Today, the leftwing blogsphere has a leaked memo to House Republicans on how they should represent themselves in August:

They are Fighting Washington for You.

I recommend looking at to see how much of the suggestions are followed by our members of Congress.

Here is the key paragraph for how they are to represent themselves (from the suggestion op-ed letter that they should send out):

Washington is out of control.

But every day I serve in Congress, I work to fight Washington. I’m fighting Washington to spur economic growth and create more jobs. I’m fighting Washington to hold government accountable to taxpayers. I’m working to dismantle ObamaCare and makeAmerica energy independent. I’m working to cut wasteful spending, expand educational opportunities, and rein in red tape. I’m fighting Washington for you.

Remember that line: Fighting Washington for you.

I look forward to reading how that farm bill Hartzler voted for is fighting Washington for the 4th District.

The only thing that is missing is the powerpoint that Hartzler always has to remind her what she needs to say at these forums.

I would gladly offer Matt Blunt’s office advice on how to make the entire administration implode, but they don’t seem to need my help.  They’ve got it covered.  On Tuesday, they whined like third graders that Carnahan’s guard had shoved someone too.  That bought them an extra day of heated coverage.  But on Wednesday they really outdid themselves, moving decisively on every front. 

News broke that they have filed a complaint against Eckersley with the Missouri bar for breaking attorney-client privilege.  (Actually, they did that way back on October 19th, but Eckersley’s been out of state and only just returned and discovered the news.)  Breaking privilege isn’t illegal, but it can be grounds for disbarment.  Just what Bluntco needs:  to look vengeful against someone who told the truth.  Because that’s what’s so fascinating about the move: it’s a tacit admission of what Eckersley claimed from the beginning.  They’re compaining that he told the truth when he said that he advised them their e-mail retention policy was illegal. As he commented:

“First I’ve been told I didn’t say anything, now I’m being told I said too much.”

Technically speaking, that’s an old move that only just got revealed.  Here’s a new one.  Bluntco wants a special prosecutor appointed to investigate Jay Nixon.  They’re demanding a special prosecutor for no particular reason (the MOGOP is still on about Nixon’s use of the state car and a couple of other equally irrelevant issues).  The real reason is that they’re being toasted to a crisp, so they figure Nixon deserves to feel some heat too. 

It’s a preemptive strike, since Nixon is promising to reveal before the end of the week his plans as attorney general for dealing with the governor’s failure to adhere to the state’s Sunshine Law policy.  McCaskill, by the way, has recommended that Nixon keep clear of launching what looks like a politically motivated investigation by appointing a special prosecutor.

Having publicly stepped into the fray, McCaskill is coming in for her share of Blunt trauma.  His office has filed a Sunshine Law request that she produce every document, “both deleted and undeleted” from  her last sixty days as state auditor of Missouri.  She should send them the deleted ones first, don’t you think?

And for good measure, the MOGOP is also requesting that nineteen Democratic legislators, all in leadership positions, produce every piece of paper and every e-mail from their offices for the last three years.  It’s a transparently vindictive move, but the Democrats will comply–wasting days, weeks or months.  But they’ll be rewarded for their efforts by having ringside seats as they watch Matt Blunt KO himself.

Fired Up! has the best summary of Bluntco’s plan of action:

These developments can’t be viewed favorably for the few remaining Blunt boosters out there.  Once your man is so damaged that he starts lashing out at everything that moves, even when the lashing out does as much harm to him as it does his adversary, it’s a sure sign that he’s mortally injured and is headed for the exit.  Team Blunt is wounded, desperate and punching at anything it thinks it sees through its swollen eyelids.  Despite all the rage, they are slowly bleeding out.  Good riddance.

photos courtesy of Columbia Tribune

Apparently Blunt feels the axe hanging over his head because he stumbled through questions from K.C. Star reporters in this video.  Finally, his security guards had to rescue him by shoving reporters aside, slamming the door of the SUV, and spiriting the governor out of harm’s way.

Memo shows attorney challenged Blunt’s policy before firing
Saturday, November 10, 2007
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD ~ The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS — A former staff attorney for Gov. Matt Blunt sent an internal office memo challenging his boss’ stance on deleting e-mails just weeks before the attorney was fired, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The memo’s existence and content contradict public statements made by Blunt and his top officials after the attorney was fired in late September. Blunt officials have repeatedly said Scott Eckersley never challenged — verbally or in writing — their policy of deleting office e-mail and brought up the issue only the day he was fired….

This is a textbook case of how not to handle a political windstorm, unless…

…you’re worried that you’re going to go to jail for doing something really really bad.

…On Friday, Chrismer reiterated that Blunt’s office has “no record that Scott Eckersley ever wrote or stated that the practices of our office were inconsistent with any law or standard on record retention….

Heh. Do you think maybe that lack of record is because it was deleted? A classic “non denial denial” if I’ve ever seen one.

RSMo 610.010

(6) “Public record”, any record, whether written or electronically stored, retained by or of any public governmental body including any report, survey, memorandum, or other document or study prepared for the public governmental body by a consultant or other professional service paid for in whole or in part by public funds, including records created or maintained by private contractors under an agreement with a public governmental body or on behalf of a public governmental body; provided, however, that personally identifiable student records maintained by public educational institutions shall be open for inspection by the parents, guardian or other custodian of students under the age of eighteen years and by the parents, guardian or other custodian and the student if the student is over the age of eighteen years. The term “public record” shall not include any internal memorandum or letter received or prepared by or on behalf of a member of a public governmental body consisting of advice, opinions and recommendations in connection with the deliberative decision-making process of said body, unless such records are retained by the public governmental body or presented at a public meeting. Any document or study prepared for a public governmental body by a consultant or other professional service as described in this subdivision shall be retained by the public governmental body in the same manner as any other public record;

RSMo 610.011

Liberal construction of law to be public policy.
1. It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.

2. Except as otherwise provided by law, all public meetings of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in section 610.020, all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes of public governmental bodies shall be recorded as set forth in section 610.015.

Rough translation: “when in doubt, save it”