Congressional Dems and Principles

Once again, the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress has the opportunity to do "a right thing." And once again, it appears to be on the brink of folding because of (perceived) political expediency (emphasis added):

Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats.

Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

Goddamn but this torques me.

What's going on here is not that they will justifiably be called soft on terrorism. They will be called that, sure. (And their fears that it will prove politically dangerous speak volumes about the so-called Liberal Mainstream Media, eh? If it's so damn liberal then where's the danger?)

The problem is that they are willing to accept the framework of debate which the MisAdministration and its media stooges have constructed since 2001. There is no real danger of being called "soft on terrorism," you idiots, if you make a point of clarifying that this kind of shit has nothing to do with protecting us from terrorists.