Why Don't Dems Just Pass One Year Bills?

There is an article in the New York Times dated October 9, 2007, that reports that Democrats appear ready to give the Bush Administration most of what it wants in a new domestic surveillance bill. This is from the article:

As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats.

Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

This is also from the article:

A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months.

Here's our question: Why for "several years"? Why not for just 18 months and then look at the issue again in 2009, when you may have a Democratic President and a stronger majority in the U.S. Senate and possibly the House of Representatives? Too often the Democrats fall into the trap of thinking that the choice is either one way or the other and they never look for a middle way. This would seem to be one of those times.