But The Economist said...

Well, whatever The Economist said, they sure didn't base it on anything substantive. On FISA, they acknowledge this much:

In reality, the [Protect America Act]'s demise has done little practical harm. Existing wiretaps can continue. American spies can also tap away as long as they get permission from the attorney-general; warrants, which have to be signed by a judge, can be obtained subsequently. (Preparing warrant applications, even after the fact, is time-consuming, but that should not be an immediate problem.) And telecommunications firms worried about lawsuits are no worse off than they were before.

Indeed! But, of course, there's always that damned CW:

The political fallout, however, is much more significant. Polls show that Americans now trust the Democrats as much, if not more, than Republicans on national security and terrorism—a striking change from the position earlier in the decade. The Republicans are desperate to reverse that trend, not least because their presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, will doubtless have much to say about the war on terror. The Democrats' balkiness will only help Mr McCain's case. They will, of course, end up passing eavesdropping legislation much along existing lines; but every day of delay will hurt them.

Now, if I had looked at all available evidence from the past week and a half and had decided that a). the FISA fight is a political disaster for the Dems, and b). They are bound to cave as a result, then I suppose, sure, I'd conclude c). those cowards ought to just get it over with and cave. But this is the first time the leadership has really stood its ground on a national security fight and--perhaps because of that trust that the author breezed over--everything's fine. Perhaps better than fine.

It's sort of weird, I think, that one of the world's most respected publications is doing this dance. On the one hand, if The Economist is acknowledging that the Democrats are right on the issue, but short on spine, then the point of the op-ed should be to encourage spine. If, on the other hand, The Economist is boosting for the Senate bill, then this is a tellingly weak defense. Either way, it's extremely bad form.