Two other related points: Marcy Wheeler noted that Dick Cheney appeared on the Rush Limbaugh Show yesterday and claimed that Democrats were opposed to telecom immunity because they’re beholden to “trial lawyers.” This has become one of the most common — and one of the most transparently dishonest — talking points of amnesty proponents.

Greenwald

Was there a reason to expect different?

Plus, we need to make this a costly vote for the authoritarians. This is about whether the rule of law takes precedence over covering up for Dick Cheney. That line might be useful in defeating people like John McCain and Norm Coleman come November.

Which way Normie votes won’t make a difference in his upcoming election. The voters will not actually look into his voting record. They will fall back to “everyone does it, they’re both guilty” reasoning whenever they see a commercial about Normie’s record.
What I know will make a difference is to tie Normie with Bush. Every time any democrat talks about the upcoming election, they should say Coleman & Bush in the same sentence. EG: “Just like president Bush, Norm Coleman does…” This would need to be done consistently. Every media ad. Everytime. That will eventually land in the voter’s sub-concious mind. When they think Coleman, Bush will be lurking in the background. Hell, look how the Bushies used it to tie Saddam to 9/11. They said stuff along the lines of “Saddam harbored terrorists, & the people who did 9/11 were terrorists.”
A mayor of StPaul was defeated in a re-election bid by one picture. He publicly supported Bush & his war in Iraq. Right before the election, his opponent sent a flyer with a picture of the mayor smiling & shaking hands with Bush. That’s all it took. He was the first DFL mayor defeated in a re-election bid. First. Ever.

I don’t know if M-80’s have more than a quarter ounce of charge

Heh, well, as a kid, they certainly did when I was done repacking them… And they were certainly capable of causing serious physical injury; my friend Frankie Raleigh about blew his arm off once…

That one is ripe for a signing statement, that it’ll be interpreted consistently with Article II powers, etc.

Ah, I see Hugh @28 beat me to the punch here. I am not sold on the thought, but I keep having this nagging thought, like Hugh, that they really don’t give a shit about the rest; they will just ignore or pixie sidestep it like they always have, that the immunity is the one, and maybe at the root, only, thing they care about.

cboldt,

Thanks for the “slugging” on all of this! (And for making my day by assuring me SC and EB are, well, real in snarkdom! I’m glad you can keep your humor through all of this…

Get the votes for exclusivity

That one is ripe for a signing statement, that it’ll be interpreted consistently with Article II powers, etc.

That was my thought as well and makes me wonder how much of this is, in fact, kabuki. Immunity will give the Administration what it really wants. Once that is done it is done. As for the rest, Bush will ignore it or do a signing statement giving him the power to reject anything he doesn’t like.

One by the vice-chairman of the Intelligence panel, Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., would change definitions in the law to allow surveillance without a warrant in cases that involve the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Too bad we can’t surveill the Administration for proliferating Weapons of Mass Deception…

As soon as the Telcoms start the precedent of censorship, it WILL become a free-for-all. If anyone remembers what AOL was doing when the net first got started, you will understand. Since we are already starting to see an incest relationship between the Big Dick types and telcoms, it will be nothing to throw in Authoritarian rules (a la China). (”You want that domestic spying contract? Then block that DFH EmptyWheel. She called me darth!”)

The end result will be small exclusive “networks” of approved and paid for sites and functions strictly controlled by your provider. We will be only able to see stuff from companies that pay for access, but we will be charged rent for using the infrastructure we bought for the telcoms. It’s kinda’ like loaning your car to a friend, then having him charge you rent to use it.

It makes no change in the foundational argument that line draws between Article II and Title III. And it also makes no change to naked assertions of “Is too within Article II.”