Why didn't Feingold try to line up support first...?

[SaveElmer]

Doesn't really seem like he ever intended this to get anywhere, otherwise he would have lined up co-sponsors and other supporters. Doubtful it would have passed but there were certainly other members who would have supported him.

Did he do it this way to make a bigger splash on the news?

[Sperk]

1. He probably figured all the Wusses would try to talk him out of it

Reese may be right....we might have only one option left.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese237.html

Next year, we should all go to the polls and vote against every single incumbent running for re-election, regardless of his or her party or so-called philosophy.

Can you understand what a shock it would be if all 435 members of the U.S. House and the third of the Senate that will be running were defeated? Washington would never be the same again, and that, on its face, would be a good thing.

I know most folks feel about their congressional representative or senator the way most parents feel about their child's school. The school system is a mess, but my kid's school is pretty good. Congress has a bunch of scoundrels, but my representative is a pretty good person.

[SaveElmer]

5. When has that ever affected him before?

Seems like he could have made a better, and more solid point with some backup. Certainly Harkin, Kerry, Kennedy and others would have backed him up.

Doesn't seem like he thought through his strategy very carefully.

[radio4progressives]

46. No, I think he thought it through...

He knew the wusses would strong arm him to be silent and lay low on this, talk him out of it...

or maybe that's exactly what occured, maybe he did try and get their support and they said backed out, or simply said no from the beginning.

Either scenario is very easy to imagine, and it was predictable.

In the meantime, these Dems are allowing for the select intelligence committee members to craft legislation this very moment to give Bush legal authority (cover) for the very laws he already violated, in other words, to say it was okay to violate the executive authorities provided by existing law and the Constitution - to continue the known and still to date UNKNOWN Domestic Spying program, high crimes and misdeamors impeachable offenses.

To Censure now was/is an imperative action to at the minimum force Bush Co to Cease and Desist these programs.

To avoid supporting this action is to say, it's ok what Bush is doing.

That is simply unacceptable, and every single traitorous bastard who ducks this issue and fails to back Feingold should be impeached for the violating their oath of office as well.

Their votes will be on record one way or the other.


on edit: i should add that going about the way that Feingold did, was to bring it to the attention of the American People vis a vis the CM.

It was the only way he could do this.

[SaveElmer]

56. Well I have trouble believing he could not have lined up support...

From folks such as Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Harkin perhaps...maybe others. Really seems as though they were caught off guard.

[radio4progressives]

58. check this photo out.. it just about says it all...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2512401&mesg_id=2512401

[SaveElmer]

60. Looks like he is getting the Reid treatment...

Reminiscent of another majority leader!!!

[radio4progressives]

69. Where did you get these? They're great!

And can you please tell me how to copy and paste photos on du..

in that link , there's photo of a scene in feingold is talking to a journalist in office, right after he gave his speech today, (so that's where he went)and the tv is on in the background with Arlen Specter's image rebutting Feingold's motion..

it's kind of priceless .. and i thought it would be fun to copy and paste in that thread ..

[SaveElmer]

72. Actually...

I found those on some college website...I originally included them in a research paper I was doing on Johnson for a grad class..they are priceless...there are a number of them with other people as well. If you google +"Johnson Treatment" a bunch will be there.

To do photos you need to sign up with a service that lets you host photos on your own page. I use photobucket.com. It's free. It will then generate the code you need to cut and past in your post.

If you want to send me the link to the photo I'll be glad to post it on there and send you the code to imbed in your message if you like.

[radio4progressives]

85. yes thank you very much, i would like that..

my "cut and paste" right click wasn't happening...

[SaveElmer]

88. If you want you can PM me the current link...

Where the picture is, and I will send you back the code to imbed in your message!

[Cocoa]

2. why do you assume he didn't?

[SaveElmer]

7. My understanding...

Was the first anyone heard of this was on his Sunday talk show appearance...

[Cocoa]

11. where did you hear that?

on the other thread that asks the same (imo, unfounded) question you're asking?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x652373

[SaveElmer]

18. Well to tell you the truth...

I think I heard it on the radio this afternoon. I did see that Kerry didn't even come out and support it right away, saying he had to see it first. I would think Kerry might be somebody Sen. Feingold might have lined up to support it first.

[htuttle]

3. Maybe he was trying to get around...

... the insulating layer of political consultants that seems to drive the mainstream Democratic party nowdays? Perhaps, based on past experience, he knew that if he didn't just introduce the measure himself, it would never get out there.

Just a thought from a long-term constituent of his. :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

8. That just doesn't scan...

He has had no trouble bucking his leadership before. He was the driving force behind opposition to the Patriot Act, and of couse McCain-Feingold.

