Ryan/Romney run from Ryan plan..

Ryan runs from own plan endorsed by Romney.
Not Exactly.
The lies and hypocrisy know no pail. 
Here is to Thomas Roberts. (Not... Today)*

*Links scrolling up.
(i.e. reverse order)
Rachel Maddow: Shrug Life **
Morning Joe: Romney "hate"/"chains" Biden
Today: Reince Priebus "blood"
Today: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Ryan Obama Pick?
Thomas Roberts under "Here". Who is Paul Ryan?
--
The Ed Show: unchained memory
**[?]
The Ed Show:  Romney Medicare Lies
The Last Word: SNL Republican War Hypocrisy Ryan***
Lean Forward? Or go back. Ryan Fiscal Conservative?
TheLiaisonReport: Wikileaks Ryan
Lean Forward(or back [FOX] to Morning Joe) Cuts and Run.
The Last Word: Romney and Ryan run from Romney Plan

**  Maddow Seg-way
***[Smoking Gun: Ryan votes against stimulus, says it works and takes funds for state.]

[The E Pit o'me of Nuance or Flip-Flop.(in reference to above layout, links and asterisks.] 

[And this AM: Ryan runs from Wonk and Partisanship.  That is a hoot, since he was on the BS Panel(Bowles-Simpson).  Reminds me of Saving Pirate Ryan, and "going postal".  The USPS(congressional failure) is the Iron Knee to Romney/Ryan I Ron Knee, Funding Bane Or...
(Note: Bane/Bain Boehner confluance and bracket of  "Funding"(...)"Or" or Mitt Rob Me.  The USPS is not going broke, anymore than the government is going broke, Republicans are breaking it by running their plan which ironically in moderation would solve so many problems.  i.e. investment.  But they are over-investing in the pension plan and at the same time hoping to privatise it.  Won't that be a boon?)  In proper context, pirates were a government program.  Speaking of hole in the Hart.(AM)]

[See bold book ends: Shrug Life /The Last Word. Not exactly.]
[A last clip (Jon Stewart on The Cycle!) And the pie chart of fiscal irresponsibility does not even include the flip-flop of going austere and focusing on cutting the debt while cutting taxes as soon as the Republicans no longer led.]

HIT AND RUN (QCON)

"HIT AND RUN" is my term for the Righty Republicans. Righty Republican is another running with terms. This blog has been about Running with Rhetoric. Rhetoric, like politics or the law, is not good or bad, but that is another story.

QCON is an acronym, for Quick Comment On the News. It also runs in line with this post. It suffices to stand for Questioning Cons, and that is the link to the Hit and Run. The Hit and Run refers to the crowd, usually the Righty Republicans who would bash the so-called "Liberal" media or press" while running from the questions. Tommy Thompson recently did an amazing "hit and run" on the abortion issue.

Now in these cases of representing such an exchange it may make more sense to skip from the transcript. A closer look may ruin my thesis. But the portion I did hear, had him for making abortion illegal, but sending people to jail was a "liberal" thing. By Jove I believe I did it. A one liner.

But on another track, "liberals" are about running the government, not running from responsibility for their actions or questions, while Righty Republicans are about bashing and running for it.

Search: QCON, Hit and Run
and bonus search: MAD

Artificial...calls for impeachment.

Hit and Run.
[See New Label and bottom link: Straw Elephant - and other search options.]
Democrats should be cautious that Republicans don't get ahead of them on both the war and impeachment, but more likely it is just a "hit and run" diversion. However, Bush may take it as a message *. Hah!

The timetables will be removed and then they will continue to have the war and Bush to run from. Impeachment would put their jobs on the line, because they would have to put a vote on the line. If they ever get to impeachment it would be more of the same, but it would be there for the people to see them "hit and run". While Republicans are all about running, Democrats should be doing their jobs as well.

[8:39 AM link added: originally "the message" was the one from the Republicans to Bush, but the link incorporates the Democratic message]

FAUX NEWS!

I'm not in the mood to play with words today.
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.

The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.

My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.

Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]

* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]

[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]

[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]

Straw Elephant

Misery Loves Company
Or Day Late and a Dollar Short?

So much has been made of the pre-emptive leak that there will be a troop "surge" that it almost overshadows the rest of his potential plan. But the possibility that there are a "few good" ideas are overshadowed by the increase in "a few good men" and women. My pre-emptive take on the former is dampened by the pre-emptive reaction to the latter. My pre-emptive cynicism has taken the biggest hit, but here is my take nevertheless.

