You obviously didn't watch Fox News, or listen to Glen Beck with Ted Cruz, or listen to Michael Brown today or you would know your story about Republicans's not caring about this story is false. Looking at my twitter timeline for the day also proves this story is false. Although, I have read and heard several Democrats saying, is doesn't effect what I care about or it is important for security so who cares. To be fair, Lindsey Graham also said he doesn't care. Only Republican I heard agree with NSA.

Actually, under the fox news.com headline which screams "NYTimes Editorial: Administration Has Lost All Credibility" there are headlines about the administration mining data from the internet, the author of the patriot act stating the phone record collection was never the intent of the law, did officials mislead lawmakers on mass collection of phone records, and a second reference to the NY Times editorial. Sounds to me like they're paying attention to it. But then again you linked all republicans together last week or so stating they never cared about bullying the media before either. Based on a comment by two people, bennett and palin. I understand, things are coming unglued for the progressives and you gotta find a chew toy to tear up. I recommend going the Martin Bashir route and playing the race card, the fox news tactic aint working.

Denise O'Connor @ 1 said:

You obviously didn't watch Fox News, or listen to Glen Beck with Ted Cruz, or listen to Michael Brown today or you would know your story about Republicans's not caring about this story is false.

My quote that there were just 3 mentions of the FISA/Verizon on Fox during the same time period that were 25 mentions of Benghazi was based, as cited, on a report from Alex Seitz-Waltd using data from TVEyes. Is it wrong?

As far as I know, Glen Beck no longer works at Fox, and I don't know who Michael Brown is. But you're right, when I wrote "Other than Sen. Rand Paul, apparently, they all couldn't care less about any of it," I was obviously speaking in general terms to make a point. I didn't poll "all" Republicans in the nation. But I will modify that sentence right now to make that point more obvious.

Looking at my twitter timeline for the day also proves this story is false.

Great! Please feel free to share those tweets!

Although, I have read and heard several Democrats saying, is doesn't effect what I care about or it is important for security so who cares.

I've heard tons of them say that, pathetically, though mostly in regard to the subpoenaing of James Rosen. I suspect the Obama loyalists will be cranking up that same bullshit though in the days ahead as they learn more about the Verizon thing and the PRISM thing. It's remarkable how many of them are using the same exact pathetic defenses for Obama here that Bush loyalists used to apologize for his massive Big Government intrusions.

To be fair, Lindsey Graham also said he doesn't care. Only Republican I heard agree with NSA.

Here's the deal. When they start running it half as many times as they've run Benghazi or the IRS (both phony "scandals") please let me know. I believe we've had about 6 Congressional hearings now over the IRS business. How many you suspect we'll have in regard to every phone call made in the U.S. for a period of three months being monitored by the NSA? How many will we have for PRISM which reads emails, chats, IMs and even live video conferences at Google, Microsoft, PalTalk, Skype and more?

Steve Snyder @ 2 said:

Actually, under the fox news.com headline which screams "NYTimes Editorial: Administration Has Lost All Credibility" there are headlines about the administration mining data from the internet, the author of the patriot act stating the phone record collection was never the intent of the law, did officials mislead lawmakers on mass collection of phone records, and a second reference to the NY Times editorial. Sounds to me like they're paying attention to it.

Huh. Weird. Cuz here's the FoxNews.Com page at this moment (11:20pm PT, about an hour after your wrote the above):

That said, FoxNews.com is one thing (currently supporting government and bashing the leakers) and the Fox "News" Channel is quite another. See my note to Denise above, but lemme know when they start covering it in the same way they've been covering either IRS or Benghazi, okay? Lemme know when Darrel Issa schedules his first or 30th hearing on it, too!

But then again you linked all republicans together last week or so stating they never cared about bullying the media before either. Based on a comment by two people, bennett and palin.

Oh, did you need me to fetch you another dozen or samples of that? Let me know.

I understand, things are coming unglued for the progressives and you gotta find a chew toy to tear up.

