The House, to its great credit, passed a FISA reform bill that doesn't eviscerate the rule of law by granting the telcos retroactive immunity, and doesn't completely gut the Fourth Amendment*. That's good news, and if we get lucky, the whole abomination might just get deep-sixed, at which point we would return to the status quo ante legally, while much strengthened politically. Kudos, I freely grant, to Nancy Pelosi** and the rest of the House leadership, including -- lambert blushes modestly for calling this one, against all odds -- Steny Hoyer. That said, let's do the classic blogospheric media critique thing on WaPo's not totally fucked coverage. Jonathan Weisman reports:

Divided House Passes Surveillance Bill (front page link)

House Passes a Surveillance Bill Not to Bush's Liking (story head)

A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation yesterday, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for their cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping and deepening an impasse on a fundamental national security issue.

Congress then defiantly left Washington for a two-week spring break.

But it would challenge the Bush administration on a number of fronts, by requiring upfront court approval of most wiretaps, authorizing federal inspectors general to investigate the administration's warrantless surveillance efforts, and establishing a bipartisan commission to examine the activities of intelligence agencies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

I like this idea, assuming that the Commission is set up so that Bush can't game it, like he did the 9/11 commission.

Most provocatively, the House legislation offers no legal immunity for past actions by phone companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping and are now facing about 40 lawsuits that allege they breached customers' privacy rights.

The House's action ensures that Bush will not receive any surveillance legislation for weeks -- if ever.

What a shame.

Lawmakers from both parties said the gulf between the administration and House Democratic leaders is now so wide that the issue may not be resolved until a new president takes office next year. Bush, who has threatened to veto the House measure, and Republicans have shown no desire to move further toward the Democrats' position, and Democratic leaders show no sign of buckling under continuous political pressure.

Remember that phrase: "continuous political pressure."

"I'm very uncomfortable with an issue of this importance entering such a political realm, but I don't see us pulling it out of this mess either," said Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a swing-district freshman who shrugged off a barrage of advertisements that accused him of jeopardizing national security.

It's great news that everybody sees the Republicans are always wrong about everything, but why, oh why, would Walz feel able to "shrug off" Republican attack ads? Could it be that there are countervailing pressures from people who aren't part of the narrative? Nah....

Then the House went off script. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responded by all but calling the president a liar.

Reid does the same thing. But, for whatever reason, Pelosi said it, and affected the narrative. Good.

OK. There's a lot of good in this story. I'd rather read stories about Democrats being "defiant," and "challenging" Bush by being "provocative," and "shrugging off" pressure, showing "no sign of buckling," and above all "going off script." That's such a pleasant change from "Democrats in disarray," and "caving," and above all showing courage by acting like Republicans.

But in some ways, this is a Janus-faced, transitional story, looking forward and looking back. The pivot point is "changing the script" and the "tell" is the identification of "continuous political pressure" with pressure from the Bush administration (and the telcos, and the Village). Left out of the story -- just as in the run-up to Iraq is the fact that all us DFH types were also exerting "political pressure." It's as if Weisman knows the old script doesn't work, so he casts about for a new one that doesn't exist yet.

Notice also that the editors, who write the headlines, are still firmly in the "Democrats in disarray" mode, and accept the idea that whatever the executive proposes should be treated with deference by the legislative branch.

Now, when we becomes part of the script, I'll have a little more faith in our famously free press.

And when the press starts covering Constitutional confrontations by expressing some inkling of what's at stake, I'll have even more faith. Where were they when Bush was destroying the Constitution we're now trying to repair? Deep in the tank for Bush, that's where.

NOTE * Although, as Glenn says, the scandal is what's legal. As usual.

NOTE ** I do like to think that our outrage after the "Protect America" Clusterfuck, and sustained pressure thereafter, may have moved Pelosi in the direction of doing the right thing by, you know, protecting America by preserving the Constitution. It shouldn't be this hard. For leaders who lead. Modified rapture.

NOTE This whole saga really ought to put the final stake in the heart of the Unity Pony (is yours on back order? Mine is). The Republicans fought every step of the way on FISA for Dear Leader and marched in lockstep to their doom. And it was not light, but heat (thank you, Jane) that brought about the (perhaps temporary) victory. It wasn't people of good will sitting down round some fucking table with an honest broker. There aren't any Republicans of good will any more, or any honest ones, because the good ones have already left (see Rick Perlstein's brilliant Class of 200* article). Anyone still hanging around is just more of McSame.