Recently, Obama announced that he supports the new FISA bill which will, amongst other things, grant law-breaking telecoms retroactive immunity.

Obama didn't say that he's against the bill but won't filibuster it. He said he supports it, which means he will probably vote for it.

From the Washington Post:

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program[...]"

Taking into account Obama's full statement, which can be found in other diaries, and his general handling of this bill, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's handling of the FISA bill?

I don't know about you, but I've god damn had it with Pelosi doing George Bush's dirty work.

By taking impeachment off the table, she guarantees Bush immunity for breaking any laws he wants. By allowing the House to vote on pro-Bush laws, she allows Bush to continue ruining the country.

By constantly giving the Republicans everything they want, she intentionally disgraces the Democratic party and hurts our future election outcomes.

Commenting on her FISA capitulation:

"This is an opportunity we have to protect the American people, which is essential,"' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

Time for a poll.

No, I'm not making this shit up.

(CNN) -- The military is investigating a "shocking and deplorable" YouTube video that seems to show a Marine throwing a puppy off a rocky cliff.

The black-and-white puppy makes a yelping sound as it flies through the air.

Here's a picture of the United States Marine about to murder a cute little puppy-

Are you proud to be an American?

If it's such a great idea for everyone to get between $300 and $1,200 in tax rebates, I have a few questions.

Does this money actually stimulate the economy? Let's assume for a minute that people aren't using this tax rebate to pay their mortgage one last time. Let's assume that most people aren't using this tax rebate to fend off their credit cards or student loan companies for another month.

Let's pretend that everyone is going to take their tax rebate and use it to put a down payment on a car or run to the shopping mall and buy clothes. This will of course create jobs and raise incomes and rescue the housing market and prove that conservatism works.

Why don't we get a tax rebate every month? I mean, if it's such a good idea in May, why isn't it a good idea in June and July and August? If the tax rebate stimulates the economy, and stimulating the economy is unquestionably good, why shouldn't we stimulate the economy every month of every year? If we can't afford to do it one time - but do it anyway, why can't we not afford to do it every month - but do it every month anyway?

I already voted by absentee for Edwards, but if I hadn't already voted, my vote was definitely for Obama. When Hillary gave fumbling, lawyerly non-answers, I don't know who she was talking to. When Hillary used dodgy weasel words in response to simple, direct questions about her Iraq war vote, I don't know who she was talking to. When she said we should ignore her past votes, because "we need to move forward," I don't know who she was talking to.

When Obama gave simple (yet powerful), direct answers to questions, he was talking to me. When Obama said he would get us out of Iraq because it's a disaster, he was talking to me. When Obama said that he was against this war from the beginning, he was talking to me.

Since I was firmly for Edwards, I didn't give much thought to whether I'd prefer Obama over Hillary. But after watching Obama's stellar performance at this debate, that sealed the deal. Obama is going to win and he's going to make an excellent president.

Today in the Huffington Post, Chris Weigant asks:

Is it time to call on Harry Reid to step down from his position as Senate Majority Leader?

This column poses the question, but admittedly, provides no clear answer. This is because I feel the subject is still one that is legitimately up for debate, but I also feel that the time has come to begin this debate. And let me be clear -- I am not suggesting he resign from the Senate, but rather that he hand the reins of Senate leadership over to a more able Democratic colleague.

So what does the dailykos community think? We've seen Kos post polls for approve/disapprove for Reid and Pelosi. I think it's time for a poll on whether Reid should step down as Senate Majority Leader.

(01-20-2001) 07:49 PST Washington, DC (AP) --

democrat lawmakers threw punches and chairs at their Republican colleagues and some tried to block the doors of the congressional chamber Saturday just an hour before incoming President George W. Bush was to take the oath of office there.

democrat party lawmakers, chanting "America wants peace," seized the speaker's platform where Bush was supposed to appear, while democrat opponents blocked most of the chamber's doors.

The brawl was shown on live television across America.

Tom Daschle, Senate leader for leftist democrat party, said his party would do everything it could to keep Bush out.

"We'll see if he can get in," Daschle said, adding: "If he does take office, it will be at his own risk."

Anticipating Saturday's standoff, the conservative Bush took control of the Whitehouse in an unusual midnight ceremony with outgoing President bill clinton, swearing in part of his Cabinet.

That left experts on America's constitution puzzled over whether America had a president or not Saturday morning. Presidents must be sworn in "before congress" but the document does not elaborate on the requirement.

(Begin Snark) See, if the Democrats stick their neck out and take a stand on something, say, impeachment, then someone might disagree with them and vote against them in '08, and we just can't have that. No, we must guarantee that no one votes against any Democrat, and the only way to accomplish that is by triangulating and being neutral.

Everyone knows that the safest way to get reelected is not to offend anyone, and you can't offend anyone if you don't stand for anything, right? Sure some people will be offended that they worked so hard to get Democrats elected on the promise of change, but those people will always suck it up and vote Democratic anyway.

