Matthew Yglesias (July 08, 2008) - By Request: FISA Outrage (Miscellaneous)

So Scott is okay with giving the government(especially the President) more powers? He is okay with the government spying on him and having little to no recourse? Has Scott ever heard of the Church Commission?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 8, 2008 10:26 AM

Hey it just the Constitution, who gives a fuck.

Posted by Organic George | July 8, 2008 10:32 AM

Obama needs to explain why he supports this to the base. It won't cool off the liberal hotheads, but at least try to make peace.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 8, 2008 10:35 AM

Actually Matt it seems that the only other people who share your "exact same set of issue priorities" on this are those in your nutroots amen corner.

It would be political malpractice for Obama to fall in line with the hysterics on this subject. The idea that Aunt Tilly is going to be hauled off to Gitmo because the NSA computer picked up the words "Koran" and "crusaders" in the call from her sister in Jerusalem is a non-starter in the real world.

Posted by robert powell | July 8, 2008 10:38 AM

The trials at Nuremburg put to rest the notion it was permissible to commit high crimes against a populace with the expectation you would be later immunized because you were merely "following orders" in a time of war or national crisis. Citizens and corporations have an implicit responsibility to pause and question the legality of directives, including researching the relevant statutes. Trusting the government to assure you what is being commanded is legal doesn't fulfill your obligations. Say Bush rang up the chairman of Ford and told him to go ahead and ship thousands of dangerously defective vehicles to dealerships. The economy was in a shambles and some amazing hybrid they'd developed was needed on the streets to help commerce and reduce petrolem imports. The chairman could speak to no one about the order but he was assured the Justice Department said it was all perfectly legal. People die as a result. Should the chairman be able to admit he suspected deaths would occur but he was merely following orders in a time of national crisis? Has he no responsibility to question and consequently refuse a dubious edict? Telecoms have thousands of lawyers and access to the full text of FISA. They committed crimes. Knowingly or with the resources to arrive at it knowingly. Immunity is undeserved.

Posted by steve duncan | July 8, 2008 10:41 AM

matthew, if you're not outraged you should be, and cynicism shouldn't keep you away.

the 4th ammendment is kind of important in the scheme of things, and watching it be eviscerated by fear-mongers is sickening (and sickening in a bipartisan kind of way).

just as was the case with, for example, internment, the time will come when we as a nation will be embarassed that we allowed propagandists and fear-mongerers trash the 4th ammendment.

as for andrew sullivan, maybe it was a venial sin until december 31, 2001 or some such arbitrary date, but it's been a cardinal sin ever since. richard nixon, rightly, was driven from office for a comparable set of crimes....

Posted by howard | July 8, 2008 10:42 AM

Most Americans don't seem to care about the wiretapping in the first place(probably because they assume it's only arab-Americans that have to worry about it), so for the left to target phone companies who cooperate with the NSA is a loser of an issue.

The phone companies, and telephone company shareholders, don't want to be in a position of whipping boy for people who can't get at the government policy any other way. There's no point in trying to use them to get around public apathy on government spying.

Posted by Rid | July 8, 2008 10:42 AM

Robert Powell: You might want to check the NYT, whose official editorial today apparently joined the 'nutroots' concerned with Aunt Tilly, you silly windbag.

Compromising the Constitution
Editorial
The New York Times | July 8, 2008

Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping.

The bill dangerously weakens the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Adopted after the abuses of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the law requires the government to get a warrant to intercept communications between anyone in this country and anyone outside it — and show that it is investigating a foreign power, or the agent of a foreign power, that plans to harm America...

...The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law. When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact. The White House scared Congress into doing that last year, with a one-year bill that shredded FISA’s protections. Democratic lawmakers promised to fix it this year...

...Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be "punished" for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up...

Restoring some of the protections taken away by an earlier law while creating new loopholes in the Constitution is not a compromise. It is a failure of leadership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.html?ref=opinion

You're much more believable when you play untouchable noble moralizer than when you try to play sane balanced observer from a distance.

Posted by El Cid | July 8, 2008 10:44 AM

Obama's position annoys me, too, but let's remember that he isn't the only senator supporting this POS. Nor does he control the House...

Posted by bs23 | July 8, 2008 10:45 AM

thank you, robert powell and rid, for demonstrating how authoritarianism comes to a country: by the apathetic response of citizens who think it's no big deal because it can't happen to them.

how unutterably sad and pathetic.

Posted by howard | July 8, 2008 10:50 AM

I have no problem with the gov't listening in on every phone call between In Here and Out There. They don't even need a warrant. They've never needed a warrant to do that. As it stands, though, they're recording every friggin' phone call without warrants. Then, they peek at the dialing records and read the computer generated transcripts of callers of interest. Callers of interest might be anyone. Congressmen's girl friends. Mayoral bag men. Small town pastors. Teenage girls. Anyone that they want. No recourse. No privacy. Sure, that's a marginal issue: generating blackmail information always is. I strongly suspect that the program has culled info on Congressional misdeeds which explains the spinelessness of the Democratic weasels we've foolishly put our trust in. FISA has become Big Brother, and Big Brother's a friggin' hood.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 8, 2008 10:51 AM

It all gets back to the fundamental difference between mainstream and activist progressives. Not any specific policy, but whether or not they think this administration or any administration can be trusted.

If you think Bush and Cheney are traditional politicians and are probably trying to do more or less the right thing, I could see why this would not rile you at all.

If you believe Bush and Cheney are corrupt political thugs who would abuse this power for unethical purposes without a flicker of moral hesitation, then you are going to be alarmed and angry.

I hold a mix of traditional liberal and conservative views on various issues, but this one I find terribly frustrating. The people who think the Bush administration are going to be more or less honest and reasonable and not abuse any power they are given or can gather up on the sly seem unbelievably naive to me. The endless list of violations of customs and courtesy--let alone laws--they have on their records suggests none of them can be trusted to show any restraint in mis-using a law like this. Their philosophy, as stated by Yoo, Addington, Cheney, and others, gives the president the authority to ignore law and constitution whenever he feels the need. Since they regard any opposition as illigitimate, whether from congress, courts, reporters, or citizens, I would have to assume gathering information on their internal enemies would be a high priority for them whenever they thought they could get away with it. If this bill gives them more opportunities to abuse their power, it is a bad idea. They will be abusing that power before the ink is dry on the paper.