[htuttle]

19. Did he check with the party leadership before he did those things?

Did he check with party leadership before voting against dismissing the Lewinsky case in 1999 because "he didn't want to improperly shortcut the trial"? He didn't check with them before voting to confirm Ashcroft, either.

He votes and acts according to what he thinks is right. Period. He's consistent that way.

I haven't heard his reasons for not trying to build up support first (I missed the MTP interview), but I'm sure that whether or not I agree with those reasons, they'll be philosophically consistent with what he's said and done before.

[SaveElmer]

23. Voting and leading are two different things...

Its one thing to maybe be circumspect about how one is going to vote. But if you are going to introduce a blockbuster motion like this, you would think that he would try to line up support to aid him, and yes, it would be common courtesy to at least warn the leadership that it was coming. The rules of the Senate would not have a way for Reid to stop him. And even with the scrambling, Reid was supportive of Feingold in public.

[still_one]

29. the democrats are where they are today because of the democrats

[radio4progressives]

48. rather mousy support. but then that's reid

[SaveElmer]

49. Well to be fair...

It does sound like it was sprung on him. I personally think a censure made sense...but it is nearly unprecedented in American history. To my knowledge there has only been one - Andrew Jackson - and that was later expunged.

It isn't an easy or common practice. In fact I believe there have been more impeachments than censure's. It seems like a bit more prep work, and a bit more getting his ducks in a row would have been in order for Feingold.

I forgot, James K Polk was censured for the Mexican War...that is the last one.

[SteelBird]

51. Just confirming your facts

Jackson is the only president to be censured and you are right, more have been impeached than censured since Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two impeached and Andrew Jackson was the only one censured. If we get a congressional majority in the midterms this fall and the censure passes then the censure will have worked. Even if we pass the censure now, it is only technical. I want it to work but censuring hte president really will be a symbolic act of Congress, only if the Democrats gain the Congress back in November then will it be meaningful.

[SaveElmer]

54. Actually...

I believe James Polk was censured as well for the Mexican War. Jackson's censure was later expunged. I don't believe one has even been attempted since Buchanan.

[SteelBird]

57. Wikipedia said Jackson was hte only one but knowing

that JAmes K Polk was heavily criticized for the Mexican-American War by the Whigs in Congress including a young Abraham Lincoln, it wouldn't surprise me. I think a censure was tried with Clinton but I saw on another thread that it was done as a compromise to censure him not impeach or remove. Either way, censureship is just a step, it does nothing officially to the best of my knowledge, then you would have to impeach the president, and if that worked, remove him from office.

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. I wonder.

I posted about this in GD... some thoughtful responses, some knee-jerk flames from those who insist that Feingold's actions are above question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x652373

[SaveElmer]

9. Sorry...didn;t see that thread...nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. Oh no, don't apologize

It is a legitimate question, and one which I've yet to see answered satisfactorily.

[SaveElmer]

38. When I heard I personally thought it was a good idea...

I was just disappointed to see how it was handled. It is probably now relegated to a one day story unfortunately, and it looks more like a stunt than a serious attempt to get a censure resolution passed.

[SteelBird]

42. I too wish he had handled it better

It's the right idea, Bush's justification for the spying made me sick but I really wish Feingold had gotten others behind him, it would make the effort much stronger, I appreciate Feingold calling for censure of Bush since I think he no doubt deserves it and it would be a nice start towards impeachment but as you two say, it would have shown huge leadership on his part to come out with others in support of it.

[htuttle]

12. Nobody's 'above question'

But if Feingold were motivated by a desire for publicity, it would be EXTREMELY out of character for him. He's been my Senator since he got in the Senate. He has consistently put principle above political common-wisdom, even when it appeared to really hurt his campaign (such as when he voluntarily and unilaterally refused corporate contributions against an opponent who ended up having a LOT more money as a result).

He's not above question. But I have never, ever seen him do anything in a legislature for the motivations you describe. He's more the sort of person who's willing to stick to principles and lose rather than compromise principles and win.

[SaveElmer]

14. Well then help me understand the strategy...

Why not bring fellow liberals along. They were clearly surprised by the motion.

[awoke_in_2003]

50. I suppose you think that

clueing Hillary in means "bring fellow liberals along"? He probably did it the way he did BECAUSE of so called dems (like the one in your avatar)

[SaveElmer]

53. I said nothing about Hillary...this has nothing to do with Hillary...

Has to do with doing the necessary prep work to have maximum effect for what you are trying to do. He should have lined up supporters first, and there would have been several.

Censure is virtually without precedent...two passed, one expunged. It is hard enough when you are in the majority.

