There is no reason for Democrats not to support censure -- except one

[Armstead]

The only legitimate excuse for any Democrat -- or Republican with a conscience -- not to support censure is if they agree with Bush that it was okay to avoid following the FISA law and conduct secret surveillance opertions without warrants.

Any Democrat who believes that should get a pass on supporting censure....But their judgement and committment to civil liberties might be questioned.

Otherwise, censure ought to be supported. It is not impeachment. It is not indictment. It is basically asserting the power of Congress to hold the president in check. It is simnply saying "You abused your position and/or broke the law, and we are registering our disapproval and putting you on notice that we expect you to stop doing that."

What the hell is so hard about that?

[beyurslf]

1. If he broke the law we should IMPEACH!

I don't want us saying, "Tsk Tsk you were naughty."

[LynneSin]

4. Good luck making that happen

as long as repukes are controlling congress you'll have a better chance of seeing me posing naked in playboy before they allow impeachment, hell even censure to be voted on the floor

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. If a Republican controlled congress impeaches President Bush...

I'll pose naked in Playboy. I think my modesty is rather safe too.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

19. same chance as getting a censure through.

.

[WillyT]

26. So... If The Dems Take Back The Congress, You're Gonna...

be drinkin on ME!!!

:rofl::evilgrin::rofl:

:hi:

[SeaBob]

5. Law

I agree!!! nobody is above the law

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. If he broke the law we should do both.

Censure does not preclude an eventual impeachment.

[beyurslf]

9. Really? Good to know. I thought I had seen somewhere here

that censure was done if impeachment couldn't be.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. Politically perhaps, but not legally.

Censure is more easily accomplished so a minority party would have a better chance of getting it passed. If the Democrats take congress in November they could still proceed with an impeachment even if the 109th congress censures Bush.

[blm]

21. Censure is offered as compromise position for those against impeachment

and removal.

[Armstead]

7. Short of that, censure is the next alternative.

Impeachment is controversial because of the practical implications.

Censure is comparatively safe by comparison. (It is also not mutually exclusive.)

In either case, the Democrts oughtn't to be shying away from at least censure at this point.

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. And someone illustrates my answer before I even get it posted to you.

[MadMaddie]

2. Agreed.....For once can the Democrats stand together on an issue..

just once...and then they will see it's really not that hard too do....and if they do it enough they might be prepared for the impeachment that will surely come....

[radio4progressives]

17. Standing together on the Ports Deal was easy.. proved they could do it..

Even in the beginning when the Repukes looked like they were standing behind the the preznit on the deal.

This ain't that hard.. it really isn't.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. Most of the resistance I have seen...

from grassroots democrats has been the misperception that it's either impeachment or censure. They don't understand that you can censure and then still go on to impeach.

As for Democrats and Republicans in any position of power...no excuse not to support it. They should know better.

[Armstead]

11. Exactly --Apples and oranges

Censure neither prevents nor automatically leads to impeachment.

It is a unified expression of disapproval, and vote of "No Confidence" on a specific matter.

[radio4progressives]

18. it also makes it official the "Sense of the Senate" -

and authority to "Cease and Desist" which is what needs to be done at a minium..

[MrBenchley]

13. Gee, you mean besides it being an empty gesture

that's nothing but a stunt to get the Feingold for President bandwagon rolling?

[bpilgrim]

16. politics is all about symbolic gestures

fyi

peace

[MrBenchley]

31. Maybe on Chomskyworld

Btu hey, don't let me stop this latest round of masturbatory fantasy....

[mdmc]

48. I would rather think of it as a prelude to the future.

In 2006, the dems acted to censure the pres. for illegal activity. The dems did not overreact with chimpeachment; during war time they did not overreact.

In 2007, if the dems are in power, the will again censure the pres. for breaking the law. In 2007 the truth may show itself. Perhaps the chimp will end up getting impeached.

This move by Russ is good public policy. It is only the politics of it that are open to debate.

[IndianaGreen]

23. and you prefer to let Bush continue to break the law...

with people like you, no wonder Bush has gotten away with all of his law breaking!

[MrBenchley]

30. Yeah, let's have a useless symbolic gesture

that the progressive purists can beat their meat over....

[DrGonzoLives]

49. "Purists"

What's your idea? Continue to be an opposition party in name only? Continue to buy into the right-wing myth that the country has moved over to their side? Brilliant plan.

[Ken Burch]

51. Is your opposition to censure anything but a stunt

on behalf of your unrelenting campaign to have the party nominate Hillary instead of a Democrat?

[radio4progressives]

15. Rating this puppy UP! Armstead, You Nailed it!

:applause: :thumbsup: :hi:

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[nicktom]

20. Democrats are eyeing the polls,

which seem to show no great problems for * on this subject. However if this censure attempt gains traction and exposes the legal ramifications involved it could change.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. Reason no. 2: Drag it out till closer to election time. GOP base mad.

