This is a short diary. I just want to be sure that credit is given where credit is due. Today Congressman Tim Johnson (R IL 15) was the sole GOP member to vote against the odious FISA bill.

Sorry for the not-really-legit diary. And I never said the B-word before.

But contrary to earlier postings on dKos, I just heard from a phone staffer that Sen. Durbin WILL support Dodd's filibuster.

Who knows? Maybe we're flipping him. Let's pile it on for one last push!

(202) 224-2152 - ph
(202) 228-0400 - fx

The Center for Consitutional Rights just sent me an email asking to contribute money so they can air an ad on the O'Lielly Factor.

I support this group and their mission, but I'll be damned before I give a penny to Fox's advertising department.

Suppose that--despite Democratic majorities, public opinion, Dodd's leadership, overwhelming public sentiment, and the quaint little 4th Amendment to the Constitution--broad telecom immunity is nonetheless voted and signed into law.

OK, that sucked! ...but what next?

I am way not a lawyer, but I have an oddball notion: might it be possible to force the issue into court, thus keeping it alive despite the telcom's immunity, by putting telecom providers on the legal offensive?

I'm hoping a few legal minds will read this diary and say whether I'm on to something or just out to lunch.

As you know if you're reading this, the first honest-to-goodness filibuster since 2005 may take place as Sen. Chris Dodd refuses to allow the Misadministration and the spineless Congress to delete the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution by fiat.

(Note to Harry Reid: filibusters are a tool to protect strongly-held minority positions. When the majority party champions a Constitutional principle supported by a strong majority of the citizenry, the majority "leader" is not supposed to set a filibuster trap for his own party.)

I hope it doesn't come to this. But if it does:

Let's help write Sen. Dodd's filibuster text!

For all you Kossacks in the Illinois 15th, a very brief action diary.

I have anecdotal evidence that Tim Johnson is close to flipping his "nay" on the S-CHIP override.

timmyc has posted this diary linking to all "first-tier" and "second-tier" targets for the override in the house. (The list itself is posted here.)

First, honest to goodness: I'm undecided, I've contributed to two different Prez campaigns this cycle, neither of them Clinton's or Edwards'. I do like a lot about Edwards and how he's campaigning.

But the very issue so many cite as proof of his refreshing honesty and willingness to rise above political calculation, to me appears to be a pretty clear example of political half-truth and cold calculation, and I wish people would stop trumpeting it as so heroic.

In the light of recent Republican minority blocks to important bills, some Kossacks are wondering if the Senate Dems should turn the tables and invoke the "nuclear option."

There's a legitimate debate to be had as to whether this is the right thing to do, with good arguments on both sides.

Trouble is, they CAN'T. They don't have the votes.

Iraq Report Gives McCain a Boost
By CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press Writer

So you're expecting maybe some objective evidence for, let's say, a boost for McCain?

Nothing for you here.

See below and decide for yourself if the AP is vying for the role of volunteer press secretary for the McCain campaing.

OK, it so the #1 consideration of most of our Dem reps and senators is getting reelected. Sticking their neck out against the war might be risky.

And they whine that until we elect more Dems, they "don't have the votes" for any tough legislation.

But legislation doesn't have to pass to succeed at the polls!

I want to relate a small, local, symbolic activist victory. It's hardly earth-shaking, but those of us stuck at home while others are moving the earth at YKos have to do something. ;-)

With a single, personal email, I got my local credit union to stop posting signs indicating it was "proud" to comply with information-sharing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

In the primary campaign, does it only make sense to support exclusively the one candidate you think is best/best of the "viable"/most electable etc.? Or is there a case to be made that the primary process is somewhat "parliamentary"?

I don't mean only in the unlikely event that there's a brokered convention. Could it be that supporting a fringe or single-issue candidate in the primary process is a way of moving the "serious" candidates in a progressive direction?

Follow me below the fold for my anecdotal experience with Brown '92 and a poll...