Featured Guests: Senator McCain, coming to you from Aspen, (there to attend the western version of that Renaissance Weekend), and Senator Feinstein, from somewhere.

Plus a roundtable of mighty pundits: Cokie Roberts, Joe Klein, and the former Senator who plays a DA on TV, Fred Thompson.

First subject - "how about that Supreme Court decision." Or as This Week framed it, wasn't this a rebuke to the Bush administration's entire theory of presidential power?

No ringing endorsement of the decision from McCain. In fact, a person could be forgiven for thinking that McCain was miffed by Scotus poaching on his territory - the good Republican Senator, the one with a conscience when it comes to torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

McCain stationed himself firmly at Bush's back. The decision was no big deal, especially in view of the legislative amendment McCain got passed affirming the need for non-torture and human treatment of detainees.

The discomfort that McCain’s tense affect betrayed resulted, I think, from his desire not to join the shriller attacks on the Court and its decision, while sharing many of their reservations. Despite his clear consternation with the majority opinion, McCain, looking on the bright side, did allow that it UN-sticks a judicial process, those military commissions, that had ground to a halt..

No blame to be placed on the Bush administration for the fact that not one prisoner has yet been tried to a decision by any military tribunals of any kind, and that only ten detainees have been so much as referred for some kind of hearing. No, no, the President was forced to wait for those damn cases to work their way through the system; damn Jag attorneys, and assorted civilian ones, who sought to test the President’s reckless disregard for the constitution.

McCain made it clear he was most unhappy with that part of the decision that affirmed the applicability of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to the Guantanamo 400 plus detainees. McCain’s interpretation - the court was insisting that the full rights of prisoners of war are herewith bestowed on terrorists, who don’t wear uniforms, hide among civilians to strike at the innocent, and by the way, some real bad guys are down there in Guantanamo.

How many, and how McCain can be so sure were among many unasked questions.

My personal favorite unasked question - you mentioned, Senator McCain your own legislative efforts to insist on non-torture on otherwise humane treatment of detainees, but considering the signing statement the President appended to the bill, basically announcing he rejected its terms, why are you so certain the President is willing to work with the congress now, to find way to treat prisoners the way you say they ought to be treated.

I can't tell you exactly how and why, but McCain seemed to feel that his own position had been upended by the decision. Then again, the Hamden decision put a real dent in this administration's secretive attempts to extend presidential power, beyond the reach of congress and the courts, and perhaps McCain isn't all that interested in joining that battle?

On immigration, McCain sounded like a politician trying hard to make amends of those to his right on this issue. Nor was McCain particularly impressive on the Republican defeat of a raise in the minimum wage, and their desire to raise their own paychecks. The Democrats insisting they will block the latter if the former is not accomplished McCain labeled a political ploy, and then reminded everyone that he doesn’t approve of congressional pay raises., Oh, and about that minimum wage increase, he’s for it, so long as it doesn’t hurt small business.

All in all, not one of McCain’s more impressive performances.

Senator Feinstein's affect was the opposite of McCanns.

Smiling and relaxed, the Senator didn't hesitate to pronounce "Hamden" a major decision, one that said clearly and specifically that Bush had exceeded his authority. She emphasized the separation of powers argument, pointing to Article One of the constitution wherein is laid out congress' many enumerated powers to regulate military matters.

She agreed that congress needed to act, to conform the procedures governing the Guantanamo detainees with the UCMJ, and with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Unlike McCain, Feinstein saw no particular problem with the latter.

Also, unlike McCann, Feinstein felt the decision brought into question all the ways in which Bush has interpreted the constitution to mean he can do whatever he wants, because we're at war, and she specifically included the NSA program, which, she said should be brought under the supervision of the FISA court.

Wasn't the Senator afraid, asked George, about the political hay to be made by Republicans? To illustrate, he quoted Nandy Pelosi's statement about the decision, and John Boehner's comeback that Pelosi wanted to give special rights to terrorists.

