I don't think I've ever been more conflicted than I am now with Feingold

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

I've given this some time, and here are my unordered thoughts on his censure movement:

1) On its face, I love the concept. President broke the law and needs some kind of punishment. I'm glad someone stepped up to do it.

2) Horrible, horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE timing by Feingold. I have to think this is little more than a "me" move by him, and here's why. Firstly, Bush is not coming up for re-election again ever. What good does it do to take action against him when he's already a lame duck? Quite frankly, the whole ports deal thing ended his effectiveness, proved by the fact that he got shot down, soundly, by his own party, and he didn't even get to mount a moderately effective defense. Trying to re-neuter a neutered dog doesn't make much sense to me. Bush's numbers are already in the tank and still dropping. Secondly, instead of the talk being about Bush's incompetence, we're talking about whether or not it's appropriate to censure a President without even so much as an investigation (yes, I realize no investigation will take place, but that obviously doesn't matter). So let's evaluate the effectiveness of this: It's not really going to have any impact on Bush's power AND it's going to distract people from the real issues just when people have finally started paying attention to them? How could I possibly see that as a good idea? Thirdly, poll numbers being what they are, we DO have a few vulnerable red-state Democrats out there that can't possibly support the censure. Though the national numbers might be around 30%, they're not THAT low in places like Nebraska. This means we don't even have the slightest possibility that all Democrats will be on board for the censure vote, meaning we get to see them say "Look, even some Democrats think this wasn't a bad thing", even though that's really not the truth at all. Feingold just handed Bush a life-line. Finally, and worst of all, this is obviously going to piss off most of our base because, again, we can't expect all of our Senators to toe the line on this one. So what did we gain in this? Well, Senator Feingold gained a lot of in-roads to the base of our party, but outside of that, I can't really see what good comes from this move at all.

So my real question is, why does this need to be done now? Why not in January, or at least AFTER the November elections? It's not like this is going to be passed one way or another unless we win control of the Senate, so there's no good reason to pounce on it now. There's no statute of limitations and it's not going to really affect ANYTHING even if it does pass.

So what do I think we should be doing right now? Introducing as many alternative bills as possible to Republican legislation. Everything they put out should have a Democratic alternative. Hell, everything they DON'T put out should have an alternative too. There is little to no point in merely bashing Bush or Republicans - they're doing a good job generating negative publicity on their own. There's no point in getting in their way on that end of it and individual swing races are already looking quite favorably. I'd continue to lay somewhat low, presenting alternative ideas quietly until around September. In the meantime, I'd be preparing a new "Contract with America" type thing, ready to be released at the end of October and prepare to promote that as if this were a Presidential election year, having every Democrat imaginable give speeches and provide commentary on it. Having I think the last nail in the coffin for the GOP would be for us to eliminate their tired line that all we can do is bash Bush and if we started presenting and FOCUSING on our own ideas as if we had blinders on instead of criticizing theirs. Of course, making that push now would only allow them to shift the focus on bashing our ideas instead of the focus being where it should be (and where it currently is): directly on their own incompetence, cronyism, and scandals.

I know I'm going to get flamed, probably by the same few folks that usually do, but hey, that's just my $.02. I love the idea of censuring Bush, I just happen to think this was executed poorly and with self-serving motives in mind. Feingold is much too smart to not know that he wouldn't get complete support from Senate Democrats. It's an impossibility. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit here, but I think this was a calculated move with January 2008 in mind and neither November 2006 or November 2008 in full view.

[RagingInMiami]

1. Everything in politics is self-serving

In one way or the other and that was an obvious one. And for Feingold, this probably worked just as he expected. Come time for the president democratic primaries, he will be able to say that he was the lone democrat that stood up against Bush.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It just kind of sucks because the progressive in me wants to cheer, but the side of me that knows better is just screaming that this is a horrible move.

[RagingInMiami]

18. I wouldn't call it a horrible move

Maybe a wasted move, as in chess, in which you really don't advance your attack. Or maybe a move to test out your opponents (dems and reps) to see if they bite.

But I don't think it caused a huge setback against the democratic party. And I wouldn't call it a republican gain.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Fairly assessed.

Perhaps I went a bit far.

[John Barrett]

66. I Don't Know

The Democratic Party must develop interest and enthusiasm within the Party for its candidates, and avoid those same candidates from stiring up emotional interest from the other side.

