Peter Beinart is Making Sense on Censure

[cal04]

He writes a good analysis of the situation:

So Democrats should only eschew censure if, by so doing, they can make censure and impeachment what they historically have been: constitutional weapons wielded in only the rarest, gravest of circumstances. And that depends on the GOP. Prominent Republicans don't talk much about Clinton's impeachment today; it doesn't quite square with their more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger fretting about Bush hatred. But I don't know of a single major Republican politician or conservative pundit who has admitted the obvious: that impeaching Clinton was a farce and a disgrace, the likes of which we should pray never to see again.

The Republican strategy on Feingold's censure effort is to keep calling it absurd without engaging it on the merits. But, on the merits, Feingold's case is much stronger. As former Reagan-era Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein has put it, Bush's actions are "more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath, because it (Bush's claim of nearly unlimited executive authority)jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages." If Republicans want to keep suggesting that censure (let alone impeachment) is a singularly extreme act to be taken only when our constitutional system is in peril, then they need to apologize for what happened in 1999. I'm not holding my breath.

But what about question number two: Is censure good for the Democrats? The conventional wisdom is that, by making Democrats look radical, Feingold has shot his party in the foot, if not the head. But some radicalism is politically useful, particularly in the long run. Liberal bloggers often make this point, and they're right: Occasionally you need to stake a position beyond what is mainstream in Washington--and take some hits--in the hope that you eventually redefine what "mainstream" is. Social Security privatization has always been a political loser for the GOP, and yet, by sticking with it for decades, they have made it politically respectable and shifted the terms of debate.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a huge backlash when they pushed gay marriage, but, by putting it on the political agenda, they made civil unions--once a radical position itself--the centrist alternative. So there's a value for Democrats in having Russ Feingold inject censure into the political debate. (In fact, a Newsweek poll found that 42 percent of Americans support the idea--more than backed the president's Social Security plan.) With censure as the extreme position, a full, tough investigation of the surveillance program now looks sober and reasonable, whereas, not long ago, that too might have seemed beyond the pale.

more
http://www.mydd.com/

[still_one]

1. It is time that Congress do their job

I am more and more convienced that the people in this country deserve exactly what they get. They voted these bastards in, and the democrats have provided very little opposition for the last 6 years.

As far as blaming newsom and the massachusetts supreme court for the democratic backlash on the gay issue, I say bull. If the morans in this country believe that their prejudice of gays is more important than healthcare, social security, off-shoring of jobs, and pre-emptive attacks on countries that did not threaten us, then let them reap what the have planted

Voting turnout has ALWAYS been dismal in this country, and we are going to be paying for this for quite a few years to come...

[wtmusic]

2. "redefine what mainstream is"

Exactly. We can blithely pad along as accomodaters, or call a spade a spade. I'm with Russ.

[freesqueeze]

3. Sickening

Politician flushing the bill of rights out of fear of being painted as radicals. I'm glad Thomas Jefferson wasn't such a weenie.



PLEASE, someone show some guts! (besides Feingold)