So What Does Censure Actually Accomplish?

[ruggerson]

I am quite serious about this. I support Feingold, and if I were a Senator, I would most likely support a censure motion against the idiot.

But, I'm not sure that it's high up on my list of things that I think are going to change the dynamic of the debate or effect any concrete results.

Impeachment, supported with a strong, legal foundation, could actually end up ridding us of Bush, which in my mind is a very worthwhile goal. Impeachment, with this congress, however, is not politically realistic. Hopefully, '06 will change that.

So, what does censure, at this juncture, accomplish in real terms, and what does it accomplish in political terms, besides making us feel better about giving Bush a slap down? And if it's just pure symbolism, why is it important?

We know how we react to it viscerally, because we are pretty partisan, but how does the broad middle of the country react to it?

Bottom line, does it help us take back the House and the Senate in '06?

[JuniperLea]

1. Censure would be the first step to impeachment

You have to call the pocket before you hit the ball;)

[ruggerson]

2. The two presidents who were impeached

were not censured prior to their impeachment. So, I don't know if there is legal or historical foundation to your assertion.

[JuniperLea]

3. Nixon and Clinton were... it failed... but was the first step...

1974 – President Richard Nixon

A censure resolution in the House claiming presidential negligence and maladministration died on the floor.


1998 – President William J. Clinton

A censure resolution in the Senate put forward by Senator Feinstein failed to get the two-thirds majority required to suspend the rules and take up the censure resolution. The vote was 56-43.


http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/new_censure.whatis.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

[ruggerson]

5. Two abortive attempts

Did they speed the process along?

In 1998, Feinstein did it as an attempted compromise to STOP impeachment, if I remember, not to help it.

I'm not fully convinced how this helps us strategically in November. I'm very willing to listen.

[JuniperLea]

7. Most of us agree there is no way we could impeach at this point

when the Republicans hold all the cards. We need to keep this in the public eye. We need to call him on the carpet for everything we can... now. It should help with Dem votes come November AND it will give us a leg up WHEN we take back our Congress and Senate. It all seems very logical to me. I hope this is just the first of many!

[blm]

12. Feinstein put up censure as a compromise to STOP impeachment and

removal.

[flpoljunkie]

34. Unfortunately, not according to this.

UPDATE II (by Glenn): Here is the breakdown of the House Judiciary Committe's vote on the resolution to censure Bill Clinton, which was rejected 22-14. Fourteen out of sixteen House Democrats (including Chuck Schumer) voted for it, and all Republicans voted against it (because they wanted impeachment, not censure). So, unlike Feinstein's censure resolution (which was introduced after the Senate acquitted him on the impeachment charges), these House Democrats supported censure as an alternative to impeachment. Still, they did not have to vote for it, and at least two of them refused to do so. How can any Democrat who voted in favor of censuring Bill Clinton - such as Schumer - possibly even have to think about whether to support Feingold's resolution to censure of George Bush?

ttp://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com /

[blm]

35. That's not the way I remember it coming down. Feinstein was attacked

heavily by the media for trying to stop removal by submitting a censure resolution.

[flpoljunkie]

36. Found another source--this one from the Washington Post.

And kudos to John Kerry!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/censure021399.htm

Censure Resolution Put on Indefinite Hold

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a motion to consider censure shortly after the acquittal vote Friday.

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, February 13, 1999; Page A32

In the end, all they could agree on was a carefully crafted script for a graceful exit from the dispute.

And so, only minutes after acquitting President Clinton on two articles of impeachment, the Senate voted yesterday to postpone indefinitely consideration of a strongly worded resolution that condemned Clinton for "shameful, reckless and indefensible" behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

The move meant that an idea that has been kicking around since the impeachment crisis began -- an official condemnation of the president's conduct -- was all but dead. It was a victory for Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), whose aggressive parliamentary tactics helped keep the measure from seeing daylight, and a setback for Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), who labored for weeks to find censure language that would command bipartisan support.

Feinstein later yesterday reintroduced the censure resolution, which had 38 co-sponsors, including nine Republicans, making it part of the Senate record. She said she was undecided about making a second attempt to pass the resolution, but conceded that the impeachment trial had been "an enormously trying situation for everybody and people want to leave it, they want to close the door and leave it."

Even many of Feinstein's supporters echoed that sentiment, suggesting that there will be little incentive to resume the censure debate when the Senate returns from its Presidents' Day recess on Feb. 22.

"I don't want to go back into it," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "I think this is it. It's over. Let's move on."

