Here's Republican commentator/analyst Robert Novak's take on the FISA vote, from his newsletter. It's not flattering to the Democrats, that's for sure.
Intelligence: For all their toughness on most issues and their harsh criticism of executive branch assaults on privacy and civil liberties, Capitol Hill Democrats surrendered to the White House on updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).1. Both Republicans and Democrats wanted to modify FISA to close a "loophole" that excluded from the act -- which allows for warrantless wiretaps of foreign entities -- foreign-to-foreign conversations that are routed through the U.S. The White House, however, upped the ante by demanding FISA extend to conversations in which only one party is outside the country, and the other is here. Democrats on the campaign trail call this "domestic spying" by the administration.
2. This "domestic spying" is one of the chief points of attack that the mainstream media and the Democratic base use against the Bush Administration. It's telling, then, that Democrats caved and passed the White House bill.
3. Although they are emboldened by the President's low approval ratings and by the low approval of the Iraq War -- and although they probably have the upper hand in foreign policy battles -- Democrats are still terrified of looking weak on security. This fear, which dates back to the beginning of the Cold War, will play an interesting role in the presidential election next year.
Still afraid of looking weak? Guys, after a while, you look weak just by appearing afraid to look weak! Why not just do what you think is right, and let the chips fall where they may? Do you really think you'd be any worse off? Wait, don't answer that question.
Indeed. (Well put!)
Now, the mere whiff of terrorism as an issue is enough to convince the Democrats to eliminate the 4th Amendment.
I'm so sickened and disgusted I could spit!
Show some damned backbone!
MEMO to Democrats: We did not elect you to vote for Bush's agenda, we elected you to vote AGAINST Bush's agenda. It's not a difficult concept.
Last night's debates clearly demonstrated the power and passion of our Democratic candidates on that stage, vying for office. What I heard last night were all the reasons for "why I am a Democrat". I was moved by the stories, by the rhetoric, and by the strength of the candidates' convictions. Now just show that passion all the time...keep it short and to the point...and constantly show your righteous indignation against the Bush Administration and the Republican agenda.
It works guys!!!!
Specifically, regarding the frontrunners: Hillary triangulated up the ying-yang. She said almost nothing concrete and spoke in euphemisms, slogans, and platitudes. She has a "three point plan for this and a twelve point plan for that." Never a detail or hint of a detail.
Barack fumbled, much as I would have loved him to do well. Edwards, whom I am now leaning toward (I've made no final decision yet), was off his game and not as effective as a critic of the other frontrunners. He didn't score good points as he did in other recent "debates."
Biden started off at least answering the questions. Over time, he evaded too. He was a bit obnoxious. (And then there's that I could never support him.) Why is Dodd running? He seemed like a caricature. Richardson was a non-player.
I had high hopes for an improved set of questions. But some of the most important ones in the AFL-CIO polling weren't included (didn't sin a port on the question list). This ultra short "debates" should be scrapped and Olbermann should be retained to grill them in free-form fashion, until they actually answer the question, or look as foolish.
To 1) I say: this is a weak reed since Bush and his administration have consistently lied and cannot be believed about anything. They first tried using "gut feeling" an attack was imminent whilst assuring us there was no credible immediate threat. When that did not work, they trotted out super secret briefings of the Intelligence Committee, and stonewalled everybody else, just like WMDs and yellowcake, torture and so on. As for me, I listened to Bush making pronouncements about his demand for extended FISA authority, and heard in his voice the same lying resonances I heard about the invasion of Iraq. Therefore, 1) was a hoax and should not have been believed, no matter how much one respects the Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee.
To 2) I say: This is a cop out of the worset sort. Remember renewing the Patriot Act? Remember the original importance of Patreaus' September report, now being trivialized in advance in favor ever later reports? All smoke and mirrors, when the time comes there will be no oversight, no real examination of the policy; it will be re-authorized.
We all understand that a liberty, once surrendered, will never be restored. Not without a bloody (literally) fight.
The truly insupportable part of all this is that they gave this authority to Gonzales, who "promised" not to abuse it. To Gonzales, who is in danger of being impeached for being lying little cockroach. And they did this when there was perfectly good (if more restrictive) Democratic bill, a piece of legislation to which the Director of Intelligence had already agreed, until Bush stamped his foot and threw a tantrum, demanding broader powers beyond oversight by anyone, and the Republican machine produced what He wanted, and forced it down the Democratic majority's throat.
Next time Congress asks him to show up, Gonzales might as well just not show up, and then claim it slipped his mind. What possible reason does he have to give them even minimal respect?