Did "The Democrats" decide to bow to Bush's demands? No. Actually just SOME Democrats made that decision. Did they do it to avoid "looking weak"? I don't know, and I don't think you do either. Unfortunately, its entirely possible they actually decided it wasn't a bad bill.

You're absolutely right. I frequently point out, and did again today in the update, that it's impossible to talk about the "Democrats' motives" as a monolith because there are hundreds of them, motivated by all sorts of things.

Some oppose these things but are motivated by base political fear to vote in favor. Others have no "beliefs" at all other than their own re-election. And still others - certainly parts of the leadership and a large bulk of the party - simply believe in the Surveillance State.

Please... I can't seem to find it. Thanks for responding Glenn, your work along with a few other constitutional watchdogs are really all we have to help protect our constitution and hold these complicit leaders feet to the fire.

cheers!

We are all perceived as weak. I bet the Iranians shot those test missiles and then ran to the tube and tuned in American cable and watched everyone wet their pants and then huff and puff.

There have been many comments about cutting off funds to Obama's campaign. Still voting for him, but cutting off funds, not volunteering and so on. I wonder if anyone is or will keep track of how much his funds dry up in a relative sense compared to what they were before. Also, what they were before could have been projected probably with reasonable accuracy as to how they would have continued. How much will that earlier projection fall short now?

I suspect that Obama and his "advisers" might have grossly underestimated how much this would cost them in dollars they were expecting to come from the small dollar contributers, the You and Me's. I'm not referring to the 'big money' people and organizations who are generally counted on no matter what.

If anyone here has some insights into who is or might keep track of this ongoing aspect of the effects on the campaign, please weigh in. I'd like for us all to know how much having "bowed", once more, to the worst president ever will cost the Obama campaign, and other Democratic Party coffers.

Gail Collins is a Lazy Fool

Someone on dkos disagrees with you and actually wrote a diary praising the Collins column. I kid you not.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/10/101543/969/877/549338

By working to elect Democrats everywhere and to elect as many as possible instead of just calculating to win enough to get you a majority through areas you think are "winnable" you eventually get to a point where you have a supermajority and more. Once you have enough Democrats that you don't have to worry about your narrow advantage you can start to work on making the party more liberal again by engaging in serious primary battles without worrying about giving Congress back to the Republicans.

It will be much easier to get rid of the appeasers once these conditions are true.

It isn't a bad strategy. It might be the only strategy. But I now fear it will not work, and here is why.

First, the Dem majority will indeed increase, which will mean the public will see the Dems as owning the government and its problems. Then, like the pre-1994 Dems and the post-2002 Republicans, the very impure Blue Dogs you and I want to purge will be caught in corruption, scandal, etc., and bloody the Dem brand. Then the voters will try to swing the pendulum back, thereby granting even more power to the Republicans and the principle-free middle that David Broder so dearly loves.

I hope I'm wrong.

Planes and troops and ships planted all over their region of the world is no cause for them to be alarmed or angry, but them shooting off a few roman candles has us in a tizzy.

The Dems then (most of them, excluding Feingold, Dodd, Leahy and a few others, thank you, true Senators!) promptly rolled over on their backs with their legs in the air, soft underbellies exposed in submission, whimpering, "Just don't hurt me!"

How does it feel to be the Omega dogs, you that voted for this piece of Bush garbage? We are doing everything in our power to unite and throw your sorry asses out of your seats come November. Think you can take an axe to the 4th Amendment and get away with it? You'd better think again. Bush may be your master, but we pay for your cushy health insurance and pensions, and we are sick of you stabbing us in the back for this criminal administration. Hope you don't have any pre-existing conditions, because if you do, next year you are going to be friggin' working 3 jobs to pay your medical bills, just like the rest of us.

Pathetic, simply pathetic.

It's as if the Democrats have this bizarre "scorched earth" strategy of regaining congress and the white house. Destroy everything the enemy might use against them - like the constitution, the rule of law, and positive public perception. This is just so insane.

You guys are welcome to debate the merits of the "lesser of two dictators", but I cannot support a man who would betray any part of our legal and moral framework, or a party that would push such a man on me. Those of you who can look the other way because you think it gets you something important (like more D's next to the names of important elected officials) really need to sort yourselves out. When traitors vote for traitors, well you know what you'll get.

Ass kissing keeps them in the news.

At least we know which party to not vote for, if there was only a party one could vote for.

Nauseating. I have ambivalent feelings toward Joan Walsh, but I do feel that she's a better resource to have around than not. Yesterday the conduct of Matthews and his pundit-roundtable of paid personalities was disgusting. When Walsh said that McCain's no-show for the final FISA vote was worse than what Obama did--and purely on factual grounds it is, these mf'ers were elected to vote on this crap--she received a condescending round of laughter. It really reminded me of something you'd see at cheerleading tryouts. All the while, Matthews and mischaracterized the law and the people who would support civil liberties (all leftists, obviously) along with his guests, who opined that this was the only way for Obama to get elected. There are indeed issues that it might be argued could hurt Obama if he doesn't mimic Republicans (Israel, Iran, support the troops, etc.) spying on Americans and telecom immunity isn't one of them. When they came back from teh commercial break, Walsh was noticeably absent. I can only hope that she threw her lav mic to the floor and stalked out.