[awoke_in_2003]

59. You didn't have to

your avatar (little miss war supporting hillary) says it all. She wasn't included because she supports the very thing Feingold is railing against.

[SaveElmer]

61. Ridiculuous...

As reasonable as saying the Pittsburgh Steelers support censure because it is your avatar.

She wasn't included because I have no idea whether she would have supported it or not. And since Sen. Feingold didn't give anyone time to come on board, I don't think any Senators have come out publically on it yet, except for the Republicans, who now have something to rally around.

[tuvor]

6. You mean from his fellow democrats???

My God, how much more evidence do they all need?

I haven't got a clue about Feingold's methods, but from what I've been reading lately, sounds like bush could do unspeakable things to defenseless women and children and it still wouldn't matter to a lot of democrats.

Oh, wait a minute...

[SaveElmer]

13. Yes...

Certainly he could have lined up support from folks like Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Harkin and others. I don't say they would have gotten a majority, but he might have made a stronger point had he had others with him. DOing it this way does leave him open to a grandstanding charge.

Personally I thought the idea had merit, but I'm just not sure this was the best way to go about it.

[GR]

10. How Do You Know He Didn't...He Got Tired Of Waiting For...

the "consultant cowed" masses of democrats in Congress...This is going on for a while and it's good...

GlennGreenwald.blogspot.com has some very good thoughts about it...

[SaveElmer]

16. I have no doubt it would not have passed....

And I doubt he could have gotten even a majority of Democrats, but certainly he could have lined up a solid core to back him up. I didn't see the debate, but it almost sounds like if Sen. Sarbanes hadn't been in the chamber, the Republicans might have gotten away with a quick vote on it. Just doesn't seem very well planned to me is all.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Hillary is still polling to see how to respond to censure

and she is also waiting for several focus groups, as well as her personal astrologer, and her meditation guru before she commits to promising a response at a future date yet to be determined.

[SaveElmer]

36. You are obsessed aren't you...

I didn't say a word about Hillary...this thread has nothing whatever to do with Hillary.

[IndianaGreen]

41. This is the time to stand up and be counted

those that coward before Bush and Rove do not deserve to be considered for higher office.

[SaveElmer]

43. Then why not...

Take the time to line up support from those who would probably have agreed with you. Why not give Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, and others a heads up that it was coming. John Kerry was out of town for cryin out loud.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Hey, they all have a mind of their own, they can decide to support

censure or to continue to let Bush take more power for himself. The choice is simple. Did you expect someone to hold their dicks for them to make them realize that they had to make a stand?

[SaveElmer]

45. Do you have any idea how the congress works...

FOr crissakes, John Kerry was out of town, people have schedules, hearings, meetings. If you want to be effective, you line up your support, make sure they are there, and then hit with maximum effectiveness. This is all hard enough when you are in the majority, it is even more so in the minority.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Yeah, Jack Abramoff showed how Congress really works

He just happened to be the one that got caught!

[seaglass]

75. The vote didn't happen yet, right? What is the big deal if they

lined up today or if it takes a few news cycles?

[ruggerson]

15. I'm wondering that myself

having Reid and Pelosi shoot down your idea the day you bring it public looks pretty bad.

[SaveElmer]

17. Not just that...

But even Sen. Kerry didn't know much about it...said he had to study it initially.

[ruggerson]

20. I pray, if this is a strategic bungle

that it does not end up innoculating Bush from real investigations and possible impeachment hearings down the road.

[jbnow]

81. Before Feingold did this

investigations were already essentially halted and a bill to give bush authority to do this and no one the right to talk about it was already on it's way. It lost any movement during the port hype.

I am thinking Feingold wanted that to change...for this wiretapping not to be swept under the rug, for it to be back in the spotlight, even more then he wanted Censure to pass. (Which it won't while we are minority)

But if he just made a speech about illegal wiretapping no one would notice. Calling for censure brought the wiretapping back to the table.

Censure called for or even passed does not stop impeachment, but waiting for the possible majority in November would be too late. It would already be covered by new laws.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

55. Didn't Kerry lead the Alito filibuster?

Is that the action of a DINO (however that is defined)

[IndianaGreen]

62. Feingold was the first to declare he was going to filibuster Alito

Kerry was the one who made headlines when he announced he was cutting his trip to Europe short to filibuster Alito. Harry Reid was not pleased with Kerry!

[SaveElmer]

63. Feingold declined to lead the filibuster...

Kerry did lead it. I ask again, is that the action of a DINO? It's a simple question.

BTW: Feingold voted FOR Roberts...

[IndianaGreen]

65. Who said Kerry was a DINO?

Other than you in your post.

