Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mixed feelings on Feingold's censure resolution

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:33 PM
Original message
Mixed feelings on Feingold's censure resolution
My heart is with Senator Feingold on this. It seems obvious to me that Bush has been breaking the law with his warrantless domestic wiretapping program. Presidents are not above the law. When a president breaks the law, he should be held accountable. At the very least, he deserves to be censured by the Congress. In fact, his punishment should probably a lot worse than that.

Democratic leaders in Washington have had ample time to come up with some sort of response to Bush's blatant lawbreaking, and so far they have done nothing. In fact, it has become apparent that they don't really have any intention of doing anything about it. Presumably they thought it all out in their heads and decided, once again, that the risk of "appearing weak" outweighed the possible advantage that could be gained from attacking the president -- even when he's wildly unpopular and has been caught violating the law and (perhaps) the Constitution itself. Never mind the fact that if you're too chicken-shit to take on an unpopular president when he breaks the law, then you probably *are* weak, in both appearance and reality.

Against this backdrop of Democratic fear, weakness, and inaction, Senator Feingold deserves a lot of credit for taking concrete action to hold the president accountable. At the very least, he has put the issue of Bush's lawbreaking back on the front pages. But more importantly, he is doing what any right-thinking American officeholder (or citizen) should do. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative or whatever: if you believe in the rule of law, if you believe in protecting the rights of the individual against the state, if you support the Constitution of the United States, and if you are alarmed by the application of unchecked executive power then you should support holding the president accountable.

And therein lies the problem. They're not supporting it.

I support Senator Feingold's censure resolution. But I have mixed feelings about it because right now it appears poised to fail. And when I say "fail" I don't mean "lose on a party-line vote" -- The resolution is poised to fail in a spectacular and public way, with a substantial number of elected Democrats too afraid to take even a small stand in favor of what is right.

If this thing loses with a large number of Democrats defecting, then Bush's supporters are going to paint this as a victory for Bush -- and not only that. They are going to claim that this vindicates his warrantless domestic spying program. They are going to claim that this is "proof" that the program is lawful, and has the support of Congress. And that would not be so great.

I do not know how hard Feingold worked behind the scenes to line up support for his resolution. If he has put a lot of effort into it, then good for him and shame on the Dems who refused to support him. But if he's doing this in a half-assed way and didn't really try to get other Democrats to support it, then I am a little nervous about what might happen. I can't help wondering if we might have better helped our cause by simply introducing a generic "sense of the Senate" resolution which forces Senators to express their support or opposition to the principle that "the government of the United States should not spy on its own citizens without a warrant," or to the principle that "the president of the United States is not above the law."

Or, I suppose Democrats in Congress could do the right thing and actually support the censure resolution. A party-line vote would be a victory for us. But I'm not holding my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Perhaps Feingold didn't ask for help
Because he wants to appear as the lone democrat who stood up to bush when he runs for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. He has taken a gamble and I believe that he will ultimately win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. I agree
Even if the dems are not on his side, the American people are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
78. Exactly. It will be the majority of American people who will step
up in support if Russ and other courageous Dems. I'm not sure exactly how they are going to be able to do that. But, a good idea has a way of making itself heard. I know that I'm going to support all of the Dem politicians that are willing to tell the truth about Bush and his henchmen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowdogmi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
152. I think that we need to show vocal support.
He is doing what is right. He is standing up for the constitution, for the rule of law, and for the American people. If we make a vocal show of support it may actually lead to censure. I have hope tonight because someone finally put a spark to the torch of liberty. I haven't felt this good since Mr. Gore's speech. Whether or not he advanced this motion to position himself as a potential candidate for 08 really doesn't matter. He showed the courage to stand up to this administration. In my book he is a noble patriot. I sincerely hope that others in this party follow his fine example of leadership in the face of adversity. IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
71. I find that hard to believe. And point to Sarbane covering
time on the floor yesterday, Durbin stepping in pretty seamlessly to take on Specter. Reid holding Frist back as well as he could. (Didn't Reid look tired?)

What we saw yesterday was teamwork, not accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #71
79. I didn't see it
I'm only reacting to what has been posted on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #79
84. I wonder if there is a way for you to see. It was quite
amazing. And I think it took the Thugs by surprise. Frist looked like he was going to have a head explosion and even the fluent Sen. Specter seemed at a loss at times.

They were not ready. And they chose exactly the wrong dude when they had Arlen do a response. Because he clearly has issues with the NSA wiretapping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #71
141. They all took an oath to defend the constitution. I find it incredulous
that the entire Senate is not behind Feingold. I have the highest respect for his action and a very low opinion of those who prefer polls of swing voters to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
120. Russ is not like that. Did you know he posted promises to voters
on his garage door??

"...series of five promises written on Feingold's garage door in the form of a contract. These were:

I will rely on the Wisconsin citizens for most of my contributions.
I will live in Middleton, Wisconsin. My children will go to school here and I will spend most of my time here in Wisconsin.
I will accept no pay raise during my six-year term in office.
I will hold a "Listening Session" in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year of my six-year term in office.
I will hire the majority of my Senate staff from individuals who are from Wisconsin or have Wisconsin backgrounds"

In addition, he sticks to his word. Did you know that during his 2004 campaign for re-election "Feingold refrained from imposing spending caps on himself as he had in the past, and raised and spent almost $11 million. Although Republicans attempted to use that fact to paint him as a hypocrite, Feingold's records showed that more than 90% of the money came from individuals, that the average contribution was only $60, and that, once again, a majority of it was raised from Wisconsin residents "

He's held more than EIGHT-HUNDRED and FIFTY listening sessions with his constituents since being elected.

He's a stand-up guy and has proven that repeatedly. Time and time and time again. The problem is not Russ, it's the DINOs who have no balls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. I don't really much about him, but I like what I see so far
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. He's worth checking out. He just started blogging.
Blog:
http://senator-russ-feingold.mydd.com /

Voting Record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0...

Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

One thing I find most appealing is is actual sincerity. I am a constituent, so I am biased, but I have done research on him. I will support him fully in any capacity in which he chooses to run. So long as he always represents me. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #123
130. What I also like about him is his obvious intelligence
He is able to speak in coherent sentences. Amazing, ain't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #123
171. I lived in Wisconsin when he first ran for U.S. Senate. It was a great,
Edited on Wed Mar-15-06 03:59 PM by coalition_unwilling
clever campaign. I've been trying to remember the name of the Repuke Neanderthal he defeated (think it was '92). Does anyone remember?

On edit: I googled it and it was Bob Kasten. God, that guy was a prick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #171
175. You missed his 2004 campaign against a car salesman - Russ Darrow
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #175
180. I was in California by then, but I always suspected Feingold would
make a mark in D.C. His '92 campaign (where he rode a bus around the state and used the palm of his hand in TV spots to model a map of Wisconsin and plot his bus travels on) was absolutely beautiful. He didn't have to go negative on Kasten, b/c Kasten was so nasty that Wisconsinites were turned off by him. (I first got smart about Kasten during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, when his staffers insulted me when I called his office to suggest voting against Thomas.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #120
129. The DINOs have no spine either
Like Limpmann (Dino) Conn their testicles were removed a long time ago that's why they are singing in the Chimpanzee's Castrati Choir

Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato

A castrato is a male soprano, mezzo-soprano, or alto voice produced either by castration of the singer before puberty or who, because of an endocrinological condition, never reaches sexual maturity. Therefore, their voices never deepen.

This practice began in the 16th century. Due to Catholicism's traditional ban on females singing in church, castrati were employed as church singers. The first castrati appeared in Western Europe in chapel choirs. In the late 1550s, the Duke of Ferrara had castrati in his chapel choir, the Munich court chapel from 1574 and in 1599 the Papal (Sistine) Chapel choir was formally described as having castrati. Elsewhere in Europe, castrati were in Wrttemburg from 1610, Vienna from 1637 and about a decade later in Dresden. In an official Bull of 1589, Pope Sixtus V approved the recruitment of castrati for the choir of St. Peter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #120
158. Is he for real?
I remember a Senator from MA. I put a lot of faith in him, I sent money, I talked him up to friends and family. He let me down. In my eyes he tucked tail and ran when the going got tough. He never stood up to the liars in the repug theft machine out to steal the election. He never picked up the gauntlet thrown out by the criminal bush and his tribe.

I'm hoping this is going to be different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZModerate Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
132. And for fucks sake
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 09:14 PM by AZModerate
if we can have nothing else... lets make an IQ test where you have to score over 30 to be considered for president!.... the past few presidents would have not been eligible.. although bush still would have beat them all by managing to score in the negatives... can we get at the very least a president that doesn't openly display symptoms of downs syndrome?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyCougar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Dems in the Senate have had more than enough time to review it by now
So they can either get on board, or stay on their own sinking ship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hitting the "alert" button on you. Seriously, thanks for a
reasoned look at this contentious topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. Then call your Senators and ask them this question...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paulie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. It really makes it hard
to support the better of two evils...