It's a subtle difference but the result that we want is not to over stimulate the opposition to come out in force due to overly emotional issues or fear. One thing we don't want to do is get in their face with that old phrase "Bring 'em on".

Wait until after the election is smarter politics IMHO.

[karynnj]

33. Likely not true

I would say that:

- Edwards will say he stood up re the poor and those hurt by Katrina
- Hillary will say she stood up on SS and the ports
- Kerry will say he stood up on Iraq (as did Feingold), Veterans benefits, Energy, and Alito

By 2008, EVERY Democrat will have stood up on something. A failed slap on the wrist motion will likely not be the biggest issue of 2008. (He will in himself likely speak of Iraq and the Patriot Act more.)

[SaveElmer]

3. I largely agree...and here are the arguments you will get from many...

I don't really know whether his motivation was purely political or not, but I agree, he handled ths badly. To me it says something when a man like Ted Kennedy is not on board with it yet.

You are about to get inundated with posts saying three basic things.

1. Even though you have said up front that you favor censure, you will be treated like you don't, and will get the arguments for it. Any criticism of Russ Feingold is like uttering an unforgivable curse in a Harry Potter book...you will be excoriated for it.

2. Many will say Feingold is the only one in the Senate with any courage so why should he consult with them. This of course ignores that they have said the same about other liberal senators in the past (Kennedy, Boxer, Harkin, Kerry and others)

3. Censure should be a no brainer, and why did it take Feingold to finally propose it. This of course ignores that there has been only one Presdiential censure in American history - against Andrew Jackson - which was later expunged. There have been more impeachments than censure. Hardle a common approach to Presidential malfeasance.

You will also get argument saying that some list of Democratic Senators supported censure against Bill Clinton for getting a BJ, so wh yis this any different? What they neglect to mention is that the Clinton censure was proposed by several Democratic Senators to ward off an impeachment trial.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Thanks SaveElmer!

:toast:

[Aaaargh]

39. I'm IN FAVOR OF censure, but I'm AGAINST it!

Furthermore, I know full well that certain persons on this forum will accuse me of being AGAINST censure simply because I said I'm AGAINST it immediately after I said I was IN FAVOR OF it, even though I clearly SAID I was IN FAVOR OF IT first, and only said I'm AGAINST it in my next breath!

[SaveElmer]

47. Impressive...

Your selective use of the Caps Lock key is quite an achievment!!

[jbnow]

51. Now those that support it miss the point?

Here is why I liked it. The warrantless spying debate got lost in the port uproars. The hearing did nothing, more weren't really being pushed. In the meantime republicans were developing a bill to make the warrantless wiretap legal with no essential changes, it would stay as secret, just as little oversight.)It even has a part that evidence obtained can be used to get a warrant or for criminal prosecution) Even pundits were saying it wasn't an issue anymore, bush had handled it great with the public.

Feingold just standing up and objecting to the illegal spying being swept under the rug, talked about it being illegal. It would get no attention. Attached to the motion for censure it has brought it up again, it got attention. Not as much as we want but the issue isn't buried anymore.

By January the law that covered it would already be law, essentially saying he did have that power. He doesn't, he shouldn't, it's wrong.

According to Dem consultants polls showed Americans accepted and approved of the "terrorist surveillance program" and so it isn't something we should fight about.
What? It's all in the framing. Of course Americans don't care if we spy on terrorists, we all want that and this program isn't about them.

Russ stood up and said all that, said it very well, laid out the issues. Yes it was about censure...but he laid out the warrantless spying issues.

That's a huge deal. If the Dem policy was not to make a fuss because it might hurt them, well they were wrong. If this is what it took to bring attention to it, Russ was right.

It's not just saying "naughty bush", it's saying "this is wrong and illegal and what they are saying about it is not true..."

January is too damn late for the debate.

What they neglect to mention is that the Clinton censure was proposed by several Democratic Senators to ward off an impeachment trial.

Do you recall that they made the motion to censure AFTER the impeachment and Senate acquittal? They did prefer it to impeachment but that wasn't accepted. They still proposed it again and passed it after it was all over. (evidently to show that though they voted against convicting they still thought he did bad things. Evidently he hadn't been punished enough?)

