The reason it isn't popular is because President Bush is behind it.  People don't trust him - especially with issues impacting civil liberties.

Senator Webb took a big political risk, and if he believes it is the right thing we should support him (for 6 months at least).  I hope it was the right decision. 

I think we need to demand more information over the next 6 months so that the justification to circumvent the courts are better understood.  We have got to be very deliberate in how we address issues that could harm civil liberties. 

Clearly there are people in this administration who feel they are above the law - Bush advisers won't even sit before Congress to explain their actions.  Because this administration has a history of abuse when it comes to civil liberties, we need to keep them on a VERY short leash.

Obviously this vote has touched a strong nerve, but even I am surprised how people have completely lost their sh-t over this -- they are choosing targets at random.

I don't know what the answer is here, but people are just reacting, not thinking over at DKos.  It's just venting and rage.

It's like something right out of psychoanalyst Erik Ericson's views on people embracing a "negative identity" -- ala the O'Reilly "hate site" moniker.
http://www.sonoma.ed...

It may not have been true last week when O'Reilly said it, but he'll have enough material in reference to this one issue to run a month's worth of programming.

In any event, JC, I applaud your attempt.  I thought that "STFU" only passed for an argument over at RedState.  Apparently, it gets rave reviews these days at DKos too.

Curious if those of you who know people who know Webb have any idea whether he dips into the 'net with any regularity.  He's a busy guy, but he's also a seeker.  Any chance he 'reads his press' here or on DK?

I suspect his office will be getting a lot of calls on Monday from angry Kossacks, which is exactly how things should be. 

Based on comments that he's made, it's clear that Webb does read papers like the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall Street journal regularly.  But I'm willing to guess that he doesn't regularly read DKos, and I suspect the same might be true of RK.  However, given the long recess, maybe he'll have some time to look at this issue, and to take these views into account.  He clearly should, because there is a substantive issue at stake with the FISA amendment.  I would be surprised if his staff didn't pay some attention to the sentiment in the lefty blogosphere.

Lowell, probably could provide some better insights into the operation of the Webb's Senate office.

I was his netroots coordinator, and participated in several live blogs with him.  But I never heard heard him talk about reading the blogs.

that he put out a statement -- and then became the target for the anger of 16 Senators and 41 Congressmen.  Can't say that the vast majority of those on KOS represent me as a Democrat.  Too bad -- I liked that site!

that actually explains his vote gets more bile thrown at him than the Senators who didn't. Classy.

They are single issue voters and the issue changes every single day. 

I think it may be possible to be an anger junkie, to need the rush of blood and adreniline to the head.  Hopefully I helped a few Kossacks get their "hit" for the day.

They'll  get over it: two months ago they were cursing the Democrats for passing the funding bill; this weekend they are standing around eating shrimp cocktail with the Democratic leadership. 

So it goes.

I do think that there will be those who will remember this for a while. 

But it does say something when Webb goes from hero -- in reference to his White House visit and his amendment regarding leave time for troops -- to goat in the span of three weeks over one vote.

The arguments against this amendment are legitimate.  But they don't really speak to the core question: "How do we get this amendment fixed before it sunsets in six months?"

Primarying one of the amendment's backers -- as many commentators at DKos are now suggesting -- in 5 years doesn't really speak directly to that question.

Has attracted quite a few politically illiterate posters in the last two years.  They are not accustomed to the making of sausage.  Fortunately Senator Webb is. 

I appreciate the comments JC Wilmore made on Daily Kos.  And I appreciate his sticking with the commenters and responding reasonably to reasonable responders.

It was like being in a maelstrom of soccer hooliganism.  And I don't even follow soccer.  Everyone who supports sanity and reasoned debate should hop over there to post a note or two.

From all of these posts and what I read on there, it sounds like you cannot reason them.  So, why bother?  Maybe if they sleep on it, they will feel better in the morning.  Though they shouldn't go to bed angry.

ever so slightly.

can co-sponsor the IWR along with guys named Thurmond & Helms and became the darling of the netroots, I wouldn't worry about Sen. Webb too much.

The sad part is, I love the actual bloggers themselves; Markos, Lowell, Josh Marshall, etc. It's the rank-and-file who tend to embarrass themselves sometimes.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Over at CBS News, Kevin Drum runs us through what happened with the FISA vote.  His conclusion?  "Democrats caved in on a simple provision meant to prohibit domestic surveillance without a warrant."  If true, that's not good at all.  As Drum writes, "Everyone agrees that it's OK to monitor foreign traffic without a warrant, and everyone agrees that it's not OK to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant."  Well, I doubt that "everyone" agrees on anything, but it seems clear to me that for DOMESTIC surveillance, the government has to have a warrant and probable cause.  Here's the text of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which seems very clear to me:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As far as I can tell, this new FISA law violates the 4th Amendment.  Am I wrong?  Any constitutional scholars out there care to comment?

in my opinion you are absolutely right.  I think that is why so many are so very worried and so very upset. 

Remember Watergate when Nixon and associates used the government (CIA and others) to spy on Americans.  Yes to spy on Americans.  That is why Watergate is so very important and something we should never forget. 

and derision factor in this thread is disappointing.
Some of these people that read the dKos thread sound like the people they're castigating.

Here's some insight from the NYT:

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

"This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

And this is interesting:

In January, the administration placed the N.S.A.'s warrantless wiretapping program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and subjected it for the first time to the scrutiny of the FISA court.

Democratic Congressional aides said Sunday that they believed that pressure from major telecommunications companies on the White House was a major factor in persuading the Bush administration to do that. Those companies were facing major lawsuits for having secretly cooperated with the warrantless wiretapping program, and now wanted greater legal protections before cooperating further.

But the change suddenly swamped the court with an enormous volume of search warrant applications, leading, in turn, to the administration's decision to seek the new legislation.

Darn those pesky warrants anyway. They just overwork the poor courts, so let's....do away with them.
Y'all oughta make sure you know just what it is you're defending before you go attacking those who question it.

And did you really READ the thread? Go back and read it again, sort the comments in the order in which they were posted, then tell me again who was the first to be uncivil, contemptuous, and derisive.

Heck, start with the diary text itself.