Posted by Sebastian | July 8, 2008 11:01 AM

"Obama needs to explain why he supports this to the base. It won't cool off the liberal hotheads, but at least try to make peace."

Obama has tried to explain himself but it earns him just no truck w Greenwald, in fact he just digs himself deeper. And since Glenn is the font of wisdom for the faithful on this issue, Obama is left where he put himself with the netizens. Which is to say, he cut their fickle a**es loose early cuz he doesn't need the headache and he can win without them. As can literally anyone.

Posted by Mike | July 8, 2008 11:02 AM

It all gets back to the fundamental difference between mainstream and activist progressives. Not any specific policy, but whether or not they think this administration or any administration can be trusted.

If you think Bush and Cheney are traditional politicians and are probably trying to do more or less the right thing, I could see why this would not rile you at all.

If you believe Bush and Cheney are corrupt political thugs who would abuse this power for unethical purposes without a flicker of moral hesitation, then you are going to be alarmed and angry.

I hold a mix of traditional liberal and conservative views on various issues, but this one I find terribly frustrating. The people who think the Bush administration are going to be more or less honest and reasonable and not abuse any power they are given or can gather up on the sly seem unbelievably naive to me. The endless list of violations of customs and courtesy--let alone laws--they have on their records suggests none of them can be trusted to show any restraint in mis-using a law like this. Their philosophy, as stated by Yoo, Addington, Cheney, and others, gives the president the authority to ignore law and constitution whenever he feels the need. Since they regard any opposition as illigitimate, whether from congress, courts, reporters, or citizens, I would have to assume gathering information on their internal enemies would be a high priority for them whenever they thought they could get away with it. If this bill gives them more opportunities to abuse their power, it is a bad idea. They will be abusing that power before the ink is dry on the paper.

Posted by Sebastian | July 8, 2008 11:05 AM

FISA? pshaw.

you want abuse of the 4th? go read about National Security Letters and civil asset forfeiture. listening to your phone calls is nothing compared to the power to seize your property.

Posted by cleek | July 8, 2008 11:05 AM

Don't I recall a few years ago the CIA knew where a reporter was getting one of their leaks because of the access of phone records it had?

Eventually this system is going to lead to clear abuses of political power, that will come out, and there will be scandal and hand-wringing.

Until then however, no one's going to care. And frankly, I'm much more concerned about the actual content of the FISA court and the fact that they defer to the President 95% of the time, than (as Rid said) making telephone companies "whipping boy for people who can't get at the government policy any other way."

Posted by Shock Mouse | July 8, 2008 11:06 AM

It's true that the direct harm from this crappy FISA law is a lot less in the short run than the direct harm from having people dying in Iraq. But, besides the direct problems with illegal searches, there are at least two reasons people are so exercised about it:
1. The idea that the president only has to obey laws when he feels like it is an evil precedent.
2. Congress has been mostly spineless, to the great disgust of the people who elected it in 2006. To see them finally win one, and then march into Bush's office, bend over and grease up is infuriating.

Posted by peter | July 8, 2008 11:06 AM

mike, the reason obama digs himself deeper is because his rationale is dishonest and makes no sense. he'd be better off simply stating the truth: "i'm not willing to invest political capital in this issue because it's too easy to demagogue."

as for obama winning without the "netizens," whatever in the world that is supposed to mean, sure: after all, it's not like obama has relied upon net-based fundraising to bring in unprecedented amounts or anything....

Posted by howard | July 8, 2008 11:07 AM

One can assume that the US government regularly violates the Fourth Amendment when it comes to surveillance -- the 'RAF' base at Menwith Hill in northern England hosts the NSA, and the US can also outsource its snooping to the Brits or some other friendly spooks.

Getting Congress to excuse shameless lawbreaking, though, should be seen as an exertion of the real balance of powers in the US, in which the executive branch has the legislatures' balls in a vice. ECHELON is now domestic, and all the other stuff that wasn't uncovered and acknowledged will be excused as well.

A venial rather than a cardinal sin? Nah. But the institutions of American politics get more exercised over the idea that someone, somewhere is engaged in a blowjob than the idea that a big, expensive computer somewhere is running background filters on your email and phone calls.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 8, 2008 11:09 AM

The idea that Aunt Tilly is going to be hauled off to Gitmo because the NSA computer picked up the words "Koran" and "crusaders" in the call from her sister in Jerusalem is a non-starter in the real world.

Robert Powell assures us that our leaders are trustworthy, and if we given them power unconstrained by law they can be trusted not to abuse it.

The experience of the last 3000 years or so suggests otherwise . . .

Posted by rea | July 8, 2008 11:09 AM

It's not so much the issue itself, which is important, but what it says about Obama's political strategy. Obama apparently won't challenge the idea that "strong on national security" means giving in to Republican shenanigans.

In a larger sense, we need to re-do the whole privacy fight. The U.S. government should be working to make it harder to spy on people--it should be working to make cryptography universal and authoritarian surveillance and cernsorship impossible around the world, which would do more for the security of the free world than anything we hope to find by eavesdropping.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 8, 2008 11:11 AM

What would be the point of Obama saying that? How would it make anyone feel better?

Netizens are roughly the people who think that the word "blog" means a particular political viewpoint expressed with a particular vehemence and independence of political party. i.e. Greenwald. Synonym for netroots is how I meant it.

This is a key point. Not everyone who uses primarily the internet for political communication is of like mind. Amazing that even has to be stated. And even beyond that, in your mind does going online and contributing to a candidacy make someone an internet activist, ie netroots ie netizen?

I'm not attached to the term netizen if netroots is the right word. He cut the netroots loose b/c they're an impossible group to please ultimately (they self-instruct not to be satisfied), and they're just another interest group.