[brmdp3123]

4. And the one that was censured wasn't impeached.

[MrBenchley]

9. The only president ever censured was Andrew Jackson (not impeached)

[Armstead]

6. It takes a stand

That simple.

Many people would prefer to see an impeachment, and for much more than the wiretapping issue.

But that isn't likely anytime soon. At this point, most people (many Democrats included) aren't prepared to see the government ripped apart like that. And in purely practical terms, it won't happen as long as the Republicans control the ball.

However, censure is a step that would demonstrate strong opposition and would put the president on notice that we're not going to sit down and take it anymore. Even if a censure vite didn;t pass in a GOP Senate, a strong vote by the Democrats would at least send a signal of opposition.

It also does not preclude the possibility of impeachment down the line.

[MrBenchley]

8. It gets Russ into the headlines for a few days

and that's about it....

[Moody Bluz]

10. And something else...

if the Democrats are not going to go with it, then they should stop talking about it. If it comes up and they cave, or run away from it, it will damage us and we will look like a party in disarry that talks a good game but fails to produce.

I would really like them to push this, but not if they are not going to go all the way with it. Caving on the Alito filibuster did not do much for us showing resolve.

[ebayfool]

17. We? Us? Did you switch parties, SpeedAddiction?

I thought you were a diehard!

[Moody Bluz]

21. Not officially a member of ANY party...

Can't vote. But I can participate and support. Why? Is there a problem? Don't conversions happen? I'm sure they do. I read about them all of the time on here.

[MrBenchley]

26. Hey, it's okay with me that Russ floats it out there.....

I think most Americans read the word censure and then won't follow the maneuvering in Congress that follows...

But it's empty showboating on Russ' part....

[SaveElmer]

32. Be careful...if you insult St. Russ...

The Progressive Politburo will be after you...

"Are you now...or have you ever been a supporter of Hillary Clinton?"

[MrBenchley]

37. LOL!

[ruggerson]

16. I'm wondering myself about that

I can't understand why, if this was a serious attempt, he didn't line up support for it before he took it public.

[MrBenchley]

25. A damn good question, no?

And the answer is that this is just empty showboating from a guy who's lagging in the polls for '08.....

[McCamy Taylor]

11. It makes us look more conservative than the GOP. GOP base will notice.

Still, I think a vote of censure would be better timed for closer to this fall's election. Dems are less likely to be motivated to go to the polls to b\vote because they are mad about wiretapping than GOPers are likely to be motivated to stay home and NOT VOTE because they are pissed about it.

[yourout]

13. It forces the Pukes to put a vote on record that they support spying on...

US citizens.

If they vote against Censure it should be used over and over and over against them in the elections.

[radio4progressives]

14. you honestly don't understand the significance?

or are you just trying to disuade us from the issue?

we can't win, so move along now, is that it?

you don't realize this isn't about "feeling good"?

don't realize this is about forcing the president to CEASE AND DESIST his Domestic Spying programs?

Don't you realize that the repukes are actually crafting legislation to make what the president is doing LEGAL AFTER THE FACT????

(big sigh) this is frustrating.

[ruggerson]

15. You think this is going to stop the president from spying?

Do you honestly believe that?

A censure motion?

And, tell me, why didn't Russ line up support BEFORE he announced this? Having Reid and Pelosi come out and be lukewarm about his idea is not my idea of strategic planning.

[radio4progressives]

22. I didn't say it would stop him..

But to make an official call for him to Cease and Desist vis a vis a Censure several important matters.

First - it's an important first step towards Congress acting responsbily and they'll be on record for their actions on this matter as they will on other matters.

Second - Russ probably already knew the Dems were crawling back underneath their rocks hiding in the shadows, trying not to be noticed once again, while the group of senators write legislation to cover bush's ass for his illegal activities - in other words, eventually it will become known that bush grossly violated the constitution while congress stood by and did nothing - including Democrats, which is going to be the response by the repukes when the day comes (if it should come) that the Dems win back Congress in Novemember and the pressure to move with impeachment becomes a loud thundering roar from the american people, if the laws are allowed to be written to give bush cover for his crimes, Dems aren't going to have a fucking defense - except those who voted for Censure.

For reasons that I will not speculate in writing, Reid is not an ineffective Leader, he is actually do great harm as a leader - i've been observing him and ever since the Abramoff scandal touched on his office he's been playing lap dog for the repukes - that's unacceptable.

