I had a helluva week so I neglected to comment on the passing of the Patriot Act on Thursday but 89-10 in the U.S. Senate.

After months of delays, furrowed brows on Sunday morning talk shows and general puffery, what major concessions led to such resounding bi-partisan support?

In the end, the White House and the Senate GOP leadership crafted a package of civil liberties additions that satisfied most Senate critics. Among the most important changes:

Recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations will have the right to challenge the requirement that they not tell anyone about the subpoena.

In addition, recipients of such subpoenas will no longer be forced to provide the FBI with the name of their lawyer.

Finally, the civil liberties package clarifies that most general-purpose libraries are not subject to demands made in so-called National Security Letters for information about suspected terrorists.

The changes ultimately swayed the Senate, which passed the bill 89-10 vote Thursday in a bright spot for President Bush's troubled second term. The House is expected to take its final vote on March 7.

The most adamant opponent of the Patriot Act in the Senate, Russell Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, held that most of the civil liberties changes would have little real effect, in practice. But he acknowledged that in political terms the provisions had worked, and the bill was virtually certain to clear all reauthorization hurdles.

"The die is cast," said Feingold on Wednesday.

Indeed.

These were the compromises that were holding up the Patriot act? I've probably never agreed with Feingold about anything, so there must be a blue moon out.

Aside from being mildly annoyed at the fracas, it strikes me as portenous that in spite of a president with a "34% approval rating" (more likely about 38%) and all the nonsense the Crats were spouting over the president's wiretapping of "political opponents" (i.e. terrorists), the act passed handily if not overwhelmingly..

Apparently the port kerfuffle wasn't just an opportunist feint by the Crats, trying to get to the right of the administration on security issues--they've figured out that Karl Rove was right--the election will again be largely over security concerns and they are pulling on their combat boots and special forces berets (given to them one Christmas Eve while deep in Cambodia...).

Bill Clinton has been telling them to be at least as strong as the President on this issue for some time already, and I guess they are finally taking his advice (since things went so well for them in the past two election cycles). Its a good sign, in that it means the Democrats are not insane as I've feared for sometime now, but a caveat is in order.

Rove choose this battleground.