The Moose writes:
There is no evidence, for instance, that President exploited the program to spy on domestic opponents or to assist in his re-election. If he did, it would be an entirely different matter.
Which must be why he opposes an investigation or review that'd definitively find that out. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly when you're dealing with a classified, extralegal program that's only understood through scattershot leaks to The New York Times. To borrow an overused Republicans riposte to civil libertarians, if Bush did nothing wrong, he's got nothing to worry about. So why's he so afraid of hearings?
I also love this:
We have two great parties in America. One is in thrall to big money. The other is under the control of left wing "new politics," upper middle class, and highly educated activists. The primary domestic objective of the contemporary GOP is to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. However, the primary objective of the National Democratic Party is not to address the anxieties of the middle class or poor working Americans but rather to relieve the fevered anxieties of the ACLU, Hollywood funders and puerile bloggers.
There's not a whole lot of polling data on the subject, but of what's been surveyed, it seems that 68 percent of Americans are following the NSA story very or somewhat closely. I had no idea the ACLU, Hollywood moneymen, and us puerile bloggers comprised such an impressive army, and I'm even less clear on why the Democratic Party would prominently address something of great concern to roughly 70 percent of the populace -- why don't they talk about something that regular Americans care about, like video games or flag burning?.