But that's no reason for any principled Democratic Senator to avoid taking independent leadership on principle, which is what Feingold has done.

The others may or may not have to face political consequences for their inaction - but as far as Feingold is concerned, he's doing what needs to be done whether or not any body else has the courage and principles to stand up for what's right or not.

[Swamp Rat]

18. SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!! ... SUPPORT CENSURE!!!

:kick:

TIME TO KICK ASS!!!

:kick:

[dolstein]

19. Nothing, except for making left-wing bloggers orgasmic.

A censured president is just that -- a censured president. Besides, as long as the Republicans hold the majority in both houses of Congress, a censure resolution won't go anywhere.

[MrBenchley]

27. Exactly so....

[pat_k]

20. They have a choice -- be complicit OR accuse/censure/impeach

When an official turns a blind eye to crime when their duty requires intervention, they become an accomplice to the crime.

Fiengold is giving the members of the Senate a way out of complicity in Bush's crimes. He is giving members of his party an opportunity to demonstrate principle, conviction, and strength and thereby, challenge the number 1 problem the Dems have: the perception that they are weak (the perception that Dems are weak have NOTHING to do with thier positions national security; the perception has everything to do with failure to stand and fight on principle)

Fiengold is giving the Democratic Caucus an opportunity to strengthen the ENTIRE party while doing what duty demands of them.

Every member of the Senate who votes Nay on Censure is Derelict in their sworn duty and continues to be an Accomplice in Bush's Crimes

Every member of the Senate who votes Yea on Censure is upholds by their oath begins to shed the bonds of complicity.

Being an accomplice to crime is NEVER good politics. Our leaders just need to look at their failure to take a stand against the Iraq war for proof. The public believes that most of them voted for the war because they feared they would be called names ("unpatriotic" or whatever). They are now paying a serious price for giving in to threats of "backlash" then.

Ask Your Senators:

When we find out the magnitude of the crimes committed by the Bush
administration (and we will, sooner or later) do your really want to
pay the political price for being an accomplice in those crimes?

More. . .

Impeach or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question. Choose Duty or Choose Complicity

Impeachment First! Or
Our House is Burning. Stop Remodeling and Put Out the Fire!

[Disturbed]

23. The RW frame is that the spying is needed and was and is

legal. They frame it as "fighting terrorism". FISA Law was violated many times and is still being violated. The Censure draws attention to this. I believe the Bush Regime must not be Above the Law and Accountable. America is moving toward a Dictatorship, a RW Neo Fascist State. If Congress won't uphold the Constitution then we must find a way to force them to do so.

[Minnesota Libra]

24. It would only send a message to the rethugs that we've had......

.....our fill of their crap and to back off.:grouphug:

[Wheres The Beef]

28. Who backed off?

Russ proposes censure, Frist asks for immediate vote. Yes or NO. Put up or shut up. And the Dems need to delay to get support? I don't think this was very well thought out.

[Blaze Diem]

29. Maybe Feingold DID test the support,

found the same damn wishy-wasy B.S. that we do, and decidely effing fed up with the lack of seriousness required by his collegues, stepped up, on his own to put it on record.

Maybe he didn't care if the Dem support wasn't there. Americans would support a man who takes some serious action rather than none at all.

America is rapidly going to "hell in a handbassket" and its not the American people doing it..Its the clusterfuck residing in DC. Gop & Dem alike.

Applause to Feingold for his attempt..grandstanding or not..He did something we all wish more of his fellow Dems had the balls to do.

[ClassWarrior]

30. It forces Senators to go on record...

...answering this question:

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

NGU.

[sheelz]

31. For national attention and

Bush would be the first president in 172 years to be so condemned by Congress!

[flpoljunkie]

33. Make a statement to the American people that we are a "nation of laws, and

not of man," and that Congress is something more than a "rubber stamp' for this imperial administration. That Congress, at least the Senate in this case, is indeed a separate and equal branch of our government.

Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, will make sure that there is no real investigation of Bush's illegal spying on the American people. Roberts is after all, Dick Cheney's long time compatriot.

[pat_k]

38. Actually, we're a nation of men who make law. Law intended to serve our .

. . .will.

Don't mean to jump on you, but "we are a nation of laws, not men" is often invoked when fascists are using legalistic technicality or cynical misuse of the courts to violate the intent of the law and our will (e.g., to steal the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004).

And, the branches are not actually equal. We vested more power in Congress -- i.e., more power in the instrument of our voice.

http://january6th.org/reject-fascist-fantasy.html