There should be no question, based on my reading of the resolution, not to pass this.

If they fail on this, then perhaps Democratic Underground will become the name of the party, since all the Overground is occupied by enablers.

If this does fail because of no support, how can we Democrats continue to support these party people as we all slide into oblivion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. I support Feingold in this censure resolution. I believe it deserves
an up or down vote. Here is a clear chance for all the elected representatives to stand for the people or lie down with *.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't know that it will play out like that
in the world of punditry maybe but I would suspect that lots of people (that I have talked to) see that W broke the law and will see the Republicans covering for him as just that.

I think we need to poke our heads out from time to time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. There has not been enough time to frame it as an accountability issue
Reid is slowing things down (and the GOP is trying to get a vote immediately) for this reason.

I suspect Reid knows what he is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. I expect it to fail
I do believe it is the right thing to do, once presented - it's a start anyway. Not so sure it's not a case of being beaten down so badly by all the outrage that "something", "anything", would seem like an improvement , even when it really isn't.

I worry a censure will cause some to spout "he was censured, no need to impeach" and there's also, "we censured him for this, let's impeach him for all the rest"

Also, as you said, a failed censure will, most likely, bring the talking point, "if there's not enough to even censure him, there's certainly not enough to impeach him"

Lot of pitfalls.

I won't be satisfied with anything less than the entire Bush Regime (active and resigned) in prison.

But I doubt that will happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I disagree with that idea
Simply because impeachment begins in the House. This is what the Senate can do and it is NOT necessarily the ending point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. I didn't say both can't be done - I'm saying the framing will
direct the debate. The talking points will misdirect away from the facts - as talking points are designed to do.

I do think the censure resoution will fail. However, I do support it as it's the right thing to do. I in no way suggested censure pre-empts impeachment - but it will be framed that way and such framing will misdirect the debate.


And yes, I'm well aware that impeachment starts in the House...but that fact doesn't change the way it will be framed. Since when have facts ever gotten in the way of framing a debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
35. I just don't think Senate Dems will use that as a reason to vote against
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. Ah..gotcha. (as in - I see what you're saying now)
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 02:25 PM by Solly Mack
I wasn't speaking in terms of how the framing will influence the way the senators vote.

Besides, I don't think how a vote is framed - and explaining why you voted a certain way is framing the "why" of a vote - will be influenced BY a talking point. I think the way you vote influences the various talking points that arise ...talking points are influenced BY the way politicians vote and NOT a case of talking points influencing HOW a politician votes. The vote comes before the talking point - or the vote (impending or afterwards) frames the talking point. But the talking point does not frame the vote.

A talking point that is floated prior to a vote can be indicative of how a vote will go.

A politician might float the justification (talking point) for a vote prior to the actual vote, to see how it appeals to people...

if that makes sense. :)

I don't think talking points influence how a senator will vote either - I think talkings points are built around how a vote will go.

I was engaging in "pre-emptive" talking points - talking points that might arise from the vote. Which isn't to say those talking points I mentioned will arise. However, I think it's better to think of all the ways a debate can be framed to better prepare to counter the talking points as they arise.


if that makes sense. :)
















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. LOL, I think we're on the same page now
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
connecticut yankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
117. It will fail
because the Democratic Senators are a bunch of spineless wimps!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #117
144. Not all Democrats are spineless!
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 11:27 PM by IndianaGreen
Kerry led the Alito filibuster, much to Reid's consternation and public annoyance.

Dennis Kucinich has introduced a resolution of inquiry in the House requesting all documents pertaining to the Dubai deal.

John Conyers is at the forefront of an effort to impeach Bush and to open an investigation into the Downing Street memos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. democrats act the like the nambie pambie wife of an abusive husband
they should be protecting we the people.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Agreed. The total lack of spine demonstrated by "our" Senators is...
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 01:53 PM by truebrit71
...simply appalling....

I agree with what Sen Feingold is doing, but if/when this thing gets smacked down, we will have given yet ANOTHER arrow for the gop to use against us in the fall...This move will put the gop on the offensive again, and be another opportunity to paint the Dems as unpatriotic, un-American, and un-trustworthy..

With JR's approval rating in free-fall, and scandal after scandal piling up on all of the rethuglican criminals, did we really need to hand them a free-swing with their favourite "We're stonger and more patriotic than they are" bat?

I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
110. I am so sick of this comparison...it's insulting and
willfully ignorant. Go work at a Domestic Violence Shelter then we'll talk....nambie pambie my f*cking ass. You like a gun held to your head or your child's?...nambie pambie, indeed.

Why don't you make yourself useful and go 'educate' your abusive brothers? Or better yet...why don't you do give him a taste of his own medicine...big, tough dude

As far as I am concerned, the nambie pambie wife has more guts than the Dems. And they don't even have a gun to their heads (that I know of....but I wouldn't put it past Rove to do so.)

No wonder so many women are sick of the Dem party....you insult us and are cowards too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. sorry about the comparison n/t
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. thx. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #114
137. Err. Ditto.
But I still say what I said below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #112
165. You should be. Read your own sig line. It condemns you as a
hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #110
136. Thx, femrap! There is no excuse for abuse!
And none for blaming the victim.

What's the deal with testicles, anyhow? I kinda liked it when I learned to say cojones years ago, but they've nothing to do with managing in a civil society.

Bravery and courage are gender neutral. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #136
139. My pleasure, MaryBear....
Why our culture doesn't teach boys how to be men is beyond me...it just teaches them to NOT be women or anything feminine. What a shame. This causes so many of our social problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #110
164. Thanks, you beat me to it! What a REVOLTING comment. Attitudes
like THAT are, in part, why some women chose to remain in abusive conditions...everyone blames the victim, including the victim via self-blame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greybnk48 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
12. I don't think Feingold does anything "half-assed"
Some of you watch him more closely than I, and I'm a Wisconsinite. He is a very smart, very careful, detail oriented person who would have thought all of this through as you have Skinner. Part of me agrees with another poster in that this may be Feingold's public breaking with the status quo, capitulating members of the party and the launch of a return to the Democratic party ideology in place before it shifted so dramatically to the right.

Whatever the case may be, I can guarantee he thought this through and is as aware as you are of the possible consequences. He is the only politician that I feel confident saying this about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. Thanks for the post
It's becoming obvious that Russ didn't consult the leadership on this venture and there may be a very good reason why he did not do so....

Russ is no fool.

He has something in mind here and I don't know exactly what it is....

Is he forcing Democrats to "stand up and be counted?"

I don't know...

true, my heart is with his resolution too....but I can't get very enthusiastic about this because I can't see the "end game". Maybe I'm too stupid to see it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greybnk48 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Well, much as we would like to think otherwise
he knows things we don't know. I'm thinking wait and see. He's definietly not self-destructive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. maybe its not going to come to a vote
I though I read that Durbin said something along those lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
39. My impression, too, was that Dems want to block a vote until they have
time for a floor debate. Frist wanted to schedule a vote for last night..and Reid shot it down. Then Frist wanted to have the vote today..and I believe that was shot down, too.

It was a Parliametary maneuver..it seemed. There was an argument about whether Feingold would take his time out of "Morning Business" or whatever they were getting ready to vote on. Then Reid and Frist got into something about which rule would apply and they agreed it would be "Morning Business."

I don't know enough about the Senate and House rules to understand the Parliamentary stuff that goes on...but the Dems were doing some manuevering..about whether the "Censure" would be voted on at all..it seemed to me from watching it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
18. The Feingold resolution is necessary public policy
Censure should be framed in the context of establishing boundaries for the chief executive. If I was pitching this to a freeper (or an elected Senate Dem), I would say that impeachment is needed to establish the public policy in question (warrentless wiretaps). Either the program needs to change, or the law needs to change. The next chief executive might not be as popular or as powerful as George W. Bush, and we would be better off fighting the war on terrorism with clear guidelines and protocols in place.

Response to this resolution would in fact answer all those questions stated in the OP. Again, this is good public policy.

A party line loss would clearly define what an opposition party stands of and would offer a clear indication of what the Dems vision for the future of the country is.

Perhaps the GOP will see this not as bush bashing, but as policy enforcement.

We have a right to know where our elected leaders stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
19. Skinner, this is the one issue that will make or break it for me.......
......When this is all over I will either be an even more staunch Democrat than I am now or I will be without any party to vote for. :rant:

This WH squatter has all but torn the Constitution to shreds and Democrats have at the very least let it happpen over and over again. :cry: So they either stand up and support Feingold on this or I'm out of the Democratic party all together. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReadTomPaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
21. As mentioned elsewhere, if Donna Brazile is on board, how risky can it be?
This woman has lunch with Karl Rove, for goodness sakes. "Risk" in her book is not sending the President a birthday card.