[The Magistrate]

4. Effectiveness In Politics, Sir, Comes In Various Forms

In this instance, the effect aimed for, and possibly in process of achievement, has nothing to do with any effectiveness of the proposal on its face: even if passed, it would do nothing, as all know. The effect this action aims to achieve is two-fold, in my view.

First, it makes an attack on the illegal behavior of the present regime a topic of national conversation. In doing so, it shows up as a sham the widespread view that somehow to attack these creatures is unthinkable, and will lead to unspecified but doubtless horrible consequences. This has the beneficial effect of opening up the field for further attacks, and making attacks a respectable and prominent part of political discourse.

Second, it helps to set the field for the upcoming Congressional election being widely perceived as a referendum on the present administration, and so encouraging people who are disenchanted with it recently, as well as those long in opposition to it, to vote against any available Repuublican Senator or Representative as a means of registering this distatse. Doing this is a critical ingredient in any hope for a successful election this year, from our point of view. People are always more eager to vote against something or someone, in anger, than they are to vote for something.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[SaveElmer]

6. Another consequence...

It is also harming the Democratic Party, both by making it look disorganized, and by Feingolds verbal attacks on his colleagues. It was unecessary, and to me would have made a stronger statement had he had some of the support he is getting now, lined up ahead of time. To me he showeda lack of basic courtesy and an apparent desire to embarrass not only Bush, but his fellow Democrats.

[The Magistrate]

11. It Does Not Seem To Me To Be Doing Harm, Sir

All these things take time, and bits of stickiness at the start mean little in the long run.

[SaveElmer]

26. Well I have to disagree....

I have seen far more editorials and news stories on the way Democrats are reacting to the censure resolution than I have on the merits of the proposal itself.

I'm not saying it won't eventually redound to our benefit, but we are starting behind the eight ball in moy opinion...and that was not necessary had a little preparation gone into it first.

[The Magistrate]

27. It Might Have Been Better Handled, Sir, That Is True

But in this circumstance, it seem to me the need to move things off the dime outweighs all else.

[Raksha]

42. And that's supposed to mean something?

Re >>I have seen far more editorials and news stories on the way Democrats are reacting to the censure resolution than I have on the merits of the proposal itself.<<

What else would you expect from the corporate media? Feingold's resolution caught them with their pants down. OF COURSE they are going to turn the focus onto Feingold and the Democrats. After all, we can't be having a national debate about whether Shrub broke the law and whether he deserves to be censured (at least) for his illegal wiretaps, can we? :sarcasm:

[SaveElmer]

46. Censure is hardly the only remedy...

And the fact of political life is that media coverage matters....you may be willing to fall on your sword for this but I'm not!

[radio4progressives]

61. brawwwwk brawk braw brawwwk bra braw braww brawwwk

i'm so scared, i'm so scared... they're going to hit us so hard.. run run run and hide!

ssshhhh... stay here and don't say a peep, or they'll kill us!

brawwwk braawwwwk brawk brawk brawk.

sshhh....

[SaveElmer]

62. Of course you are not scared...

You could care less whether the Democratic Party regains power or not.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Is that topic of the national conversation re: this issue?

It does not seem to be the case at all. The topic hasn't been discussing whether or not the President did anything illegal - it's all about whether or not it's right to call for a censure when an investigation hasn't even taken place. People WERE talking about the illegality of the wire taps prior to this - now they are not. Perhaps it wasn't the main focus, but now it's not even a peripheral focus. I don't think Feingold's actions were even remotely effective in that regard, and it's absolutely 100% predictable that this would have been the case.

As to the second point, if this had any chance of passing, you'd be correct that it'd set the field. Unfortunately, as stated above, it's completely impossible to expect even full Democratic support, which means we get to hear the line "Even some Democrats don't think what Bush did was so bad", even though that's not the truth. Plus we get an even more disgruntled base because of perceived "spinelessness", even though that's not the truth either.

This has become little more than a huge distraction. Even if Feingold's motives weren't self-serving, they were horribly ineffective for the greater cause.

On edit: Thank you for your responses and your courtesy.

[The Magistrate]

13. Clearly we Differ, Sir

But the things you mention in your first paragraph do not seem to me to be very compelling. Any discussion of this matter is discussion of an attack on the present regime, leveled in a most respectable and mainstream amnner, and further, cannot really avoid reminder of the underlying cause foir the action.