Posted by Mike | July 8, 2008 11:18 AM

I don't think you get it if you view it in isolation. It's bound up with the torture issue. This is the one area where the Democratic Congress had not yet rolled over & let Bush act lawlessly in the face of cries of "national security." Impeachment or impeachment hearings? Off the table. Serious investigation? Largely not happening; there was no serious attempt to subpoena & use the contempt power in time. The Iraq war resolution? Passed. Alberto Gonzales? Confirmed. Michael Mukasey? Confirmed. Habeas stripping amendment by Lindsey Graham? Passed. The Military Commissions Act? Passed. John Roberts & Samuel Alito? Confirmed. All without any serious possibility of a Democratic filibuster--it wasn't even considered. Blank checks for the Iraq war? Issued. Bills restricting the possibility of war with Iran, repealing the MCA, other legislative attempts to deal with torture, Guantanamo, state secrets privilege, etc. etc.? No serious attempt at passage--in most cases, no attempt at all, but any attempt that DOES get made does NOT include any attempt to attach the provision to a must-pass authorization or appropriations bill & thus has no chance at all. Congress had failed us completely--except, they had not yet caved on surveillance, though they had almost done so several times. Netroots pressure had always headed it off at the very end, though. Until now. Now they have failed us across the board on these issues. And Obama is part of it. Obama has made very few explicit promises on torture, civil liberties, etc. etc. etc. "End torture, close Guantanamo"--that's great, but McCain promises both those things; for that matter, Bush claims that we don't torture & that he wants to close Guantanamo. Obama is more sincere, I'm sure, but on most of the key issues, we have no idea of his position; he hasn't been asked about them & hasn't made many promises. He did make an explicit promise on telecom immunity. It turns out to have been completely false. If he'll break direct promises, there's less than no reason to believe he'll do the right thing on the host of related issues where he's never made any.

Posted by katherine | July 8, 2008 11:28 AM

"He cut the netroots loose b/c they're an impossible group to please ultimately "

Bullshit. No interest group has contributed so much to Democratic candidates despite such a repeated pattern of failure/betrayal on its key issues.

Posted by Katherine | July 8, 2008 11:32 AM

I think the reasons this issue is important are many.

1) The bill sets the precedent that a corporation can break the law, and then come to Washington and buy immunity for past lawbreaking. It's one thing for a corporation to be able to buy new laws through their lobby clout, which is bad enough. It's a whole new order of magnitude of corruption for them to be able to nullify laws they already broke. Essentially, the FISA law creates a two tiered legal system in this country.

2) The President of the United States broke the law and has openly admitted to doing so. The checks and balances of our system of government were created for precisely this scenario. By sweeping the administration's abuses under the rug, the FISA law sets the precedent that a president can break the law and should expect that he has every right to get away with it.

3) In terms of the specific issue in question on this bill, namely domestic and international surveillance, consider who it is that the president has been spying upon. Do we know who the targets are? Let me re-phrase this question in such as way as to illustrate my point. Given how the Bush administration has politicized national security, politicized the Justice Department, violated the Hatch Act, and has used federal government at every level as a tool for partisan political gain...is it really such a stretch of the imagination to imagine that international terror suspects might not be the only targets of Bush's illegal surveillance programs? Given that we do not know who are the targets of the surveillance programs and given the hyper-partisan record of the administration, is it not then the height of political malpractice for Democrats to sweep this under the rug?

4) The FISA Bill redefines the legal meaning of the word "weapon of mass destruction." The question of the meaning of a term like WMD seems to merit at least some public discussion, yet it is receiving none. The definition of WMD should be treated as a separate question from the question of the nature and extent of our surveillance programs.

There are so many other things wrong with this bill, I could spend hours writing about it, but I don't think that's a productive use of my time, mainly because so many other fine bloggers and activists have already "documented the atrocities" as our friend Atrios likes to say. My intense opposition to this bill ultimately boils down to this: passing this bill fundamentally alters something in the American character, something that cannot be easily reversed or taken back. This bill greatly enhances corporate power, greatly enhances presidential power, guts the checks and balances that define our government, trashes the 4th Amendment, and amounts to political malpractice of the highest order. And single one of these issues might not be sufficient to rouse my passions. But all of these issues combined into one bill make it a deal-breaker in my schema of political priorities.

Posted by astrodem | July 8, 2008 11:33 AM

I think the reasons this issue is important are many.

1) The bill sets the precedent that a corporation can break the law, and then come to Washington and buy immunity for past lawbreaking. It's one thing for a corporation to be able to buy new laws through their lobby clout, which is bad enough. It's a whole new order of magnitude of corruption for them to be able to nullify laws they already broke. Essentially, the FISA law creates a two tiered legal system in this country.

2) The President of the United States broke the law and has openly admitted to doing so. The checks and balances of our system of government were created for precisely this scenario. By sweeping the administration's abuses under the rug, the FISA law sets the precedent that a president can break the law and should expect that he has every right to get away with it.

3) In terms of the specific issue in question on this bill, namely domestic and international surveillance, consider who it is that the president has been spying upon. Do we know who the targets are? Let me re-phrase this question in such as way as to illustrate my point. Given how the Bush administration has politicized national security, politicized the Justice Department, violated the Hatch Act, and has used federal government at every level as a tool for partisan political gain...is it really such a stretch of the imagination to imagine that international terror suspects might not be the only targets of Bush's illegal surveillance programs? Given that we do not know who are the targets of the surveillance programs and given the hyper-partisan record of the administration, is it not then the height of political malpractice for Democrats to sweep this under the rug?

4) The FISA Bill redefines the legal meaning of the word "weapon of mass destruction." The question of the meaning of a term like WMD seems to merit at least some public discussion, yet it is receiving none. The definition of WMD should be treated as a separate question from the question of the nature and extent of our surveillance programs.

There are so many other things wrong with this bill, I could spend hours writing about it, but I don't think that's a productive use of my time, mainly because so many other fine bloggers and activists have already "documented the atrocities" as our friend Atrios likes to say. My intense opposition to this bill ultimately boils down to this: passing this bill fundamentally alters something in the American character, something that cannot be easily reversed or taken back. This bill greatly enhances corporate power, greatly enhances presidential power, guts the checks and balances that define our government, trashes the 4th Amendment, and amounts to political malpractice of the highest order. And single one of these issues might not be sufficient to rouse my passions. But all of these issues combined into one bill make it a deal-breaker in my schema of political priorities.

Posted by astrodem | July 8, 2008 11:35 AM

To put it another way, I'm glad Glenn Greenwald is out there pounding away on these questions and I don't really think it makes a ton of sense to complain that other people don't share my exact same set of issue priorities.

