, the donkey and the elephant are both pulling in the same direction. The donkey just pulls a little slower. In this model, your desire to “limit Republican damage” is a desire to pull the band-aid off slowly.

Glenn - you're missing the point.

Their ultimate goal is to get the word "accountable" removed from the dictionary. This is just one more step towards that goal.

That's an interesting story about the librarian. Reminds me of "free speech zones", specifically a story of a fellow Pittsburgh-er, Bill Neel. All people holding anti-Bush signs (Mr. Neel's was "President Bush must love poor people, he made so many of us!") were cordoned off into a fenced-in ballpark a third of a mile away from Bush's speech. Mr. Neel (a retired steel worker) refused and was subsequently arrested.

Glenn,

I wanted to thank you for all your terrific work on this, and your continued efforts to restore the rule of law and the Constitution.

As a generally enthusisastic supporter of Obama, I am nothing short of disgusted with him. But the problem is bigger than Obama alone. As you point out, if anything will save us at this point, it will be citizens coming together. It obviously won't be the Democrats, despite the truly heroic work of a handful like Feingold and Dobbs. The rest are fools besotted with visions of power -- their own and that of our Dear Leader the President. I just can't get my mind wrapped around whatever great fear/admiration so many Democrats seem to feel for Bush, a weak-minded, pathetic, small man. It just doesn't make sense.

Thanks again--