I agree that the David Broders of the world have been far too sanguine about the abuses of the Bush administration. At the same time, the difference here really is pretty obvious. Nixon broke the law repeatedly for purely political purposes: to help his friends, punish his enemies, and keep tabs on domestic groups he happened to personally dislike. There was no ideological dispute about the value of what Nixon did: once it became clear that he had actually done the stuff he was accused of, liberals and conservatives alike agreed that he had to go.

Obviously that's not the case this time around. So far, anyway, there's no evidence the George Bush has done anything wrong for purely venal purposes. He approved torture of prisoners and violated FISA because he genuinely thought it was necessary for national security reasons after 9/11 -- and unfortunately, lots of people agreed with him at the time and continue to agree with him today. I too wish there were a broader consensus that Bush has acted illegally and ought to held accountable, but the fact that he hasn't met Nixon's fate doesn't really say all that much about how tolerant we are of executive lawbreaking. Ideological disputes are simply a different kettle of fish than personal vendettas.

UPDATE: Apologies for the sloppy writing. Matt was writing about torture and FISA, and that's what I was responding to when I said Bush hadn't done anything wrong for venal purposes. I only meant to be referring to the lawbreaking surrounding those two issues, not literally everything Bush has done. The U.S. Attorney scandal, among others, quite plainly has a fair amount of venality associated with it.

unquestionably represents a leftward shift relative to the sort of national candidates the Democratic Party has been putting forward in recent cycles.

It is always the same thing with a certain in crowd net demographic. Of course, Obama will be defended no matter what by

certain twens and thirtysomething bloggers like Iglesias et al who make their living because they think they have a lot to say on their websites ... unaware that lots of it is pure nonsense simply because they lack knowledge and all sense of history. Yet they are being quoted over and over ... As if they had something really important to say.

Here we got the problem. Not that Iglesias would really get it:

" I wasn't alive in 1973-74 [when Nixon was forced to resign]. I have a vague sense ...

A vague sense of what happened in the past, a vague sense of what happens in the presence. No wonder the nonsense these people write nonstop about the Clinton administration and Hillary Clinton. No wonder they are fine with it when Obama "disappeared" Bill Clinton from the presidential line-up.

Obama more liberal than any other Big Dem we have had for some time?

I wasn't alive in 1973-74

Its the thing that I think makes blogging pundits susceptible.  I don't know how to put it.  Its all about creating a myth of something.  Enough people repeat "neo-liberal" bill this or "neo-con" bill that and suddenly obama's proposals are more left simply by default.

In relationship to the myth of bill Clinton that's been created by shameful self-promoting pundits.  In relationship to that fairy tale, yes, obama's foreign policy is to the left of that.

How is it that everyone else can see that he is doing so and you can't?

Really, this is becoming a Kool-Aid issue, if you can't see how his position has become more "nuanced" and susceptible to "conditions", basically giving him the leeway to do pretty much as he pleases in delaying a withdrawal from Iraq.

In contrast, of course, to Obama's position of... withdrawing our combat troops in as expeditions a manner, etc....

The telecoms made no money in rolling over for the government.  Right there, you have lost a lot support from those who would otherwise love to tag big companies....

The telecoms did it, they themselves would argue, to help protect the nation--and they relied on the government--just like any number of Democratic Senators who voted for the resolution on Iraq, such as Edwards.  If you want to blame someone, blame the federal government for lying to the telecoms, the argument would have been.....

That argument would have been hard to beat....

The FISA compromise is not a good one....But immunity is not the end of the story....Human Rights commissions often operate after a grant of immunity....