Lame lame lame. The reaction to FISA is a lot more serious than the 'let's agree to disagree' attitude you seem to be taking. We've now got a group that's actively organizing to demand that a Presidential candidate flip flop and repudiate his political party's stance on an issue on which Congress (controlled by that party) has already voted. Is there any way Obama could reverse himself now without doing a LOT of damage to his ability to win this election? Nobody is going to hand this race to us, and it's virtually guaranteed that McCain is going to be a hell of a lot worse on exercising his domestic surveillance power than Obama.

I'm disappointed in the way the Dems (most of the leadership, NOT just Obama) have handled FISA. But I'll very willingly sacrifice telecom immunity for the possibility of universal healthcare, better working standards, and a sane foreign policy. Not to mention a President who actually uses all the tools Congress has given the Executive Branch in good faith for the first time in 8 years. Particularly when the recent controversial legislation barely scratches the surface of domestic spying. (See: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.fisa07jul07,0,2783557.story)

Posted by NS | July 8, 2008 11:36 AM

I'm very disappointed that Matt has little to no passion for this issue. This is redolent of the negligence/passivity the general populace had during the lead-up to the Iraq war; the majority of people were cynically disengaged from something which was easily forseeable to have enormous moral and historical consequences.

Posted by Edoc | July 8, 2008 11:36 AM

this is a venial not cardinal sin.

Sullivan's glibness leads him astray, and not for the first time. This is a poor analogy because it's subtly but vitally misleading. The fact is that most of us are quite used to voting for people who have committed what we individually might consider 'venal' political sins - we vote for them because they are better than the alternative. Obama's FISA cave is more in the 'venal' than 'cardinal' area, but does that mean we don't vote for him, or work for him? For most, the only rational response is 'no'. The 'Sin' analogy doesn't work because it equates a personal moral/ethical questioning with politics, which is hardly a seamless mapping. In fact, the difference is precisely the point. (BTW, Is the Catholic conception of Sin as situational as politics? Perhaps that's a naive question...)

Andrew posits what is, practically-speaking, a false either/or. If the Cave does not make you stop supporting BO, then it must - since we have only two - fall into the 'not that big a deal' category. Obama's cave *is* actually kind of a big deal AND it shouldn't be nearly enough to make people stop supporting him, and stop working to elect him - and then to keep on him about this issue after he wins. As MY suggested with his 'grassroots' comment, it's vital for you to remember yourself what's a big deal and what isn't, regardless of how you vote. Otherwise things like this (FISA, campaign finance reform) get relegated to some lower 'not that big a deal' borgia of the Issues Hell that is Washington DC. It buys into Karl Rove's, Newt Gingrich's, and lots of, ahem, thoughtful Liberals' 'game theory' conception of DC, where, to paraphrase Lombardi, amoral politics isn't the most important thing, it's the ONLY thing. (Balls. Amorality is, strictly speaking, imaginary - a construct if ever there was one).

I would assume that Andrew means that a 'venal' sin is one which would make you unable to support the candidate anymore, but one wonders how he, and other 'thoughtful conservatives' (like The Dread Economist mindset) weigh this sort of stuff. I have tried in recent years to figure out how they rationalize some of their choices, but found it just baffling.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 8, 2008 11:45 AM

Don't I recall a few years ago the CIA knew where a reporter was getting one of their leaks because of the access of phone records it had?

Tim Weiner in his book on the CIA, Legacy of Ashes, reports that the beloved John Kennedy did domestic spying before Nixon, to plug leaks to reporters. That was news to me.

A writer at Huffington Post, Bob Ostertag wrote the following:

"Obama changed that for me. I sent him money. I phone banked. I held street signs. I don’t know if I am going to continue with all that. I will vote for Obama of course. I will continue to urge everyone I know to vote for him. But my money and time, paltry though they may be, will likely get redirected to candidates who are willing to stand up for issues I care about. And because of the Internet, I know that there are a lot of other Obama supporters in the same boat; a lot of people considering cutting off their string of small donations to the campaign.

All of this is coming at a time in which Obama’s schedule is filled with big-money fundraisers where people can buy face time with the man for $30k. Put all these things together, and one cannot help but wonder if there is a turning point, that from here on out the campaign is will be less of a grassroots affair. This is not the death knell of the campaign. Far from it. I think Obama can do very well against McCain with a traditional, top down, big money campaign. I think he will be sworn in as our next president in January. But it will be a different campaign than what it has been until now. As one commenter to my blog so aptly said, “Senator Obama, you can tap my phone or my wallet, but not both.”
--------

It would be funny if Obama lost because of the FISA drama. I just don't think the freedom fighters are giving an accurate picture of what's going on. They like diplaying UMBRAGE and are going take their toys and go home. Good work, Krugman, we got four years of McCain! Well done.

Posted by Peter K. | July 8, 2008 11:48 AM

I'm very disappointed that Matt has little to no passion for this issue.

That's your every right, but I don't think MY really suggested that he has no passion for this issue. He said 'priorities'. To say that this is not top-priority in an election campaign is not to say that it's not important. I personally think the 4th amendment is extremely important, and also think that if McCain wins and more Republicans are not swept out of congress, that that and other amends in the Bill of R will be under much more profound assault than they will under Obama. He's not dissing Greenwald (except maybe for a gentle tweak about his tendency to be prolix). He's saying that this isn't his top priority.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Sorry, but buying TV ads for a candidate I can't trust seems like an incredibly inefficient use of resources to me, and it's incredibly predictable that people reduce their involvement in response to a candidate jerking them around & lying to them. Presumably the campaign calculated that this issue mattered to few enough people for the cost in lost donations & volunteer time was worth it--okay then.

Posted by Katherine | July 8, 2008 11:55 AM

i read glen everyday and feel (partly) his anger. he's an unrelenting hammer. and his passion is in many ways inspiring.

of course, this doesn't mean that i'm gonna become a constitutional lawyer...i got my own causes (malaria, malnutrition, etc.), as many of us around this blog do. as i assume matt does. we can agree and admire, without necessarily crusading.