Nor does it seem to me necessary for this to pass to have the effects refered to above in terms of setting the field for November; indeed, even if there were no real prospect of a Democratic Senate actually passing it, it would still be effective in this regard. It is an emotional marker, and will move people accordingly. Political action is not, and never has been, a rational process.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. I guess we do differ.

Thank you again for your comments and your courtesy. I greatly appreciate them both and wish to return them to you. :toast:

[radio4progressives]

56. Did you miss the fact that there Roberts shut down investigations?

according to your logic, anyone who has publically spoken out and admitted to have broken the law, but no investigations are to be conducted, it's not ok to publically condemn the law breaker, and propose a means to deal with it?

or is it just in the case when the law breaker is the president and the protaganist is a Senator?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. you make good points, although I disagree with your analysis of feingold

I am not at all conflicted with his decision. There are 100 different senators, 40+ who pretend or actually are democrats. Each is entitled to his/her own thinking. I agree that some of those senators SHOULD be crafting alternatives, making arguments against certain bills, offering amendments, and watching C-span2, it is clear that some try that. ineffectual, minimalistic and unsupported as those moves have been by other democrats. I agree that more effort, more organization and more standing up to all things Neocon would be healthy, productive and helpful in the education of America - showing them what real patriots can do for their country. But, alas, they are not. Or most of them are not. We have Hillary supporting the war, Obama preening before a mirror, Biden supporting our Iraq invasion AND the Patriot Act, and others whose spinal columns remind me of room temperature jello.

Does Feingold's effort harm anyone or anything? no.
Does it have a snowball's chance? not with this congress or senate.
Is it worthwhile? Well, yeah. It shows that people actually do care for American and our set of laws and rules. That alone makes it important and supportable.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Feingold's actions DO harm ALL Democrats.

1) By de-energizing the base, making the party look even more weak and disorganized.
2) By taking the focus away from GOP scandal and incompetence and putting it on whether or not the President should be censured without even having an investigation.
3) By forcing red-state Senate Democrats into an extremely precarious situation where they either have to vote with the party or against their constituents wishes.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. interesting.

1) I don't believe that anything he does or can humanly do can make us look worse than we have managed to look over the past 5 yrs. (the collective "us" refering to Congress)

2) Agreed. But everything that the Dems are doing accomplishes that as well. Focusing only on Feingold won't solve that.

3) Actually, this is healthy. They need a good kick in their ass. They are so out of touch with America that it is scary.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. They don't need a kick in the ass at all.

They might be out of touch with most of America, but it's easy forget that places like Nebraska are WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of touch with the rest of the country. Unfortunately, we need every last Senator we can get.

Finally, I might add, I don't have any problem at all with guys like Ben Nelson. He might vote out of step with us a lot, but at least he does so fairly quietly. I'm not a huge Lieberman basher either, but at least Nelson doesn't make grand stances and bash his own party the way Joementum does.

[Telly Savalas]

31. And places like Nebraska will remain waaaaay out of touch

so long as everybody placates the extremists who live there.(*) If their ideas go unchallenged, then how will they change?

Furthermore, the "we can't do X, because it leaves Red State Democrats hanging out to dry" argument just handcuffs us. It could be applied to pretty much any position to the left of those espoused by Chuck Hagel.

The Bush administration is way out of line on numerous fronts, and they need to be called out for it. With respect to the wire-tapping, it's totally tenable for a conservative of either party to support censure. It has nothing to do with terrorism or civil liberties, but rather it's all about the rule of law. There was a legal process whereby Bush could have obtained authorization for the wire-taps, but he willfully chose to flaunt that process. If he thought FISA was inadequate he could have asked his Republican House and Senate to amend the law for him. But he didn't. He just ignored the law.

Unless one believes that the president can do whatever he wants with impunity, then a censure is certainly a reasonable response.

I'm not asking that Ben Nelson be vitriolic about it or put a bunch of nasty photoshopped images of the president on his Senate website. "Nobody is above the law" isn't exactly a hippy-socialist credo, y'know.

(*) With this statement, I'm not trying to imply that everybody in Nebraska is a member of the John Birch Society. I'm originally from Kansas, so I know quite well that even the reddest of states have many wonderful Democrats and progressives fighting the good fight.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. Your strategy is fine if we're in the majority and setting the tone.