[SaveElmer]

66. Look at post #52...right above...nt

[IndianaGreen]

67. Then you should have replied to that poster instead of insinuating

I said it.

[SaveElmer]

68. I did...

Then you responded to me in the same thread...the sub thread started with a claim that Kerry was a DINO, and then you jumped in.

[IndianaGreen]

71. I do not subscribe to that view about Kerry

and you shouldn't have mentioned it in your response to me in such a way as to make it seem that I endorse such a point of view.

[SaveElmer]

74. This was your reponse to my post about Kerry's Alito effort...

"Kerry was the one who made headlines when he announced he was cutting his trip to Europe short to filibuster Alito. Harry Reid was not pleased with Kerry!"

With your subject line saying Feingold was the first to come out against Alito.

You jumped into a conversation debating whether or not Kerry was a DINO. I apologize if I made the assumption. If you do not think Kerry is a DINO that is great...I don't think he is either.

[blm]

103. That's not true - Kerry begged for someone to lead filibuster because he

was scheduled to be in Europe, and only called for it because NO ONE ELSE WOULD stand with Kennedy to do it. And Kennedy had just taken a beating in the press for entire two weeks prior.

Feingold SHOULD have led the Alito filibuster since he was a judiciary committee member - he chose NOT to lead it, but would support it IF it happened.

[karynnj]

109. That is simply not true

Kerry and Kennedy argued in the Democratic caucus that there should be a filibuster after no one else wanted to do it. This was on the Tuesday or Wednesday before Kerry left for Davos.

He wrote his Kos journal and was on the phone with Senators. The filibuster was already going before he cut short the Davos trip to return to the Senate. Reading the threads here and on Dkos, people weren't even sure that Feingold would VOTE for the filibuster. (He had voted against him in the committee.)

Reid was mad because he didn't want a fillibuster. It wasn't that Kerry was stealing Feingold's spotlight. Every thread here on what we could do came from Kennedy's or Kerry's office.

Also, Kerry recently called for an Independent investigator on this issue.

[blm]

104. Try reading some REAL history. Congressional record and National Security

Archives prove your statement about Kerry couldn't be more false.

I'd like you to NAME one lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more serious government corruption than John Kerry has.

I look forward to your answer.

[zulchzulu]

76. Kerry's office say he supports the censure...a statement is pending...

I called the office today and was told he is 100% behind the censure. He did have to read the statement before committing to it.

Have you ever agreed to something without reading it first?

[SaveElmer]

77. Exactly...

This is my point. Shouldn't Feingold have lined up this kind of support first? Before introducing it?

[zulchzulu]

78. As much as I like Russ...

...sometimes he can be accused rightfully of mild grandstanding. I know the guy, met him many times, love what he says and does...but he does have that trait. It's called politics.

Someone has to do what he is doing and he's willing to take the hit. He does have support, but like you said, he should have been a bit more stealthy and get a larger unified group when he made the announcement.

That's bygones now.

We all need to call our Senators at this point and make sure they put their view on record. Are they for the rule of law and the President not being above the law, or are they considering that perhaps we don't need to have our presidents follow the rule of law like the reat of America...

[SteelBird]

82. Right and I think that point is what some people are suggesting

I haven't seen anyone here yet oppose the censure itself, I have seen people oppose how he did it which I think is legitimate and I too admire Senator Feingold though I realize he is a politican and he's going to do things that politicans do. I wish him all the luck in the world and I plan to when I have time to email my senators about this even though I know they will stand by Bush's side on this.

[NanceGreggs]

21. Maybe because he's a leader, not a follower ...

Maybe because he thinks that it shouldn't be necessary to 'twist arms' within his own party to ensure that people stand up for what is right.

Maybe because he believes that when a president has broken the law, and has blatantly admitted to doing so, someone should stand up and say so, whether others join in or not.

Maybe because he's a decent, honest, patriotic American who, like so many of us, has had enough and isn't content to 'wait' until everyone else comes around.

Maybe because he's tired of playing politics with other Democrats who have to weigh the consequences of every action in terms of possible political fallout before acting.

Maybe it's because he's been watching, along with all of us, the spineless inaction of our own elected officials, and he's no longer content to stand by and do nothing while they contemplate growing a backbone.

Maybe it's because he knows he's right, and he's willing to stand up for the principles in which he believes.

Maybe it's because he took an oath of office, swearing to represent the best interests of his constituents, as well as his fellow citizens.

Maybe it's because he cares about saving our democracy, before it's too late.

I really don't care what his reasons were for doing what he did today, or why he chose today to do it.

I only care that he did it. And if he winds up standing up alone, when all is said and done, that only means he's the BEST MAN in the room, and has NO peers.

