Alterman: 'Feingold shouldn't be out there alone'

[quaoar]

This from the end of Eric Alterman's blog entry:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10532065/#051220

If we're Americans, we realize that the president is but our employee. He works for us. He takes an oath to abide by the immutable principles of a Constitution that begins with the three magnificent words, "We, The People." If we're Americans, we realize that there is not a system of "our" rights and "their" rights. Every abridgement -- potential or actual -- of someone's civil liberties is an attack on them all. If we're Americans, we realize that there is more to the country than its economy, that there is more to the system than its military. The Eastern bloc people didn't shake off the petrification of the Soviet bloc just because they wanted blue jeans and the Beatles. They wanted Jefferson and Madison, too, and all the raucous, unruly freedom that came after them. It is a big moment because it is one of those moments that forces on us the fundamental question that a wise old teacher of mine once said was at the heart of the American experiment:

Do we govern or are we governed?

If we are governed, then nothing that's been revealed in the past several days matters very much. However, if we govern, then it's goddam well time for us to get on with it. Russ Feingold shouldn't be out there alone. Where's John Edwards? Where's Hillary? Why is John McCain's straight-talkin' mouth suddenly full of mush and marbles? Where's anybody who wants to be president on the subject of the towering and illegal presumption of the current one? Where's the media, so concerned about the First Amendment that they can't be bothered with the next several? The president has declared himself beyond the law, beyond the Congress, beyond the people, beyond all reasonable limits, and beyond the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, and defend. He has made himself a king, and he's declared himself proud of it. There's John Lewis, who knows better than all of us what's at stake.

Where's everybody else?

[still_one]

1. That is why Russ Feingold is who I want for president

nothing has ever stopped him from speaking or voting on principle

[LittleClarkie]

45. He's about the only guy who could tear me from the arms of Kerry

I'd have to sit back and have a good long think if they both run in 2008.

[ClassWarrior]

2. I'm with Russ.

:standing proudly with my fellow Sconnie:

NGU.

[stray cat]

3. I stand with Russ because he stands up for me.

[BonnieJW]

4. Russ

Shouldn't we all be emailing him and letting him know we're with him? I'm thinking an email blitz like only DU can do.

[PassingFair]

5. Just did!

Let him know that we are WATCHING and we are behind him.


Sometimes you are winning just when you think you are losing....

[LWolf]

6. He's not out there alone.

At least, not unless the only support that counts is from the perceived "top" of the party. What if they weren't the "top?" What if the party were truly Democratic, and every rep was considered "equal?" Look around. He's got some support then. There are other Democrats speaking out. Since they aren't the handful anointed by TPTB and the MSM as "the Democrats that count," they just aren't getting the attention.

[myrna minx]

7. Feingold is a champion.

Go Feingold. :toast:

[Jai4WKC08]

8. Clark blogged about this on Monday.

And I might guess he would agree about Feingold. While Clark doesn't give any of the senators a pass, he does mention the vote on the Patriot Act as demonstrating why those who were briefed before didn't speak up when they should have. Not too tough to extrapolate that he wants to see them all doing more now--he has been pretty clear all along that Congress has fallen way short in its duties under the principle of the separation of powers. (Btw, the ellipses in the quote below appear where Clark typed 'em--I haven't snipped anything out of the middle of his words, altho I did trim some before and after that pertained to other questions he was asked.)

I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the President's having unlimited authority as Commander-in-Chief. He must still obey the law. What I don't understand in this case is why he just couldn't use the existing law. It would seem to cover such cases perfectly, albeit with a secret court. But the NSA could have even gained retroactive authority. So why not use the existing law? This is the major open question, which will determine where the story really goes....

The Democratic leadership could have objected and demanded that the Administration use existing law, threatened to blow the whistle, and committed an act of civil disobedience by leaking the information... This would have likely been hugely unpopular at the time, given the mood in 2001 when this began, and few Democratic lawmakers would have been up to it. Just see the vote on the Patriot Act.

Of course, I would be interested in knowing exactly who they were listening to, and when... this is important to understand the significance of the intrusion upon privacy, and to understand why existing law wouldn't suffice.

This would, prima facie, seem to be a violation of the law, and Presidents shouldn't break the law.

[Clark2008]

11. Wes is my first choice and Feingold is my second.

Beyond that - it's pretty much "hold my nose and vote."

