(Photo by What What.)

The Associated Press sums up the results of the legislative debate/wrestling match that Christy and Jane spent all day chronicling:

The Senate granted at least a temporary victory to the White House on Thursday, turning back an attempt to increase court oversight of the government's surveillance of phone calls and e-mails that involve people inside the United States.

The 60-36 vote to reject increased powers for the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court came as senators worked against a Feb. 1 deadline to extend the law governing how U.S. intelligence agencies carry out electronic eavesdropping.

Further action on the legislation was delayed until Monday, pushing Congress closer to the deadline, and leaving unresolved the most contentious issue in the bill: whether to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government conduct warrantless surveillance.

The Bush administration is insisting that any new law protect from potentially crippling civil lawsuits those telecom companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., blamed Republicans for the delay, saying they were trying to block a series of amendments majority Democrats sought to offer.

"It appears the president and Republicans want failure. They don't want a bill," Reid said.

That's a valuable point for Reid to make (and thanks to the AP for letting it into their otherwise Bushite-friendly article), because it gives Democrats a wedge they can exploit in turning the tables against the Republicans' inevitable accusations that they will be "soft on terrorism" if they don't give Dick Cheney all the eavesdropping power he wants right away.

I understand the specific fear that at least some Democratic Congress-dwelling types have -- a harsh 30-second ad in the fall, with shadowy pictures of terrorists making furtive cell phone calls, followed by a blunt claim that Rep. So-and-so voted against the power to monitor those calls. There's no room for nuance there, the spineless ones complain, no opportunity for a rebuttal.

But using the point raised by Reid today, they could make their own 30-second ad -- or, better yet, engage in some preemptive warfare by announcing their willingness to do so. If I were a media consultant, here's how I'd lay out the script: First, start with the stereotypical ad I mentioned above, shown in the blurry, this-is-bullshit haze common to the debunking-commercial genre. The voiceover says, "Candidate Such-and-such is telling lies to scare you."

Then we see an official-looking paper with roll call vote results and the word "CLOTURE" or "FILIBUSTER" on it, as the announcer continues: "The truth is, Republicans blocked an extension of existing surveillance laws. Why?" (A headline, "FISA Extension Blocked By GOP," is shown.) "It had nothing to do with terrorism."

Shots of money being passed between people wearing suits and ties. "Republicans blocked it to protect big phone companies who invaded your privacy." (The screen splits between the deal-making imagery and the blurry bogus ad.) "And then they turned around and lied about it."

Cut to Rep. So-and-so, saying to an audience, "We can defend this country AND the Constitution at the same time. And we can do it without scare tactics from politicians." The closing legend: "Rep. So-and-so. Strong. And Honest."

If only someone could make an ad like that in advance and show it to the Democratic congressional caucuses, just to show them it can be done.

Of course, it's been pointed out that the real obstacle here is too many Democrats who are lining up for some of that big phone-company money. I don't know what to do about that problem.