That's why.

[ruggerson]

25. Oh Come on.

This is big time, adult, DC politics we're talking here. Not a rotary club election.

If he had wanted to do this properly, he would have taken it to Reid and Kennedy and Kerry and Biden, etc and persuaded them and gotten them all on board and THEN brought it out with real juice behind it.

Censure is not something you just casually announce on a talk show.

If he ends up standing alone, it will look like a pathetic publicity stunt and also make the party look stupid and unorganized.

I trust this was not the case and that more planning will become evident tomorrow.

[still_one]

28. the issue isn't that difficult

the FISA ACT WAS VIOLATED BY THE PRESIDIDENT

Murtha did it, and he was also trashed or ignored by many of the democrats

The people are so far ahead of these so-called elected representatives

[NanceGreggs]

39. Nothing personal, ruggerson ...

... but I have to take issue with that.

"This is big time, adult, DC politics we're takling about here."

No, it's not. This administration is corrupt to the bone, and the GOP party members are equally guilty because they support their crimes, make excuses for them, or silently keep their heads down.

There is NOTHING adult about that. The maturity went out of DC politics years ago.

I apologize to anyone I might offend by saying this, but I'm getting really tired of hearing Democrats screaming, "When is SOMEONE going to stand up to this Administration? When is SOMEONE going to point a finger at the president and say, publicly, 'You LIED to the American people?"

And then someone does it, and there is endless speculation about how they could have done it better, done it in a more timely fashion, done it in a more 'politically correct' manner.

Look at what's happened in the past five years while the Democrats have been mulling matters over.

If Feingold, or anyone else for that matter, wants to get something, ANYTHING, out in the open and on the record, they have to stand up and DO IT.

"And while the staff of doctors discussed the best course of action, while they contemplated whether surgery, holistic medicine, or a regimen of drug therapy presented the best prognosis, the patient, unfortunately, died."

Our democracy is dying - and I'm gald that SOMEONE is willing to step in and at least TRY to save it, by any means they deem necessary.

[SaveElmer]

40. Your last point...

"Our democracy is dying - and I'm gald that SOMEONE is willing to step in and at least TRY to save it, by any means they deem necessary."

Wouldn't it have been more effective with a show of support, which a few days of prep work prior to introducing this might have given him?

[SaveElmer]

33. That does not answer the question...

If he was a leader, why not line up support for the measure. He certainly could have gained the support of other Senate liberals, which would have helped him make a stronger point. Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Harkin and others I can see might have supported it

As to ther rest of your comments, I was not criticizing the censure resolution itself, I think it has merit, it just seems that the way it was introduced was not the best.

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. Ding ding ding

Leading yourself isn't being a leader. Being a leader implies you have people following you.

[NanceGreggs]

70. You're assuming that he DIDN'T try to line up support ...

... and judging from the way our elected Dems have been acting during this Administration, I have no trouble picturing him being told to wait until the time was right, think it over for another few months, maybe even choose a better tie to wear while saying what he had to say.

Somewhere in the bowels of DC, there are Democrats who are right now debating the wording of a written response to the first round of Bush tax cuts to the wealthy -- which he handed out five years ago!

I'm really sorry if I'm on everyone's last nerve tonight, but I am REALLY PISSED-OFF! As I stated in my earlier post, I am sick and tired of hearing calls for action -- and then, when someone DOES act, I have to listen to the BRAZILLION reasons why he shouldn't have, or how he could have done it better, or how he should have waited, or -- you get the picture.

As for a leader waiting until he has followers, THAT, IMHO, is not the sign of a leader. A REAL leader acts out of conviction, and that conviction is not based on how many people are following.

A true leader is willing to be an army of one, if he honestly believes there is an enemy who must be challenged. He doesn't stop and look behind him. He is hoping to be backed by others, but he is ready to stand alone.

And very unfortunately for all of us, not only are our elected Democrats too spineless to be leaders, many of them don't even have the backbone to be FOLLOWERS amymore.

Russ Feingold SPEAKS FOR ME - and at this point, I don't give a flying F%CK if he has to do it alone. He DID it, and that's all that matters.

Maybe, somewhere down the road, the rest of our trusted representatives will be willing to stand up for what's right -- but I, for one, am not holding my breath.

[SaveElmer]

73. The evidence is...

That even those who you would expect to be supportive of him were caught off guard. My understanding is no one was even given a copy of the resolution until this evening.

It was poor prep work in my opinion, and doesn't really seem like a serious attempt to get alot of support for it.

[NanceGreggs]

79. It is a sad day in our nation's history ...

... when a president spies on American citizens, admits to doing so, claims himself to be above the law, flips the entire citizenry the bird and says, "Screw you, I'm going to keep right on doing it."

