because voter opinion is actually having an effect.

Members of congress are reporting a deluge of calls, emails and faxes condemning the Trillion Dollar Giveaway (I refuse to call it a “bailout” because it isn’t; it’s a giveaway). The result was defeat in the House on Monday, and the direct effect of those voter contacts can be traced to a specific cohort of House members.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com helpfully pulled together the names of representatives who are in close races, people who are most acutely tuned to the will of the people. Relying on “lean” or “tossup” risk status assessments from Swing State Project, he cites a total of 38 vulnerable reps; 20 Republicans and 18 Democrats. Of those 38, 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted “Nay” while only 3 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted “Aye.” This 30 to 8 rejection compares to a near-even split, 197 Aye and 198 Nay, among members whose seats are considered “safe.”

CD updating the update to reflect the latest news: Reid has pulled the bill.

Well, we're into it - a full-throated Senate debate on many of the dearest, in all senses of that word, fundamentals of constitutional government,

The opening, as Lambert has suggested, was a bit confusing.

Dodd gave a passionate analysis of the many strands of this new FISA legislation, meant, mainly on the Democratic side, to correct the excesses of last August's Protect America Act, which more or less gutted the FISA court as a check on the power of the executive branch to secretly ignore the civil liberties of Americans not to be spied upon by their own government.

To talk process for a moment, the thrust of Dodd's first speech was in support of the many and profound reasons why the Senate should not proceed on the matter at hand as long as the Intelligence Committee's version is the basis of the debate and the subsequent voting on the entire issue. In other words, he was arguing against the imposition of cloture, so that the Senate might spend time debating the merits of substituting the Judiciary Bill as the basis for debate and amendment.

It didn't look or sound to me like this was Dodd's attempt to get a genuine filibuster going, and indeed, the vote was lopsided in favor of cloture, all Republicans voting yes, only ten Democrats voting no.

This is not the end of the debate by any means, though, and from what I've seen thus far, do not despair that passage of the Intelligence Committee's version of this new FISA bill is a done deal, including the extending of amnesty to those Telecoms which choose to go along with the administration. Here's why:

Fresh from subjecting the body politic to cruel and unusual punishment by inflicting pro-torture Judge Mukasey on us at Justice, DiFi wrestles the Constitution to the ground and gratuitously kicks the carcass by attempting to destroy the rule of law entirely.

Yes--and I know this will surprise you--DiFi's supporting retroactive immunity for the telcos.

With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?

San Francisco Chronicle:

As the Senate Democrats continue to inflict cruel and unusual punishment on the body politic, this time by waving Mukasey on through the confirmation process, DiFi sums up the whole sorry mess. She's negotiating with herself:

His supporters, which included several Democrats, said Mukasey is the best prospect lawmakers are going to get in the waning months of a Bush administration unwilling to nominate anyone else.

"This is the only chance we have," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Fuck.

How do you know, DiFi? How do you know?

Because you asked Bush, and he told you Mukasey was his best and final offer, and you believed he wasn't lying? What's wrong with you?

And, oh yeah, the war criminals part. Here's the money quote, from Arlen Spector (naturally):   Read more…

UK Independent:

Bush nominee passes "torture test"
Two leading Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, dropped objections to Mr Mukasey's nomination, apparently after a closed-door meeting in which he promised to uphold any future law passed by Congress explicitly defining one method, called water-boarding, as torture [Of course, waterboarding is already defined as torture.]

Good God. What have we come to? A nominee for the nation's chief law enforcement office promises to uphold the law, and this is news?

[Welcome, Grey-turtlenecked ones.]