This week's newsletter focuses a little more on simply winning as Democrats and a little less on primaries within the Democratic Party than my recent newsletters, but it is time we start focusing on winning the Senate and Presidency. I do still refer to the need for progressives to win primaries, and once again draw people's attention to my Progressive Primary Act Blue Site. Hope you guys can help in these primaries as well as in the Senate races I highlight. But mostly, this weeks newsletter directly confront's John McCain as the candidate who promises us nothing but more war, more recession, more inflation.

The Progressive Democrat Newsletter grew out of the frustration of the 2004 election. After much pressure from readers, this email newsletter is now going the blog route. I update the blog once a week focusing on both national issues and issues of interest to particular regions or states. In general, NYC, California, New Jersey, Virginia and the Midwest get special attention simply because those are the areas where I seem to have the most readers. However, these days I am too busy to give each region the attention I used to. As my readership on Daily Gotham and Culture Kitchen goes up, I have to spend more time on those sites. So this newsletter is fading a bit. I hope it is still usefull to you, though.

This week I talk about the Democrats not quite living up to our expectations on FISA and some of what we can do about it, present some chilling numbers from Iraq, discuss the neglect of America further, and bring up an issue too many people dance around: Republican Racism. Additionally I want to bring to your attention a Congressional race in New York (one close to my home and close to my heart, so please read about it and help us out!), the race for Mississippi Insurance Commissioner (happening THIS YEAR) and the New Hampshire Senate race.

I confess.  I was unhappy when they said, "impeachment is off the table," but I dismissed it as a tactical dispute.  At least we knew there were "no more blank checks" and Congress would starve the beast by exercising the power of the purse.  When they capitulated, I was vexed.

When the AG told Congress he didn't recall any Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus, I was stunned.   I didn't realize Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution was a figment of my imagination.  At least that explains why no one uses it anymore.  

This week really surprised me, though.  I hear Congress just granted more unchecked powers to Gonzales.  I can't understand how that happened.  It's like no one recalls his testimony.  It was awhile before I figured out the problem: we haven't been supportive enough.

Instead of calling them Vichy Democrats who cower in front of glass-jawed bullies, we should be supporting them.  We've done it before.  We can do it again.  In 2006 we gave them a mandate.  You and I know the majority of America was behind them.  The problem was they didn't feel it.  That's our fault.  We need to show them we're behind them.

Working together, we can solve this ...

What would you say if I told you the NSA's "Puzzle Palace" is getting ready to exceed its electrical capacity?  You know what happens when computers exceed their electrical capacity?  Here's a clue:  This could bring a whole new meaning to "dark ops".

I wish I was creative enough to have invented that plot device.  It sounds like something Kurt Vonnegut might write ... but you wouldn't expect him to actually publish it because no one would accept the premise.  Now you know why they say truth is stranger than fiction; it really is.  

You're not going to believe this but The National Security Agency is running out of juice!

Wait! There's more....

Bill Frist doesn't think much of the separation of powers.  The courts, of course, are optional (though best to make sure they're under full control), and the legislature, well, it doesn't have that much to do, what with President Cuckoo Bananas in charge.

Today on Face the Nation Dr. Catkiller explained once again that Bush's warrantless wiretapping was perfectly legal and constitutional (never mind what's written in FISA), and, of course, that that suggests that there is no need whatsoever to write new laws.

From the transcript (pdf format):

Sen. FRIST: Does it have to be thrown over the courts, going back to your question, I don't think so, I personally don't think so.

SCHIEFFER: You don't think that the court needs to issue a court order before they do that?

Sen. FRIST: No.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the law needs to be rewritten? I mean, you say you're going to look into it.

Sen. FRIST: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: What's your feeling? Is it your sense that it probably is going to have to be rewritten?

Sen. FRIST: I can't really answer that now. I don't think that it does need to be rewritten, but we are holding hearings in the Judiciary Committee right now. They've already begun under Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy. They're looking at whether we do need to put more statutory discipline around that. And we have not been able to answer that yet.

SCHIEFFER: OK.

Okay indeed.

Clearly Pat Roberts's shocking moment of leaving the reservation (which, as Think Progress has noted, is already proving to be short-lived) has caused the Busheviki to put out the loyalists to re-establish the Talking Points.