It is an even sadder day when elected officials in the Congress and the Senate make excuses for his actions, and attempt to 'fix' the law so that he hasn't, retroactively, broken it.

But the saddest day is when someone stands up and says: "Mr. President, you have broken the law and you must be held accountable," and others (and from his own party!) sit by and say, "Gee, if I'd had more warning, if you'd done some prep work, if I'd had this all in writing and we'd discussed it beforehand, I might have stood up for the truth with you."

I hope I'm never accosted on the subway late at night by a menacing character, and the only other passengers are the current crop of Democratic senators. Because while I'm being brutally beaten, I can count on all of them standing around saying, "Gee, if ONLY we'd been given a heads-up on this situation ahead of time, we might have come to your aid."

The Bush idiot once said, after 9/11, "You're either with us, or against us." Well, that's the situation right now. Bush broke the law. Feingold called him on it. You're either with him, or against him. You're either for the Constitution, or your against it. You're either for the rule of law, or you're against it.

If you have to have time to 'mull it over', if you have to be 'prepped' first, if you have to have it in writing so you can think about it, you are of NO VALUE to yourself, your constituents, or your country.

Russ Feingold stood up today, publicly and on the record, and said, "The president broke the law, and was dishonest with the American people in having done so."

Was this a SURPRISE to the other Democrats? If so, where have they BEEN?

[LincolnMcGrath]

84. Post of the day!

Maybe even the week.

[NanceGreggs]

91. Thanks, LincolnMcGrath ...

... I was starting to feel pretty ALONE out here.

:toast:

[SaveElmer]

87. Again, you are arguing the merits of the censure...

The point is this:

1. Democrats are the minority, a censure resolution was not going to pass

2. To be effective, more than one lonely voice is needed to at least bring this to peoples attention

3. Russ Feingold sprung this on the Senate, including allies like John Kerry (who is now on board, but had to delay because he didn't even have a copy of the resultion before hand)

4. Many Senators have come out in opposition to the spying. Censure is not commonly the way illegality is dealt with. In fact more Presidents have been impeached than censured. SO to say this should have been expected is pretty far fetched

5. Feingold should have gotten his ducks in a row first. Period. He has many potential allies on this, and I suspect they will be coming on board over the next few days, but he may have lost his chance to truly make this an issue.

[NanceGreggs]

90. I am not arguing the merits of censure ...

... I am arguing the merits of a man who was willing (finally) to stand up and say, "The president broke the law, and I'm stating it publicly, on the record."

I am also not saying that Feingold's move for censure should have been expected. I'm saying that BUSH BREAKING THE LAW is not -- or SHOULD NOT -- have been news to anyone, especially the Democrats. Whether censure passes or not, that is totally not the point. SPEAKING THE TRUTH was the point. Are we to expect that Democrats look at every situation that has happened in the last five years and say, "Well, we're in the minority, so let's not say ANYTHING at all." (Actually, I suppose that is EXACTLY what we should have expected, because that is what has happened over and over again.)

What does it matter whether John Kerry, or anyone else, had a copy of the resolution beforehand? The President of the United States BROKE THE LAW - that's not exactly new information. Did Kerry have to have it in writing before he decided whether that was true or not? Did he need time to decide he was with the Constitution, or against it? Dare I speak the unspeakable and say: Did John Kerry have to decide that he was going to vote against it, before he decided to vote for it?

I know that I am being a real pain in the ass on this issue - and I apologize if I am offending anyone here at DU. I don't mean to be offensive, by any stretch of the imagination.

But there comes a time (and I say that time is LONG past) when someone has to stand up and say: "These are the facts. This is what's true. This is what is happening, and something HAS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT." And if everyone else involved needs written documentation, discussion forums, focus groups, survey results, ad naseum, before they can stand up and say, "Russ Feingold is speaking the truth," then they can take their sorry asses back to their home towns and die in obscurity as the "also rans" that they've proven themselves to be.

Am I cynical about Democratic Senators and their ability to stand up for THE LAW of the LAND? You're DAMNED REAL I AM!!!! Look at their record for the past five years, and tell me that my cynicism is not well founded.

Russ Feingold STOOD UP for his fellow citizens today. And what will the excuse be for those who don't stand with him? "Well, gee, I didn't get the paperwork, so I didn't KNOW where I stood ..."

Give me a personal f&ckin' break.

[IndianaGreen]

92. He supports Hillary, he won't give you a break!

meanwhile, here is Hillary's statement about censuring Bush and on John Conyers's call for an investigation into the Downing Street memos:

(chirp, chirp, chirp)

[SaveElmer]

99. Are you now...or have you been...

A supporter of Hillary Clinton...