Posted by kolahun | July 8, 2008 11:58 AM

Hehe. I find it hilarious that President Obama is going to warrantlessly wiretapping you. You can also bet your ass that he's going to be issuing signing statements, sending out national security letters, holding persons as enemy combatants, etc., etc. Unchecked power!

Posted by Al | July 8, 2008 11:59 AM

I certainly wouldn't want to get cross-ways to "an OFFICIAL NYT editorial"! When it comes to untouchable noble moralizing, they're clearly The Champ. Anyway, thanks for the tip. Duly noted.

Bumping up against the Constitution in time of war is a routine experience in American history, and in every case I can think of it's been a hell of a lot worse than this.

I'm pretty sure The Founders weren't overly concerned with intercepts of digital data from space run through a supercomputer programmed to look for key phrases in order to form a database that might, in some distantly-possible case, end up as evidence in a trial. Neither are most Americans, which is why Democrats should be grateful that their presumptive nominee has more sense than some of his supporters.

Posted by robert powell | July 8, 2008 11:59 AM

"No interest group has contributed so much to Democratic candidates despite such a repeated pattern of failure/betrayal on its key issues."

Well, Democratic candidates aren't necessarily Obaba. Beyond that, Obama is running as a post-partisan figure, and now that he has the nomination, there is simply no credible threat that people on the left are going to abandon him under almost any circumstances. So an early break on a signature issue send that simple message: I'm not going to be checking your boxes during the campaign b/c i believe you are going to vote for me anyway. That's politics. Not to say that they shouldn't be pissed, just that it was inevitable.

Posted by Mike | July 8, 2008 12:04 PM

When it comes to untouchable noble moralizing, they're clearly The Champ.

Nah, that's your crown, Bobbitt. Just like that stick in your ass 'bumps up' against your lower intestine, rather than 'violating' it.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 8, 2008 12:09 PM

Yglesias said, "To me, personally, outrage requires surprise."

That's exactly what the Republicans bank on. By their persistent extremism they ratchet up the bar of outrageousness to the point that nothing is outrageous anymore.

Matthew, you really ought to rethink that. Outrage ought to depend on the seriousness or the flagrancy of the offense, not whether we expected it or not. I'm not surprised by ANYTHING the Republicans do anymore, but I am frequently outraged.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Is the bill important?

Give me a fucking break. Let's recap the situation for all the lame ass centrist leaning liberal who are in abject denial:

1) Every Republican president after Eisenhower has been an anti-American criminal who flouted the Constitution. Flouting the Constitution is a long-term trend among the Republicans.

2) Bush stole the presidency.

3) Bush started an illegal war of aggression based on a hoax that got 4000 Americans and perhaps a million Iraqis killed.

4) Bush made torture an American policy.

5) Bush and the Republicans are pushing a crypto-monarchical interpretation of presidential power that places the president above the law, and they have acted on this interpretation.

6) Bush and the telecoms flagrantly violated the law on FISA.

Now. Given that context, the danger is clearly evident. We MUST push back. If we don't push back then all the glorious ideals of America and the Founding Fathers are just so much antiquarian bullshit -- and there is a real danger of increasing authoritarianism. It can happen here because it can happen anywhere and, in fact, is the norm throughout history.

There are excellent reasons to oppose the FISA bill on pure policy grounds. But there is a helluva lot more going on here (see above). These extremists MUST be stopped.

Bush's violation of the law on FISA is particularly clear cut. It is perhaps the best pressure point the Democrats have for pushing back.

So whether you think the FISA bill is important depends not only on whether you think it is bad policy, which it assuredly is, but on whether you understand the bigger picture and how the Reublicans are destroying this country. You either get it or you don't. Unfortunately most people don't.

History will show that an extremist Republican movement was effectively a counterrevolution to the liberal democratic revolution of 1776. History will also show that the Democrats let it happen.

How sad.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 12:36 PM

Above and beyond this particular issue, there are an awful lot of notable public pundits who keep promising that though Current Issue X is not important enough to really get them to throw down, someday Really Important Issue Z will come along, and man, will they ever get mobilized and outraged then.

Meanwhile, all the issues which ever come along do so, and go whichever way that they go (whether these be wars or laws or policies, what have you), and Really Important Issue Z never seems to appear, and the public pundits keep sneering at all the naifs who get over-involved in Current Issue X.

Posted by El Cid | July 8, 2008 12:52 PM

El Cid is right. The check's always in the mail.

The Republican outrages keep happening one after another. I'm in my forties and my whole life has been one Republican atrocity after another. But jaded young Yglesias is not outraged because he's not surprised. But he also doesn't think the FISA bill is important.

If you don't stand up after they steal the presidency, after they start an illegal war of aggression based on a HOAX that got a million people KILLED, after they start using TORTURE, and after they admittedly break the law, then you will NEVER stand up. After all you can't simultaneously stand up AND grab your ankles.

Excuse me while I puke.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 1:07 PM

J.Edgar Hoover won. Nixon has been vindicated. Dirty tricks are now mainstream.

Don't you people understand why there is so little dissent, so much scorn and ridicule heaped upon "netroots" and "fringe" issues-activists?

It's because business industrial military complex owners have all the tools, own the presses, monitor the blogs, infiltrate the Quakers for Peace meetings, have your library and Amazon records, know what you buy at the store, who you have lunch with, know what's happening, and can torch you at any moment - Elliot Spitzer's downfall was a aberration?

Sex is bad, murder is profitable. Wiretapping is just a tool, and the oversight stuff was too much, you know, like a hassle, man - so, we have to get rid of it. Fire up the "war on terror" BS machine, and round up the usual suspects.

