Ricketts has been making a vigorous pitch to the hard right wingnuts, but also being careful not to go off the deep end, which would cost him votes among GOP moderates.

As for Kramer, he clearly is focusing his pitch on GOP moderates. Sure, he trots out the usual “values;” “faith” and “family” talking points, but he is gambling that he will win if he gets the majority of the moderates and steals 10% of the wingnuttery from Stenberg. Unfortunately for Kramer, Ricketts’ financial advantage will undermine Kramer’s strategy.

If the primary were held today, Stenberg would win. Stenberg is crazy, but he knows how to do politics.

One of the parties to the call IS in the United States– that’s the problem. I’m not advocating getting rid of this program; just get a warrant first. The FISA court was set-up with the specific purpose of expediting warrants for this purpose. The argument of this administration is that laws are inconvenient and we need to avoid them for national security purposes. That’s ridiculous, and when this goes to the court system, you will see that this is unconstitutional.

We have a concept in America called “innocent until proven guilty.” If you bypass the FISA court then innocent people could be spyed on without having to prove any type of connection to terrorism.

Guys, you are missing the point. No one is arguing that wiretaps should not be used. The problem is that Bush and his administration are breaking the law in the way they are conducting the surveillance. This is flat out illegal.

All Bush had to do was ask the GOP House and Senate to amend the FISA laws and procedures to give him the flexibility Bush thinks he needs. In failing to do so, Bush and the admin. have broken the law. This is indisputable.

9/11 did not change the Constitution. To argue otherwise is a slap in the face of every American who has ever fought for this nation. If you don’t believe me, I offer the 20th century as Exhibit No. 1: Two World Wars (one against the threat of global fascism) and a cold war against the Soviet Union that represented a TRUE THREAT to our way of life. While there were some excesses in WWII (internment of Japanese-Americans), in none of these conflicts did the United States react by (1) giving the president extra-consitutional powers or (2) rolling back constitutional civil rights.

I do not understand why some on the right are so paralyzed by the threat posed by Muslim extremists. 9/11 was a horrific atrocity that shocked all Americans to their core. But so was Nazi fascism and nuclear-armed communism. In those situations, America said, “Hell, no,” and fought with a purpose. With al-Qaida, it seems that the right is simply frightened to death of a bunch of men hiding in caves.

The bottom line is, in fighting an ideology, we have to accept that our government cannot eradicate all threats. Unfortunately, despite all efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks on our soil, we will be hit again. Our nation has endured under threats in the past, and will endure again if we grow some b—s.

I leave you with these “old sayings” that have even more meaning for me than when I learned them as a child:

“Give me liberty or give me death.:

“Land of the free, home of the brave.”

Believe it. Live it.

Which brings us to Don Stenburg’s maniacal comments, and their real meaning. Without any judicial oversight or accountability, the NSA can spy on anyone it chooses, saying “We’d like to tell y’all who we’re spying on, but we can’t give up any secrets to our enemies.” As I wrote on my blog, OWHRetort, what Stenberg is really saying here is that the FISA court is just a nuisance, and that the president should be able to spy on whomever he wants, wherever he wants, for as long as he contends that we’re at war.
Would Ben Franklin approve of that?

Either the Bush administration is so brazenly arrogant that they don’t believe they need a warrant, or they aren’t just spying on terrorist suspects. Either way, it’s pretty well established that they’ve been spying on American citizens without a warrant. I’m baffled as to how any American can possibly defend these kinds of actions.

That was a pretty creative joke you just made there. I would appreciate a little more originality, however, next time you try to sound intellectually superior to us. Thank you for your time, and may I suggest that you read a book. You may learn something about the world.