This issue makes conservative GOPers as mad or madder than it does moderate Dems (it gets radical leftists up in arms but they already hate W. anyway).

If this issue can be dragged into the summer or even into the fall, then the GOP conservative base may be so mad at W. and Congress that it might stay home in protest.

Less votes for them means that it will be harder for Rove to use e-vote fraud to steal the Congressional elections.

[radio4progressives]

24. Can't drag it out.. The Repukes are Crafting Legislation to Legalize

what Bush has done AFTER THE FACT..

Can't drag this issue out for political purposes, it has to be brought up to the American's attention NOW.

[wisteria]

25. The timing! n/t

[mvd]

27. This is one of those cases where..

I expect the Democrats to take a stand. Other cases were on the bankruptcy bill, Alito, and the Patriot Act reauthorization. I don't expect Democrats to agree with me on everything, but sometimes we need to be a united opposition against this Bush fascism.

[Greyhound]

28. Do you think we will get the same result?

[mvd]

29. Possibly so

:-(

[Vinca]

32. You're exactly right.

It seems the Democrats in the Senate, when faced with a serious action that will undoubtedly piss off the 'pukes, run like the wind to the nearest closet and hide until the storm passes. It's sickening. Feingold is what a true patriot looks like. I'll be first in line to vote if he runs in 2008.

[BootinUp]

33. Disagree actually

Sure I would love to see the censure vote pass. But it wouldn't even if every Dem voted for it. This is more of the liberal blogosphere spine meme. That blue states just need to get madder essentially. I reject that idea. I think that turns off prospective moderate voters. If we had even a semblance of bi-partisan support for the censure then yeah, do it.

[skipos]

34. I agree with you. And I'll add

that I have seen little evidence that most Americans support Feingold in this. Americans were worked up about the ports, and look what happened.

If people on DU what democrats to get anything done, I hope they are working to get our majorities back.

[Armstead]

36. Having a spine is not a meme

Who are these moderates that we're so terrified of?

I don't think actually acting in opposition to a bad president doing illegal things is a "meme." It's the function of being a political opposition with an actual spine. And doing the right thing.

And, in purely political terms, it doesn't even require that much of a spine when the president has a 35 percent approval rating.

This is kind of like the Iraq War debate in 02-03. If the Democrats had followed the "spine meme" back then, they could now say they stood aginst a war that has become a total failure that is now opposed by the majority of the population.

[BootinUp]

39. a couple comments

I don't think its about fear, thats another part of the popular meme. Imagine you are speaking to a group of voters who admitted they voted for shrub last time but would have voted democrat if there was a better choice than John Kerry. How are you going to talk to them to convince them of your point of view? Are you going to talk about unwidely known facts they never heard of or have little reason to take your word for? If they have not been following the same news sources as you they will think you are a conspiracy nut. You have 20 minutes for this conversation. Good luck

Senators and Congressman are at the front line having that conversation. They are not yelling on a liberal website, or in a private clubroom somewhere.

So how do you do this? I would suggest that more people go back and review the master, Bill Clinton.

Spine alone is not the answer, it didn't do shit for us the last election. We need to review how to connect to voters that ain't voting for us.

Cya.

[Armstead]

41. Simple answer

I've hd that conversation numerous times with either friends or family who are basically what could be called "politically neutral."

My experience is not that people are resistant to change. The problem is that they don't believe that either political party gives a damn enough to do anything about anything. So they are fatalistic, and feel that things are just going to stay the same always.

They might bitch about what the Republicans do, but mention the Democrats and the answer often boils down to -- "What? Are you kidding? They won't do anything. They're as loked into it as the Republicans."

A couple of other points. I've also noticed among acquaintences an evolution, from thinking the GOP was either Okay five years ago, or that they would not be so bad.

But people are getting more and more angry at Bush and the GOP. Part of it's a lack of information. Not "conspiracy theories" but just the things that are known. Like, for example, the domestic surveillance. They don't necessarily mind that the phones of some terrorist, or ewen an average poerson, might be tapped without a wrrant for good cause. But mention the other spects of that, like assembling huge databanks and "data mining," and their reaction is different. "Holy shit. I didn't realize that."

However, again, if you want to make the Democrats a viable political fore agin, IMO the real challenge is for the leadership to both say and demonstrate that they are willing to stand up and deal with the issues that are buggin people. They're willing to be treated like grownups by politicians..

[BootinUp]

42. I don't think

we are talking about the same people. I am talking about people who vote every election and have been voting for the other side for specified reasons. They know what Democrats stand for, they are not convinced its the better way. They need to be persuaded by stories of success and failure. They need to be talked to like adults not yelled at for supporting Bush. Its a tall order to actually change someones opinion but THAT is the only way to get this party back in a position of power. We failed miserably this last election. And it wasn't for lack of calling Bush a failure a liar and a crook.