Heck, it's an election year with an administration that has approval ratings of around 18-32% for the VP & Bush. Conservatives everywhere are critical of him lately... it's the safest and most appropriate time for a censure that I've ever seen, politically.

Any Dem who doesn't get behind this is really a hardcore moron. Sheesh, we are the opposition party. How hard is that concept for some Dems to grasp?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nightjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
96. WHAT!!!!?????
She has lunch with Rove? Does she have short term memory loss? Did she block out the stealing of the election from Al Gore? Is she a complete and utter moron? A turncoat?
Lunch with Rove? PLEASE.....Tell me that's a metaphor for something else? You are NOT serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
23. Who knows, Murtha didn't have much support either, now more and
more people seem to be falling in line with what he was saying.

These renegades are good at getting people to debate and think about these issues.

This may well fail in the public eye, but I rather go down standing up than go down watching from the sidelines.

Thanks for the reasoned post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
41. Good point! Sometimes I think our Dems wait for someone to dive first
and then they stand on the bank looking around to see if there is a second and maybe anyone else. They don't take the plunge until they see support out there.

Mostly they are a cowardly bunch who don't see Kennedy, Durbin, Levin, Byrd and the few others as Leaders because they've been so villified by Russert, the WaPo and NYT's.

Feingold has the support of those out here on the "Internets" so it's up to us to keep his back like we did with Murtha.

Cyndi Sheehan took a while to catch on...and look at the difference she has made while our Dems pretty much stayed away from her..(excepting the Black Caucus).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
95. Seems like the good Dr Dean did the same thing, and every thing
he's stated that initially "OMG, I can't believe he said that" by the other Dems has turned out to be proven true - and the majority of America is on the same side he is.

Russ is a leader, leaders take risks and go where others fear to go, building support as they go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #95
101. BR_Parkway
leaders take risks and go where others fear to go, building support as they go.

Some one ought to send this to the WH as an FYI - good thoughts BR_Parkway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
24. ok, then why don't we (DU) stop being half-assed ourselves and start
calling some senators :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
25. Surely Feingold did seek support.
I don't think he's a half-cocked kind of guy. I'm thinking he approached many senators who turned him down but he didn't let that deter him. His anger in abruptly leaving the senate floor after his speech tells me how disgusted he was with the whole bunch.

His facial expressions when he speaks tell me his actions come straight from the heart. This senator is a keeper: integrity, conviction, courage. He's not showboating. He believes in what he's doing.

I don't know what this administration has on the tentative bunch who won't speak out, but I'm disgusted that the low poll numbers have no effect on them to do the right thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
26. There appears to be many layers to this issue
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 01:57 PM by Vinnie From Indy
As a political move, this places Feingold squarely to the left of Hillary for the primaries. Hillary, Bayh and others are clearly targeting the middle and taking the base for granted. The perplexing aspect to this view is that the polling shows the middle hates Bush as much as the base.

As a practical matter, I agree that Feingold may be giving the GOP a result that they will use to vindicate the clearly illegal policy of BushCo wiretapping. Feingold walks the walk and his MO seems to be to lead by example and let others decide what is the content of their own character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
27. I have no reservations.
For three reasons.

1. It is headed to the Judiciary Committee again for what will surely be more fiery and probabative debate.

2. It merged the Senate and the House with similar resolutions. Conyers is contending with 435 representatives. Feingold has brought it to the worlwide stage in the well of the Senate.

3. It puts Bush on notice that he better walk a fine line. He's like a criminal under surveillance. Not only that, but if anything else is proven, Feingold's words are going to be prophetic and resonate even greater impact than they do right now. He has already set the stage.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
28. Well said!
It's past time for this and I'm amazed that anyone thinks Feingold should need to line up support for censure. Any Senator who cares about the rule of law and the Constitution should back him unflinchingly, and that should be ALL of them.

What a powerful message it would have sent to see multiple Senate Dems racing to be the first to propose censure, with full support!

But no, Feingold gets ragged on and we're supposed to call our Senators and tell them that defending the Constitution and the rule of law is the right thing to do, yet again.

Great post, Skinner, thank you. My guess is they'll cut their own throats on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
29. I think it might "be" the spying
Bushco has tons of dirt on everyone through illegal spying on political opponents......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wrate Donating Member (376 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #29
67. If you are right, and I think you are, then that means Russ must be clean
Who else in the Honorable Senate is clean to support him with the censure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
100. Pharaoh, I've heard this proposed before...
and I suppose there could be something to it, but it seems like a real stretch to me because it would require:

--that a good number of our elected Dem reps have undiscovered dirt in their backgrounds that would be nasty enough to expose them all to blackmail.
--that they have all been threatened and told how to vote - or else.
--that they have all agreed to be controlled in this manner.
--that they have all kept it under wraps.

I doubt it. It's much more likely that the sellouts are just plain vanilla corporate whores, doing whatever it takes to stay on the good side of the powers that run the tables.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #100
121. we all have some dirt
most of it is innocent youthful indescretion, but in politics this can be blown all out of proportion and ruin carrers.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #121
126. Well, therein lies the problem...
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 07:55 PM by Iowa
We supposedly have a whole passel of elected Dem reps who choose to:

--remain in office while being blackmailed.
--allow these blackmailing criminals to control their actions.
--remain silent about it.

...and all this over the possibility that "innocent youthful indiscretions" might be revealed. A bunch of our Dem reps are committing high treason to cover innocent youthful indiscretions.

I'm as cynical as the next person, but this strikes me as WAY over the top. I'm not directing this at you; I've seen this view expressed several times. I'm just curious - is this really a widely held view here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #126
131. just my opinon
I am trying to understand it as you are.....

just trying to understand why the dems are such wimps,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynthia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #121
128. youthful indiscretion didn't seem to hurt W
he has more crap in his past that I think anyone should tolerate, and look where he is now! I can't believe that any of the Dem's are holding back out of fear of some youthful indiscretion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
30. I'm with Feingold on this. The party has to stand UP.
Our party should be barking like a bunch of junk yard dogs, howling, about all the things going on in Bushworld. Letting things slide and shrugging it off too soon minimize the misdeeds of Bushco. We have to start standing up, making a fuss, and drawing lines between us and them.

Otherwise, what hope do we have in November?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
31. I think there will only be a few who take a stand this time.
This will not be the end of the matter.

This protest vote will just be another knocking on the door.

I support those lucky few who take this stand.

I forgive those who do not take this stand at this time, but would like to.


Knock knock!

Who's there?

Impeach!

Impeach who?

Impeach Dubya!

That's who!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carolinalady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
32. Yesterday in the Senate-I was disheartened that he did not stay
on the floor and rip Specter a new asshole. Specter was allowed to say for the record that many experts agree with the position that Bush is within his Constitutional power to break the law. When in truth the only people that testified to this was Gonzales who quoted the Bush lackies. What about the non-partisan experts who have determined that it is not Constitutional. To me that was Feingold's biggest mistake. Walking out like that did make it seem that it was purely a political grandstand on his part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
33. "No one could have anticipated" Feingold would introduce a resolution..
The poor Dems were SHOCKED I tell you!


http://www.feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/...

March 7, 2006

The Intelligence Committees failure to authorize an investigation into warrantless surveillance is yet another abdication of Congresss responsibility to provide oversight and ensure accountability for this illegal program. Limiting information about the program to a minority of the Committee is not just grossly inadequate, it is contrary to the law that requires that the entire Committee be fully informed of intelligence surveillance programs.



FEINGOLD BLASTS FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
Feingold: The Intelligence Committee Has Abandoned Its Oversight Role.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/06/02/200...
February 16, 2006

Washington D.C. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold released the following statement this afternoon following the Intelligence Committee Meeting.

The Intelligence Committees failure today to begin an investigation of the administrations illegal domestic surveillance program is inexcusable. The Senate Committee charged with conducting oversight of intelligence matters has a responsibility to look more deeply into the Presidents illegal secret wiretapping of Americans. The President has broken the law and Congress needs to hold him accountable.



http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/06/02/2006020...

February 7, 2006
Statement of Senator Russ Feingold
On the Presidents Warrantless Wiretapping Program
As Prepared for Delivery From the Senate Floor

When someone breaks the law, when someone misleads the public in an attempt to justify his actions, he needs to be held accountable. The President of the United States has broken the law. The President of the United States is trying to mislead the American people. And he needs to be held accountable.




http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/06/01/200...
January 11, 2006

Senator Feingold and members of Congress from both parties have expressed deep concern about the President authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order.


:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. LOL - nice
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
47. Great Catch! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
66. It's hurts to laugh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
34. I'd sure like to hear the explanations from the Dems who refuse
What excuse could they give but a tacit endorsement of what Bush has done?

I do worry that we haven't yet had the meat of Bush's defense which was given to Congress in private session. That gives cover to senators who want to claim that the spy program can be managed without sanction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
36. Another reason for mixed feelings ...
OK, first let me put on my flame resistant suit.