Sounds about right for you people...

Your Hillary obsession is remarkable seeing as how this thread has nothing whatever to do with her

[bread_and_roses]

96. Oh, right on, NanceGreggs! What's to consider?

Someone tries to break through this Orwellian nightmare in which law after law is broken and our so-called Representatives trot blithly along as if all is normal? NOTHING is normal. And among that for which history will call them to answer is why they proceeded as if it were.

[SaveElmer]

97. And he did it without any prep work...

Nor any attempt to garner support to give it a higher profile. IMO he made a mistake in execution.

[IndianaGreen]

89. Russ Feingold is our Edward R. Morrow who called a spade a spade

while the rest of the political class are not unlike those that remained silent during McCarthyism for fear of incurring the wrath of the rightwing.

Great post, NanceGreggs! It captures perfectly how many of us feel about the Beltway Democrats.

[NanceGreggs]

93. And thank you, IndianaGreen ...

... your reference to Edward R. Murrow (and I HATE to admit it, but I'm old enough to remember his show) is dead-on target!

Thank God Mr. Murrow didn't need to discuss what the truth of the situation was with everyone and anyone before he recognized it. He saw the Truth, and he spoke to it -- in the most public forum available in his era.

Good night and good luck, IndianaGreen -- here's hoping the rest of our country wakes up before USA-TV signs off for the last time ...

[karynnj]

111. He SAID he didn't talk to his peers

It's not convoluted or something we made up - He didn't try to get any co-sponsors. It's not a case of waiting - there were Senators on record that Bush broke the law - the first I heard was Kerry in December-though others could have beat him and I simply hadn't seen it.

[radio4progressives]

110. Well Said Nancy!! Bravo! Bravo!

You're such a damn terrific writer, i hope you take advantage of the blog forum DU has now - i want to be able to find your writings more easily..

:applause::applause::applause::applause: :loveya:

[still_one]

22. because it isn't too difficult to realize what the issue is

the president violated THE LAW, specifically the FISA ACT

Anyone who doesn't vote for censure agrees with what the president did. IT IS THAT SIMPLE


no nuances here

[SaveElmer]

34. Well doesn't it tell you something...

That even his fellow liberals, who probably would have supported it, were surprised by it as well?

[OzarkDem]

95. No

[radio4progressives]

112. You really think they were Suprised ?

I disagree.

It was blasted all over the news early Sunday Morning. They had plenty of opportunity to review his motion (at least 24 hours) and it isn't as though the issue was a News Flash.. they had three months since it was reported in the NYT and dollars to donuts the key Dems knew all about it long before the article was ever published... Feingold was already on record making this an issue and so were others outside of Congress, like Al Gore and countless others in Op Eds and interviews and such.

Furthermore, articles in the press indicated that at least a few House Members and Senators on intelligence committees were aware of it - and i never ever bought the bullshite line that Rockefeller, Harmann and Pelosi couldn't legally disclose the basic matters to the Public or other Congress members - they need not have disclosed "classified" details by going to the public to speak out against this matter in general.

[SaveElmer]

113. John Kerry...

Who is now making noises like he is going to support this...was out of town, and couldn't offer immediate support because he hadn't even seen a copy of the resolution.

IMO it was just poorly planned...he would have made a stronger statement had he lined up support first, and he would have gotten a fair number I am sure.

[IndianaGreen]

24. You notice how many lined up in support of Feingold?

The same number that supported John Murtha when he called for a troop pullout of Iraq!

[still_one]

26. this is why the democratic party is where it is today, in the garbage

Murtha said it, the people are so far ahead of the politicians

[Swamp Rat]

27. SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!! ... SUPPORT CENSURE!!!

:kick:

TIME TO KICK ASS!!!

:kick:

[thoughtanarchist]

31. Look, censure from the senate is a no-op anyway...

What is needed is articles of impeachment to come from the house.

Remember Frist today? He was scared shitless. I'll tell you what Feingold did:

He floated the trial balloon.

You see this all the time and recognize it when the Pugs do it. Recognize this now. Feingold is getting the issue into mainstream, dusting up some MSM debate on it, sizing up the R/W response, and preparing the public with the idea so that *when* impeachment is brought to the house floor all the players will pretty much know the outcome beforehand.

The common thread in congress is that no one likes surprises, so take today's action for what it is. Energy for our base, and another body blow to the Pugs in congress. This pendulum is swinging and I think the real fight begins January.

Soon there won't be a day gone by when you won't hear the word somewhere in the media: impeach, Impeach IMPEACH! It's snowballing even now.