Huh?! We progressives have been yelling and screaming about this shit for years. (Note, we progressives, not "we Democrats") We've been doing so, very consistently, for well over a decade at this point. In fact, it was Glenn Greenwald who broke both the Verizon and PRISM stories this week, so not sure what imaginary world you're living in, chief. Or do you, like Fox, have a problem telling the difference between an actual progressive and a Democrat?

Yes, i can tell how loud you are "screaming" about this from this scathing story, which uses such terms as tyranny and big government in your mocking condemnation of fox news. And yet the "fiercely independent Brad " never really comes out and condems the administration, let alone screams. Fox news focuses on the IRS scandal instead of what you think they should cover. You focus on Fox news instead of what i think you should cover, a conundrum if you will.....

Washington has been renamed Stalingrad.

"And yet the "fiercely independent Brad " never really comes out and condems the administration, let alone screams."

Wow, Steve, now you're simply out-and-out lying about Brad, as he has posted many stories unfavorable to the Obama and/or the Dems. Really, you should give two seconds of thought to how ridiculous some of your assertions are before making them publicly.

So? who cares about the IRS "scandal"? Sounds to me like they were actually doing their jobs targeting conservative groups since so many were 'astroturf' funded by the Kochs and hundreds of other 'blind trust' corporate welfare recipient groups.
Why wouldn't the IRS want donor lists before approval?
It was obvious during the hearings that the people whining about lost donations that the donators to the groups didn't want the spotlight on them because of their sources of money for the donations would probably be illegal under c-3 or 4. Like Jim McDermott said."Why would a Tea Party group file for 'Big Government' assistance under the 501 code in the first place?"

Try as you may, Steve Snyder, you cannot spin this one away.

On the one hand we have Al Gore tweeting that this "secret blanket surveillance" was "absolutely obscene."

On the other, we have Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) saying on Fox "News" that he was "glad" the NSA is doing this, as he fired away with the never ending, fear-inspiring "war on terror" rhetoric.

Yeah, right, Lindsey, so every American is a potential terrorist?

Both Graham and his Fox "News" hosts seemed more troubled that someone "leaked" this heretofore "secret" program to the media.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Long live Big Brother!" - George Orwell, 1984

LMK, I'm talking about THIS story. Brad states that he has been "screaming" about this shit for years, writes a story to criticize Fox News for only covering the phone record grab three times (according to another progressive journalist), and never once has anything critical to say about said phone record grab. Sounds to me like Fox News covered the phone record grab about three times more than "fiercely independent Brad" did who really doesn't seem to care. To him, the story seems to be Fox News and not the phone record grab. I could care less what Fox says, even more so when Brad attempts to change the subject and make Fox News out to be the story.

LMK @7 advised Steve Snyder to "give two seconds of thought to how ridiculous some of your assertions are before making them publicly."

Whether it's two seconds, two minutes, two hours or two days, Steve has never demonstrated the capacity for honest communication.

Even after rare occasions in which he is forced to admit error, Steve will later return, laying down the same mindless right wing talking points, as if repetition could defeat facts and reasoned argument.

For those, like Steve, who are trying to isolate this to the Obama administration, see, “A Massive Surveillance State: Glenn Greenwald Exposes Covert NSA Program Collecting Calls, Emails”:

Please point out where I'm wrong Ernie. Please point out where I've tried to isolate this to the Obama Administration Ernie. That comment is a flat out lie.

I commented on this story and the fact that "fiercely independent Brad", who claims to have been "screaming about this for years", completely ignores the story in his haste to criticize all Republicans and Fox News. I commented on the links at foxnews.com which directs the reader to stories on this subject and seems to contradict this piece. Not good enough, he's talking about pundits on a TV network.

At least in "fiercely independent Brads" one story about what he claims to be a "very real scandal", the AP/Rosen fiasco, he took a few words to actually criticize the administrations actions in an otherwise predictable squeaky wheel hit piece on... Fox News and all Republicans. As if two people talking about Assange speak for all Republicans. But at least, in that ONE STORY about a "VERY REAL SCANDAL" he had the stones to actually criticize the actions.