Feinstein made clear she had no such fears, and sounded like she meant it. In fact, this exchange provoked the most notable moment in the hour, when the Senator said, amidst a ringing valediction to the Constitution as a living, breathing document, the source of our greatest strength, not our greatest weakness, something to the effect that the Republicans will rue the day that they try and politicize this decision.

George insisted on pressing forward; after the debates on Iraq of the week before, weren't the Republicans on the offense, the Democrats forced to defend themselves against charges of being soft on the War on Terror?

Feinstein didn't back down. What Democrats understand that the President and most Republicans don't seem to is that we are not succeeding in Iraq and we need to evolve a new strategy. That is what every Democrat believes. That's why they've tried to push the President toward finding a new foreign policy team, one that might help him come up with a new strategy.

Feinstein was very strong here, defining the Democratic position as not staying the course because it is a losing course.

On the issue of the White House attacks on the NY Times, Feinstein went straight for the meat - if the Bush administration weren’t so secretive, so determined to escape the scrutiny of congress, these kinds of leaks wouldn’t happen. Feinstein also made absolutely clear that the briefing Senators were given on the "Swift" financial tracking program, only came at the point that it was clear the NYTimes had the story. Her position on "Swift," there should be no problem bringing it within the FISA framework.

The one missing point I wish Feinstein, and all other Democrats, would make in the future - the reason there is a need for such scrutiny is that this is a program that can easily lead to abuses of power. And way our constitution deals with such potential abuses is the constitution’s checks and balances.

And in making such arguments, it would be nice if some of the Democrats would remember to quote the howls of outrage uttered by Republican after Republican about the Clinton FBI file-gate non-scandal scandal.

As to that roundtable: Fred Thompson is not merely an asshole, he is an asshole’s asshole.

Not to put too fine a point on it.

An utterly partisan Republican whose years as a lawyer mean nothing to him, apparently. But then we knew that from his utterly partisan performance as chairman of the inquiry into possible campaign abuses after the 1996 presidential election, during which he refused to even consider any depredations on the part of Republicans, this despite Gingrich and DeLay already at work on their K Street Project.

On the New York Times, Thompson had all the Republican talking points memorized. If there was nothing new in the story, then why put it on the front page. What was new - sources and methods. The Time motivation - anti-Bush, anti his war, which war, Thompson didn’t make clear.

Joe Klein "sensed" some politics going on with the White House attacks on the Times. Gotta hand it to Joe; no dummy he. In fairness, he went after Bush secretiveness, and he even mentioned that the bigger story in all this is the Bush administrations unchecked grab for power.

Cokie wanted to talk about the effectiveness of the attack - very effective. Republicans always get mileage out of beating up on the press.

On the Hamden decision, it was Joe and Cokie v. Thompson. According to Fred, this was an activist court that reached aggressively to find a basis for its own jurisdiction. But Thompson was comforted by believing that it was a narrow holding, not of much significance. Republicans will do a bit of corrective legislating, and Bush will continue to protect us all

Cokie thought it was more significant than that, but wasn’t convinced that, despite Feinstein’s warning, that Democrats would succeed in making life difficult for Republicans on this issue, and in fact, might well lose out on the political benefit. Then again, when have you ever heard Cokie think Democrats have a shot at political success of any kind. Could it be wish-fulfillment?

Just in case you think that pundits might be any better at framing campaign points, arguments, whatever, than are Democratic politicians, here’s Joe Klein’s big idea for how Democrats can take on the Bush administration on this whole torture, indeterminate detention issue.

Wait for it; Democrats should fashion a 30 second commercial featuring John McCain’s passionate utterances on the floor of the Senate rejecting torture as a viable option for America. No suggestion from Joe that the 30 seconds ought to include McCain’s retreat from those lofty positions, which Klein had just witnessed. No, what struck Klein as a good idea was for Democrats to use McCain to….well, to do what, exactly?

All suggestions as to what Klein was thinking of will be gratefully received.