I abhor the Bush administration's insistence that it can engage in warrantless wiretaps as much as the next DUer, but throughout this controversy, I have had this nagging feeling that this is really not the strongest issue on which to censure or impeach Bush. And the reason is because the law, including the constitutional law, on warrantless searches is more murky than most people would believe.

There is an old cliche in the law: "where there's a right, there's a remedy." It means simply, that one way you know that you really do have an enforceable right, is if the law gives you a remedy for it's violation. Similarly, if there is no rememdy, then you had no right all along.

So we have to ask ourselves, what happens in the ordinary case when the government engages in illegal surveillance, wiretaps or even searches in violation of our rights? The remedy, from the perspective of the trouble we are now in, seems amazingly limited: the evidence collected by the government cannot be used against the defendant at trial -- the suppression rule.

This is a really pissant remedy, because it has always given law enforcement the impression that they can engage in illegal wiretaps and searches, so long as they don't try to use the evidence at trial. You've seen this a million times in cop shows and movies: the renegade cop illegally breaks into the perp's house or taps his phone; after he knows that bad things are going on, he gets a warrant and goes in legally. In retrospect, we now know that when the Supreme Court was developing 4th Amendment law, it should have put more teeth into the remedy of what to do if law enforcement engages in illegal activities -- such as what happens when law enforcement or other governmental entities deny a person of civil rights under color of state law.

More importantly, I have been puzzled by this aspect of the uproar over NSA wiretapping: It always seemed like a case of getting Al Capone on income tax evasion. In other words, the Bush administration has been so rapantly criminal, and its crimes so serious -- including war crimes, torture, secret prisons, detention without trial, and criminal negligence in New Orleans that probably contributed to thousands of deaths -- that I could not understand why the Democrats have isolated this particular act of criminality to hang the censure or impeachment on.

As they say, prosecuting a politician for one act sounds like we are legitimizing others. Does this mean that NSA wiretapping is bad, but torture, secret prisons and detention without trial are OK?

This is the criticism of the Nixon impeachment -- that the establishment came together to remove Nixon, by focusing on obstruction of justice, while specifically not talking about enemies lists, other breakins, the use of the CIA domestically, illegal campaign financing which was really massive bribery, blackmail, extortion, overthrowing foreign governments, prolonging the Vietnam War, and the entire vast set of crimes that Nixon was reported to have committed, but never saw the light of day in the House or a court of law.

When Congress gets into the details -- eg that the NSA is perfectly entitled to evesdrop on conversations between US citizens and foreigners, so long as the citizen's name is redacted from the transcript used by the agency -- the Bush supporters will have a field day characterizing this issue as whether the transcripts were properly typed and edited. That is not going to be understood in Kansas as an impeachable offense, even though those same people feel an unease about massive governmental domestic spying programs.

What really worries me is that this is going to play out like a "lawyer's issue," which is typical of what Washington Democrats tend to focus on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
37. Those who are not afraid of failure will be the winners.
The only winners right now are those in either party who dare to speak up for our country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
40. It's as simple as this...
STAND FOR SOMETHING OR STAND FOR NOTHING!

peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
42. This is a good move by Dems any way you look at it
1. - Use Russ Feingold to deliver the message to the Senate and when the Republicans call partisan politics, you can counter by saying Russ was the only Dem to vote to see evidence on Clinton, which shows that he is bi-partisan and kills that issue...

2. - Even if this doesn't pass and some Dems don't get on board, it is ok, because the message gets put out into the public eye and you are able to enlighten and inform...

3. - Since the polls clearly indicate that just about everything Bush is doing, the people disapprove of. If you are a Dem or Repub that voted No on this bill, it can be used against you in the next election...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
44. I don't applaud Feingold on this move, yes, Bush needs to be held
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 02:24 PM by wisteria
accountable, but it is obvious to me he did this on his own without first trying to gain support for the effort. He took a principled stand yes, but he didn't think it through and he may of given the Republican's the upper hand on the security issue now,just in time for the 2006 election season. I have to ask, what was his motivation in rushing this along now? Why not discuss it and give our other Senators a chance to frame it in a way the American public could understand. As you mentioned, the only way to perhaps save grace now, will be for all of our Dem's to vote yes on this and I doubt this will happen. Because Senator Feingold did not alert or discuss this maneuver with the other Senators' it put them all on the spot. The media has since played up the lack of support angle and the Dem's running scared. All this because Senator Feingold couldn't be a team player and clearly decided he wanted all the media attention on this. Sorry, he is no leader in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyCougar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #44
55. I totally disagree with this assessment.
You have no idea whether Russ Feingold "thought it through" or not. The issue is far from over, and, if anything, it makes at least some Democrats look like they stand for something. Kerry, Boxer and Feingold are all behind the censure resolution, and the rest of the Dems are undecided as of now. This move to censure reiterates to the public that Bush has violated the law, and it brings Bush's crimes to the forefront of the national debate.

Whether the media plays it up or not in the first 24 hours of the resolution being brought up is not a good measure of whether there is lack of support or not. The majority of the public is probably behind this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
45. I don't think he thought they would all support it...but it was important
for him to take a stand. I'd like to see him replace Harry Reid and he could do it showing the courage he has shown with standing up while many of the rest sit around wringing their hands and worrying where the Repugs will next attack them.

It showed leadership to stand up like he did. And, we are sorely lacking in
new leadership...since our great old Liberal Warriors like Kennedy, Levin, Kerry and a few others have been so tarred by the Repug dirt slinging machine that the Pundit Press gaggle doesn't even bother to quote them anymore...unless it's negatively.

I understand what you say, Skinner...but these are desperate times. We need to learn how to stand up and take consequences and then pick ourselves up again and go back into battle anew. We won't win if we don't try. Caution and hiring consultants to "re-frame issues for us" can only go so far.

Guts and putting oneself on the line, in the end shows principle and conviction. Something we Dems are told we don't have...because only Repugs and that idiot Emperor supposedly have balls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
48. Just the act of presenting it is a victory in itself.
That is the bottom line. It cuts across the "who's the leader in the party" crap that is getting out of control.

The leaders are the ones who take the lead and quit sticking their fingers in the air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
49. Skinner read today's firedoglake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
113. Firedoglake is a must read as well
as the link to Dogby! Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
50. I'd prefer he try and fail than not try at all. The fear of taking risks,
,...is killing us. We appear weak and uncertain, wishy-washy and indecisive.

I not only support Feingold's move, I strongly believe regardless of failure or success (in terms of actual accountability by the pResident) that his passionate stand in protection of our constitutional right against warrantless intrusion into our lives strengthens our party, our people and our country as a whole.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
51. "large number of Democrats defecting"
Not to make light of a serious subject, but I read that with an extra "a" in the last word... and it seemed very appropriate. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoAmericanTaliban Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
52. Feingold did the right thing. at least it made the news . a year
ago he couldn't have done that. things are changing in the right direction but too slow for me & a lot of us at DU, but they are changing. This time next year we may have more dems on board & a few Repukes as well. The mere fact that folks are talking about impeachment & censore is a big step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sadie5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Called my Senator
Evan Bayh. Local # didn't answer, then called Washington #. The person who answered the phone said that Bayh DID NOT support the censure, that Bayh wanted to take a look at this and perhaps change the laws. That's Bayh for you. A do nothing centrist of the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmunchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
53. We've all been waiting for the Dems to do something
Anything. It amazes me that when one does do something, he is met with criticism by DU'rs. How could Feingold get the Dems to support him? They seem to have become a bunch of spineless twits. It would be too much too ask for to have all of the Dems unite on something like this. So I say let the lone voices speak out in support of what so many of us want to hear and maybe just maybe something somehow will come from it. If not, we'll just get another chance to see how many of the Dem leaders are not supporting our views. As far as I am concerned, just another nail in their coffins. They are good for nothing if they cannot even be our voice in Washington when there is so many of us crying out for their leadership and representation of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
56. It is similar to one soldier standing up because...
there are enemies shooting at the platoon. This one soldier knows they are under attack, gets up and starts returning fire. Yet, the other soldiers are still sitting around the camp fire. The ones sitting are not sure what to do or they don't want to. But, bullets are being fired at them.

One would think that all soldiers in the platoon will immediately jump up and start fighting.

Unless the other soldiers have other thoughts - like they want the enemy to win...

Nothing makes sense anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
57. His attempt will fail miserably. All of us here, and 39% of the public
are convinced he skirted the laws. We know him too well to doubt it. Feingold presented his legal case very well yesterday, and every Democrat and every non-partisan Republican (oops, there aren't any)should believe B** broke the law.

But, all the remaining blind, loyal, opposition has to do is trot out law scholars to say he has inherent powers, and blast those opinions all over the media. And throw in that stupid melodrama about "poor Bush, we're at war and he's up day and night fighting to keep us safe." to keep this whole thing from going any farther.

