You're right. I heard Bob Barr do it on Al Franken's radio show on a regular basis.

I'm pretty sure Bob Barr isn't a left-wing ideologue.

As well as Bruce Fein and Jim Harper.

Leftwing Loonies all.

Tankard and Logico,

I have posted something on the 48 Hours to Get FISA Right thread that might interest you. I remember both of your cogent critiques from my own thread.

Speaking out about the abuse of the Constitution independent of historical context that shows nothing but such abuse is conducting an intellectually dishonest idealogical campaign, though not necessarily left- or right-wing.

You know I love you guys, and Tankard I have nothing against you whatsoever, but can we actually write something in our blogs please? Otherwise they're just comments and not blogs at all.

I look forward to reading views and discussions on the issues we're facing and I've seen several blogs which were just statements, and one, "Is it a mere story ?", which wasn't even that.

Sorry if I sound like a schoolmarm, and I hope I'm not coming across like I think I run TPM. I'm not intending to insult anyone, I'd just like to see more effort in some blogs; it would be really nice.

If anyone doesn't agree then that's okay. Just put my post down to a long, rough weekend of blithering bullshit from the McCain camp and it's press core aka MSM :P

==My point -- an unassailable one I think: Winning in November is the only real remedy for the wholesale violation of our rights uner Bush. Don't take your eye off the ball.==

Isn't that just another way of saying "the ends justify the means"?

In order to safeguard our rights under the Constitution, we must elect Obama, who must subvert our rights under the Constitution in order to win.

If the above statement sounds "kind of OK" to you, than you are OK with what Obama is doing. If you get upset with that kind of "win strategy" than you should speak out.

"Speaking out against abuse "

If you just want to feel good and pat yourself on the back on the road to failure, then blindly "speaking out" loudly is your best bet. The north lawn of the white house is full of these feel-good do-nothing protestors.

If you actually wish to END the abuses, my advice: Beat the stuffing out of the GOP on the issue at the ballot box in November and then investigate and roll back all of the abuses.

==The telecoms didn't violate our rights, the government did. This obsession with getting the telecoms is ridiculous.==

You are deeply incorrect. The government can't order private parties to break the law. The president isn't a monarch, he is not above the law. He couldn't legally order the telecoms to break standing law. The fact that most of them agreed to break the law (Qwest didn't), shows that this is a conscious decision they made. It is highly likely that they were primarily motivated by lucrative government contracts that were consingent on their aquiescence to law breaking.

You did not answer how your position is different from "ends justify the means" - you want Obama to win so he can stop lawbreaking, so you advocate letting him vote for lawbreaking in order to improve his chances of winning. A classic case of "ends justify the means", and in this case also tactially stupid - there is not constituency in the country clamoring for more illegal spying by the government - Obama is giving away yours and mine important rights for nothing, not even crass political advantage.

==Lawbreaking is what the Bush government is doing. This law is an attempt to get Bush to follow the law again. How can a law be violating the law? You exaggerate and mischaracterize the law. Sort of like "death tax" and "partial birth abortion", this sort of question-begging phrasing is manipulative.==

I am not sure you understand the the new FISA law simply allows Bush to keep breaking the law as it always did, dismisses all the pending cases against the telecoms, so we will never find out what they did/are doing and brings the entire lawless, warantless, 24/7 surveilance program under a single methodological one time review by a single secret court.

==You are foolish if you think civil liberties are a big winner at the polls. They've never been. I like the ACLU but how many Americans do? In fact, civil liberties are usually important because of the very unpopularity of what they defend, like rights of the accused or dissenting minorities. ==

Again the foolishness is on you - all recent polling that I am aware of did not uncover a "hidden majority" of Americans clamoring for more government spying. The supposed backing this travesty of a bill has in the population is simply a figment of the imagination of the frightened Congressional Democrats, forever in defensive crouch on issues of "National Security". So this bill is both wrong and politically stupid. I am not even mentioning actual principles - this argument has long ceased to be important for you.

==Your rights have already been taken by Bush, and likely will not be restored in January. Stop blaming the Democrats for this. In a desire to punish everyone for the misdeeds of some, you end up not punishing the true wrongdoer enough (or possibly at all).==

Again, I don't see why is it that Democrats that are backing legalization of past, present and future unconstitutional, extra-legal behavior by the Executive branch should be above my criticism.

==Plus, you underestimate the GOP and the gullibility of the voters. I think Obama knows there just aren't the votes in the Senate to win this fight now. It's just a fact that the votes aren't there. Why take a bullet for a symbolic issue that leads to nothing?==

Yes, why fight for what is right, if the outcome is uncertain, right? One should only pick the fights one can win without much effort. It is you who underestimate the public distaste for government snooping and loss of privacy. This is a fight Obama can win and should fight. Yes, it is not a sure thing, but most things in life that are worth fighting for are not

==George Washington's greatest virtue as a military commander was in tactical retreat, where he was a master. I thank god that we had someone wise and mature enough to know when to fight and when to wait another day.==

I don't know about Washington, but Congressional Democrats have been in a defensive crouch for so long, they can't even get off their knees to see they dont' have to grovel anymore. Obama, instead of leading them out of this ridiculous wilderness on national security, decided that it was safer to get on the floor with them. Disgusting!

==How about another analogy: Kidnappers have your mother hostage. Do you pay the money and unethically reward the criminals so they kidnap again or "stand on principle regardless of the consequences"? What do you do? Is that "ends justifying the means"? I don't know, perhaps. But sometimes in life, which is not black and white, the ends can be pretty darn compelling. Your talk of absolute principles shows a worrying disregard for real world consequences.==

Yes, one can always come up with a personal strawman, to justify any kind of wrong doing, including torture. Republicans do this all the time - this is why we now live in a country with constant surveilance of its citizens, a country which renders prisoners to torturing nations and tortures them herself, and a country where citizens can't even stand up for their own rights. You have learned well - you have embraced the posture that leads to torture, loss of rights, illegal massive spying, etc. Maybe I should not be suprised that Congressional Democrats are such spineless slugs.

I am not sure you understand the the new FISA law simply allows Bush to keep breaking the law as it always did

He doesn't need a law to keep breaking the law.

so we will never find out what they did/are doing

The next president can indeed find out.

all recent polling that I am aware of did not uncover a "hidden majority" of Americans clamoring for more government spying.

And yet that doesn't prove the opposite is true: That Americans live in fear of FISA. Show me the strong polling against FISA.

should be above my criticism.

I support your right to criticize. But don't lose sight of this point: "In a desire to punish everyone for the misdeeds of some, you end up not punishing the true wrongdoer enough (or possibly at all)." Justice demands that the GOP pay for their deeds.

Yes, why fight for what is right, if the outcome is uncertain, right?

In this case, it is probably certain. The Senate already made a bad FISA law this year. The votes against this are proven. Do you disagree that wise people pick their battles? And George Washington showed that ego and pride shouldn't get in the way of smart strategy and ultimate victory.

I understand the anger and frutration. I think the Democratic weakness will only change with victory. You forget that the Democrats have only won a single electoral cycle. That's it. I can appreciate their fear of the GOP, even if I agree the GOP is now a paper tiger.

My final point, about the kidnappers. It is a good analogy which you are unable to answer. MY point is that while the ends don't justify the means, the ends can be compelling. If it's a choice between "honor" and saving the life of my mother, I would choose my mother. This is the world. It is frought with difficult choices of bad and worse. We have to fight for both good outcomes and good ethics, even though they don't always mesh and sometimes conflict.

In this case, I believe that we have to put aside reservations about past Democratic failings. They are far from perfect. But the GOP deserves to lose and lose badly. That resounding defeat would repudiate all of Bush's criminal doings, and perhaps give the mandate for investigations, overturning the Bush agenda, etc.

==He doesn't need a law to keep breaking the law.==

But he would like one. Why give him an uncostitutional law and become partners in crime?

==The next president can indeed find out.==

How, exactly? The law would have been past, and would have to be repealed for any actions to take place. And why would a President who voted for the same law-breaking that Bush has started, be very eager to undo it? Why are you placing your trust in a politician who has given you very little reason do so?

==And yet that doesn't prove the opposite is true: That Americans live in fear of FISA. Show me the strong polling against FISA.==

Here is one poll that has Americans favoring WARRANTS for spying on American's international communications 61% to 35%!!! Why are Congressional Democrats backing this terrible bill - it doesn't even have SMALL public support!

http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file47_32189.pdf

A poll in 2006 even found that majority of Americans support the Presidents's impeachment for warantless wiretaping of Americans.

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12525

There are other polls as well that shows that Americans demonstrate strong majorities AGAINST warantless surveilance.

The "meme" that the "public wants more spying" is just a BIG LIE, propagated by complicit Republicans and complicit Democrats alike.

==In this case, it is probably certain. The Senate already made a bad FISA law this year. The votes against this are proven. Do you disagree that wise people pick their battles? And George Washington showed that ego and pride shouldn't get in the way of smart strategy and ultimate victory.==

Majority of Democrats have already voted AGAINST this law in a procedural vote, before they were coralled by Steny and Co. Why are you so desperately afraid of loosing? Why are you in a permanent defensive crouch?

==I understand the anger and frutration. I think the Democratic weakness will only change with victory. You forget that the Democrats have only won a single electoral cycle. That's it. I can appreciate their fear of the GOP, even if I agree the GOP is now a paper tiger.==

Democratic weakness will only change after they stop emulating the Republicans and crapping in their pants everytime some talking head says "National Security".

==My final point, about the kidnappers. It is a good analogy which you are unable to answer. MY point is that while the ends don't justify the means, the ends can be compelling. If it's a choice between "honor" and saving the life of my mother, I would choose my mother. This is the world. It is frought with difficult choices of bad and worse. We have to fight for both good outcomes and good ethics, even though they don't always mesh and sometimes conflict. ==

This is not your mother!!! These are you political rights and freedom! You are not supposed to be giving them away for fear of loosing a particular elections.

==In this case, I believe that we have to put aside reservations about past Democratic failings. They are far from perfect. But the GOP deserves to lose and lose badly. That resounding defeat would repudiate all of Bush's criminal doings, and perhaps give the mandate for investigations, overturning the Bush agenda, etc.==

If Democrats win, while building a full complicity in Bush's crimes, their victory will be hollow and their success in governing very uncertain. I would expect them, having bought into the idea of torture, prisoners with no rights, constant surveilance of the population to become as corrupt as Republicans. This is why the founders created the system we have lived with for a couple of centuries now - they expected politicians and political groups to try to hijack national power. The system was built to protect it. Now "pragmatists" have decided to take it down, in order to curry non-existent electoral favor with the public.

Here is a perfect deconstruction on how myths such as the one you espouse - "Americans back warantless surveilance and Obama must embrace this position to win" actually get manufactured by the MSM.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/07/leftist_fringe/index.html

==Kerry lost because the American people were scared into voting for Bush. Polls showed that people still trusted the GOP on national security matters -- and still do. This is a big problem for your argument.==

NO, Kerry lost because he did not motivate his base, as Bush/Rove has done. He did not motivate his base because of "I was for it before I was against it" comments. Ringin' a bell?

==Can we have both FISA and polar bears? I hope so. But fanatics like Tankard who actually brag about how much they hate the party and will not be voting for our nominee don't suggest so. Why should I cooperate with people like that on their pet issue (FISA) when they refuse to be team players and support my pet issues (global warming, health care)? ==

Because while you appear to have no principles but instead have "pet issues", politics to you is a horse-trading excercise. It isn't like that for me and it isn't like that for the "fanatics" you site, like "Greenwald", for example. Devoid of understanding the larger picture, you want to trade "issues" not grasping the interelatedness of them. You did not even understand, and continue not to understand that you ARE WRONG ON THE FACTS - horse trading FISA doesn't even get you the electoral advantage for your "pet issues" you seek. It gets you a lost election, and no pet issues. Groveling and backing down on unconstitutional total surveilance is not a winning electoral strategy (and by the way it gives up a pretty important parameter, called FREEDOM), it is a loosing elecotral strategy, simply repeating Dukakis' and Kerry's mistakes.

==The FISA crowd seems like a bunch of non-democrats who just want to tear us down and ensure more GOP rule. Am I wrong? Why?==

You are wrong because you are unprincipled. To you politics is about horse trading "pet issues". There are no core issues, no positions NOT to be compromised, no ethical absolutes of any kind. That is a deeply unpopular stand in America and voters can sense it and they will always reject it. So if any Democratic candidate starts acting like you - he or she is as good as gone come general election.

==You call me eternally defenisve, but I call people liek you eternally self-defeating. Now is the time to be beating the crap out of the GOP but some would rather engage in friendly fire. IF that isn't a losing strategy, I don't know what is.==

You mistake your position for the center, which is typical self-important "meme" that is expressed by Democratic talking heads on TeeVee. Check the Greenwald link I posted - a perfect example of fake manufacturing of supposed "mainstream consent". In reality, it is my position that is American mainstream, also having a not such a lame benefit of being PRNINCIPLED. Your position is that of a Democratic Defensive Fringe, forever, trying to pander to Joe "Six Pack", but having no knowledge of such a beast, forever looking stupid, duplecetous and indecisive. The irony that old Joe on many issues is ready to stand with us against erosion of our common rights - but you are too dumb to know it, so you blow another chance of winning by self-defeating attempts to pander to the mythological "center".

OB2, here is what your modus operandi of endless pandering, unprincipled comporomise, selling out core values for "pet issues" and continued caving in to Bush get us in Congress:

-------------------------------------------------
Is Congress doing a good job?

Just 9% of Americans think Congress is doing a good or excellent job, according to a new poll from Rasmussen Reports. The company says this is the first time its automated telephone survey of congressional approval dipped into the single digits.

"The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged," Rasmussen says on its website. "Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month."

Independent voters offered the harshest assessment. Rasmussen says just 3% of those respondents gave lawmakers a positive rating, while 63% gave them a negative rating
...
-------------------------------------------------
USA Today
-------------------------------------------------

This strategy is working so well for us, lets try more of it. Is there anything else we can sell out on and deliver to Bush after unconditional war funding and new, "better" FISA?