Whatever the reasoning behind the "escalation" there is always hope that it will work. However, there is more likelihood that it is just a form of "cut and run". It is more than the concept that we must "support our troops" which does not entail agreeing with the president, but that there is emotional strength in numbers in that they support each other. But it must be remembered that the president is the commander-in-chief in that he is responsible for the plan. The possibility that he will not be allowed to carry out his plan, lays the responsibility on congress where it also belongs, in their job of holding him accountable. That is the job that the voters have chosen the Democratic Congress to do, based on the president’s record and the rubber stamp his party has given him.

With all the hope for success and support for the troops always there, it is difficult to say that this is probably the ultimate cut-and-run. For if the president does not seem like he has a plan, there can be nothing for Republicans to cut-and-run from to cover their past, not to mention move forward on. The Democrats have the job to correct the past, and make sure it is not repeated, but Republicans will gladly settle for passing the buck, with an appearance that they are not as united as they were. This takes an old saying into a new camp, from "divide and conquer" to divide to run. There is something to be said here in that Democrats are divided to unite.

Where "fair and balanced" means putting up a straw dog, against a straw issue, there is a lot of "hard work" sorting the many positions and potential solutions to any problem. Is there irony or extreme congruity in the image of former Democrat Ronald Reagan and a 20-mule team not to mention the Borax needed to come clean?

"Secret Plans" sounds too much like Nixon.

Hit and Run Republicans are not exactly being cut and run from the process as they know it is difficult to avoid a vote.

But since we know that Bush's plan is not the Iraq Study Group's, if he has one, and the Democrats have a few plans, it is too late to say, let's just get along. The concept of a secret plan is most ridiculous for two reasons. 1. We got into this war not only based on secret plans but 2. leaked plans for political purposes. If we cannot get out for political purposes, it is too much to expect that anything change. Believe me, I could have been more strident in this terminology, but it should be pretty clear. (Except that the secret and the leaked plans are still not clear.)

The "too late" is also from the perspective of the calculations of whatever is read into it by the insurgents, but removing political pressure now will only make it more a political calculation later, besides removing the power to hold accountable not only from congress but from the people.

I don't know if this is almost as bad or much worse than the "cards dealt" to the president before the war, but it seems the same game.

Wake Up and Eat Some Breakfast.

[Pulled from draft "as is" 12-29-10]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*

*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]

*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?

[See Asterisks here **]

Straight Talk Express?

Or Real Clear Politics
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?

Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.

But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.

Belated Link(s)

We Got Ed
caller (Mel?): "Tea Partiers are people scared to call themselves Republicans."
Between One Nation and The Plan we have the American Dream.
Something about diluted by the play of running things. I think it is a Rovian principle that negative[*] gets attention, and if you don't have power, the more negative you go, because you have to run from your plans, which is not exactly all-in-ski(see Comment). I can't remember where I first hint and-correction-(at*) this theory, but if they are running against government, it would make sense that they would run from their own, but then join them.
[*] 9-20-10 speaking of negative attention principle; "at" inserted @ different theory

And Bailout...

McCain it seems, is heading for the debate,
but it seems that he does not even know what plan is on the table.

And I am not sure too many do. And that was the day he suspended his campaign.

As usual the Democrats will get something done, while the Republicans hold onto their agenda of politics and business over people. [*]

Meanwhile progress at the UN Security Council on Iran is at risk of being more business as usual. I only heard a brief news item about a Russia calling something legally binding but without santions.

[* Bold only with this updated: Senator Bernie Sanders on The Thom Hartmann Show** has just now framed this. And last week mentioned the October Surprise as the bailouts arrived. Some people have said that the economy could not wait till October, but really politics could not wait, since congress was scheduled to go home to campaign.]

** must link this show "hit and run" aspect: Bush hits, Dems fix, Republicans Run. (see Domke)
Not to mention that this is a distraction that keeps politicians from being able to run.

Faux Campaign

versus Real concerns.
The last post was so extended I have bumped the last portion up to here:

Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is the only method in resolving things, even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]

[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]

[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And later, Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)[UPDATE], from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]

*** asterisk applies to last post

SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal

Democrats must put ethics and the law back on the table.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]

Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.

So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.

ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...

Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.

WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?

A: Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other. "And that almost never happens," said Sloan.
B. We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders.

ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.


THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.

I'm not even

gonna read this yet, or MoveOn to this. But is this the deal?
[Scroll over links for 'nuf context]
It seems a spectrum of progress and contrast. From Bush, to Blair, from Tea Parties, to Newt. Each looks better in perspective to the others.
[9-15-10 Re: further preemption]
[Counter Balance[*] of Table]
[Just noting the complexities of international diplomacy and domestic politics, as well as the "two party" system. While we near a deal of major import, minor fears drive local divisions, and have major costs. Democrats run divided, while Republicans divide to run. While this is not a clear and fair analogy, as of course division is needed in races within parties. But Democrats have not created a party to run against itself, while it has those in office who run rather* independent.]
[And Under the Radar]
* see Balance above and cost of debt and war

[Image use and source; original.]

