One more quick post before I sit back down to work. Glenn Greenwald examines “Bipartisanship” in modern day Washington and compiles a rather amazing set of data. Forgive the long excerpt and go read the rest of his post:

In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That’s “bipartisanhip” in Washington:
To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:
GOP - 48-0
Dems - 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:
GOP - 0-49
Dems - 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:
GOP - 46-0
Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:
GOP - 49-0
Dems - 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:
GOP - 46-2
Dems - 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:
GOP - 49-0
Dems - 23-25

The Protect America Act:
GOP - 44-0
Dems - 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government’s official language:
GOP - 48-1
Dems - 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:
GOP - 53-0
Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:
GOP - 54-0
Dems - 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:
GOP - 54-0
Dems - 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
GOP - 48-1
Dems - 29-22

On virtually every major controversial issue — particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism — the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to “bipartisan” support. That’s what “bipartisanship” in Washington means.

Democrats are to blame for this state of the world, but I’d point out that there is NEVER pressure on the Republicans to act in a bipartisan manner. Think about all the times you’ve heard about bipartisan compromises and then think about how many times the Republicans have been asked to break from the President or the party line by the media. I used to watch CNN every day when I worked at ESPN. I can tell you it never happened.

It’s ridiculous.

Here’s Sen. Russ Feingold explaining the problems with the expansion of FISA:

I’m not really too worried about the government reading my emails today, and I suspect that most Americans are the same way. This isn’t about that, at least not to me.

This is simple, and I wish politicians would have the guts to make the real worst case scenario. The way “warrantless wiretaps” work means that there is no longer any oversight on the spying done by the executive branch (the NSA reports up through the DOD to the President). That means that when, say, Democratic Congressmen are overseas and using email, it can be spied on by the government without any oversight. No underling or whistleblower would have any reason to question the data collection.

For Democrats, do you trust this administration not to abuse this power under any circumstance? Even if, say, they felt that some piece of legislation or spending was critical to the national security of the country?

For Republicans, would you trust a President Clinton to not abuse this power under any circumstance?

We have laws so that “the greater good” justifications don’t lead to abuses. All this law requires is some government functionary fills out some paperwork and shows it to a judge within 3 days of data being collected. For the cases where the agencies want broad based collection in place, most of the proposed changes allow for that.

None of these need telecom immunity, nor do they need the complete removal of oversight. I don’t have enough time to explain the different bills and amendments out there. Take a look at Greenwald’s latest on this. It’s long, but it’s a good summary of the relevant issues, the different bills, and the various amendments that might make a palatable change.

For a while I’ve been torn between supporting Obama, and my lingering feeling that John Edwards was the better candidate. Looks like the choice has been made for me. It’s weird. A year ago I wouldn’t have predicted seeing Guiliani and Edwards dropping out this early.

Update Sigh. You know, I’ve always respected Nader, but these gadfly White House runs strike me as a waste of his time and energy, which could be better put to use elsewhere.

Update 2 Salon has an interesting article on the dilemma.

This is just the portion of the debate where they had a mock disruption. You can watch more of the debate on YouTube. Several Congressmen were in attendance at the event, which was organized by Campus Progress. (via Boing Boing)

One of the things I feel like I have to compensate for when writing about the Democratic primary is an instinctual reaction to the Hillary Clinton campaign. It is best summarized by this comment over at Balloon Juice:

I just can’t fathom having a Bush or Clinton in office for possibly 28 years straight. Is that supposed to happen in a democracy?

I don’t have a problem with her being a woman, or the fact that Republicans will attack her mercilessly, possibly blowing more than the $40-60 million they spent investigating Bill Clinton over the course of an 8 year run. I can’t control Fox News as much as I’d like to. I do have an issue with the de facto aristocracy we’re creating (don’t forget about Jeb Bush in 4-8 years), though. All other policy considerations aside, it would be nice to get some new blood into the White House.