Is wiretapping bill a compromise or a 'cave-in'?

As the Senate debates changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- and nears a vote to protect telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits even if the telecoms helped the government's wiretapping without warrants -- senators might step off the floor and check out this MSNBC piece.

Yikes, Rachel Maddow, hosting the network's cleverly named "Countdown," talks awfully fast. And Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington law school squeezes in the law at a rapid pace -- and with head-spinning detail.

But what's this? He says "what the Democrats are doing here with the White House is they are trying to conceal a crime..."

Barack Obama is in Turley's sights. Obama gave his OK to the measure, calling it a "compromise." Turley calls it a "cave-in."

Strong language. And here comes the Senate vote...

-- James Gerstenzang

Comments

[Jeremy Cruz]

This was a total lack of leadership on Obama's part. Compromise is when you move a debate in the direction of your principles but settle for less than the ideal. Obama didn't move the conversation anywhere...he sided with other corporate Republicans and Democrats. The only thing he compromised was his sincerity and ultimately his credibility.

[bigcynic]

It's doing the Democrats a favor to say that they were afraid of handing the Republicans political ammunition in an election year. Their support of this anti-liberty bill just shows that they're in the pockets of the same corporate interests as the Republicans.