Sean Hannity just spoke about this at length he basically said Patriot and FISA laws are okay but that we shouldn't trust Pres. Obama with them. So as long as we elect Republicans we have nothing to worry about.

I wonder if anyone knows if Bush's NSA scandal included reporters. I thought the high courts dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs had no standing. That is, they were not the subjects of warrant less wiretaps. But the court would not reveal who he wiretapped and why. If Bush spied on reporters, it changes the current scandal because the GOP would have to denounce Bush for doing what Obama has done.

In all I'd say it was high time Obama was denounced by left and right for being exactly what Bush was, a power grabber.

The FISA court has been accused of being a rubber stamp (e.g. it did not reject a single request in 2012 or 2011, 2010, 2005, 2004, or 2002) and this 2013 ruling does nothing to dissuade me that the court is a rubber stamp and not the watchdog the act requires.

Given that the FISA court considered this request (records from every Verison customer on an ongoing basis every 3 months) to be an acceptable request, you got to wonder:

"If this was approved and an acceptable request, then just how atrocious were the single requests rejected in 2009, 2008, and 2006. I.e. if the Verison request of 2013 is acceptable, just what di the reject requests have to ask for that EVEN a FISA court, rubber-stamping judge said: "Whoa, this I can't sign."

Unfortunately no one know because “National Security” prevents one from finding out. No one will know until the FISA records are made public. This will probably only happen in the same way the East German Stazi records were release to the public.

Hopefully someone will have the good sense to liberate and publicize these files when the opportunity presents itself.

You're just wrong about this, Brad. Do you ever watch Fox News? I work at home and I pop around between CNN, Fox and Espn all day. MSNBC is insufferable. but I do like the morning show and Maddow. Fox has been regularly talking about privacy and this story in particular every hour on every show I've seen....for 2 days. It's getting more mentions/coverage on Fox than it is on CNN as far as I can tell.

Drudge and Huff Po are blasting away at it so Left and right are in on this one.

Now that I watch Fox here and there I realize 2 things:
1. Those who complain the most about it don't watch it. They make wild generalizations about Fox while bragging they do not watch it....odd that so called "smart " liberals would proudly declaim such obvious stupidity.
2. It's bias is clear and often overwhelming BUT liberals are routinely treated with more respect on Fox than conservatives are on MSNBC...if one can find a conservative on MSNBC. Fox's Megyn Kelly ripped the guts out of 2 inhouse Fox morons recently. And I saw Dennis Kucinich take a verbal two by four to O'Reily the other day... on his show. When in the last time Maddow even had a right winger on? O'Reilly and Hannity are often idiotic but are they more idiotic than Martin Bashir or Al Sharpton? Not really.

John Smart @ 17:

Fail, amigo.

Do you ever watch Fox News?

Constantly.

I work at home and I pop around between CNN, Fox and Espn all day. MSNBC is insufferable. but I do like the morning show and Maddow.

"The morning show"? You mean the three hour show hosted by former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough? I'll return to that in a moment...

Fox has been regularly talking about privacy and this story in particular every hour on every show I've seen....for 2 days.

So you watched during the hours reported by TVEyes and are saying that they are wrong? Can you point me to more than three such instances during those hours when they mentioned Benghazi, according to the service, 25 times? Happy to correct the report if it was wrong.

It's getting more mentions/coverage on Fox than it is on CNN as far as I can tell.

Can't speak to that. Don't watch CNN almost at all.

Drudge and Huff Po are blasting away at it so Left and right are in on this one.

Drudge is not Fox. But, again, when Issa announces his oversight hearings, you'll let me know! I'd LOVE to be wrong about this. But, so far, no sign of it.

Now that I watch Fox here and there I realize 2 things:
...
2. It's bias is clear and often overwhelming BUT liberals are routinely treated with more respect on Fox than conservatives are on MSNBC...if one can find a conservative on MSNBC.

Um...didn't you say you watch "the morning show" on MSNBC? The one hosted by former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough? But you're having troubling find "a conservative on MSNBC"? Really?...

When in the last time Maddow even had a right winger on?