So, bottom line. It is a just cause to pursue this. Every Democrat worth his/her salt should stand arm in arm on this. There is absolutely NO reason not to ! Unless you are playing politics and can not stand in front of anyone and defend a censure position in the future. All of us could !

But, in the end, the censure will of course fail miserably, because there are not enough great Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
58. Since you aren't looking at the goings on in Washington from
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 02:58 PM by Cleita
afar like those of us in California and other western states are, you are too close to it and probably are only recently viewing the full extent of the corruption in our federal government that reaches across both sides of the aisle.

Even though most of the Democratic elected members of Congress have been cut off from participating in our government by the Republican majority, so many of them are still so in bed with corporate America that they aren't going to do anything like censure Bush because it could be perceived political suicide for them not to mention the very real possibility of character or even real assassination.

I really believe it's going to take us at a grass roots level to end this corruption and make the Bush Administration responsible for their crimes. For that we need real leaders outside of the system like we had in the sixties to lead the charge. Remember the Chicago Democratic convention, among who there was Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden who participated. There was real leadership there even though a lot of youthful exhuberance that led to mistakes.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chi...

James A. Michner spends a chapter in his book about the hippie culture of the sixties in his book The Drifters. He captures the reality of both sides nicely in a fictional story. Prior to the Chicago riots though the counter culture had forced Lyndon B. Johnson not to run for office again. (In restrospect, probably a mistake, but it was he who put us in an unwinnable war.) We need to do the same to force Bush and Company to resign.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0449213536/qid=1142363...

That protest degenerated into a riot thanks to the heavy handed tactics of the Chicago police and its mayor. However, I think the temper of those times is similar to that of today. Our elected leaders in Washington were totally out of touch with the people like they were then, busily feathering their nests while the youth of America were dying in Vietnam and immersing themselves in drugs, sex and rock n roll.

Although the internet has sparked a growth of activism, especially here at Democratic Underground, it hasnt reached the street for those people who arent internet savvy. This is why our elected leaders are ignoring us. We havent enough leadership to shake the Washingtonians at their roots. So far we do have Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin trying to get the establishment (theres that word again) to pay attention. We have our talk show hosts at AAR trying to get the truth out.

I am not suggesting riots. The sixties taught us that its not a way to go, but I think we are going to have to take to the streets getting information out in townhall meetings and any other way we can communicate with those who havent noticed what is going on in the house of our people. Then wed better get our political brooms out to clean house any legitimate way that we can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
59. The Breaking Story about the ACLU finding spying on anti-war
groups should make this a dang site easier to support, wouldn't you say?

I mean, that story just gave strength to the censure IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
60. Like I always say
They show courage we win. They show more cowardice, we lose.

This censure doesnt mean we are with the terrorists. It means we respect the laws of this country and they dont.

Dont allow them to frame this . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. the people are with us. Read the polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
62. Criminals always spin!
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 02:54 PM by sheelz
"If this thing loses with a large number of Democrats defecting, then Bush's supporters are going to paint this as a victory for Bush -- and not only that. They are going to claim that this vindicates his warrantless domestic spying program. They are going to claim that this is "proof" that the program is lawful, and has the support of Congress. And that would not be so great."

I really really don't care how Bush supports paint this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Either way they were going to spin it,
at least this way, voices of dissent will be heard...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. That's right!
All WE can do is support Russ. Bush committed a crime and we need not be enablers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jane_pippin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
63. I don't understand what they're so scared of. The man's at what, 34%, 36%
approval? And he broke the law. And he said he was going to keep on breaking it.

Are they, (Dems in Congress), really just so afraid of bad PR that they can't uphold their oaths to protect the Constitution? Really?

I don't understand. What are they waiting for? What do they have to lose that they haven't lost already?

I feel like crying. Really. How can there be anything less than support from them for Russ, knowing what they know and having seen what they've seen. Innocent people are being spied on illegally, and they're not sure if it's right to stand up and say plainly, "This is wrong and we're holding you accountable." Unbelievable.

Don't get me wrong, I get that the political aspect to all of this has to be weighed especially with '06 elections coming up. I had just hoped that they'd 1. see standing up to this corruption as an asset for them in '06, and 2. rise above worrying about poll numbers and focus groups and image for one second to simply do the right thing when the right thing needs to be done.

*sigh* Off to call Sen. Kohl's office.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. Remember the rumored strategy is to let the Thuggery
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 03:07 PM by sfexpat2000
hang itself. Feingold just went afoul of that, and it's March already.

:sigh:

/clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jane_pippin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #68
82. Ah. Right. Sit back and let them implode.
That's all well and good but it would be nice for them to do something. Here's a golden opportunity--that elusive "something" staring them right in the face...

You know how in Pee Wee baseball a kid will get a hit--a good, strong hit--and instead of running to first the kid just stands there dumbfounded at his own luck? So everyone yells and cheers for him to move it already and he finally starts running to first. This is like being handed a home run, (if standing up for the right thing can be considered that), and everyone's just standing there watching the ball fly away.


I can't believe I just used a sports analogy. My brain must be fried. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. It's okay. It's nearly Spring and baseball isn't a sport
it's a religion.

lol

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
69. With a plethora of impeachable offenses to choose from,
I suppose it is confusing on which to pounce. However, we must keep in mind the Dems have zero power in Congress and their participation in the running of the country has been neutered.

One point of discussion that caught my ear had to do with the timing of this censure attempt. Apparently some Dems had wanted it the illegal wiretapping issue to play out more over the following months as lead-up to the elections later this year. It is a potent issue and I'm concerned a failed censure attempt will put it to bed too early.

It is clear people are fuming and for good reason, but it is important to strategize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
70. Once again, the Beltway Dems go pee-pee on their own tummies.
Sheeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuttttt.

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
72. Call me a "purist", but the old cliche' goes,"You've got to stand for
something or you'll fall for anything." Any one person who stands up against this administration gets my unquestioning support. I am the one sitting on the couch waiting for one Democrat...any Democrat in office, to utter publicly the word Impeach. Remember back when Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich came out strongly against the war in Iraq, and the president's motives for it? Everyone turned on them...BUT, it paved the way to making it okay to talk about publicly. I say, Go For It Russ...and any Dem that dissents is less of a human in my eyes. They are selling out their constituents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mrspeeker Donating Member (671 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
73. nicely written
and I'm not holding my breath either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w8liftinglady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
74. If it is not supported by Democrats and Republicans-
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 03:18 PM by w8liftinglady
we will hold them accountable when they begin campaining.Every washington Journal show,i expect a DUer,including myself,to ask them why they supported criminal activity.Every letter to the editor will mention them by name.Every piece of propaganda they send will be returned with the words TRAITOR written on them.we will freeway blog,"gas pump blog" and leave our message wherever we go.In my state,it will be in regards to Hutchinson,Cornyn,and Barton.Quit being so passive,people.They work for us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
november3rd Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
75. Skinner:
Feingold is doing the right thing.

It's called, "His Job."

If nobody else in the Senate can censure the President for breaking the law, then they can't defend the Constitution and stand up for the people they represent.

It's time to "ukraine" everybody in Congress and the White House.

Start over. Special elections. Constitutional Convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
76. The courage of a leader is to stand when everyone else is sitting....
and when it is not the popular thing to do.

Being a "Maverick" really does mean bucking the system....and so it goes that Feingold bears that label for a reason.

Feingold obviously did what Feingold felt he ought to do. Whether it was a combination of doing what was right by the American People and the constitution while also helping his political career, it was a gamble he must have felt compelled to make.

The upside for us and the Dems is that it puts Bush's wrongdoing back in the limelight, and offers a less radical measure than impeachment (calling for impeachment, I don't think will help 2006 Democratic candidates get elected)and allows the Democrats to be seen as going on the offensive on an issue that really should be bipartisan; the constitution.

I don't agree with everything Feingold has done, voted for or has said....but this censure motion puts the ball into the hands of the Democrats. They can decide to unite on this, or they can all got their separate way.

Feingold has thrown the ball, and that's what a Maverick does. Whether it was the "smart" thing to do politically for the entire party, or for Feingold, or for the country...will be answered soon enough.

Sometimes when wanting change, we have to be willing to take a chance. Playing safe usually does not reap a large payoff, and playing it safe politically hasn't shown itself to be advantageous for our Dems in a long ass time!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #76
91. Excellent Post Frenchie
Fully Concur...

:applause: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lakeguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
77. this needed to be done. feingold shouldn't have to line up
support, it should already be there. he should have planned for the potential of an immediate vote call though, not a meeting with the press.

it's obvious to most that the pResident has broken at least one law. what is one to do? censure is the only option right now, and i'll agree it's a tough one at that. it does bring bush and his lawbreaking to the forefront, however. if any dem is opposed to this, it is purely for selfish political reasons and, to that end, they are not doing the job they were elected to do, represent Americans and defend the laws of the land/constitution by checking the executive lies and power grab.

a vote would also push repubs to make a choice, stand by bush on a crucial vote, or go against him. with the elections coming up, i would bet this would be a hard choice for many given bush's shit poor numbers. a vote for bush ties them to ALL of his problems and could be used in Nov.

bush admitted to breaking at least one law straight out. if congress won't, at the very least, slap him on the wrist, they should all pack their bags and go home. altio was bad, but if the dems can't stand together on this, we are toast. if i break the law, i pay a price. i don't get to change the rules after the fact, that's a dictatorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slingsam Donating Member (202 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
80. Being Lily-Livered is not an option
Either he broke the law or he didn't. If he did.......he should at least be censured....and reminded that this is a civil land.....with laws that are equal......