Posted by anyfreeman | July 8, 2008 1:20 PM

I think Obama is 100% correct by supporting FISA
bill and makes sense to me. if he has opposed it
he will be tag by republicans and the media that
he is soft on terror and weak on national security,the liberal democrats should be happy with his decision and thank him for that ,if the liberals wants to capture the white house in 2008.Pls I appeal to the left to calm down and go to obama's web sight and make donations instead of trying to tear the candidate apart,which gives John Mccain and GOP another
excuse to retain the white house for another 4-8 years of the same nonsense. pls people use their
brain

Posted by Michael | July 8, 2008 1:27 PM

I think Obama is 100% correct by supporting FISA
bill and makes sense to me. if he has opposed it
he will be tag by republicans and the media that
he is soft on terror and weak on national security,the liberal democrats should be happy with his decision and thank him for that ,if the liberals wants to capture the white house in 2008.Pls I appeal to the left to calm down and go to obama's web sight and make donations instead of trying to tear the candidate apart,which gives John Mccain and GOP another
excuse to retain the white house for another 4-8 years of the same nonsense. pls people use their
brain

Posted by Michael | July 8, 2008 1:32 PM

Well, Michael, you're 100% wrong. You're right that the Republicans will tag Obama as soft on terror if he opposes the FISA bill. But you know what, Mikey, they will also tag Obama as soft on terror if he supports the FISA bill.

Will it work? Well, it will if Obama does what he's doing now and acts all guilty and embarrased about it.

Does it have to? Not at all. Large majorities of Americans across party lines oppose the contents of the FISA bill and support the same thing the netroots support. Go see the poll on the ACLU web site that was conducted by Steny Hoyer's pollster.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 1:42 PM

You know when outrage becomes too much...

When right wing nuts like Sean Hannity quotes "liberal blog leaders" like kos on his radio show as proof that even Obama's followers believe he's a flip flopper.

That's when it's gone too far.

Thxs KOS

Posted by lh | July 8, 2008 1:53 PM

I love that Michael appeals to us to "calm down calm down and go to obama's web sight and make donations instead of trying to tear the candidate apart". Ah yes--donation therapy. That's what will ensure that our issues get listened to.

Posted by tomemos | July 8, 2008 1:53 PM

Relinquishing the 4th Amendment for political expediency comes as close to being a dealbreaker for me as anything so far encountered.

Seriously. I cannot imagine how I will vote for anyone willing to sell our Constitution for such things.

Posted by Tony | July 8, 2008 2:11 PM

Obama,

Vote for FISA (spying on me) and you have lost my vote. No doubt I am not alone on this. I have voted Democrat in every election since 1976, NEVER voting Republican. And I will spread the word as much as I legally can that others should do the same.

IT'S THE CONSTITUTION FOR GOD SAKE!

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What the hell is wrong with this country, how is this NOT inexcuseable?

Posted by Paul W. | July 8, 2008 2:39 PM

Here we have a candidate for President that is asking us to elect him so that he can "to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Sorry, if he will not stand up and protect the Constitution now, why am I to believe he will do so after he takes the oath.

Posted by Lynn | July 8, 2008 2:56 PM

One problem I have is: We seem to have this laziere fare attitude with all of the Bush crimes. Just because it doesn't affect you or me directly doesn't mean it is acceptable.

The illegal wiretapping basically gives the GOP carte blanche to spy on political opponents -- Democrats, bloggers, activists ... and they WILL find either intelligence or something they can twist.

It's in the Constitution for a reason, people.

Posted by Cathexis | July 8, 2008 2:57 PM

What the heck is wrong with you people? Why are you so incapable of seeing the bigger picture? You are prepared to mortally wound someone you support because the FISA issue is unacceptable. Get real! Start acting like level-headed political activists instead of a bunch of immature student activists who are unable to balance idealism with realism. Obama may be wrong, but which is more important, getting him elected or winning this battle. By your actions you may win this battle but will lose the War.Then you can have another 8 years whinning about the evil republicans and their chorts. Your self-indulgence is one thing the Republicans can rely on, while you tear yourselves apart about the fundamental raping of the constitution, they keep their eyes on the ball and ensure this 'tearing' of the constitution is just one part of them tearing apart the society. Well done!! You can always console yourselves by congratulating one another on how steadfast progressive and principled you all are. What are bunch of losers!!

Posted by John Johnson | July 8, 2008 4:02 PM

What the heck is wrong with you people? Why are you so incapable of seeing the bigger picture? You are prepared to mortally wound someone you support because the FISA issue is unacceptable. Get real! Start acting like level-headed political activists instead of a bunch of immature student activists who are unable to balance idealism with realism. Obama may be wrong, but which is more important, getting him elected or winning this battle. By your actions you may win this battle but will lose the War.Then you can have another 8 years whinning about the evil republicans and their chorts. Your self-indulgence is one thing the Republicans can rely on, while you tear yourselves apart about the fundamental raping of the constitution, they keep their eyes on the ball and ensure this 'tearing' of the constitution is just one part of them tearing apart the society. Well done!! You can always console yourselves by congratulating one another on how steadfast progressive and principled you all are. What are bunch of losers!!

Posted by John Johnson | July 8, 2008 4:04 PM

What the heck is wrong with you people? Why are you so incapable of seeing the bigger picture? You are prepared to mortally wound someone you support because the FISA issue is unacceptable. Get real! Start acting like level-headed political activists instead of a bunch of immature student activists who are unable to balance idealism with realism. Obama may be wrong, but which is more important, getting him elected or winning this battle. By your actions you may win this battle but will lose the War.Then you can have another 8 years whinning about the evil republicans and their chorts. Your self-indulgence is one thing the Republicans can rely on, while you tear yourselves apart about the fundamental raping of the constitution, they keep their eyes on the ball and ensure this 'tearing' of the constitution is just one part of them tearing apart the society. Well done!! You can always console yourselves by congratulating one another on how steadfast progressive and principled you all are. What are bunch of losers!!

Posted by John Johnson | July 8, 2008 4:05 PM

What the heck is wrong with you people? Why are you so incapable of seeing the bigger picture? You are prepared to mortally wound someone you support because the FISA issue is unacceptable. Get real! Start acting like level-headed political activists instead of a bunch of immature student activists who are unable to balance idealism with realism. Obama may be wrong, but which is more important, getting him elected or winning this battle. By your actions you may win this battle but will lose the War.Then you can have another 8 years whinning about the evil republicans and their chorts. Your self-indulgence is one thing the Republicans can rely on, while you tear yourselves apart about the fundamental raping of the constitution, they keep their eyes on the ball and ensure this 'tearing' of the constitution is just one part of them tearing apart the society. Well done!! You can always console yourselves by congratulating one another on how steadfast progressive and principled you all are. What are bunch of losers!!

Posted by John Johnson | July 8, 2008 4:08 PM

"What the heck is wrong with you people?"