[Armstead]

44. I agree with that. But it needs context.

First of all, there re some people who will vote Republican no matter what. They just have fundamentally different view of things than either liberals/progressives or convincable moderates.

But to get a majority, the case has to be made in terms of bothe bsic ideology and the spoecifics of contenpotary politicians.

Ideological differences do have implications for individuals. If, for eample, corporations are given free rein, workers will find their wages squeezed and their jobs eliminated.

But competence and motives also matter. If this government had been competent and honest, we would not be stuck in Iraq tody.

The current crop of Republicans have failed the American people on all three counts.

But in order to convince a majority of voters that there is a reason to support the bsics of liberalism, and the speifics of the Democratic Party, clear differences hve to be shown on all of those fronts.

"Corporate onservativism supports the interests of the powerful by undermining the interests of you and your neighbor. Liberlism represents the interests of everyone else."

"The Bush administration is dangeroulsly secretive and authoritarian. They want to take away your rights nd your privacy. Democrats will protect your rights."

[onenote]

46. Couple of additional thoughts

I don't have a problem with Feingold raising the censure issue, just as I don't have a problem with Conyers talking about impeachment. But for much the same reasons, I'm neither surprised nor particularly upset that other Senators aren't jumping on the bandwagon. Why? First, because it can't win, although that in and of itself is not sufficient reason. Second, and more importantly, it has the potential to create a backlash and lets the repubs redirect the question away from the topics that are resonating for the Democrats and against the repubs. The reason that chimpy is so far down in the polls has more to do with the fiasco handling Katrina, the rising cost of gas and a relatively stagnant economy (notwithstanding stock market gains), and a growing realization that when it comes to issues of security, as reflected in the handling of the Iraq war and the Dubai ports matter, chimpy's gang is incompetent. It is this concern about competence that is driving chimpy's numbers down among his former supporters, not some concern that he's trashed the constitution by eavesdropping on domestic conversations.

The risk of a backlash is that while chimpy is down, the Democrats are not equally "up" in the estimation of the public. If the Democrats are perceived as mounting a "tilting at windmills" crusade rather than proposing real solutions to real problems, there will be little upside for the Democrats (if a losing vote on censure is what is needed to rally the Democrats base after Roberts, Alito, Patriot Act, etc etc, then we're doomed anyway).

Finally, earlier in this subthread, it was suggested that "This is kind of like the Iraq War debate in 02-03. If the Democrats had followed the "spine meme" back then, they could now say they stood aginst a war that has become a total failure that is now opposed by the majority of the population." The only problem with that thought is that if the Democrats had stood against the war back then, many of them would be sitting on the sidelines and the repubs would have an even stronger majority in the Senate than now and the chances of reclaiming majority status in the Senate would worse. Hindsight is 20-20. While I wish more Democrats had stood up against the war early on, I understand the politics of that vote.

onenote

[ClassWarrior]

35. Ask your Senators this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2512789&mesg_id=2512789

NGU.

[boobooday]

37. At Least Censure

Bush basically dared them to do anything about it in his SOTU address. It was a big old F-U to Congress.

And apparently Feingold is the only one with enough cajones to take the dare.

[Armstead]

38. Yes, that's part of why it's so infuriating

Bush basically admitted that he disregarded the law on this, and thumbed his noise at Congress.

[formernaderite]

40. Censure would send a strong message of where we stand

regardless of whether we have the votes. Otherwise the public, will NOT understand the difference between us and them.

[Joe Fields]

43. I think any AMERICAN who believes in the CONSTITUTION...

should support Senator Feingold's censure of Bush.

I sent one hell of a nasty letter to the DNC yesterday. I was fuming mad over their cowering retreat concerning the censure. They all need to wake the fuck up! None of the dermocratic electorate supports what Bush has done. Few republicans do. My God, the man has a 36% favorability rating!

Not only should ALL Democratic leaders be supporting Feingold, but everyone should be discussing and planning impeachment of Herr Bush.

I am thoroughly disgusted at the lack of leadership we have within our party, and I let them have it with both barrels yesterday. They are NOT REPRESENTING ME! I feel totally abandoned.

[kentuck]

45. I can see the future....

and if/when the Democrats win back the House and/or Senate and someones brings up impeachment charges. What will be the response? "Not even a year ago, a Democratic Senator brought up the idea of censuring this President and no one agreed with him then. Now, just a few months later, we have someone calling for impeachment?? Get real Democrats!"

[Armstead]

50. Then it'll be "We have to protect our majority, and can't rock the boat"

[mdmc]

47. too late to R

but worthy of a :kick:.