:bounce:

[AndreaCG]

42. I wish he'd said impeachment

Especially on Fox!

[radio4progressives]

9. Feingold is an American Champion!

:kick: :applause: :hi: :toast: :yourock:

[karynnj]

10. Kerry and Boxer have spoken out

Boxer when further than Feingold and Kerry said Bush didn't uphold the constitution (to ironworkers in Boston) and that he did not adhere to the law and that it was an abuse of powers(on Bill Press). How was Feingold any stronger?

Boxer is probably not running - she's never indicated she is. But Kerry has signalled he might - and he polls better than many others mentioned and he has as much or more chance than Edwards.

[radio4progressives]

13. True Boxer invoked the "I" word..

Kerry can't even bring himself to say that Bush admitted to commiting a Federal Crime, or even that he broke the law. the phrase "didn't adhere" is too mealy mouthed, and frankly too "nuanced" for joe blow six pack to comprehend - on the other hand Feingold said it straight up, as did Boxer.

[TayTay]

14. This is completely untrue.

He has called Bush out on it at least 3 times, most recently this morning on Bill Press' radio show. He has called for hearing and called the whole thing 'unconstitutional.' Get your facts straight.

Story from AP writer Glen Johnson, filed 12/20/05
Kerry says White House spying unconstitutional

Kerry, talking with reporters after addressing ironworkers at a local labor
hall, contrasted the media's disclosure of the spy program with the White House
leak involving Valerie Plame.

Her identity as a CIA analyst was exposed in July 2003 after her husband, former
ambassador Joe Wilson, challenged an administration justification for the Iraqi
war.

"The leak in the White House was an effort to destroy somebody and his family
and attack them for telling the truth," the senator said.

"The leak that took place in this case is a leak that _ I'm not excusing it _ is
to tell the truth about something that violates the rights of Americans and
doesn't uphold our Constitution," Kerry said.

What part of calling this unconstitutional do you not understand?

[karynnj]

15. Why do you underestimate the intelligence of others

Read Kerry's statements - or go listen to the Bill Press interview - he said it pretty clearly. Unconstitutional means AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. I hope everyone who passed 5th grade understands that. In reality it is about the strongest thing you can say - it is not against some random law, but it is against the most basic law of the land!

Why do you think YOU are smarter than most others?

[Mass]

17. Apparently, our friend is playing with words.

Kerry did not say "broke the law", he said "did not adhere to the law" and this is what he is whining about. "Broke the law" is the only expression that shall be used, say the law:sarcasm:.

No surprise that the Democrats do not make any progress. Rather than sticking together when even some Republicans are asking for investigations, some Democrats find it convenient to attack again.

Same old game: we are getting some traction, time to attack each other. We have seen that again and again and again this last year. You may wonder if some people really want to make progress.

[quaoar]

20. I think Kerry has been out front on this

and forceful in denouncing Bush.

However, it would be better to use the phrase "broke the law" rather than "did not adhere." "Broke the law" is the sort of straight-forward language that hits home immediately.

[politicasista]

41. I wonder that too n/t

[elsiesummers]

12. Levin was with Russ at the press conference on CSPAN.

So I don't think Feingold is alone - they were both talking about Bush disregard of Civil Liberties.

The press conference is probably still available by stream on CSPAN recent programming.

[Mass]

16. This is totally false.

Durbin and Reid have been all over that, even more than Feingold . Kerry and Boxer too. Conyers, Lewis in the house also. And let's not forget Dean . (I am sure I forget some people).

Even Leahy, Specter, Feinstein, Hagel, Snowe, people like Graham are all over this.

May be Alterman should reconsider the list of people he is looking at. Edwards, McCain, and Clinton are not the world.

[radio4progressives]

24. Are you kidding? I watched & Listened to these guys on C-Span

yesterday, actually all week.

Yes, Durbin, Levin, Kerry, Schumer, and Reid spoke out at press conferences - but when asked the question by reporters, if President Bush Broke the Law - everybody suddenly came down with marble mouth, except Boxer and Feingold.

"well we don't know, we don't have all the facts" "that's what we need to find out" (etc etc.)

When Senators Durbin and Levin were asked do they intend holding investigation hearings as soon as they get back from recess - and before the Alito hearings, they each said "No, not until after the Alito hearings", 'then we'll be looking into these allegations' (paraprhasing).

That statement was made by both Durbin and Levin.

A reporter asked Senator Levin, 'isn't there some sort of legal action that can be done right now, like injunctions, to prevent President Bush in continuing these unauthorized spying activties' ? and Levin shrugs it off, saying he "didn't think so"..

Another reporter asked Levin haven't the Dems on the intelligence committee been complicit with President's domestic spying activities, having been informed in committee? Obviously Levin rejected the assertion.

But i have the same question the reporter asks, and frankly Levin's responses was woefully inadequate.

As to Kerry, well.... hmm. Let me put it this way, Kerry does not communicate in "straight talk" . He constantly equivicates in his delivery. It's not that I don't understand what he's talking about, it's how too often much of what he says (on any issue)tends to lend itself into being perceived into thirty different possible intepretations.

ok, i'm exagerating somewhat, but not by much.

If you can agree that this statement: "Does not appear to have adhered to the law" is very different from: "he broke the law" or "clearly committed a Federal Crime" or even: "Bush committed a Federal Crime and violated the Constitution" (might even include "by his own admission") then you'll have to agree that Kerry has not adequately communicated to "john q public" and the press, exactly what the issue is, and why this issue is of monumental importance to all Americans.

[Mass]

27. Well, we will continue to disagree on that.

And I doubt there is any sense to continue this discussion.

I know that Feingold is the latest flavor of the month (and for good reasons), but this is just totally counterproductive.

I will go back to real people.

[radio4progressives]

29. Do disagree, but you will go back to "real people" ?

so only "real people" agree with your point of view?

[Mass]

33. Not necessarily, but they live in the real world.

[blm]

28. Kerry was a prosecutor - and if they have to judge an impeachment

then they have to act as JURORS. You aren't SUPPOSED to say someone is guilty before you've seen the evidence in the case.

Boxer asked scholars to advise her and her TELL her if he was guilty of impeachable offense, she didn't come out and say George Bush is guilty and must be impeached.

[radio4progressives]

32. All I'm saying is ...

it's in all how the message translates... perceived, interpreted.

Right or wrong..(i agree with you, there's a process that's important, appropriate, and legal)

Unfortunately, American's (by and large) try public officials in their own minds, (living rooms, office water coolers) then they want to hear what's the next action, people don't want to hear about no stink'n proceeeeedurrrres!

Naturally I'm NOT advocating that Democrats should be reacting inappropriately, yes they have to mention procedures, (congressional investigation hearings)but they can also echo the obvious.

And, they don't need to be too cautionary particularly on a matter of this significance, because these are matters of no small consequence, and the question of any further abuse of power potentially currently going on that needs to be checked IMMEDIATELY.

or as immediate as possible - meaning special hearings immediately following the holidays, instead of giving the impression that they'll be looking into it after the Alito hearings, some have the impression that it wont' be initiated until after the State of the Union Address towards the end of the month. that would be insane if true, but that's the IMPRESSION left to reporters, to communicate to "real people".

[lyonn]

38. Not speaking out clearly - that is why bush is where he is

The Dems are constantly being politically correct while the repubs shout their absurdities, like, bush is protecting us from the evil ones, dems are cowards and unpatriotic. We got lied to about WMD and what is happening? Hardly a murmur. I realise we don't have control of the House or Senate, but somehow we need to do something, heck, shut down Congress. I'm feel radical and scared enough at this point that, what harm could it do to the democratic party? We appear worthless at this point.

[blm]

43. Articles like this and the people who don't follow closely enough to know

this article is full of shit, are the problem for the left in this country.

We seem to have different standards for left leaning journalists. DU is loathe to realize that inaccurate reports from left leaning journalists are every bit as divisive and harmful to the left as Rush and Hannity.

[karynnj]

37. I for one DO think not adhere to the law means deviating from the law

Also the point wasn't did he use the clearest most pointed language, but is he out there saying it. The answer to that is YES - he said Bush did not uphold the constitution.

Kerry has been one of the most consistent people out speaking on Bush transgressions. He, more than anyone, repeatedly made the point yesterday that the only reason they were even dealing with the defense bill this late was that the administration wanted to preserve the rights to torture people.

It's Kerry's amendment that is being fought over on secret prisons.

You may be angry that he got the nomination in 2004 and lost and you may think he's not a good candidate for 2008, but on the question of did he or did he not say something on Bush's abuses, is that he did and he consistently has.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Good point

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Alterman thinks Clinton, Edwards and McCain are the only ones in the running. He certainly played only his favorites last time.

Hmmm... let's go down the list of Democrats who talk about running, or are talked about...

Clark - check
Dean - check
Feingold - check
Kerry - check

MIA:
Bayh
Biden
Clinton
Edwards
Gore
Richardson
Vilsack
Warner

Maybe anyone here who supports these people ought to try to contact them, let 'em know we expect to hear something.

[blm]

18. BULLSHIT ALTERMAN! Plenty stood with Feingold. Where were you when the DSM

inquiry only got ten Senators to sign?

BULLSHIT ALTERMAN!

The left doesn't NEED journalists who don't pay attention enough to write accurate commentaries. We need ACCURACY to fight the rightwing message machine, not inaccurate reporting from inattentive journalists.

This kind of bullshit article does NOTHING to bolster the left and EVERYTHING to divide it.

Alterman needs to play catch up to the REAL news, not that crap that MSNBC spews day in and day out.

[quaoar]

21. Alterman does have a good point

about Edwards and Hillary. I haven't heard much from those two.

[blm]

22. Edwards has been working on poverty issues, and Hillary isn't the entire

senate.

Alterman is LYING when he says Feingold is standing alone. He has about 40 more senators standing with him than Kerry had for the DSM letter of inquiry.

Also, in Dec 2003, Kerry and Sununu submitted a bill to extract the more onerous aspects of the Patriotic Act. No media pushed that bill, even with the significance of a GOP senator co-writing it with Kerry. Sununu and Hagel stand with Feingold and the Dems on this now.


Alterman didn't notice that?

[quaoar]

23. I also wonder

why Bill Clinton hasn't said anything about it. That's not a criticism of Clinton. I would be interested to know what Clinton -- an Carter too -- as a former president thinks of what Bush did.

Regarding Edwards, I would just think that someone interested in possibly running for president in 08 would chime in on this. Seems odd. Maybe he has and I just haven't noticed.

[blm]

26. Well, you're right about Bill Clinton - he didn't help with DSM or the

Patriot Act. And he hasn't piped up at all on the eavesdropping or Valerie Plame issue.

[quaoar]

30. I would imagine that Clinton is loathe

to accuse Bush -- or anyone else -- of committing an impeachable offense. Can you imagine the outcry from the RW if Clinton were to say Bush has committed an impeachable offense?

[blm]

31. Doesn't stop him from discussing issues of import.

none of those other issues were linked to impeachment talk in the media.

he chose to NOT weigh in on DSM and acted like he never heard about it when Letterman asked him about it STRAIGHT UP. And that was exactly at the time that Kerry was circulating the letter of inquiry through the senate for more signers.

It was BULLSHIT from Clinton that he never heard of it - BULLSHIT!

[sandnsea]

35. Why pick on those two?

You can always find somebody who hasn't yet spoken to something. Why doesn't the far left EVER get behind the ones who ARE moving on these issues and build around them? Same shit, new day, and the left shoots us in the foot again.

[AmericanDream]

36. Edwards is a private citizen... he can't get congress to hold hearings. nt

[Jai4WKC08]

44. Any private citizen can speak out

If they only choose to.

Some have the advantage of celebrity, so that their words might actually get carried in the media. But that takes more courage.

[Mass]

19. What has Feingold to do with that anyway? This should be Conyers!!

Feingold has not talked about impeachment, which is the point of this article.

This has to be the most ludicrous post I have ever read. Conyers and Lewis are those who should be congratulated, and if Conyers is not important enough for Alterman, too bad for him.

I hate these people who try to hijack something good that somebody does in the name of somebody else.

[undeterred]

34. RUSS IS FOR US

That was his Senate Campaign slogan and its true. :patriot:

[More Than A Feeling]

39. I'm for Russ.

I wish we didn't desperately need his courage so much, but he has plenty to spare, and it shows him to be THE best presidential choice come 2008. Integrity speaks for itself.

[politicasista]

40. I disagree with the article

First of all Feingold is not by himself. Other Dems have been speaking out as well. That's the problem with so-called liberal pundits, when the Dems are and have been speaking out, they put out articles that divide dems, only playing right into the hands of * and the GOP.


BTW: I like Feingold too. I would rather focus on 2006 and get the voting machines fixed. If we don't do that, he or no one will have a chance in 2008.

My two cents.