I guess I started thinking differently when a million people got killed and I saw our democracy turning into a monarchy. That kind of caught my attention and made me think, hmmm, this is not time for business as usual.

For Obama to sell out on FISA is despicable and weak. And because he sold out to the UNPOPULAR position, it is also inexcusably STUPID.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 4:39 PM

I agree with John Johnson.

The "netroots" jump the shark on FISA. Bravo!

Posted by Peter K. | July 8, 2008 4:39 PM

Hey all of you netroots hating Obamatrons: go fuck yourselves.

You all decided that you would fuck us over and put our deepest values -- which ought to be YOUR values as well -- at risk by using them as the basis for an ill-considered, stupid, and futile triangulation gambit.

Well, fuck you. Play your shortsighted games with someone else's values. And don't come crying to me if I don't want to hang out with you any more.

The netroots didn't do anything. Obama did something. Now he's paying the price. Boo-hoo.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 4:46 PM

BTW: i consider myself to have been defrauded of my primary vote by Obama. I voted for Obama over Hillary because he talked a better game on Iraq and said he would filibuster FISA. A few months ago, it was me telling the Hillarybots boo-fucking-hoo because she sold out on Iraq.

If I were playing purely cynical politics I would have voted for Hillary because she's white and ceteris paribus a white candidate will get elected more easily than a black candidate. But I voted for Obama because some values are too important to horsetrade with.

But now Obama's fucking me over. He'll be goddamn lucky if I end up pulling his lever and I wouldn't even consider it unless the election was close. Even though it depends very much on how Obama and his robotic minions behave between now and then.

You all better start sweet takling and kissing our ass or you're gonna get left out in the cold. You just might anyway if Obama keeps acting like a little pussy.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 4:59 PM

But now Obama's fucking me over. He'll be goddamn lucky if I end up pulling his lever and I wouldn't even consider it unless the election was close.

You can pull my lever any time, cutie. :D

Posted by Peter K. | July 8, 2008 5:37 PM

Petie: I guess I misread you. Based on the way you're all buns-up-kneelin' grabbing your ankles, I thought you had something else in mind.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 5:39 PM

Petie: I guess I misread you. Based on the way you're all buns-up-kneelin' grabbing your ankles, I thought you had something else in mind.

What I see is a bunch "netroots" bloggers vigorously masturbating. A big ole circle-jerk. Sure it feels good, but it's just self-indulgence and doesn't really accomplish anything. It sure ain't a pretty site though.

Go campaign for Nader. Then if Obama is actually elected President and sells out in some way while in office, you can tell us you told us so. And you'd be right! That's what Petey's waiting on.

Posted by Peter K. | July 8, 2008 6:03 PM

"You are prepared to mortally wound someone you support because the FISA issue is unacceptable. "

"Mortally wound"? Give me a break. Either we're powerful & important enough to matter, in which case Obama made a huge mistake breaking a very clear campaign promise, or we're not, in which case there's little risk to him when we actually get the message that we're not important & become less active as a result. I'll vote for him--though failing to do so in Illinois would be a stupid little protest, not a mortal wound--but he's not actually entitled to my money for his tv commercials.

Posted by katherine | July 8, 2008 6:43 PM

Petie said, What I see is a bunch "netroots" bloggers vigorously masturbating. A big ole circle-jerk."

Well, you know, people see what they want to see.

Obama lied about FISA. I hate being lied to. That's one reason I hate George Bush. If someone wants my vote they better damn well not lie to me.

Having their cult members harass me doesn't increase my odds of voting for them either. But Peter's busy self-indulgently masturbating himself while he gets off on attacking the netroots in defense of his One True Savior's treachery.

Posted by The Fool | July 8, 2008 7:29 PM

On July 9th, we can kiss the 4th Amendment goodbye when Democrats vote to expand the powers of the gov't to spy on us with complete immunity. Obama supports this legislation, proving that he's not a beacon of hope, he's just another lying politician who's willing to sacrifice anything to ensure his election. Neither Obama nor McCain has the character to sit in the Oval Office, and every politician who votes for this legislation should be tried in court for treason, for failing to protect the Constitution.

Posted by Orphaned Liberal | July 8, 2008 8:55 PM

On July 9th, we can kiss the 4th Amendment goodbye when Democrats vote to expand the powers of the gov't to spy on us with complete immunity. Obama supports this legislation, proving that he's not a beacon of hope, he's just another lying politician who's willing to sacrifice anything to ensure his election. Neither Obama nor McCain has the character to sit in the Oval Office, and every politician who votes for this legislation should be tried in court for treason, for failing to protect the Constitution.

Posted by Orphaned Liberal | July 8, 2008 8:57 PM

The grandstanding in this thread is simply out of proportion with what's at stake with regard to FISA. By their own admission, people aren't angry about FISA so much as they're angry about Bush. But the sad fact is *we already lost.* Pelosi took impeachment off the table, which means the Bushies are going to get away with everything, as Republican criminals always have since Nixon. "For the good of the country. "

I'm sorry to say it, but that's reality, no matter what you or I or anyone on the Internet says.

What's actually at stake now is the character of the *next* eight years, and with regard to that Obama is doing the right thing by taking the FISA issue off the table. He's being pragmatic. We should be pragmatic too.

Posted by G C | July 8, 2008 9:14 PM

Obama is a center-left candidate, thank God, because this means he actually has a chance of winning, instead of making "progressives" feel superior in their despair when he turns out to be too "good" to win with the great unwashed mob of America. FDR, Adlai, JFK, LBJ, even Carter, were center-left, so what's so evil about that? Extremist loosers disgust me. A victory for the old-fashioned Democratic center-left would turn this country around. To hell with crazies who would rather go the route of the fools who voted for Nader in 2000, and are thus literally responsible for the Iraq War and the whole Bush debacle. Do these fools really want to give the country four more years of Bush policies with McCain?

Posted by Fred White | July 8, 2008 9:43 PM

Obama is a center-left candidate, thank God, because this means he actually has a chance of winning, instead of making "progressives" feel superior in their despair when he turns out to be too "good" to win with the great unwashed mob of America. FDR, Adlai, JFK, LBJ, even Carter, were center-left, so what's so evil about that? Extremist loosers disgust me. A victory for the old-fashioned Democratic center-left would turn this country around. To hell with crazies who would rather go the route of the fools who voted for Nader in 2000, and are thus literally responsible for the Iraq War and the whole Bush debacle. Do these fools really want to give the country four more years of Bush policies with McCain?