Call your senators.......call em' now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
81. I pumped Bayh's inbox with my position on this subject
I'm eager to hear which way he is blowing in the wind.

I told him he had no constitutional basis for not supporting it in a congenial sort of way. A civil way of saying when are you going to grow a constitution (backbone).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #81
102. Not surprisingly, DLCer fave Bayh does not support Feingold's resolution.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

Maureen Groppe of the Indianapolis Star reports that Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) doesn't support Sen. Feingold's move.

"Bayh said it's not clear whether the law requiring court approval before surveillance was broken, and he instead favors revisiting and possibly updating the law."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. It's sad really. This man has taken no position on anything.
If the tides were stronger the other way he'd be there cheering Russ on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #105
177. The apple truly fell quite far from the tree in the Bayh family
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
83. It will now be on record, something to think about.
I'm glad they're thinking about it, a show of solidarity would be nice right about now. Frist is bluffing, he does NOT want this to become official. Even the Catkiller knows Bush is screwed, he does this out of solidarity for his party. Blow over this house of cards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muchacho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
86. jaws of victory....
again the Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
87. That reasoning is precisely what caused them NOT to support him
It's cowardly. It's sick. It's wrong. Sorry, but that's the truth. Cowardice apparently begets cowardice.

Sometimes it's appropriate just to stand up and speak the truth, no matter what the hell the outcome.

If these Democrats would simply do that, and on a continuing basis, they could change EVERYTHING. I've said before and I'll say it again: if the Democrats in Congress would simply STOP ALLOWING THE LIES TO REMAIN UNCHALLENGED, that alone would end everything.

Their refusal to stand with Feingold is yet another lie. It's a lie that goes like this: I'm too afraid to stand up for what I believe in, so Feingold's on his own.

Blech.

I'm farkin' sick of cowards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
88. The censure is "too liberal" for the appeasement wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. Was it Feingold who said this is a "Civic Issue"
not an 'Ideological Issue' ?

I heard or read it in the past 24 hours but can't remember who said it now... i thought YES! that's it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
89. I agree with every word.
... "if he's doing this in a half-assed way and didn't really try to get other Democrats to support it, then I am a little nervous about what might happen."

Especially the above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
i miss america Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
90. There's more to the story
Three years ago, when the Orwellian Total Information Awareness program was announced, it was Feingold that led the way to have it blocked when he introduced the Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003: http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/03/01/20030116... and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00188:@@...



The program was subsequently cancelled, or so we were told.

It appears that the b@stards went ahead with it anyway. At major telecommunications hubs in this country, sources have reported that the government has been quietly intercepting all inbound and outbound phone calls and online traffic.

That is most likely why they are being so vague every time they are asked about the extent of the domestic surveillance. Feingold knows the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
93. "party line vote" or even something close would do it. Even having the
vote though would make an impression on the public and soften the beaches for impeachment if it comes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
94. IFFY...at best
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 04:40 PM by Hubert Flottz
"if you believe in the rule of law, if you believe in protecting the rights of the individual against the state, if you support the Constitution of the United States, and if you are alarmed by the application of unchecked executive power then you should support holding the president accountable."

They believe in the rule of cash money. They believe in Keeping their job at ANY COST. They Believe in "I Got Mine!" They believe in taking the path of least resistance!(the EASY WAY) (the LAZY WAY)(the COWARDLY WAY)(the PC Way)

Going along to get along is about as UNPATRIOTIC and cowardly, as it gets! What if the founders had gone along to get along in 1776?

Our "LEADERS" believe in making 17 year old kids face grim, bloody, deadly, reality in Iraq, but they don't have the guts to defend their country in the safety and comfort of our capitol city, when their country needs them. They are the very worst crop of lazy, useless, COWARDS, in the 230 year history of American Politics! The record will show this FOREVER!

If a 17 year old kid has the guts to put it on the line, for his country, then the "adults" in Washington had damned well better do the same, or we can kiss America good bye!

WE THE PEOPLE, NEED TO HOLD EVERY POLITICIAN IN WASHINGTON ACCOUNTABLE. If grade school kids have to be held accountable under Bush's famous "No Child Left Behind" sham, then the least the "adult leadership" in Washington can do, is to finally grow up too.

Our rule of law, has become the Rule Of The Fang And Claw! Banana Republicans running a Banana Republic, by force and threat!

"And in Reclusiom"...Are you better off now than the USSR was 20 years ago? They TOO, spied on their neighbors in the USSR, back then, but now they are free! Mr. Bush...tear down your walls, of secrecy and free America!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WestMichRad Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
97. This is exactly why I'm having a hard time supporting the Dems
They have a black-and-white right vs. wrong issue on the table, and many of them cringe about taking a stand because they're worried about it endangering their re-election chances. They're not willing to take a principled stand without first checking the damn polls. Churchill would roll over in his grave to think of spineless politicians like these.

If the Dems can't take a stand when something like this comes around, what good is it having them as our representatives? I may as well support someone from a minor party who will take a stand on something he/she believes in ! At least then I won't be "throwing away my vote" to a spineless wimp.

And in either case (Dem or a third party), we'll voting for a minority party candidate. (Oh, you don't really think the Dems will win either house of Congress this fall, do you? Oh yeah, there won't be any election fraud. Riiiiiiiiight.)

Flame away, if you must.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
98. does this mean he DID try to get support
from other Dems in the Senate and they wouldn't do it?

BREAKING: Feingold Accuses Senate Democrats of Cowering To Bush

I don't know, I think it would be a good idea not to get too excited about this until we get a little more confirmation on the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
99. At a time when Bush has the arrogance to break the law, then
comes out and say that he did as if challenging anyone to call him him on it, and then the Republican controlled Congress not only stymies any investigation into this, but actually works on changing the law to give Bush the extra and excessive executive power that he was illegally grabbing -- at this time, Feingold stands up and says, This is wrong. Enough. Stop.

If not now, when? When the issue has been so minimized and distorted by the changes that are being put into place? When the next ten immense changes have occurred and shifted attention away from the illegal spying?

My only disappointment is that the Democrats in Congress are not rising up and standing beside him and shouting with him at the top of their lungs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
danimich1 Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. They're all simpering cowards.
I won't ever vote for a republican, but I can easily sit out the next one. Nothing will change in this country unless the democrats get backbones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. I'd rather work to encourage other Democrats
to speak up and support those who do. Sitting out does nothing but put your backside to sleep :)

But we all do what we feel is for the best.

And welcome to DU :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
104. Maybe a strong media strategy - if it was all Dems YES, all Repugs
NO, it dies a quick and quiet death.

If no Dems come out right away, the RW media brats get to hype on it over and over that "even fellow Dems aren't on board". Then, they can slowly come on board as they "have a chance to examine the facts"
Meanwhile - it gets 800 times the airplay (seeping into the public mind) than it would have if it was simply a straight party line vote.

Maybe they did learn a few lessons in reverse watching the Katrina media and the UAE/Ports deal media campaigns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
106. How much work or support should he really need anyway?
If dems were truly disgusted with bush and his ways then one would think merely the mention of censure would get them on board.

No need for debate, late night calls, begging for support on it, etc. Either they agree in principle that this is something should be done or they don't. We should not have to lobby our own congress people to do the obvious right thing.

Playing politics is what has gotten bush his way time after time, not to mention two terms as resident in chief. Backbones are either there or not, and if they cannot handle the work they should be out of work and we will hire people that will do the job and do it right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. I love Class Warrior's formulation:
Do you support censure or do you support criminality?

He's never been more right. That is EXACTLY what we're dealing with.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #108
116. Class Warrior said it perfectly.
Can't say it better than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paul Dlugokencky Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #106
159. DITHERING DEMS!
dither, dither, study, study, mull, mull...

and drip, drip, drip, away goes our Constitution and Democracy.

