> I still experience cognitive dissonance when I remember that we have a Democratic president who promised to rein in the NSA in '08.

Maybe he really wanted to, but then got told by the NSA that, in fact, he is not allowed to do it, and then got a gag order to speak of it no more.

Or maybe he realized that there was a lot more votes in being the "guy who shot Osama bin Laden in the face" than in being the "guy who will rein in the NSA." It's basically the same phenomenon that's playing out now with the Republican primary. Talking about cracking down on the NSA will get you some Democratic primary votes, and probably won't lose you any, just like talking about cracking down on illegal immigration will win you Republican primary votes and probably won't lose you any. But come the general election, you're going to have to moderate your position to appeal to the mushy middle.

Instead of the asinine speculation currently below your comment, I thought I'd post a helpful link explaining Obama's relationship with the surveillance state.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/16/state-of-decept...

Doesn't matter. The President can always run to other executive agencies (Law enforcement agencies instead of intelligence agencies or vice versa), the military, congress, provincial political strongholds, or the public if such a backdoor coup were to be attempted.

Hmm I wonder if a sitting President can get a gag order. Seems to violate the constitution but then again that rarely seems to matter today.

He could basically ignore it. Whos going to enforce it? Only threat is impeachment, but I would doubt that will pass unless the president was trying to damage the nation outright.