Another variation of the "unserious" or "insincere" meme is "cold and calculating" vs "unhinged and angry." In other words, any time a Democrat shows passion or emotion they are either faking it or out of control.

in this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?pagewanted=2&ref=washington

is the best explanation for Harry reid's behavior:

In the drug-trafficking operation, the N.S.A. has been helping the Drug Enforcement Administration in collecting the phone records showing patterns of calls between the United States, Latin America and other drug-producing regions. The program dates to the 1990s, according to several government officials, but it appears to have expanded in recent years.

I'm thinking that what Bush has done has been merely to expand on a program that was already in place when he took office. Thus any Democrats who are of the DLC/Clinton stripe would in fact share interest with the Republicans in wanting to supress investigation.

It would explain a lot and is less convoluted than any blackmail scheme but more detailed than the "they're all the same" dismissal.

I've been snarking for months at moderate/centrist/loyal Democrats who embrace and preach the monotonous, two-dimensional gospel of supporting the Lesser Evil. For all of their strident and self-righteous claims about being "realists", "pragmatists", etc., their "reality" is actually heavily filtered, processed, and manipulated-- a high-contrast, flattened version that simply doesn't register nuance, texture, and dimension.

One is frequently subjected to bumper-sticker "arguments", e.g. "Anyone who claims there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats is just nuts!"

FWIW, I don't claim that there's no difference. I do assert, however, that the Democrats' superficial appearance of being the "Lesser Evil" is illusory-- a tragic mirage, partly sustained by the lost, dying, and scorched members of the body politic who desperately seek to slake their mortal thirst.

More sympathetic to this need to hope and believe I could not be. But the shabby, unprincipled crew of political elites headed by Reid and Pelosi aren't offering fresh, if tepid, water to their thirstiest constituents. They're pissing on our legs and calling it Gatorade.

At best, they are "better" than the ruthless, venal Republic plutocracy in power because they are not as openly corrosive and fulminating in their parasitic grip on We the People. But it is folly to judge the present Democratic Party as a "lesser evil" in any but the most trivial, shallowest sense. They are a slower-acting, more fitful and insidious toxin. But they are just as lethal as the Republics. Thus, I believe that embracing Democratic candidates with the naive or deluded conviction that they will institute fundamental reforms to the political status quo is futile and wrong.

There is the corollary "sensible" belief that of course Democrats aren't "perfect" (the perfect is the enemy of the good, you know), but that it is the obligation and duty of progressive citizens to support the best of them, and then "keep the pressure on" to slowly but surely effect reform and positive change. Sounds good, I'll admit. But it's at best a beguiling fantasy.

It's telling that these folks, who I do generally accept are well-intended, have made dirty words out of "purity" and "conscience". It's a tacit admission that they have been persuaded to abandon their own consciences, or subsumed them into the groupthink of Party Loyalty, and that they are resigned to wallowing in the putrescence of the decayed political status quo. They urge, often bitterly and superciliously, that the rest of us join them in the rancid gutpile of the eviscerated Constitution and political process; once everyone is plastered in slime, no one will notice the stink.

The faithful Democratic partisans, including those who believe that a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama possess virtue and integrity sufficient to transcend our corrupt, broken and bankrupt elitist duopoly might as well be the ghosts of the parents of Lyle and Erik Menendez, moaning beyond the grave that their sons are basically good boys, if maybe a little wild.

Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them.

Why vote for the lesser evil?

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=7w9kbya&s=1

you said everything I've been thinking at 5:22 post save for Ron Paul but thats just my personal thing.

I wish to reiterate, it would be very difficult for me to actual vote for Paul but...I am the type who, when riled and pushed into a corner is NOT content to merely get myself out of the corner. I move to absolute devastation of my opponent. I seek to crush and really punish those who cornered me so that they never EVER try this sh*t again. I call bluffs. Think of that what you will but that is my way of doing things. If Reid puts me (and all of America) into a corner I will fight back absolutely and will NOT simply seek for Reid and his minions to back down. I want them to back down and actually leave the stage, preferably in disgrace and embarrassment (at least).

No matter what, Reid must go but if he shoves immunity through, the Democrap party must pay because it wont happen without them.

The first stanza goes:

Get canned from congress,

get can-caned from congress today! sing 3X's.

Sing together all day the lyrics, okay?

Guess what the chorus is? Get canned from congress!

Sing the same-same song to sing each day until they are caned. We can-can do it! I'll go. I bet we all sure can help do it.

While folks here celebrate the potential crippling of what may be our only remaining intelligence asset, here's something I find more interesting.... Congress spends our money without voting on it. That's right, it's apparently outside the normal constitutional process.

Earmarks are dispensed with no oversight other than one man's say so. With any luck at all, Bush will hijack those thousands of earmarks and direct the money elsewhere. Heh.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119811356177641129.html?mod=googlenews_wsj