We're not. We do not own any kind of bully pulpit. Like it or not, we cannot regain the majority any time soon without Ben Nelson and other red-state Democrats in office.

Look at the current polls all over the country WITHOUT doing what you're talking about. We're currently in position to gain a lot of seats this November. Look at Bush's numbers - they're already in the tank. I don't know why we'd open ourselves up to attack being in the position that we're in with 8 months to go in the race.

Further, there are undoubtedly better ways to go about what you're talking about, namely introducing legislation that counters Republican objectives/scandals. You challenge ideas with ideas. If we start presenting a better option rather than just trying to "drop the hammer", so to speak, we give real alternatives to the people. Then in October, we're in position to package it all together and go the American people and present them with a plan, a Democratic version of the Contract with America. You don't give Republicans 8 months to hammer away at us and you don't give the media a chance to forget about what we want to do. We've been bashing Bush for 6 years - it's obviously a rather ineffective strategy. And further, Bush isn't running for re-election and the GOP is already distancing themselves from him.

Bashing Bush is our job now. It's MoveOn.org's job. It's DU's job. We should be cutting Bush down at the knees while the people in office and our candidates start showing America what this country could be like if we were in charge.

[radio4progressives]

57. well.. this explains everything..

a little peep hole into the soul of an appologist..

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

55. LOL LOL LOL

"By de-energizing the base, making the party look even more weak and disorganized."

The DLC has done that ALL BY THEMSELVES!

Weak and disorganized. Hahahahahahaha!

:rofl: :rofl:

It is too laugh!

[rodeodance]

8. I will not question his motives. He says he is defending the

people and the Constitution. His record speaks for itself.

.2) Horrible, horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE timing by Feingold. I have to think this is little more than a "me" move by him, and here's why. Firstly, Bush is not coming up for re-election again ever. What good does it do to take action against him when he's already a lame duck?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Would the people not be better protected by removing them from power?

Even if the censure were to magically pass the Senate, it wouldn't have any effect at all on Bush, nor would it have any effect at all on the legality/illegality of the actions.

[Squeech]

9. Disagree

I do understand that Feingold was probably being more self-serving than an idealistic public servant here.

But I don't see how it particularly helps Bush-- the only people who are going to be outraged at the concept of censure are his unshakable base (which of course includes your Limbaughs and Matthewses-- even Scarborough the intern-slayer is beginning to realize Bush is a disaster). I don't see how the country can get any more polarized.

Plus it gets the topic into the headlines. The newsies are just beginning to articulate the idea of Smirky as an unpopular president-- late in the game, of course, but hopefully not too late-- and an active debate in the Senate helps focus public attention on his long list of miserable failures. Without it, the Mighty Wurlitzer can keep the issues vague and compartmentalized: Iragi dead-enders, grandmas confused by Medicare Part D, deficits from an earmark-obsessed Congress, etc. It requires something like a censure to connect all these dots to Smirky himself-- and the censure is the only tool available to us right now.

And the only way it hinders the Democrats is by exposing their unbelievable calculating cravenness, and the easy way for them not to be seen as calculating or craven is to ENDORSE THE RESOLUTION! It's a win-win for anybody that hangs tough, I think.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Have you watched this video? Kristol disagrees, thinks it's smart move.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/19.html#a7577

(Click on above link to watch entire exchange--only small portion cited below.)

Brit Hume's head explodes

Kristol defends Feingold

On FOX News Sunday, Bill Kristol (who I have no love for) defended Russ Feingold's censure resolution and called it a smart political move, one that defining the warrantless wiretapping illegal. Brit Hume wins the honorary "Rove/Mehlman award" for spewing out as much GOP talking points as is possible in the smallest allotted time.

Kristol: I think Feingold has succeeded in casting a big cloud over the President's program.

Wallace: Do you think it's helping Democrats and hurting Republicans?

Kristol: Absolutely, as long as the charge is out there and not rebutted

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. For a change, here's hoping Kristol is right.

I will now bleach myself for saying that. :-)

[paulk]

19. You've laid out how I feel about this, pretty much

Feingold is wielding a two edged sword around, and I'm not sure who's going to get cut by it.

The worst outcome of this is that it makes the Democrats look disorganized. Not what we need going into November. On the other hand, this does have the potential to hurt BushCo, just by putting the idea out there.

I truly think that the only way our country is going to regain credibility on the world stage is by impeaching Bush (and Cheney, and frog marching the rest of these criminals into a prison cell), however, I'm not convinced that will ever happen. I'm not comfortable with the idea of censure as an alternative to impeachment; if these guys are impeachable, impeach them. A censure carries no legal weight, why bother?

I think it's legitimate to accuse Feingold of grandstanding, but grandstanding is not necessarily a bad thing. Unless censure thwarts an eventual impeachment... then I'll think Feingold really fucked things up. Then again, maybe putting this out there will make the idea of impeachment acceptable to the majority of Americans....

So, as you see, I'm pretty conflicted also. And I need to eat lunch.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Thanks for your comments!

I have nothing more to add to what you said. :toast:

[AtomicKitten]

24. What matters is how it plays out.

I have no argument with calling for censure. Not lining up support beforehand is troubling. Not being one to bet the farm on predictions here at DU, I will wait to see how this plays out. In the rapid-fire sequence of current events, it may end up being a catalyst or merely fart in the breeze.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Yeah, I'm starting think that maybe it's just a fart in the breeze too.

Like someone said above, I think it's like a wasted move in a chess game.

[AtomicKitten]

28. I really don't think he's done any harm.

Speaking the truth is never a bad thing. Unfortunately the lack of coordination was a teensy bit embarrassing but, like I said, it will soon be lost in the outrage de jour of which there are many.

No worries IMO.

[radio4progressives]

29. Very Flawed Analysis.. ..

The essential theme "bad timing" couldn't be more wrong based on the fact that the Repukes (DeWine) is currently pushing Legislation to make what the President did Legal AFTER THE FACT... which gives Bush a free ride on past law breaking, but to continue these programs..

Put that no small significant fact together with the fact that Domestic Spying is not limited to "listen in on Terra-ists", (talk about a ruse) but gives the Repukes free reign to spy on their Political Enemies.

By definition that means the Democratic Party, strategists, staffers, campaign managers etc. Don't remember what Watergate was about do ya?

There's a lot more, I don't have the time to get into right now, but the background on these machinations are widely reported in the print media, and available on line.. I strongly encourage people to do a bit of reading before jumping the 'Feingold is just grandstanding' - bandwagon.

Oh.. some where in this thread is the complaint that what Feingold did makes the party look in "disarray".

:rofl:

As if the Iraq War hasn't done that very thing for the past three years! And let's forget all about the Elite-O filibuster fiasco!

No disarray there! nahh...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Almost none of what you said addressed any of what I said

And I was against the filibuster fiasco too. Iraq does not make us look in disarray.

As for the rest of what you said, it's entirely irrelevant and doesn't address in the slightest any of my commentary. No one here disagreed with the idea that wire-tapping is illegal, dangerous, and wrong, and yet you felt the need to educate us on those dangers. Well, thanks, but that's not the point.

[radio4progressives]

32. Oh Really?

The very idea that you do not believe that the lack of a unified position on the Iraq War hasn't made the Dems look "in disarray" (at the minimum) is stunning, to put it mildly.

And you say that you consider the underpinning issues of domestic spying as "dangerous and wrong", but that isn't the point of your op.

Precisely why your analysis is so flawed.

[karynnj]

34. I hope that is changing

The comments this week by Murtha, Reed and Kerry (the first 2 on Sunday shows and Kerry's comments on Imus) are getting closer. As Reed is suppose to be the leadership's point man - this may mean that everybody but Lieberman may coalesce around one position - if we're really lucky. (That said I've heard nothing from Clinton and Bayh - and haven't read Biden's statement yet.)

[Hippo_Tron]

37. The problem is that political parties don't make foreign policy

Presidents make foreign policy. You can either oppose that President's foreign policy or you can support it. The opposition party can't be expected to have a unified view on something as complex is Iraq.

HOWEVER, there are some basic things that we as a party should be absolutely united on in this regard such as...

1) We will not torture prisoners

2) We will not send troops to war without all of the facts

3) We will not send troops to war without the proper equipment

I can tell you what is wrong with the Democratic Party's Iraq strategy in one sentence: I have not seen a single television ad with Rumsfeld saying "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" to the backdrop of our soldiers coming home from Iraq in body bags. Sleezy? Perhaps, but our opponents run ads with Max Cleland next to Saddam Hussein. Not only that, but this ad would actually be truthful.

[radio4progressives]

60. Actually the CFR and the NSA generally make Foreign policy

the figure head in the white house gets credited with it.. it's the policy that gets decided is associated with the president.

And don't forget that Global Economic and Trade policies are more tightly woven into Foreign policy than ever before in history, though always related as national "interests"...


who among us knew back in the 80's and early 90's that a policy like NAFTA was about to be thrust into our economic policy scheme, before it was introduced while being pushed by President Clinton?

Apart from the hue and cry from Labor and Farmers, which was completely ignored, who else knew that it was the worst economic policy to be imposed on the working class in our country and beyond?

And finally, who knew among us that NAFTA was the brain child of John Negroponte and that he was the one who drafted the agreement back during Poppy Bush's administration before it was passed off to Clinton?

I'm just curious if any body knew this little factoid for all these years? Because i would still be in the dark about it if it had not come straight from the horses's mouth (Negroponte)a month or so ago in an address he was making to the Heritage Foundation or some such event.

When factoids like this is revealed, it gets easier and easier to "connect the dots".

[AtomicKitten]

35. pay no attention

some here haven't a clue what they are talking about - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2525676 - yet have the audacity to slam an honest post like yours in which you express an opinion in a well thought-out, respectful manner.

Some simply don't have the integrity to disagree gracefully.

[Andromeda]

40. ...

:thumbsup:

[Hippo_Tron]

36. The Democrats are not capitalizing on the unpopularity of Bush

Feingold just put the GOP in a situation where they had to either support the censure or support an imploding administration. The problem is that the Dems are spineless and are giving the GOP clout cover. No, Bush isn't at 30% in Nebraska but depending on what month it is, he has gone below 50. Nebraska and Nelson are also the most extreme example and if he were the one defecting vote, there wouldn't be a problem. Sure, Bush is popular in North Dakota but Kent Conrad voted against the IWR and that was more politically risky than censuring an unpopular president. Bill Nelson of Florida is running double digits against Katherine Harris and has about zero chance of losing re-election in a state that is purple anyway. Other than those, I don't see any senators up for re-election that might be taking a risk by voting for this.

Midterm elections are rarely about the issues (at least on the national level) and are almost entirely about the popularity of the incumbent president. Most voters hadn't even heard with the Contract With America and if they did, they didn't know what it was about. Gingrich capitalized on the House Bank Scandal, Democrats stayed home because Clinton's first two years were a failure, and "values voters" sprinted to the polls in retaliation to Clinton allowing gays to serve in the military.

This election is going to be a referendum on Bush's handling of Iraq, Bush's handling of Katrina, and all of Bush's other fuck-ups including the illegal NSA spying. Democrats need to beat the Abhramoff, DeLay, and Cunningham scandals into every voter's head and they need to associate the GOP congress with Bush's imploding presidency. Introducing policy alternatives is great and we are doing that, but ultimately it is not what is going to win us the election.

[Pryderi]

38. Doing nothing is a lousy alternative. You either stand for something or

you don't.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. Perhaps in your black and white world.

Here in the real world, you rarely should be so absolutist.

[Pryderi]

49. If being absolutist means pointing out a criminal act, then I guess I am.

Let's not go down the "what is the definition of is" road.

[undeterred]

41. Get over it. Feingold is a Patriot.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. ....

:rofl: And that's exactly why he did what he did - to dupe people like you.

[undeterred]

50. OMIGOD

Aren't you blinded by your own brilliance sometimes?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. And you're not, with your "Get over it" speech?

Give me a fucking break.

[fujiyama]

48. No

Feingold is not responsible for making the Dems look like they are in disarray. Neither is Kerry for his proposal to filibuster Alito.

You know who is responsible for making the Dems look like a bunch of meaningless fools?

The likes of Landreu, Lieberman, Pryor, Biden, the two Nelsons, and other idiots that give cover to almost every part of Bush's evil agenda. They vote for much of what he sets forth, then fuss when things are going wrong. You can't have it both ways. That's what happened with the war vote with many senators and the same applies now. You either show better forsight than the president, or you are just as stupid for following him.

[zulchzulu]

52. What's worse is that we expected all Senators to go in lockstep with Russ

Plenty of egos there...

What Feingold's strategy has done is put censure and impeachment as part of the kitchen table talk in America. He had to throw the grenade over the castle wall...his statements and opinions are absolutely true.

I certainly don't see this as somehow becoming an "advantage" to Bush. There is no real way to spin Bush out of it except for the Bush heavy-dosed Koolaid drinkers...they are a lost cause.

It's a good battle not quite perfectly executed. But it really had to be said...and now we can just keep fanning the flames. Democratic opponents running against Repug incumbants certainly could frame the argument that their Repug opponent thinks that Bush is above the law.

[PassingFair]

54. Waaaaaaaa! A democrat actually DID something...

and made the rest of them LOOK BAD!

Waaaaaaaaa!

Plenty of dry powder. Reload and shoot again. And again. And again.

[radio4progressives]

58. great cartoon! speaks volumes!

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[mtnsnake]

59. Yup, the timing should make people wonder. Good post, Vash

Even though it's great that someone has taken a stand to punish Bush, even if it's only in the symbolic form of a censure, I raise my eyebrows, too, over the timing of it. We're at a point when we're only months away from possibly taking back the House, and Senator Feingold has initiated a move all on his own that MAY not be in the best interests of getting Bush impeached at a more opportune time. That's what worries about it more than anything.

The rightwing hate machine has been looking for any excuse to claim that Democrats are officially going to go for impeachment so they can start waking up their disgruntled conservative base in time for the November elections. Now with this move by Feingold, everyone and their brother is trying to squeeze any impeachment intentions out of any Democrat they can collar in front of a microphone. You can tell just by the interviews so far that Democrats would rather remain mum at this time, and I don't blame them if they have a much bigger plan in place for January of 2007.

I think Democrats have a hushed up plan, all ready and waiting to go, concerning getting the rat bastard impeached, and I don't really know if this censure move was part of the much bigger plan. I'm just speculating.

[lwcon]

64. I'm with Feingold all the way

The Democrats need to demonstrate some balls and to reawaken people's interest in having a nation ruled by law. The Repubs refused to investigate, but Feingold is holding their feet to the fire. The most powerful thing the GOP has going for it is broad http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-becomes-scandal-least.html">acceptance of their "fair is foul, foul is fair" reality.

Russ is saying "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore," and we should all go to the window and shout along with him.

This situation is not going to get better without a loud, gutsy, and oft-repeated redefiniton of the game, to remind people that there must be consequences for a party that puts its thumb on the scale at every turn.

[tulip]

63. I'm glad I'm not the only one

I feel exactly the same. I have great respect for Senator Feingold and will continue but I am very uncomfortable with the timing. Not only did it seem opportunistic but it gave Republicans a new mode of attack. The good news is that Bush has already done enough in the past two weeks to distract us from Feingold's call for censure.

[Wisconsin Larry]

65. Timing??? Timing??? The only thing that makes ME uncomfortable is

that Russ waited so long. After more that TWO MONTHS of the Senate Not investigating the illegal eavesdropping, Specter is now moving to change the law so that it will be legal.

My question when will the TIMING be right? After they move on to warrant-less searches? After they suspend habeas corpus? The Senate has waiting too long to curb this administration and it may be too late.

And don't get me started on Feingold being Self Serving??? In his own words from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=409557&date=3/20/2006

"Let's face it, did I vote against the USA Patriot act so that I could run for president? Did I vote to hear the evidence in the (Bill) Clinton (impeachment) trial so that I could run for president? I'm a Wisconsin independent. I call them as I see them. I do what I think is right. If that means people want me to be a senator, great. If they don't, fine. If it means that I might run for president, we'll see. But I don't make my decisions based on that kind of thing."

We would be a WHOLE lot better off with a Senate full of Russ Feingolds. Questioning his motives is to ignore his entire political career and demeans us all.

[LittleClarkie]

67. You could say that about every action by every possible candidate in 2008

I don't like to look at every action through an "I'm running in 2008" filter. Not Kerry, and not Feingold. It's to easy to call everything they do self-serving.

And if Russ was that kind of guy, I don't know if he'd have been the only one to vote against the Pat Act at a time when most of the country would be against him.