And there is no bigger Yes Man than Bill Frist, who owes his entire past, present, and future career (that is as a Big Man within the GOP) to Unka Karl.

-- Stu

I served in the United States Air Force's "Electronic Security Command" in the early 80's. This was during the years immediately following Congress establishing restraints on U.S. surveillance practices through FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). This is a key point that needs to be made clear to the American people. FISA did not give the administration new power. It was designed by Congress to restrain power and provide for oversight by the courts.

Why FISA Was Born

The need for FISA arose from administration misconduct, including the tapping of phones of political opponents. The Supreme Court and Congress clearly stated that wire-tapping of American phones without a warrant is a serious breach of the 4th amendment of the Constitution. Each used the power granted to them in the Constitution to restrain and oversee the executive branch.

Bush Arguments Are Ridiculous

President Bush's argument that FISA can be ignored because Congress authorized him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq is, as lawyers love to say, completely without merit. His claims that technology has changed so much since FISA was written in 1978, and that he needed to act faster that FISA would allow are also spurious. FISA allows immediate capture of electronic communications, as soon as an intelligence agency determines it needs to be monitored. Within 72-hours after interception, the agency must go to the FISA court and ask for a warrant. I believe therefore that it was not a delay in the ability to eavesdrop that prompted the President to abandon FISA, it was a desire to keep the American targets of surveillance secret, even from the trustworthy and super-secret FISA Court.

Cross posted on Daily Kos and My Left Wing

Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 06:38:57 AM PDT

I suppose I should begin by confessing that I'm a rather straightforward person. As a matter of fact this is why my friends like me. I tend to reduce things to the nitty gritty. I'm also sort of a no bullshit type of person. This used to be a positive character trait. Kind of just say something and move on. I try not to get twisted up like a pretzel over inane nonsense.

The reason I bring this up is because I'm confused.  The commander in chief has been telling us for as long as I can remember that, "we're at war."  I listen to his urgent  words and I see people fighting and getting killed and I wonder, but I'm not at war.

What Mr. Bush says must be true, but I don't see any signs of this where I live. What are you seeing?

Like most Americans, I'm eager to do my fair share for the war effort. So, yesterday, I took a stroll around Manhattan, the city I call home, looking for any signs that we're at war.

(I posted this at my blog and Daily Kos and figured I should shoot it over here, too!!)

Certainly the Bush administration is in a pickle over the recent revelation that Bush himself, in 2002, authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic surveillance against US citizens.  Presumably, and I'm paraphrasing the President himself with this, it was only to listen to bad guys talking to bad guys.  According to Bush, this action was not only legal but required in his solemn duty to protect America and its citizens.

I think it's worthwhile to take a closer look at FISA itself, inform ourselves, and be prepared for the arguments the administration is going to make as to why these secret, warrantless surveillance activities are not, as the President asserts, illegal.  In fact, his argument is that they are proper.

Read on.

Impeachable Offense!  We keep hearing it and finally the words are being said publicly on Capitol Hill. And not just by Democrats.

This time he has hit the Senate and Congress below the belt. He contemptuously ignored the outlets they gave him (FISA courts). His actions spoke loudly that he no longer considered the Legislative Branch an independent entity. Maybe that will wake even the Republicans up the precarious state of our Republic.

Will impeachment actually happen? Bush and gang have made our previous `Teflon' President (Reagan) look like a man in quicksand in comparison. The lies and diversions and manipulations practiced by this administration have been breathtaking in scope.

The FISA wiretap warrants had a 72-hour retroactive availability.

This has been mentioned on many other blogs and websites, but I feel it's much too important to ignore, especially since every conservative pundit and every right-wing blogger has neglected to mention this. I don't know if this is due to ignorance or dishonesty, but either way, it really needs to be corrected.

Here's why this is important. The government basically gets three full days to eavesdrop on a subject before they have to file for a warrant. And when they finally get around to filing said warrant, it has (if past history is to be believed) around a 99.99% chance of going through. Ponder that for a moment. How hard is it to work within these guidelines? 72 hours of free wiretap authority and a court that's practically a rubber stamp? You'd have to try to break the law under these circumstances.

And yet, people are defending this. Why? That's not a rhetorical question. I really wish someone would tell me.