Did they, or did they not, take an oath to reserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
109. I am for censure - however I wont insult anyone who disagrees with me.
There's too much name calling over this important issue. I mean people can't even say they question the timing of the censure without getting flamed. I do not like it when my family fights among themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
111. This is a worthy discussion that mirrors many others at DU
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 05:53 PM by wiggs
There are those who:

...trust our current political system... trust our elected officials in the opposition party to represent us responsibly...believe that dem leaders are doing all they can do, given their admittedly weak position...that dem leaders are waiting for an appropriate time to pull out all the stops

And then there are those who:

....believe the system is broken....aren't sure which dems really represent us and which don't....believe most dem leaders can do a lot more in congress and with respect to public opinion...believe that many issues already before us deserve all out opposition and that the NSA issue is just the latest in a long line of outrages


Frankly, both viewpoints have merit IMO and both deserve a place at the table. If the first group is more correct, then Feingold may have stepped on some toes, but I don't really see that damage is all that bad (how much worse can our position be?). If the second group is correct, then Feingold represents a clarion call that his colleagues can either help with or be exposed by...and that is worth the risk, IMO.

and then aside from the political ramifications, you can factor in that the man is absolutely right, something which most here can agree on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VP505 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
115. I sent Reid
this FAX, hope everyone will do the same. Senator Reid,
I am absolutely appalled that you sir and the rest of the Senate Democrats WILL NOT stand shoulder to shoulder with Senator Feingold and support his Censure Resolution. If you believe in the rule of law, if you believe in protecting the rights of the individual against the state, if you support the Constitution of the United States, then you MUST support Senator Feingold in his quest to hold this President accountable for his illegal actions. I have this simple question for YOU SENATOR, if you won't support efforts to speak truth to power WHAT GOOD ARE YOU, and why should YOU REMAIN Democrat senate leader?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
118. No offense, Skinner, but it's not Russ's style to do things
"in a half-assed way". He's a stand-up guy who fights for that in which he believes, and to hell with those who don't. You said it yourself, the problem is not him, it's all the other spineless Democrats who are afraid to support him. Push for the others to follow his lead... he voted against the war, against the USA PATRIOT Act, against the bankruptcy bill, and he continues to fight against all odds.

We need to support him and to hell with all of the spineless DINOs who don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
119. Censure is warranted but it will be seen as a stunt by Feingold
It should be obvious that when something is done like this by anyone who has presidential aspirations that it will be treated as though it is a political stunt. IMO a better way would have been to have someone else (if there is someone else) bring the censure motion other than Feingold so that the politics charge could not immediately be made.

Not only Republicans, but Democrats with presidential aspirations or supporters of other presidential candidates among the Democrats may also consider it a stunt by Feingold to position himself as the standout progressive candidate among Democrats and to get the netroots behind him for his presidential run. Thus the lack of support among Democrats.

I read that Kerry is supporting Feingold, though there seems to be a bit a disagreement about that on DU. The question then becomes, is Kerry really for censure or is he lining up with Feingold so that Feingold cannot capture the high ground for himself alone among progressives?

The question is which is the "stunt"? - The censure resolution itself or the lack of support for it among Democrats?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #119
125. Was his fillibuster attpemt a "stunt"? Or his lone vote against the
USA PATRIOT Act? Or how about when he posted his promises to voters on his garage door? And then *GASP* kept his word... was that "stunty", too?

I hate that when one or a few politicians have actual balls, it's seen as a "stunt". I know you're not saying it is, but that it'll be perceived that way, but it just bothers me to no end. Russ is one of the few stand-up guys and we need more like him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #125
151. I am not putting him down for it
Either way it was daring and clever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #119
149. Well, SOOOO freakin' what if it *IS* a "stunt"?
If so, it's a damn good one--and it's WORKING!

That's what I told the freepers on another forum a few hours ago anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
124. thank you skinner for saying what needs to be said
our leaders are FAILURES.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
127. At worst, it will bring attention to the fact that Bush needs censure.....
.... and slowly get American momentum against Bush AND (much more important) AGAINST REPUBLICANS!

At best, it will pass.

Either way, it can't lose!

Way to go Feingold!!! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathappened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
133. this man is a lone man in the struggle to make things right
in a world that has gone wrong , why the hell can't we all get along on this planet earth , why is there so much desire to kill and rile over each others life here on earth , so this man tryed to say to the world that this resadent we have setting in our office , is a lieing cheating no good man that has noright to be there and has no funtion as making a better place for all of us on earth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
134. thank you to russ for doing the right thing
(if he didn't tell other dems what was going down & when he probably didn't want them to get the opportunity to tell him to "wait" "hold on" or "we can't do this yet.")

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
135. There's an up side to your down side.
If (when?) it fails, it can be the watershed moment when the Democrats stop defining themselves in terms of what they're against (Bush) and start defining themselves in terms of what the values they stand for for (the implications of which will be stronger argument against Bush than are the explicit Bush-defined anti-Bush messages).

The Democrats might possibly benefit immensely from a symbolic moment like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
138. One great thing is that Russ pierced the bubble...threw the grenade...
If anything, there is now open discussion nationally and internationally on censure and impeachment. I think it has to be an incremental process toward impeachment.

Russ' points are pretty succinct and as long as the story remains in the news and he gets to talk on the tube, it can only harm Bush more.

Someone had to run up to the Bush Castle of Lies and lob and grenade over the wall.

As long as the argument is framed that Bush is not above the law and should be punished for breaking the law, it's going to gain momentum for the fall elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
140. The beltway Dems do not understand...
Challenge Bush now or never. If they wait till 07 they will be painted as flip flops for not supporting Feingold now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
142. Let's suppose I am a bank robber, and I have robbing a lot of banks
then one day I happen to get caught, but instead of being arrested, I am rewarded with a new law that says that it is okay for me to rob banks. What would that do to the rule of law in this country?

Bush has been breaking the law, and he has dared anyone to stop him. The Republicans in Congress are planning to introduce legislation making legal what Bush was doing. What would that do to the rule of law in this country?

Our Republic is in great peril, if patriots from both parties fail to restore the rule of law, we will lose the Republic for good, and the tyranny that our Founding Fathers so feared will come to pass.

The Constitution will die a bipartisan death!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herman47 Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
143. Feingold shouldn't have to consult Democrats beforehand...
HE SHOULD JUST ASSUME THAT THEY'LL STAND WITH HIM!!!

People, this is a no-brainer. Bush broke the law.

Indeed, the sad part about all of this is that Feingold seems to be alone at this point. The Senate Dems are acting too slowly.

I think Boxer, Kennedy will come through, indeed, a majority of Senate Dems will eventually support the censure resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
145. I wish, for once, they would find the bravery to do the right thing-
Sigh... or, lacking that, I wish they would find the wisdom to understand that a 36% approval rating does NOT mean that the "wind is at the back" of the beady-eyed incompetent in the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kena1956 Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
146. Russ is a hero
It takes guts to stand for Democracy when no one else will.
Russ has done it time and again with this Bush administration and every single Democrat should be lining up to back him in this and his run for the Presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
147. Skinner, I listened to Rush today and I think he read your post.
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 11:36 PM by Lochloosa
but he was talking this way an hour before you posted this.

I love playing Texas Holdem. There are so many outs for the repugs on this one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
148. Sen. Reid told Ed Schultz yesterday that he supported Feingold's
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 11:40 PM by Catrina
bill to censure Bush, but he did not say he would vote for it. When Ed Schultz asked him what he thought would happen to the bill, Reid sounded pleased when he replied 'it will go into Committee'.

I'm not sure why Reid seemed pleased with this possibility. I imagine the Republicans would agree to an up or down vote, because they know they'd win.

I think there are things that are not yet apparent ~ and I doubt Feingold would do something like this if he thought it would have no effect at all ~ nor would Reid support him, imo.

There were supposed to be hearings last week, but the Republicans cancelled them. Comey and other former DOJ employees were supposed to testify. The WH was frantic to stop this and they did, by compromising with new laws, but not investigating the past spying.

My opinion is that Feingold's bill was a way to force those hearings in spite of the WH, and that's why the Republicans were so determined to block Feingold yesterday ~ after all, if they know he doesn't have the votes, why were they so determined to stop him? They tried to block him with a parliamentary procedure!! Why?

I think this is going to work ~ not the votes, but the hearings that the WH didn't want and which they stopped. If this is why he did it, Reid probably knew about it. It's similar to what he himself did a few months ago regarding the Iraq War hearings. It was a surprise action to the Republicans who thought they had ended the possibility of any hearings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #148
172. the hearing theory sounds solid
instead of letting the issue die a slow death, Feingold smacked it onto the front pages. I don't agree with skinner's fears and Jerome over at MYDD came up with a solid way forward.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
150. "the risk of "appearing weak""
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain tight inside the bud was more painful than the risk it took to bloom." - Anais Nin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
153. That's very rational. But I'm sick of spineless Dems. I want someone to
stand for something. Feingold represents me, even if I didn't live in Wisconsin. He is doing what I hope I would do. I can be a Democrat because of Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Higans Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
154. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
155. True but
Edited on Wed Mar-15-06 03:13 AM by Stockholm
At least the issue is out in the open for now and not buried in some Republican controlled Committee. IMO that is an accomplishment in itself.