[*][On the other hand, extending only the middle-class Bush tax-cuts only reduces the borrowing by $700 billion.]
[9-16-10: extending the Bush Tax cuts: adds $3.9 trillion** to National Debt, while extending only those above $250K would add only $3.22 trillion. i.e. reduce by $680 billion. ]
** 3.8? Quote: Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.

Time for us to go

TO WORKThe new Un-Frame for Them?
Republicans would actually want to lose so that they can blame the Democrats so that they can return to fight at a later date? Now that is courage. NOT!

But this is the unspin. Would they really risk possible impeachment of Bush for the sake of their own power? Not that Democrats or the people would have the guts. Maybe they want the Dog to wag. But this puts a spin on politics that I have been trying to halt. My point is that governing is hard work, which Republicans do not believe in, and would rather let Democrats carry the load, while they run away to fight another day. How is that good for the country?

Is this just more to talk about, to keep us from the "hard work"? It also distracts from and should raise questions of which came first, the strategy or the words of regret (or coming to their senses) which some conservatives express. Another question: do they put themselves before facing the issues?

AND MORE: it will be TIME FOR US TO GO TO WORK.
Will they work with Democrats for those two years?
Will the Democrats be finished even reviewing let alone correcting the last six?
Will the Democrats even play "the game" that it has been for Republicans? If they play it as well, they would cut them out of it all. Demostrate that we can handle debate and division and bring issues to the fore for the coming two years not just for the next four, but for the people, our country and the world.

I must thank The Thom Hartmann Show for sending me on this tangent, or search: "Time for us to Go". We should agree, it is time for Republicans to go, and for any that survive, not to go back to the politics of either nine words or sixteen. Thanks to Garrison Keillor as well. But I would say (to Reagan's nine)
Let them not be in the government for they are there to help themselves.

And I must make reference to my earlier posts.
A Pre-emptive Comment 11-15-05
Politics 11-24-05
Speaking of Running 3-18-06
Hold of Course 3-17-06

[Tangents are the nature of how things connect,
when every point is in context of the whole.] Not incidentally, quantummatter.com

Back Log and 4 Mat

Hit and Run Republicans, simply reflects the open field and many tents in which leadership is hard to locate. Not exactly hit and run, but more like running from various factions and issues.
As projected now by Chris Cillizza or 2B soon [*], but here is the point of my format. Democrats as well have their wings, but the political calculus depends upon whether there are closed or open primaries, especially when it comes to independents and progressives verses(sic) tea partiers** and disappointed liberals, not to mention the fluid* or radical moderates.(not to overly characterize)

[Hi! See Noon? Or midnight sessions where "Senate Republicans use the rules to stop things, Senate Democrats are going to use the rules to keep everybody working late."]

*pun on the oversea's similar difficulties and disappointments and party electoral process differences.[***]

** no disrespect but there are at least two major factions I call the Palin and Paul wings, both uncertain about whether they are running for or from the Republican Party.

[Teeter Totter? Gamble and Investments.]

[***] Not so puny. Plus it was only natural google that(or which) intersected the links.]

[*] 4wards ho!

Republicans Filibuster Economy

There, no more misledership!
Durbin Calls for Change to Filibuster Rule

Content from Legislation not Politics!(post asterisk *)
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculous line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]

(*) post-asterisk at link, go there for more links, but I have rearranged two in this content: If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.

NOW MORE CONTEXT... later (Well maybe)
[just posted from draft]

Carry On Comment!

Borrowed from an AM1090 caller to one of the afternoon talk shows, the interesting dilemma of Karl Rove is his confessing apparently...

that he has no diary or record of his work with the administration.

This with his apparent plan to write a book, means...

either he has a very good memory or it will be in the fiction section.

Actually I just rearranged the caller's comment to my own taste in my usual way.

His point was that it takes "I don't recall" and all it's variations "off the table" when it comes to congressional investigations.
I would add
the only alternative
is straight to "the pen".

More lines of investigation on Rove history
For later read, not that I have read the above.
"...who know what"
Democrats vow...
political fighter
Picking Bush's Brain ?
...avoid Capitol Hill
WaPo editorial

[pause]
Clinton, Rove's candidate in '08
U.S. Attorneys
First Read
Divider

[Having just read the last one first, it is a reminder that his nickname "turd blossom" is something that survives in a field of fertilizer.]

[Second thoughts on First Thoughts from First Read: There should NEVER be another Karl Rove. It is a cheap shot and a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to promulgate such a character [italics and link added 8-15-07]by looking for the next one.

At least they admitted that "they" (the media) create them (the turd blossoms), but of course there will be, on the Right, as several of his (Rove's) proteges are distributed amongst the Republican candidates. But on The Left there is too much distribution of brains to get away with anything like what the administration has so far distributed. Genius should be about what works, and nothing much has, with this administration, except accumulation of ruin and power. * [it.a.l.a. 8-15-07]
Shame on MSNBC for such work. There is some good news on the new Hillary ad, but to follow with a piece on Rove? And while running the bottom line, "the next Karl Rove" under "her inner Bill".]

* [8-15-07 Re: David Frum link "and power", reminiscent of Lakoff where he points out that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former run to govern, and the latter govern to run. That may say as much about governing as running, and as much about the left as the right, but rather than looking for a third way in the middle of any political spectrum, maybe the perspective [way to see it] is from above the plane, while a plane requires a third perspective that is not in line.]

[ bold italics added 3-12-08]

CUT THAT

BU** SH** OUT! [see note]

Munch Munch. At the G-8 a few weeks ago, Bush had some ideas for Putin between chomps, that the U.N. should tell Syria, to tell Hezbollah to cut that S*** out. If that is the "nature" of how the world works, then please try it in his own back yard. The two above expletives represents links to the RNC.

Dems Rejoice: Ruling Weakens Terrorist Surveillance Program

Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security

The linkage of Democrats and liberal judges to a weakening of anything are a cut and run from their sworn duty to uphold the constitution and fight for democracy. The only enemy the Republicans can defeat are the phantom "do nothings". No body wants to stop law enforcement or the military from any efforts to protect America, they only expect that we do so under the constitution or they have literally ripped the heart out of the foundation of this nation and the hope of the world.

Picture this:
An elephant with King George the 43rd, stomping on the constitution and strangling the founding fathers in their graves.

Note: The links actually represent a lot of "hard work" meaning a filtering of opinions that may have individual merit as opinions or snippets of facts, but the image of Democrats as terrorist reflect the intention that must be shoveled back with the image above.

TM-R (day 21)

Barely half-way though a period of review, today we have another quixotic mess which I was barely able to wade through.

HOWEVER I DID,
BUT ONLY AFTER THESE ACTIVITIES TRANSPIRED:

Last night my local Democratic Legislative district passed a resolution to urge our senators to support Russ Feingold's move to censure Bush.

HERE IS MY PLEA TO THEM THE DAY BEFORE:
Since impeachment procedures can only begin in the House, please support Senator Feingold on his resolution to censure President Bush for illegally wiretapping without court order.

This measure should get a full committee hearings with sworn testimony that will hold not only the administration accountable, but Republicans who won't uphold the constitution, accountable.

The argument is that this is a political stunt. It is also a constitutional stunt. If politics is not used at it's fullest to protect the constitution, it will be used to circumvent it. If it is not clear to partisans on our side, it is on the other. Even swing voters would likely prefer a clearer choice than between those that break the law and those that will not uphold it.
[boldness added here]

While some "loyal opposition" may call boldness an Impeachable Strategy and resort to political calculus and even the physics of gravity like trickle down...

My reply:

Gravity does not apply in politics!
Bush (or a con) knows that will does.
Gravity is a two way street and while the masses may pull down the politician's bootstraps, only real leaders with courage can choose to pull up the bootstraps of the people.

Those who will not stand up for clarity from the administration and those who cut and run from the constitution and conversation, have no lack of will to trust, but little faith or courage to verify. Only that makes the process quixotic.

Ditto

It works!

As projected.

[I have heard but have not researched and had earlier thought that Project Chaos might just backfire, as an inverse to the 50 state strategy and state and party rights. By this I mean, that I am uncertain of the mechanics and regardless of the impact and dynamics of the competing theories, if any Republicans were cheated out of their ability to vote for Republicans that they could have if they were not gaming the system, it would be hard to imaging that it could happen, but someone probably has. After this convoluted ramble, I think not. It may have backfired in the long run, but not so clearly for the time being.]

[5-17-08: the embedded point here is that the focus on crossover distracted from some races that were in-play, costing the Republicans seats. It could have been the publicity and a get out the vote for Dems, which is my own double-edged theory. Project Chaos and/or Hillary staying in, had a get out the vote effect along with a vaccination for negative campaigning or as one conservative writer called it, "positive polarization". Apparently the Republicans have been spinning since before FDR was put in his grave. No disrespect, but that is that plays into it too well. The "new deal" and the so-called media.