Well, lessee, Steve Schmidt (John McCain's campaign manager, long time Republican operative) is a paid MSNBC analysis and frequent contributor to her show. So is former RNC chair Michael Steele. So is Nicole Wallace (former Bush/Cheney Communications Director). I could go on and on, of course, and I haven't even gotten to Lawrence's show yet. So when have any of them "been treated with [dis]respect"? Got any cites? Or just making shit up?

O'Reilly and Hannity are often idiotic but are they more idiotic than Martin Bashir or Al Sharpton? Not really.

Speaking of making shit up, since O'Reilly and Hannity simply make up shit up on a daily basis, yes, I think they are "more idiotic" than Bashir or Sharpton (neither of whom I watch very much, but who have never made shit up on their shows, that I'm aware of.)

Of course, since you (claim to) watch Maddow, you know the same cannot be said for O'Reilly who has been making shit up about the IRS "scandal", and repeating it after it's long been debunked, for the past week or so...as your friend Maddow pointed out a night or two ago:

Steven Snyder:

I believe I have tried to explain this to you before, but you either didn't read, had trouble understanding it, or just don't have much of a memory, so I'll try to explain it to you again.

Fox "News" is a multi-million (billion?) dollar operation with virtually unlimited resources. I am one guy hoping to figure out how I'm gonna pay my rent at the end of this month. Again.

Since I do not have the unlimited resources that a Fox "News" has, I have to pick and choose what we will be able to cover on this site. That means, necessarily, picking and choosing what is worth expending resources on. Generally, I try to cover stuff that is not being covered elsewhere, which means if something is being covered to death, I don't usually do so as well unless there is something unique I can offer to it.

In this case, the stories you are unhappy with me not covering enough for you here are being pretty well covered, just about everywhere, though I have been talking a great deal about them on various radio appearances, etc. which are not usually posted here.

What is not being covered well enough across the media, as I see it, is the context in which these stories exist (and I hope to have something else on that a bit later today or over the weekend). So, in this case, on this particular story (and a few other recent ones) I thought readers might appreciate a reminder of the context that both underscores the insane surveillance state that we all live in, and the apologists for that surveillance state who, not only did absolutely nothing about it for well over a decade, but who actually rooted for it, and even disparaged those of us who have long been critics of it.

Are they upset about it now? Not much apparently. But I look forward, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, to Issa's hearings (which will never come) and Fox "outrage" (which won't either, though I'd LOVE to be wrong about that!)

In truth, I'm not really sure what problem you have with any of that, other than you appear to be a very bitter, very angry, very partisan person who needs to find a failing of some type, any type, somehow, no matter how far into fantasy you must reach to find it, in order to justify your own personal partisan prejudices. But simply because you are a hard partisan, does not mean that everyone else is, no matter how many times you attempt to project your own worldview onto other people.

As I've said many times, you are free to do that (even as you are not free to make shit up about me without that BS being responded to), but you just keep making a fool out of yourself every. single. time. you do it here. But, apparently, you are a glutton. So keep workin' on it. One of the days you'll not be wrong about something here. It's bound to happen!

Nice Brad. On the one hand we have you: Who constantly watches Fox News looking for something to complain about. Who consistently lumps all Republicans together as one in your criticism, most times based on the words of one or two people. Who can't even bring himself to criticize the administration for a new story just released yesterday or the one released today even though you claim to have been screaming about it for years. Then you have me, who asks the questions like "why are you attacking Fox News and not even whispering a criticism of the administration?" And I'm the "hard partisan"? There's absolutely nothing partisan about what I said here. You're losing it...

Huh...Some Republicans have a very strange way of expressing their "outrage" about all of this...

"I'm proud on this one to defend President Obama" with these programs - Ari Fleisher, repeatedly, on CNN just now.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 8, 2013

"I'm proud as a Republican to be backing what President Obama has done" on these programs - Ari Fleisher, on CNN, just now.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 8, 2013

But I'm sure Fox "News" will express their strong disagreements with Fleisher any moment now.