- That which we persist in doing becomes easier, not that the task itself has become easier, but that our ability to perform it has improved.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
156. But I still hope he get's the support. Let's write/call the Senators again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StraightShooter Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 04:10 AM
Response to Original message
157. Censure IS NOT IMPEACHMENT!
This man(Shrub)deserves to be Impeached with a Guilty verdict handed to him. But the coward Senate WILL NOT convict him, because the understood ''game''in American politics is ''accommadation!'' They take care of each other (NOT US)AND WILL DO NOTHING TO HINDER, HURT OR JEOPARDIZE ONE OF THEIR OWN(a fellow politician)because they all simply Protect one another---But they Damn sure don't give a damn about us(U.S.)
Citizens!
We almost equal Iraq in terms of a ''lack of Justice.''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paul Dlugokencky Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #157
160. DITHERING DEMS!
dither, dither, study, study, mull, mull...

and drip, drip, drip, away goes our Constitution and Democracy.

Did they, or did they not, take an oath to reserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #157
161. I'd much prefer he be impeached too but ...
that's not going to happen in a GOP controlled congress. That being said a censure would be the least we can do. It won't have any effect on Bush since it only amounts to a stern scolding in written form. Why then are the Democrats acting so timid? They are looking so weak right now that it's almost as if they want the GOP to remain in power after 2006.
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
162. Whether it's "half-assed" on Feingold's part, cowardice on the Dems' part,
or a combination of both, it doesn't do much to engender hope in me that the Dems can take back Congress and the White House.

:evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oc2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
163. Bush does not know what Censure is anyway...he thinks its a new Beer.

Drink Censure Light, more taste, less filling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
confludemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
166. How much more "keep our powder dry" BS are we supposed to endure?
Leadership is doing what Feingold is doing. he is laying the groundwork for a more prolonged fight than some cheap tactical move and doing us a service by allowing those who will stand up to be counted to be counted. So far Dodd and Bayh can de discounted forever in my book. This is a census of character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
167. Oh, well. There's always the next election.
We'll get 'em then, you'll see. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVK Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
168. He called everyone's bluff on both sides of the aisle.
Edited on Wed Mar-15-06 03:49 PM by PVK
That's how I see it.

Make them publicly state what side they're on.

The majority of U.S. citizens according to the polls are with Russ on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
169. Opposition party in name only.
Any member of congress who votes against censure is too cowardly to hold office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
170. No mixed feelings here ... GEAUX FEINGOLD!!!
What's done is done Skinner.

Now is the time to support Senator Feingold by calling our senators and demand they back him too.

United We Stand

:kick:

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!! :patriot:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
173. Exactly what a real Democrat Senator...
Is supposed to do.. Stand up for your beliefs, Follow your conscience and convictions, Be true to yourself and the Constitution and be honorable.

Those Democrats that are non-supporting purely out of their concern about their own political well being do not deserve to be called Democrat Senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trevelyan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
174. Robert Parry weighs in on the immolation of Feingold.:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/031406.html

...As it turned out as the younger Kerry would have understood the greatest risk was to play it safe. Now, to hear Kerry tell it, he has relearned the lesson that he once knew. He has vowed to fight with clarity and passion. But the tragedy of John Kerry like The Natural in Bernard Malamuds novel (not the movie) may be that opportunity missed is often a chance lost for good....

===In life, you often dont get a second act. Except, of course, for Democratic strategists, who always seem to get a second act, even a third and a fourth, no matter how often they lose. Strategist Bob Shrum, for instance, has been a chronic loser in presidential races but is still sought out by Democratic hopefuls, including John Kerry in 2004.

And, when theyre not applying their cold hands to Democratic campaigns, the strategists can put a chill on any Democrats principled behavior by whispering in the ears of journalists that a seemingly noble act is reckless, calculated or somehow both.

Feingold Undermined

That was the case when Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, proposed censuring Bush for authorizing warrantless wiretaps of Americans outside the legal channels of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and thus in violation of the Fourth Amendments ban on searches and seizures without the government getting a courts approval.

While Feingolds proposal could be viewed as a moderate step expressing congressional disapproval short of impeachment Washington Post reporter Charles Babington searched out unnamed Democratic strategists to make Feingolds plan look both craven and crazy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blutodog Donating Member (291 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. Mixed Feelings? HELL NO!
All and I mean all of the DC DEMOS should be backing Russ for having the guts to say what most of the rest of America is feeling. What pisses me off though is that many of the same so called DEMOS that are walking away from Russ had no problem voting for Censure of Pres. Clinton in 1999. Cowards and Hypocrites!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-15-06 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
178. What I don't like and maybe I am stupid--why not IMPEACHMENT?
I am not up on the procedural thing...but to me censure seems not tough enough.

If we censure the SOB NOW does that take the wind out of impeachment proceedings later?

I want impeachment of this pile of crap and his crooked admin--a slap on the wrist for him as a symbolic gesture doesn't really appeal to me.

Am I missing something?

Additionally why isn't anyone starting proceedings regarding the fact THAT WE INVADED ANOTHER COUNTRY BASED ON A FORGED DOCUMENT?????

Now excuse me while I go and bash my head up against the nearest brick wall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. Here ya go:
:banghead: Did you read the article in Harpers on impeachment? It was incredible. A must read for every American. It spells it all out so plainly. Conyers is the MAN!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #181
182. Yes I read it
I just don't understand how a Pres lies about WMD, uses forged evidence pointing to WMD, bullies the CIA, outs a CIA agent all in an effort to invade...

Then when he actually INVADES he makes a huge HUGE mess...squanders the treasury by lining the pockets of his vice Pres's ex company and yet there he sits in all his criminal splendor!

It's like living in a bizarro world...67% of people (per the polls) think he SUCKS and yet there he sits.

God help me I just don't understand why he can't be impeached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #182
185. Money. That's the ultimate answer. Those who could are "haves" that
are afraid of losing their ticket on the big ride to prosperity. They're paid off in one way or another. Everyone who is compliant; the media, etc. It's the only thing that makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
179. Stop worrying, Skinner
First off, good post. I'm glad to see you excoriating this do-nothing, fear-everything party, and glad you are putting the rule of law at the center of your case.

Now to the point. No need to worry whether Feingold has put even an ounce of effort into getting his feckless colleagues behind the censure resolution. That really is of no consequence, as the case for the resolution is self-evident. Who, at this late hour, needs lobbying or cajoling to raise their voice in a vote to censure Bush?

If Dems are too pallid and trembling to vote yea, the better their cowardice be made widely evident, anyway, so that progressives can stop wasting their time on a spent and futile apparatus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #179
186. Gosh, can you enlighten us with your obviously intellectually superior
recommendations for a less "spent" and "futile apparatus?"

Please be specific and bold, you know - set aside the nuance, have some chutzpa, speak out to the blue collar americans among us ... do what you demand of Democrats and quit spewing your thinly veiled pseudo-intellectual insults.

I'll await a simplified answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
183. Feingold Speech A Disappointment to Me
I was disappointed with the speech that Feingold actually gave, although I support Censure--and Impeachment for the whole Administration, death by a firing-squad made up of drunks with shotguns and no valid licenses, etc. As the moment approached and everybody knew this was going to happen, starting late at a little after 4PM, then delayed by Republican attempts to kill it, my heart was actually pounding; I was so excited, I thought, "This is it--it is all over for you people now; it is the beginning of the end." As I listened to the speech, though, after all this buildup, I was increasingly disappointed. Where was the great fiery moment, where was the setting out of the case? This was--or, should have been--the great Dreyfus "J'accuse" moment, the moment where Luther nails the Ninety-Five Theses to the Church in Wittenburg--the moment of protest and truth, after which nothing will ever be the same.

The whole speech was just strangely sloppy, the case and the reasons for censure, skimmed over. Feingold should have gone over all the material that has been revealed, on Quaker groups infiltrated, anti-war protest marches videotaped and leaders investigated, private phone conversations listened to--this should have given people the creeps, like Nixon--and really made the case, as a great speech, almost as if you don't care whether there is a vote after or not. This is the definitive case made public, for the people to know and have available. Nothing like it happened; specifics were not explained. I don't think anyone who was not already for censure, would have been convinced by it; it was a failure.

The timing of these things is always a mystery. Is the opinion against Bush and Cheney building up to this degree yet or not? People hate them, but do they want to mobilize and commit to this action? When Watergate was building up, there were popular songs against Nixon, "All in the Family" on TV, etc. The whole country was in sync as it progressed. With the media so consolidated and censored, of course, nothing can get out anymore, so the popular will does not "build up" the way it did then. I don't know if it will happen at all or if this was just too early. Feingold is sometimes unimpressive to me, and this was one of those times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
184. Doesn't voting for censure now pretty much forestall Impeachment later?
That's certainly how censure was portrayed in 1999 -- as an alternative to Impeachment. And Feingold basically indicated on Ed Schultz that he didn't think impeachment would happen and this was the best we were going to get. But politically, perception wise it definitely takes Impeachment off the table win- or lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
187. Censure NOW! -- impeachment after November...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 21st 2017, 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC