Always appreciate the love, Aunt Sam.

Elizabeth2: I perused your previous discussion on telecom immunity, but I just didn't have the time, energy or (concededly) expertise to give your question the thought it deserves. I still don't. However, there is another side.

Let me start by saying that I have consistently argued here that the lawsuits were a stalking horse. The real issue is, of course, the illegality of the Bush administration's secret wiretapping program in violation of FISA. Obviously, the preferred method to get to the bottom of the alleged illegality, the scope of which remains murky, would be Congressional investigation. However, with the Bush administration hiding behind the cloak of national security, that route has gone nowhere. The lawsuits seem to be the only way to obtain information about the program. This is not, to me, a compelling reason to withhold support for the bill. The better course would be to vigorously pursue a Congressional investigation of the program.

However, there is more to it than discovery. I learned this speaking to my father, a retired attorney who spent thirty years with New York Tel and ATT (mostly before the anti-trust breakup of Ma Bell). He strenuously opposed to the grant of immunity. As he observed, the telephone companies have a quasi public function and are granted a concession by the government to operate our communications systems. In return, the companies are highly regulated. In the regulatory scheme, the privacy of communications is sacrosanct. That is entrusted to the telecoms and protected through legislation. Violations of customer privacy are an extraordinarily serious abuse of trust. At least one telephone company, Quest, had the good sense to refuse to comply with what their lawyers concluded was an illegal breach of that trust. Other companies, for reasons that will remain unclear, thought otherwise and willingly divulged proprietary, private information that they had gleaned through their unique position from which they profit handsomely. They may also have received benefits from their cooperation with the administration that Quest did not. Of course, with the lawsuits shut down, we will probably never know. Nor will we know the extent of the Bush program. And should another improper request for private information come down the pike, they may be more willing to comply with the knowledge that their generosity with private information will go unpunished; indeed, they may be rewarded.

Personally, I don't believe this alone is reason enough to vote against the bill, but it is a position you seem to give short shrift to.

Elizabeth2 --
Farewell vist? Please rethink that, if you will; your reasoned voice is of great value to many of us. It was, for example, your thoughtful, lawyerly view on FISA (and Tena's version of the same) that made the issues within the issue finally comprehensible to me.
And you are not alone in being dismayed by the degree of vitriol expressed here -- there are, at least in my opinion, way too many posts in which people seem eager to confuse their First Amendment rights with their Second Amendment rights -- posters who operate on the theory that words are weapons and that, through the First Amendment, they have been issued a license to kill, thereby justifying often random character assassination as a matter of ideological "self-defense."
Because words have meaning and impact, it troubles me when they are specifically chosen to villify or denigrate rather than to inform, discus and elevate.
Nonetheless, Sunday I read three threads in succession, in a single day, that I thought brilliant -- textbook examples of how debate may be conducted with insight, verve and passion within the parameters of courtesy and civility.
And where else are we going to find that? I don't know how long you've been reading TPM, but I am fairly new. And nowhere else, in a long time, have I learned so much, so quickly, from such a reliably talented reserve of brain power.
It's really illuminating to see the world through other people's eyes, even when the view is one I find depressing or distasteful. TPM is, then, probably as close as I will get to the experience of "Being John Malcovich," or seeing the world as "Elizabeth2" sees it.
P.S. Then there is the geographic representation argument -- we need more southerners, not as a political strategy but to help calm the waters.

Hi Elizabeth,

Firstly,

...he is in a better position than I to know the issues (and his own heart) in depth than I do

Don't sell yourself so short. ;) The content of his own heart, undoubtedly. But at last check, I failed to find any soul (even one as intelligent as Senator Obama) who proved completely immune to error. I offer you this thought: That because of his position, there possibly exist more than a few issues on which you as an "ordinary" citizen might indeed posses better understanding than the man poised to be the next president of 300+ million.

Secondly,

In their view, all most liberals do is turn their venom on conservatives and criticize, tear apart any proposal they make, just because it was made by a conservative. I was shocked!! Truly shocked. Because that description sums up very neatly the problem I've always seen with conservatives: angry, nasty and negative about anything that is not of their own creation.

It is indeed a sad reality that the Republican party is far from unique in its possession of a wingnut constituency. We undeniably have our own local variety. Fortunately, though your mileage may vary, I believe (or perhaps hope) the vast majority of Americans do not fall into that category.

Lastly, and most importantly, I personally do not see much of a problem w/ Senator Obama's FISA vote. Sadly I must admit that I am not as informed about the nitty-gritty as I need to be, but it is my understanding that he at least tried to amend the bill to exclude immunity, no? His attempt failed, and he voted for passage anyway.

Am I upset? Sure.
A mistake? Perhaps not - I suspect only time will tell with certainty. I also suspect that Senator Obama is himself unsure, and that you are correct in your assessment that he was making the best judgment he thought possible with the available data, which is likely much more than you or I might ever know.

I submit that from our viewpoint the use of words like "turncoat" seem hyperbolic, silly, and are distasteful in this context, and those who use them simply speak more about themselves than those whom they attempt to disparage (as Ripper originally indicated!) But I can not find a way to begrudge someone who would claim that Senator Obama lost his or her support based solely on the FISA vote. To illustrate, I make use of the extreme...

Suppose Senator Obama were to do something completely ridiculous, like propose overturning Roe v. Wade - that would represent a "single issue" deal-breaker for me. I would like to believe that I could refrain from spewing vitriolic, but were he to do something so patently crazy (at least from my perspective) I am forced to wonder if my feeling of betrayal would ultimately outweigh my sensibility.

Just because I want him very badly to be my next president, and because I find telecom immunity to be irrelevant in comparison to a McCain presidency obviously does not imply others need share my viewpoint. Is it inappropriate for those whom immunity is a "single issue" to berate Senator Obama? I personally believe so, but I can nevertheless most definitely find empathy with them. Am I upset they risk damaging my chances of getting him as my next president? You bet. But, in this case at least, my empathy far outweighs my anger. Gimme some Voltaire any day.

At any rate, I optimistically agree with you that it is still a free country. ;D The course of action your comment has inspired me to take is to attempt logical assimilation of the FISA-naysayers back into the fold. And as expediently as I am able. But my understanding of their viewpoint forces my anger toward them into submission. For the record, I can also fully envision how one's resentment of the naysayers could easily outweigh one's understanding, particularly when the FISA vote is held in low esteem, but I am not sure how lashing the naysayers would be immediately productive if one's primary goal is election of President Obama. Am I too Machiavellian?

I would love to be a part of that reaching-out experiment you mention. I can research, that much I can do legal stuff or non-legal stuff (tracked NAFTA-gate to the point that I understood what went on, and probably why, if not who).

" And I disagree with Elizabeth2 that McCain would be better than Bush. Perhaps in 2000 he would have been, but in 2009, I believe he will be worse,"

Well, I can see where you're coming from. But, on the other hand, GWB has never in his life been the person McCain was in 2000, so at least there's something to call back to, maybe some good instinctive responses hidden there ......... and don't we both just PRAY, with our whole hearts, that we will never have a chance to learn the answer to this particular question!?!