Passive Pelosi™ paints false dilemma on FISA bill

Here’s how the not-so-civil-libertarian Speaker of the House tried to justify her yes vote of last Friday.

“If not good enough for some,” the bill is “certainly preferable to the alternative that we have, which is the Senate bill, which must be rejected.”

What bullshit. Write a better bill.

If Bush vetoes it, so what? Pass another enabling bill for the rest of his less than seven months remaining in office.

And, Slippery Steny™ Hoyer chimes in:

“The issue really was whether we would have a compromise that would involve the court in determining whether or not the telecom companies had received justification ... or simply a bill that gave them immunity.”

Well, no and wrong.

First, immunity was only one issue of several. The issue of authorizing basket warrants was bigger for the future, though not perhaps as sexy as telecom immunity. Extending the “exigency” period from three days to a week was also big.

But, back to your primary claim.

Write a better bill. One that didn’t grant immunity AT ALL.

Now, run-Democrats-up-the-flagpole-and-salute voters, like the other bloggers at Proctoring Congress (I may soon stop being an “other” blogger there) will decry Hoyer, even decry Pelosi. They may even decry Obama for not stopping the immunity, while giving him a free ride on the basket warrants and other issues.

But, you know what?

They’ll keep pulling the “D” lever, claiming it’s better than Schmuck Talk Express™.

Well, I have an old axiom for you folks:

Sometimes the good is the enemy of the best.