Steve Snyder @ 20:

Then you have me, who asks the questions like "why are you attacking Fox News and not even whispering a criticism of the administration?" And I'm the "hard partisan"?

Seriously, dude. What planet are you living on???

Steve,
Seriously, comment #20 is not sane.

proofreading note to Brad--

One too many "beens" in link in 1st sentence.

David Lasagna @ 24:

Thanks. Thanks.

Apparently I'm the one who lives on the planet called reality. With a new scandal arising everyday all "fiercely independent Brad" can do is constantly watch Fox News so he can find somewhere else to deflect his anger. What a joke.

To John @17

Maddow begs and pleads for right wingers. She constantly mentions how often they contact Republicans for comments. She has issued invitations and challenges to everyone from Liz Cheney to John Boehner.

She has an impressive history of interviewing Republicans, such as the infamous Rand Paul fail and dousche chill inducing moments against the Freedomworks guy etc.
during the last election, she interviewed Ken Blackwell. He looked like a tool.

Maddow is also very tough on some Dems. She was tough on Susan Rice and put Jeh Johnson on the spot asking when the war on terror will end. On and on it goes.

You are buying into a big false equivalency because Maddow, Thom Hartmann and pundits on the left makes their bread and butter showing exactly how the right is lying. The right, with market leaders Hannity and Limbaugh take exactly the opposite approach, suppressing their listeners from hearing open debate between matched equals.

The reason Maddow has few Republicans on is fear and cowardice of open debate and the Republican strategy of clinging to provable lies, repeated in a bubble.

Steve @26,

I couldn't disagree more. I'd say you live in a world of projection(inappropriately/unconsciously/ outrageously projecting your own faults and fears onto everyone else), distortion(constantly misrepresenting information and opposing viewpoints), and laziness(all too often can't seem to be bothered to actually read the thing you're all up in arms about). That's about as far from reality as one can be without being institutionalized.

You make a habit of performing all these feats of derring-don't with smarmy snarkiness. As if living in your own hall of mirrors and having zero curiosity about your own machinations is somehow superior to anything.

Look forward to your next incomprehensible obfuscating rant and denial.

Steve Snyder kept whiffing @ 26 with:

Apparently I'm the one who lives on the planet called reality. With a new scandal arising everyday all "fiercely independent Brad" can do is constantly watch Fox News so he can find somewhere else to deflect his anger. What a joke.

If so, then I guess I don't get the joke. I've consistently called for Obama to be held accountable for his actions, just as I have consistently called for Bush to be held accountable for the same actions, and just as I've attempted to hold Obama accountable for his actions in not holding Bush accountable his actions.

So what am I missing here?

(It should also be noted, by the way, that when Bush did most of things, they had not yet been made "legal" by Congress, as most of the stuff Obama has been doing, incredibly, actually is now! Nonetheless, "legal" does not mean either Constitutional or, even, right, in any case.)

But, again, really not sure WTF Steve keeps complaining about, to be honest (other than he's an angry, bitter partisan, looking for someone, anyone to blame for his own sense of desperation...as I've mentioned previously.)

Steve Snyder's remark @6 that he was the only one who lives on planet reality reminded me of the old saw about the delusional psychotic who tells his neighbor: Everyone's crazy except you and I, and lately I've had my doubts about you.

Ernie @30,
Are you sure the delusional psychotic didn't say, "..except you and ME..."? Delusional psychotics may be crazy but they're usually pretty good with their objects of prepositions.

(Sorry, it's the only grammar rule I care about. I've even heard Obama incorrectly use "I" as an object of a preposition. Sportscasters do it a lot. When the Harvard grad Pres does it, it must be popular.)

And now I'm confused. Based on "Fiercely Independent Brad's" constant watching of Fox News, he complains that the right doesn't care about big government overreach into monitoring our phone records and internet activity. Tax cheat Charlie Rangel on MSNBC yesterday complains that the right is engaged in gross over exaggeration of the same subject to score points against Obama. I think one of you two missed the talking points memo

Steve Snyder said-

And now I'm confused.

Let's leave it at that.