The Democrats swept this past election. We have retaken the house and the senate. We have real power. We have the power of subpoena, the power to set the legislative agenda, the power to bring articles of impeachment, and to put this country back on track.

"American Al Qaeda" Charged With Treason

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2006 -- Adam Gadahn, a former resident of Orange County, Calif., turned propagandist for al Qaeda has been indicted by a federal grand jury for treason and for providing material support to al Qaeda.

Since 2004, Gadahn has appeared in a series of videos in which he praises the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers and claimed, "The streets of America shall run red with blood." The first video of Gadahn was initially aired by ABC News in October 2004. "Adam Gadahn is an American citizen who made a choice. He chose to join our enemy and to provide it with aid and comfort by acting as a propagandist for al Qaeda," U.S. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty said in announcing the indictment.

Gadahn, who has also called himself Azzam the American in Internet videos, is the first person to face treason charges in the United States since a l U.S.-Japanese citizen was charged in 1952 for abusing U.S. prisoners of war during World War II.[..]

In 'docu-ganda' films, balance is not the objective

Let's not read the article just yet, I can't even get past the headline. According to the jackass that wrote this article, documentaries are now called 'docu-ganda', implying that movies released as documentaries are actually propaganda.

This may be true (it's not), but the author (Daniel B. Wood) posts no evidence whatsoever to support this vapid terminology.

Next, the writer states "balance is not the objective". What the fuck is that supposed to mean? When Al Gore shows us a picture of a glacier melting, is that somehow unbalanced?

When Michael Moore shows footage of Disaster Monkey reading My Pet Goat with a blank/drugged stare on his face while the nation is under attack, is that unbalanced? What exactly would balance that, a picture of that school we keep saying we built in Iraq?

"I will not fight for my constituents."
"I am a shameless, pathetic coward."
"I refuse to do the right thing, ever."
"I had my spine surgically removed."

From the Washington Post:

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Um, no he didn't

PRESIDENT BUSH acknowledged yesterday that since the invasion of Iraq the US military had, "through trial and error", been forced to adopt a new approach towards an unexpectedly brutal enemy.

The President said that he understood why many Americans had had their confidence in the war shaken after watching scenes of carnage on television. He was speaking in Cleveland, Ohio, a state where his support has plummeted faster than any other in recent months.

Bush owned up to mistakes? When? Where?

Two months ago I stated that if 1,000 people from Connecticut signed up on our web page (www.NedLamont.com) I would agree to challenge George Bush's favorite Democrat in a primary on August 8th.

We have significantly exceeded that goal and on Monday March 13th we had a very successful campaign launch. Read the news here:

Hartford Courant Article

I see that today in Missouri, the house recently voted to ban protests protests at funerals:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - The House on Tuesday approved a bill banning protests near funerals an hour before to an hour after a service, sending the measure to the governor.

The legislation, a response to a recent protest at the St. Joseph funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq, sets no limit on how close protesters can get. But lawmakers said that before the session ends in May, they plan to pass a second measure specifically prohibiting protests within 300 feet of a funeral.

Missouri is one of at least 14 states considering restrictions on funeral protests because of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The nondenominational church, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, claims soldiers are being killed as divine retribution because the United States tolerates gays. ...

What's in the news today?

Four Dallas Police Officers Shot

(02-16) 07:53 PST DALLAS (AP) --

Four police officers were shot Thursday as they tried to serve a federal drug warrant on a home in southwest Dallas.

Wow, I'm glad to hear that Dallas has so little actual crime that they can focus all their time on winning the war on drugs. We've been fighting that awesome drug war for like 50 years now, right? So by now we must be winning, right? How long do you suppose it will be before there's no more drugs? Another 50 or 100 years?

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended.

For those of you who don't know, the constitution as it was originally written:

• Had no bill of rights. No freedom of speech. No protection against cruel and unusual punishment. No separation of church and state. No protection against illegal search and seizure, and so on


• Did not allow anyone to vote except white male landowners


• Specifically allowed slavery and regarded black people as 3/5 of a person

CNN BREAKING NEWS

President Bush says in mid-2002, U.S. disrupted al Qaeda plot to use shoe bombs to hijack plane for attack on L.A.'s Liberty Tower.

I call bullshit. I know for a fact that this never happened because everything Bush says is a lie. If Bush says it's raining, he's lying. If Bush says the sky is blue, that's a lie. See? You know he's lying because his mouth is moving.

Let's take a look at today's headlines:

Associated Press: Democrats Try to Slow Alito Confirmation

New York Times: Democrats Still Dislike Alito but Can't Stop Him

CNN: Alito likely to be confirmed

ABC News: Alito's Confirmation Seems Likely

San Francisco Chronicle: Democrats Can't Rattle Alito

I don't think I've seen such a bizzarly scripted media frenzy since the Bush v Gore campaign. Every news media outlet seems way too on-message, repeating the same talking point over and over, "Alito will be confirmed."

Where are the democratic talking points? Not one single headline includes anything but rightwing propoganda. This is scarey.