Why Are Feingold Supporters IGNORING Feingold's Remarks

[ruggerson]

that impeachment may not be the wisest thing to do to a President in a time of war and that his censure motion was not meant as a prelude to impeachment but as an alternative to it.

Is that what you want? Bush to get a slap on the wrist?

I have been a Feingold supporter and have posted here that my ideal ticket for '08 would be Schweitzer/Feingold or Warner/Feingold.

But I don't support his censure resolution.

What is paramount now is WINNING back both the House and the Senate in the fall.

And then establishing a formal impeachment hearing in the House of Representatives.

If Bush broke the law (which is fairly self evident), he should not get away with a censure, he should be impeached and convicted.

I still support Russ for a variety of reasons. But I suspect more and more that this was political grandstanding for '08 in his own self interest and not in the best interests of retaking control of the Congress.

[stray cat]

1. I support Feingold based on his remarks:

I strongly support wiretapping terrorists to protect our national security, which current law allows.

The president needs to follow that law, or inform Congress of any reasons he thinks that law should be changed. He has a responsibility to obey the laws that Congress passes.

There must be no equivocation on that central tenet of our system of government.

[ProSense]

3. So he's asking for this

div class="excerpt"]or inform Congress of any reasons he thinks that law should be changed.

[xultar]

2. I'm afraid this whole Feingold thing has taken the focus of 2k6 elections.

I'm not happy about that. Instead of preparing for national and local strategies to win we are fighting among ourselves. This infighting makes us look incapable of governing decisively. I don't like that. I think the whole Feingold thing had done more harm than good. I'm not saying that censure is wrong but I am saying that 2k6 is more important @ this point then we can go with impeachment or censure, It just seems now that we've blown our chances for doing anything and we're effing up 2k6 with a vengeance.

[EFerrari]

4. We hafta be able to walk and chew gum.

Karl excels as juggling.

We would do well to study up on that art, imho.

[Kahuna]

5. Right. It was a stupid grandstanding move. Because.....

as was noted when the repukes were talking censure of Clinton, it would have no cause or effect. What bush deserves is impeachment, not censure. So unless you're talking impeachement (which is stupid in an election year), STFU. Censuring bush is like giving Hitler probation or a suspended sentence. Why bother? It's no wonder a lot of people are annoyed with Feingold.

[radio4progressives]

34. ! "a lot of people annoyed" Everyone in my community are THRILLED

with Feingold.

and by the way, every year is an "election year" - or it might as well be, because of the of the year the entire time they're in washington - most of these people are campaigning for the next election!

[Kahuna]

38. You don't say....

:crazy:

FYI, just because "your" community was jumping up and down doesn't make it a judicious move for the party as a whole. Now if one is only interested in grandstanding for a limited constiuency (as the polls indicate support for this measure to be), I guess it's a good thing for THEM.

[Clarkie1]

6. Those are precisely my concerns as well.

The Party needs to be focused on winning in November, and needs to have a coherent strategy around which to focus our energies in order to achieve that. Attacking * relentlessly will not make voters think Democrats are better leaders, however justified our attacks may be. There are many ways to hold Bush accountable for his actions. The most achievable course of action is doing all we can to achieve victory in November. The best way to do that is to present to voters a clear Democratic message.

[Kahuna]

10. The best way to hold bush accountable is to WIN in 2006...

The focus shouldn't be on bush until then. It should be on his enablers who are running for reelection. Yet we don't hear any indictments of the GOP from most of the Dems... Of course you can always count on old Howard Dean to place the focus on the party as whole. Who knows? Maybe he is the designated hit man.

[xultar]

18. I think we should let Dean handle the Bush attacks...The Senate and

House need to stall bush's policies and work every dirty trick in the parliamentary book to get hearings and investigations started...that the rethugs will squash which will give us ammo for ads for 2k6 elections. The biggest advantage we have is to ask the public to wonder WHY...if bush is so above board why are the squashing investigations? Why are they not putting rethugs under oath? Why aren't they opening the books? Why aren't they holding trials down in guantanamo? Why, WHY WHY WHY WHY....

[Clarkie1]

21. Yes! Thinking people will vote Democratic!

Most of the time. :-)

[Kahuna]

25. Dean does a great job with the attacks. But we need a few more Deans

out there. Terry McAuliffe is pretty good at that kind of thing too.

[xultar]

37. Absolutely we need DNC people to do the attacking. We heed the

senate and house people stalling.

We need new progressive candidates campainging their ASSES off.

We need Grassroots fundraising.

I think that is the prescription for winning 2k6 and ultimately impeaching W.

[Aaaargh]

46. Seems like only on this forum is such nonsense taken seriously by anyone

"We've blown our chances for doing anything" because a member of the Senate proposed an important measure which other party members disagree with and decline to support?

Well, the Republicans would certainly like to promote that impression -- but if anyone wishes to see bald, utterly unsupported assertions like this about Democratic prospects, where's the FIRST place to look for them? Why, the 'Democratic Underground' forum, of course!

"Instead of preparing for national and local strategies to win we are fighting among ourselves. This infighting makes us look incapable of governing decisively." Well, my friend, welcome to politics in the United States of America! You see, this is how we do things here in my country. There's actually a diversity of opinion among politicians who are members of BOTH major parties; strict adherence to a party line is not a given, in fact there IS no dictated party line!

So censure NOW, on the specific issue of illegal wiretaps, is a detriment to impeachment LATER? Again, this is sheer nonsense. This argument is spun out of thin air. It's like saying that if somebody is charged with a misdemeanor for one offense, they can't be charged later with a felony on another. Sen. Feingold can assert that he thinks impeachment would be a mistake, that's allegedly his opinion. But let's not misconstrue or misrepresent that. Feingold's NOT saying that censure undoes the prospect of impeachment. He surely knows that it doesn't.

'Impeachment later but no censure now' is an argument in favor of counting chickens before they're hatched. I strongly suspect that some who make this pitch here don't expect any such thing to ever happen. It's a bluff.

[EFerrari]

7. ruggerson, do you have a link to his actual proposed measure?

I'm not very good at finding stuff like that and, in a discussion with blm, I promised to read it.

I don't want to follow anything or one blindly or with selective perception.

Reading what he is actually doing would be a good thing, no?

[Clarkie1]

8. You need to also look at his press conference.

That's where he really clarifies his view that what he is proposing is not a first step to impeachment.

It was posted recently...yesterday, I believe.

[EFerrari]

11. I know that, it has been pointed to me. That's why I want to read

what he officially is introducing in the Senate.

Does that make sense?

[Clarkie1]

16. Yes, of course.

You can find the text as a .pdf file on his website, I believe.

[ruggerson]

9. Here's a link

to his website where he goes into detail about his proposal for censure and the reasoning behind it.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html

[EFerrari]

15. Thank you. But this isn't the measure itself.

That is what is at issue. You may have noticed that there are often descrepancies between what is in the press and what is in the legislation. :P

I'll try to see if it can be fished.

[ruggerson]

17. See #13 sfexpat

there's a link to the actual resolution there.

[EFerrari]

22. Here's a "fact sheet" from Russ BUT it isn't the thing itself:

FACT SHEET FROM U.S. SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD
ON HIS RESOLUTION TO CENSURE THE PRESIDENT

Senator Feingold's resolution of censure condemns the President for breaking the law by authorizing an illegal wiretapping program, and for misleading Congress and the American people about the existence and legality of that program.

The President Broke the Law by Wiretapping Outside of FISA

It Is Illegal to Wiretap Without the Requisite Warrant or Court Order : The law is clear that the criminal wiretap statute and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted."

FISA Has an Emergency Exception: The Administration has indicated that it ignored FISA because the application process takes too long. In fact, in an emergency where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits him to immediately authorize the surveillance as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. Prior to 2001, the emergency wiretap period was only 24 hours. The Administration requested and received the increase to 72 hours in intelligence authorization legislation that passed in late 2001.

FISA Provides for Wartime Situations: FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA necessitated by a wartime emergency.

The Administration Has Used FISA Thousands of Times Since 9/11: Administration officials have criticized FISA, but they have obtained thousands of warrants approved by the FISA court since 9/11, and have almost never had a warrant request rejected by that court.

The President Made Misleading Arguments Defending his Wiretapping Program

Military Force Resolution Did Not Authorize Wiretapping: The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. There is no language in the resolution and no evidence to suggest that it was intended to give the President authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. Warrantless domestic surveillance is not an "incident of war" akin to detaining an enemy soldier on the battlefield as the Administration has argued.

In fact, Congress passed the Patriot Act just six weeks after September 11 to expand the government's powers to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. Yet the Administration did not ask for, nor did the Patriot Act include, any change to FISA's requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the United States.

Prohibition on Wiretapping Limits Executive Power: The President's assertion of inherent executive power is also wrong. The President has extensive authority when it comes to national security and foreign affairs, but given the clear prohibition in FISA, that authority does not include the power to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant.

Executive Branch Review of Wiretapping Is Not Enough: The President has argued that periodic executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. But Congress when it passed FISA explicitly rejected the idea that the executive branch should be fully entrusted to conduct national security wiretaps on its own – a power that the executive had abused in the past. In addition, the Administration has said that NSA employees decide whose communications to tap. Executive branch employees are no substitute for FISA Court judges.



Congress Did Not Approve This Program: The extremely limited briefings of the President's warrantless surveillance programs to a handful of Congressional leaders did not constitute Congressional oversight, much less approval. In fact, the failure of the President to keep the Congressional Intelligence Committees "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities" was a violation of the National Security Act.

The President Made Misleading Public Statements about Administration Wiretapping

"Finally, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that protect our civil liberties. The Patriot Act was written with clear safeguards to ensure the law is applied fairly. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S."

--President George Bush, June 9, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order . In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order. Now, we've used things like roving wiretaps on drug dealers before. Roving wiretaps mean you change your cell phone. And yet, we weren't able to use roving wiretaps on terrorists. And so what the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

--President George Bush, July 14, 2004, in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin


"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

--President George Bush, April 20, 2004, in Buffalo, New York

[ProSense]

24. Here is the resolution

Relating to the censure of George W. Bush. (Introduced in Senate)

SRES 398 IS


109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 398
Relating to the censure of George W. Bush.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 13, 2006
Mr. FEINGOLD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RESOLUTION
Relating to the censure of George W. Bush.

Whereas Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and in so doing provided the executive branch with clear authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended multiple times since 1978, to expand the surveillance authority of the executive branch and address new technological developments;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states that it and the criminal wiretap law are the `exclusive means by which electronic surveillance' may be conducted by the United States Government and makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without complying with this statutory authority;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 permits the Government to initiate wiretapping immediately in emergencies as long as the Government obtains approval from the court established under section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) within 72 hours of initiating the wiretap;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 authorizes wiretaps without the court orders otherwise required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the first 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress;

Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force that became law on September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), did not grant the President the power to authorize wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;

Whereas the President's inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the explicit statutory prohibition on warrantless wiretaps in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;

Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, has authorized and continues to authorize wiretaps by the National Security Agency of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;

Whereas President George W. Bush has failed to inform the full congressional intelligence committees about this program, as required by the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);

Whereas President George W. Bush repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by stating--

(1) on April 20, 2004, that `When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.';

(2) on July 14, 2004, that `the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order'; and

(3) on June 9, 2005, that `Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.';

Whereas President George W. Bush has, since the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program, falsely implied that the program was necessary because the executive branch did not have authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by making statements about the supposed need for the program, including--

(1) on January 25, 2006, stating at the National Security Agency that `When terrorist operatives are here in America communicating with someone overseas, we must understand what's going on if we're going to do our job to protect the people. The safety and security of the American people depend on our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, and what they're planning. In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a terrorist surveillance program to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States.'; and

(2) on January 31, 2006, asserting during the State of the Union that `The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.'; and

Whereas President George W. Bush inaccurately stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address that `Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.', even though the President has failed to identify a single instance since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became law in which another President has authorized wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and no Federal court has evaluated whether the President has the inherent authority to authorize wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.

[EFerrari]

29. As I read it, there is no language that in any way

blocks further actions, i.e. impeachment in this resolution.

[ProSense]

32. Here is a resolution that doesn't block impeachment.

The Leahy/Kennedy resolution declares that Bush did not have the authorization to spy and, in their remarks they demanded a full investigation of the matter.

SENATE RESOLUTION 350--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 23 (107TH CONGRESS), AS ADOPTED BY THE SENATE ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2001, AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED AS THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS -- (Senate - January 20, 2006)


GPO's PDF
--- Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. Res. 350

Whereas the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution was ratified 214 years ago;

Whereas the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the American people the right ``to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'';

Whereas the Fourth Amendment provides that courts shall issue ``warrants'' to authorize searches and seizures, based upon probable cause;

Whereas the United States Supreme Court has consistently held for nearly 40 years that the monitoring and recording of private conversations constitutes a ``search and seizure'' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment;

Whereas Congress was concerned about the United States Government unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the 1960s and 1970s;

Whereas Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), commonly referred to as ``FISA'', to provide a legal mechanism for the United States Government to engage in searches of Americans in connection with intelligence gathering and counterintelligence;

Whereas Congress expressly enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and specified provisions of the Federal criminal code (including those governing wiretaps for criminal investigations), as the ``exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance ..... may be conducted'' pursuant to law (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f));

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 establishes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (commonly referred to as the ``FISA court''), and the procedures by which the United States Government may obtain a court order authorizing electronic surveillance (commonly referred to as a ``FISA warrant'') for foreign intelligence collection in the United States;

Whereas Congress created the FISA court to review wiretapping applications for domestic electronic surveillance to be conducted by any Federal agency;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 provides specific exceptions that allow the President to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes (1) in emergency situations, provided an application for judicial approval from a FISA court is made within 72 hours; and (2) within 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended over time by Congress since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States;

Whereas President George W. Bush has confirmed that his administration engages in warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans inside the United States and that he has authorized such warrantless surveillance more than 30 times since September 11, 2001; and

Whereas Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and House Joint Resolution 64 (107th Congress), as adopted by the House of Representatives on September 14, 2001, together enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), to authorize military action against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001, do not contain legal authorization nor approve of domestic electronic surveillance, including domestic electronic surveillance of United States citizens, without a judicially approved warrant: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens.


Snip...

Congress and the American people deserve full and honest answers about the Administration's domestic electronic surveillance activities. On December 22, 2005, I asked the President to provide us with answers before the Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. We got no response. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin separate hearings on February 6 on the President's actions. Instead of providing us with the documents the Administration relied upon, the Justice Department continues to circulate summaries and ``white papers'' on the legal authorities it purports to have to ignore the law. It now appears that the President did so on at least thirty occasions after September 11. There is no legitimate purpose in denying access by Members of Congress to all of the legal thought and analysis that the President relied upon when he authorized these activities.

Every 45 days, the President ordered these activities to be reviewed by the Attorney General, the White House Counsel and the Inspector General of the National Security Agency. That's not good enough. These are all executive branch appointees who report directly to the President.

Congress spent seven years considering and enacting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It was not a hastily conceived idea. We had broad agreement that both Congressional oversight and judicial oversight were fundamental--even during emergencies or times of war, which is why we established a secret court to expedite the review of sensitive applications from the government.

Now, the administration has made a unilateral decision that Congressional and judicial oversight can be discarded, in spite of what the law obviously requires. We need a thorough investigation of these activities. Congress and the American people deserve answers, and they deserve answers now.


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2006_record&page=S30&position=all

edited typo

[EFerrari]

39. Neither of them do. Feingold's doesn't ask for a whitewash.

Maybe that's harsh. But, when was the last time an "investigation" investigated?

:(

[ruggerson]

13. And here's his original statement

with a link to the actual censure resolution:

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/releases/06/03/20060312.html

[EFerrari]

28. Beat me! Here's a link to the pdf. :)

http://feingold.senate.gov/censureresolution.pdf

[flpoljunkie]

12. Have had enough of spineless Dems holding powder dry for "next" election!

Not standing up against the Bush administration is how we lost the last two elections--2002 and 2004.

Enough is enough!

[IndianaGreen]

14. Neither Feingold nor Kerry can impeach Bush

It is up to the House to hold an impeachment inquiry and vote on articles of impeachment. John Conyers has been leading a yeoman effort in the House to bring Bush to account, and it is up to the House Democrats to support his efforts and to relentlessly attack the Republicans for their enabling of law breaking by the chief executive.

[Clarkie1]

19. Do you think that should be the focus of House Democrats

between now and November?

[IndianaGreen]

23. Bush's law breaking includes the war, wiretapping, and Dubai ports deal

In each and every case, the Bush regime has circumvented the law. People understand law breaking. People know that society cannot have a cop commit crimes with impunity. People realize that just as we cannot have cops that commit crimes, we cannot have a President that does the same.

[Kahuna]

26. They can call the repubs "bush enablers" and that will cover a

myriad of misdeeds that they help him to cover up. That should be the 2006 election theme IMO. That the repubs are bush enablers. They should shout it from the rooftops. Forget that, "culture of corruption" crap. It's not specific enough.

[radio4progressives]

35. Too bad, it isn't going to happen. The Dems will block Conyers

and that will be the end of that...

Priorities! 2008! No Time! Elections have Consequences! (but not voting machines)

[blm]

44. And no Senator should PRE-JUDGE the case for impeachment or

sell censure as an alternative to impeachment.

The case for censure is strong enough on its own merits, it doesn't need to be sold by dumping on impeachment as the "badforthecountry" bogeyman.

[ulysses]

20. I'm used to disagreeing with Russ on some of his stands

(which is what moderates have been telling me for years I'm supposed to do). Besides which, unless we show out a little and be an opposition party, impeachment will be moot as we won't take back the House OR the Senate.

[pstans]

27. Domestic Wiretaps might not be impeachable

Lying us into war is impeachable, but the wiretaps is probably not.

The importance of the censure is holding the President accountable.

[EFerrari]

30. Dosmestic wiretaps are impeachable and more easily proven

than the deep sewage of misinformation they used to go to war.

[radio4progressives]

31. wrong..

Censure does not PRECLUDE impeachment and Feingold didn't say that.

But I believe Feingold KNOWS, there will not be impeachment by a Democratically controlled House of Reps for a number of reasons, and I believe that Feingold knows full well that there is no way a Democratic victory will lead to impeachment proceedings because the party will be about the next election - and the campaigning is already under way.

To claim that doing something courageous is grand standing, is sad and pathetic commentary on what is people are willing to accept from our spineless, do nothing "leaders" in Washington.

[Imagevision]

33. impeachment proceedings can begin shortly after November - if

Rove doesn't provide a major catastophe happening in the US. before elections?!!

[radio4progressives]

36. No.. the Newly Elected members won't be sworn in until January or Feb.

new committees/chairs won't even be formed until later.

by that time, it'll be time to gear up for the next election campaign.

[gizmo1979]

40. When I saw Russ at a town hall he

didn't say he wouldn't support impeachment.He said he wouldn't bring Impeachment to the floor.He'll do whatever it takes to protect civil rights.He doesn't want to bring up impeachment and halt congress for months.

[PBass]

41. Censure proposal keeps people talking about illegal wiretaps.

It keeps Bush's law-breaking in the media which raises public awareness of the issue.

Impeachment is warranted (IMO)... however the Democrats can't simply rush into impeachment head-long.... because Dems will be portrayed as making a naked grab for power (the exact thing that Bush should be impeached for).

A slow and steady BUILD UP is the way to go.

The censure proposal can be an important tool to WINNING in November, IF the Democrats can play their cards right, and not do the usual Circular Firing Squad, etc.

[FogerRox]

42. you may be right about this

But I suspect more and more that this was political grandstanding

I wouldn't use the word grandstanding. But I think your statement is basically correct.

This is where I disagree.

and not in the best interests of retaking control of the Congress.

McCain says censure will galvanize Repubs. He has it backwards. Some Repubs need to run against Bush in '06. Russ has shown DEMS they will get respect and a bump in the polls by taking a stand and taking your case to the people. This is the Mantra of the late Paul Wellstone. And a proven way to win in electorial politics.

Dems running against incumbant Repubs need to take the Feingold lead in '06. Make your stand and take your case to the people, they will respect you for it.

But I suspect more and more that this was political grandstanding for '08

There is another reason the above statement is a bit off target. The '08 season dosen't really start untill the midterms are over. And we haven't even gotten to the '06 primary's.

[blm]

47. I actually think it wasn't grandstanding at all. I think he really wants

to censure, but was uncomfortable knowing he would be attacked as another Bush-hating liberal, so he USES impeachment as his "badforthecountry" bogeyman to help SELL his censure to the press.

I think that NO Senator should reference impeachment as it pre-judges impeachment itself. And Feingold HAS a strong case for censure, he didn't need to sell it to the press as an alternative to impeachment.

Slap Bush's hand and move on means NO LEGAL REMEDY.

[Neil Lisst]

43. Censure makes them defend the illegal wiretaps, which is good.

It's Politics 101.

Make your opponent play DEFENSE.

[Sparkly]

45. I thought he said it was a "first step." nt