Because, after all, ours is a government of men

not of laws.

“I just think you know there’s was a concern among a number members of the caucus that this was going a little too far," [RussertFeingold's (good grief!) proposal for censure of Bush for the NSA wiretapping] the staffer remarked. "The majority of the American people agree with what the president’s doing. A lot of people outside the beltway see this as a tool that’s keeping Americans safe."

The aide added that some members have concerns that backing censure would hurt Democrats’ image on national security.

Didn't Joe McCarthy have a majority of the American public behind him, too? Except he was a liar, too, wasn't he? Turned out he wasn't exactly keeping the elephants away, either, as I recall.

Besides, the rule of law should always bend to political expediency. I mean, what's the point of having politicians, if they don't cling tenaciously to office even when the Executive brags about breaking the law?

There is, after all, a gameplan here:

“Democrats had decided that public hearings were needed on the wiretapping to educate the public before considering a censure,” one staffer quipped. “Hearings would’ve forced Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration. Everyone knew that was the gameplan. Feingold just wanted to hog the spotlight. If he were interested in holding George Bush accountable he would’ve made his pitch in the Democratic caucus behind closed doors.”

Behind closed doors, where Democratic criticism of the President belongs, apparently.

After all, if Republicans won't criticize Bush, who will?