Feingold himself on Kos. Not sure why he called it "Demanding Accountability"

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

unless he inadvertently left off the the word "Not" as the first word.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/22/1077/74921

I honestly find this quite lame - "As far as impeachment is concerned, as I have stated, I do not believe it is the right course of action right now. Censure is a way to formally rebuke the administration for its misconduct so that the historical record is clear, without putting the country through a very trying process. "

Having a de facto dictator is also very trying, Russ! He used to be one of my big heroes - now, not so much. I want to check the back of his neck for a scar, like in "Invaders From Mars".

[trashcanistanista]

1. Very dissappointed in Feingold today. n/t

[cyclezealot]

2. Guess he thinks he is being pragmatic

and trying to tell the American people the Democrats are concerned about not wasting time tilting at windmills. But the bigger concern is . Bush is out of control Now he is using the Judicial Department to deny the COngress it's right to declare someone in the Administration 'in contempt of Congress.' that is a significant denegration of our system of checks and balances.
There is only one remidy to a run amuck executive. And that is impeachment or our democracy is a gonner.

[polichick]

3. Disturbing...

Same ol' chickenshit rhetoric.

[pstans]

4. Feingold is not the enemy.

Impeachment begins in the House. Tell your Representatives to impeach and once that happens, Russ will have your back. He always has and always will.

This is one way to hold this administration accountable. Some action is better than none. If the consensus was there with the rest of Congress, Feingold would be leading the impeachment proceedings.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. You are right. Fiengold is not the enemy any more than Chamberlain was the enemy in WWII.

But that will not mean they don't go down in history as the weak, scared, and ineffectual leaders they are.

Fiengold lacks the guts to defend the constitution from the enterlopers, the unelected power userpers who are turning our contry into a defacto police state.

Next white girl kidnapped? Just censor the perp.

Next bank robber? Censor him or her.

Next child molester? Censor them.

That's Fiengold answer. After all, we wouldn't want to put the country through a devisive indictment proceedure and a trial would we?

[pstans]

6. Saying that Feingold lacks guts, obviously shows you don't know much about Sen. Feingold

Who was the lone vote against the Patriot Act and the first to call for a timetable to withdrawal? And who voted against the War in Iraq? That would be Senator Feingold.

Attack the Senators that aren't doing anything to get us out of Iraq and aren't doing anything to hold the President accountable for breaking the law. Attacking Feingold is ridiculous.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Kucinich voted against the patriot act 2 times, voted against the IWR AND

voted against funding the illegal occupation every time, as well as wrote and introduced articles of impeachment against cheney.

I know guts when I see them. Feingold stops well short of guts.

Feingold wants to pass a non-binding resolution (censor) that says mean things about the administration. He has more important things to do than to support efforts to actually hold bushco accountable with articles of Impeachment.

Real gutsy.

[saltpoint]

10. On Kucinich: a good man with absolutely no chance to be president.

You can poll our Ohio folks on DU if you want but I doubt if many of them would say Dennis Kucinich could win a statewide race in Ohio.

Against, for example, Rob Portman, Kucinich would go down in flames.

Feingold is a 2-term U.S. Senator with very significant statewide support in Wisconsin.

He is something of an expert in fact on the Judiciary.

I say his voting record (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Russell_Feingold.htm) wins a lot of loyalty, which is not being properly shown on DU today.

You can praise Kucinich for some of his votes, but Feingold has been there longer and stronger on many progressive issues, and has a wider reach and claim owing to his respective office.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. So Fiengold's presidential ambitions trumps justice? That seems par for the course.

How many votes has Feingold cast to pay for the illegal occupation he opposes?

[saltpoint]

13. I'm going to link ya one more time. If you drop the cross this time John Q,

you're out of the parade.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Russell_Feingold.htm

[John Q. Citizen]

15. yes, that's what I said. From the link you provided:

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)

So he voted yes to pay for the illegal occupation he's against.

Is that guts or is that guts?

[saltpoint]

17. You've reduced his position to a polarized and false grid.

I'm sorry, John Q.

You've got a bad mood a'brewin' this afternoon, and I don't have time to go over Feingold's record for you bill by bill.

You'll just have to find time to do that on your own.

May I suggest that you go onto the Wisconsin board here at DU and LEARN something about their senator before you trash him?

Just a suggestion.

[pstans]

16. Feingold has said he isn't running for President

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Ever? Or just this time?

[saltpoint]

9. Not analogous.

[saltpoint]

8. Your loyalty to a good man seems quite fickle.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Evil can only triumph when good "men" do nothing. No one saying he's not a good man,

they are saying he's advocating doing nothing.

That seems to be spot on.

[saltpoint]

14. We disagree on Feingold, evidently.

That's too bad, because I think of our 100 U.S. Senators, you can hardly do much better than the man from Wisconsin.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Unfortunately, that's not true.

Evil can sometimes triumph even when good men do everything they can, because sometimes it's simply more powerful.

Even if all the Democrats do everything they can to impeach Bush, they still have no possibility of success.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. How did you arrive at a zero value? Not impeaching is guaranteed to have a lower value

than attempting to impeach.

You can make up numbers and throw them out into the air, but that isn't reality based.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. By subtracting 51 from 67.

The reality is that the Republican senators have nothing to gain and a very great deal to lose from voting to impeach Bush, and given that there is only a year and a half before his term is up, there won't be time for that to change.

The chance of impeachment isn't literally zero, obviously - Bush could, theoretically, be revealed to have been preserving his approval ratings by bathing in the blood of virgin pollsters, or some such, tomorrow - but it's sufficiently close as makes no odds.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Well there is zero chance I'll be voting for anybody who doesn't stand up and

defend our constitutional democratic republic, and I doubt that will change in the next year and a half, either. So there you have it.

Enough!

[MiserableFailure]

23. Feingold is a great Senator

STOP CAUSING TROUBLE

I can't stand your attitude Phoebe

Criticizing arguably our best and most loyal Senator in Washington. What is wrong with you?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

24. If Sen. Feingold was FOR impeaching Clinton based on Rule of Law (which he was)

how can he be AGAINST impeaching Bush when his crimes are far more serious? No one died as a result of a blow job. I would really like to know the answer to this question.

(I don't see Feingold as "the enemy" - far from it. I have actually contributed to his Progressive Patriots Fund.) I just don't understand the opinions he is voicing today. I am hoping not find feet of clay from a guy I have revered up to this point.

Was the Clinton impeachment any more "trying" than a Bush impeachment would be?