Posted by Fred White | July 8, 2008 9:44 PM

Obama is a center-left candidate, thank God, because this means he actually has a chance of winning, instead of making "progressives" feel superior in their despair when he turns out to be too "good" to win with the great unwashed mob of America. FDR, Adlai, JFK, LBJ, even Carter, were center-left, so what's so evil about that? Extremist loosers disgust me. A victory for the old-fashioned Democratic center-left would turn this country around. To hell with crazies who would rather go the route of the fools who voted for Nader in 2000, and are thus literally responsible for the Iraq War and the whole Bush debacle. Do these fools really want to give the country four more years of Bush policies with McCain?

Posted by Fred White | July 8, 2008 9:44 PM

Obama is a center-left candidate, thank God, because this means he actually has a chance of winning, instead of making "progressives" feel superior in their despair when he turns out to be too "good" to win with the great unwashed mob of America. FDR, Adlai, JFK, LBJ, even Carter, were center-left, so what's so evil about that? Extremist loosers disgust me. A victory for the old-fashioned Democratic center-left would turn this country around. To hell with crazies who would rather go the route of the fools who voted for Nader in 2000, and are thus literally responsible for the Iraq War and the whole Bush debacle. Do these fools really want to give the country four more years of Bush policies with McCain?

Posted by Fred White | July 8, 2008 9:44 PM

There are other questions worth debating or at least contemplating. The measure clearly violates of the Constitution; I think we all understand the weakened nature of our civil rights.

Surveillance, intelligence gathering, and analysis are outsourced to private industry. Homeland Security is a hollow agency. Corporations and security startups are paid handsomely with your tax dollars to gather information about you.

It is important to consider the social impact of a profit driven private sector selling information about Americans to the government. Information about private American citizens is now a product. The implications are profound. It changes our culture, core values and how we view the world.

How will secret surveillance affect our interactions with others -our perception of other Americans? Does the FISA amendment make you feel safe or vulnerable?

Posted by Deborah, VA | July 9, 2008 3:17 AM

The cheerleaders don't realize that this will be a close election. Obama has been dancing along a razor's edge for a couple of weeks. McCain is starting to coalesce into a not-completely-horrendous speaker. Obama should have taken Rockefeller and Hoyer off to the side and boxed their ears instead of Lieberman. He didn't. He isn't really leading anyone but the cheerleaders.

So. What is the game? Afraid of being attacked as soft on terror? Gonna happen anyway. Afraid that plenty of democratic congressional leaders will be implicated? Telecom contributions to the Democratic Party? Hillary's DLC minions swarming around his ears? We all know it isn't principle. So what is it?

Posted by Alan Finger | July 9, 2008 3:41 AM

Told you so.

And when the Iran war starts and Obama backs THAT, I'll be here to say I told you so again.

God, I love this! I am never wrong when it comes to chimpanzee behavior.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 9, 2008 4:11 AM

The bill of rights is an excellent set of tools the founding fathers gave us to use against abusers of power. Since the government is acting against the expressed wishes and real interests of the majority, the government has to undermine these tools. Off the top of my (average) head, the FISA bill comes in around 10th on a list of which new rules hurt us most:
1. Granting civil rights to corporations
2. Ignoring Habeus Corpus and the Geneva convention
3. Incremental media consolidation into the hands of multinational capital. Other failures of the FCC to enforce broadcasting in the public interest, including lapse of the fairness doctrine.
4. Attempts to end net nuetrality (we're winning this one so far)
5. The supreme court ruling that spending money is equivalent to free speech, therefor allowing wealth to monopolize mass communication.
6. Infiltration of organizations critical of the government, such as peace groups, as possible terrorists. Keeping dossiers on activists, putting them on watch lists with no recourse.
7. The decision that property can be guilty of crime and confiscated without fair process.
8. Other fallout from the Patriot Act, such as attempts to sequester and over-prosecute legitimate protests, such as at the 2004 Republican convention.
9. Various attempts to unfairly influence vote outcomes, such as hackable machines, I.D. restrictions, non-forgiveness of crime, and partisan redestricting.
10. Datamining, with its vast expense and 99%(?) false positive rate that . FISA comes in around here.

Posted by Ann | July 9, 2008 5:15 PM

The way I see it is Obama doesn't want to expend political capital to benefit Republicans. This bill widens the power of the government to spy on "persons of interest" in the U.S.

It seems obvious to me than with Obama president we will see a surge in domestic terrorism like what we saw in the 1990's, only more intense. As a result a whole array of right wing groups will come under survellience. Some of these groups are bound to have members with relatives overseas who have some connection to foreign terrorist organizations. And sure some of the members of these groups will be registered Republicans or people who worked on some Republican campaign in the past.

So it is only a matter of time before a Democratic administration will have established multiple links between Republicans and international terrorism. And that is all you need to establish surveillance and search for Republican dirt.

Once the Right finds itself the target of this sort of surveillance then they can expend the political capital needed to put a damper on it. And if they don't then the Democrats can use these powers to permanently enshrine themselves in power.

Posted by Mike Alexander | July 9, 2008 7:54 PM

The reality is that Obama made a political decision to muddy the waters on FISA so that the Republicans couldn't attack him on it. The bill passed by a big margin, the Democratic leadership in the Senate was giving signals that they were backing the bill. Obama knew that his vote would be a protest vote, not a game changer. So he took the dive. It isn't admirable, but it's understandable. I don't support this legislation, but I also don't see Obama's vote as a deal breaker.

I've been turned off by the hyperbole and hand wringing coming from the "netroots" over this. I agree with them on the merits, but the execution is as lacking in depth or perspective as any Malkin or Coulter piece. I suppose liberals relish the chance to throw around terms like "traitor" and "true patriot" just as much as the right-wing ideologues do. Not to mention "fascist" and "raping the constitution". Fun times for all!

Posted by Trina | July 9, 2008 9:59 PM

By Request: FISA Outrage

Comments (77)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories