From Glenn's column:

"Their rationale for doing that is that it prevents the Republicans from depicting them as "weak,""

According to you:

"In this instance, the Dems flew in the face of multiple polls that indicated that their constituency actually wanted something entirely different."

So if I hadn't used the word "poll", my average would have been higher? That is, if you can provide a poll that backs up your claim.

In any case, Glenn is suggesting that the dems are not acting on principle, but are acting in their self-interest. They lack integrity.

I suggest you spend some months reading this:

http://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

Obama will not get one thin dime from me, and he'll be mighty goddamned lucky if he even gets my vote.

If you place more value in your money than in your vote, you should immediately go register with the Republican Party. Shooter will welcome you with open arms and closed checkbook.

Why the Democrats behave the way they do has many plausible explanations including that they, like the Republicans, adore the corporatist-authoritarian state.

Here is another one - the cost of pronouncing the President has committed crimes, confronting him, and losing the confrontation has to be taken into account. The cost of power used in futility has to be measured against the cost of the power not used at all.

E.g., if Congress has difficulty in even getting a subpoena to work, and the public is not out rallying to support them on this, then what happens if they officially acknowledge that the President may have committed felonies but are unable to proceed from there?

While the Constitution says impeachment proceeds from Congress in reality impeachment proceeds from The People. Outside our echo chambers, there seems to be little support or energy for impeachment.

In those circumstances, laying low, winning the elections and then making whatever amends are possible may seem to be the wiser strategy.

---- The problem with ascribing motives is that one can only constrain the set of possible motives that someone may have by observing that someone's behavior. Yet motives are important - if we do not understand why the Democrats behave the way they do, then we cannot know, e.g., where to push against and where to support.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Even though it is not apparent from what I wrote, part of what I had in mind was (what appears to be) the complete lack of trust by supporters of one party in the other party's governance. I believe such trust is necessary for a functioning democracy. When you don't trust the other party to govern over you, is this really a democracy?

While I'm comfortable with the skepticism that leads one to cast one's vote for the party you mistrust the least, it often appears that what's unfolding in the U.S. goes beyond such skepticism - it sometimes appears to me that supporters of one party literally don't trust the other party to govern. This strikes me as a worrisome development that does not bode well for the future of your democracy.

If the level of mistrust is so high that a supporter of one party cannot, in all good conscience, vote for the other party (and sees no value in exercising any other options that might be available, e.g., voting for a third- or non-party candidate), you can justify it how you wish, but in the end, you are (self)constrained to making a single choice (which really isn't a choice at all).

I must acknowledge that I favor a system that has more than two electable parties, and I personally believe that the "energy" I "see" in the blogosphere could best be directed towards promoting and establishing a more viable third (and fourth and fifth) option, instead of perfecting the current 'us' v. 'them' system, thereby widening the divide it seems to be based upon.

(I must also acknowledge that what I wrote, in my original comment, about other regimes was not helpful in making these points. Unfortunately, all too often, I forget that being deliberately provocative doesn't always help to make one's point.)

I noticed that the cited passage appears to reference FISA as if it is not FISA itself. After further research, it appears as though Title 50 of the United States Code, Chapter 36, is the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act". See here or sig: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch36.html

I searched every page of Subchapter 1 (Electronic Surveillance) for the word "exclusive", but I came up short.

However, if you look at Judge Walker's opinion, he says that it was the intent of Congress that FISA be the exclusive means of conducting foreign intelligence surveillance; however, this doesn't require that exclusivity was itself defined in the FISA statute.

Thus, I believe Judge Walker was citing Title 18 of the USC, Chapter 119, Section 2511 - Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications - when he indicated that Congress intended for FISA to be exclusive.

On a side note, I think 50 USC Section 1802 (a part of FISA itself) is veeery interesting. It authorizes the Attorney General to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications without a court order.

http://www.wecanbelievein.com/index.php?change=Telecom+Donations

My mellons are distinctly off topic here. And I'm much too young for whiskers just yet.

Mellon. Singular. Squash. Gourd.

Whisker. Singular.

Would it have helped to append [snark] and [/snark]? What do you have against Dweezil?

Oh! Mommmmmmmmmmmmmmm she said and Dweezil in the same sentence!

Smote her and her mellons, two!

Well, as one reader has argued, this is why the Dems need a 50-state strategy, to put in place a supermajority. Well, let's hope so. But this only confirms that there is only one REAL party in the United States: the Republican Party. The Democrats ARE a bunch of appeasers who crash, burn and cave in.

And now Nancy Pelosi, the sexy grandmama of the House, will allow the House to debate the merits Kucinich's impeachment bill re Bush? This is how cynical this party is: it has caved in on almost every major issues—the war, financing the war, FISA—but offers a sop because it knows that in six months that Bush will be gone.

What a party...