The best part is just beginning...

:popcorn:

[still_one]

32. this is no surprise

he announced it on the sunday talk shows

you either stand for what is right, or you stand for what is wrong

[IndianaGreen]

64. Lieberman voices misgivings (what a surprise!)

Lieberman voices misgivings

But Sen. Joe Lieberman, D- Conn., voiced some misgivings and hinted that he’d vote no on the Feingold resolution.

“Frankly I’d prefer to spend our time on figuring out ways to bring this very important program of surveillance of potential terrorists here in the United States under the law…. I disagree with the Bush administration’s legal judgment on this one…. But this is a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States.”

Feingold’s resolution may be getting a warmer reception from grass-roots Democrats than it is from Reid and Lieberman.

In Iowa, Democratic congressional candidate David Loebsack said he supported Feingold’s resolution.

“In my district, there is considerable discontent with the Bush administration on almost all fronts, including the Iraq war, the NSA surveillance, and many other issues,” Loebsack. “When the NSA story broke, many were appalled that Bush would do what he did. There is a clear consensus here that he broke the law and that there has to be an accounting for what he did.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11811676/

[zulchzulu]

80. Lieberman still hasn't wiped that kiss from Chimpy last year

The guy is a loser. I doubt even the Repugs will take him.

[IndianaGreen]

86. That was probably the last time Lieberman had an erection

when Bush kissed him.

[blm]

105. You two just cracked me right up.

.

[radio4progressives]

114. !!!!

That was probably the last time Lieberman had an erection, when Bush kissed him.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Clarkie1]

83. I am disappointed this was not pursued in more serious manner.

I like Feingold, but it appears to me from the way he went about this he is trying to make a name for himself by coming out with it on the Sunday talk shows. That said, I'm glad the issue has been raised, and I'm glad Feingold raised it.

But to put the politicking for 08' ahead of the best way to accomplish his stated goal is disappointing. It would have been far more effective to have a group of prominent senators come out in support of the issue in unison, and then build more support from there. This way puts people on the spot, and puts the spotlight on Feingold.

[radio4progressives]

115. See firedoglake ... this is only the beginning...

:hi:
http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/advancing-the-ball-on-censure

[Aaaargh]

94. This is a typically lame attempt by the DLC-line right to smear Feingold

and excuse weaseling Democrat office-holders who won't stand up against the Bush administration and their corporate sponsors under any circumstances.

Why would it make a "bigger splash" on the news if Feingold (allegedly) didn't "try to line up support first"? Furthermore: why can't Democrats come on board with a measure like this at any point?

Neither contention of yours even begins to make sense. But that's entirely typical when it comes to DLC-liners.

[SaveElmer]

98. Of course they make sense...

To anyone who has a clue how the legislative process works. And it is typical whenever any kind of constructive criticism is proposed for any of the darlings of DU that the DLC is blamed. Of course, had you read the threads you would have discovered I support the idea of a Censure...I am criticizing the lack of perp work Feingold underwent to make it more successful.

[ClassWarrior]

100. Call your Senators and ask them this...

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

NGU.

[More Than A Feeling]

101. What's wrong with making a big splash in the news?

I know that I have seen complaints about how the media won't cover Democratic actions and responses. Now they are, and the discussion about whether or not Bush deserves censure has begun. It doesn't have to end with censure, either, because censure does not preclude impeachment.

Every media cycle we take from Republicans is one less they have to dig themselves out of their pit. We have taken this cycle from them, thanks to Russ Feingold.

Could anyone else have done this? Maybe someone like Lieberman, because the media loves him, but it would be so out-of-character, and he never would have done it. Any other Democrat? Perhaps. Perhaps they should have tried.

Why didn't they try? I don't know, do you?

The bottom line is, why didn't someone else do this? Why was Feingold the first to step forward? Maybe because he is used to it, being the first senator to oppose the Patriot Act and first senator to call for a plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

[SaveElmer]

102. Nothing...

Would have been a much bigger splash had Feingold been followed to the floor by Ted Kennedy, Then John Kerry, then Barbara Boxer...etc.

[More Than A Feeling]

107. Well, perhaps they should have done it before Senator Feingold.

That would have been a surefire way to be included, right?

[SaveElmer]

108. Censure is almost without precedent...

It is not a common way to proceed. There has been one official censure passed against the President in our history - against Andrew Jackson...and that one was expunged....there have been more impeachments.

So no, I'm not sure that to expect that option to be right at the top of the list was to be expected. Sen. Feingold should h ave been better prepared to follow up, and he wasn't!

[radio4progressives]

116. What Bush has done is Almost without Precedent...

Extra ordinary circumstances call for Extra ordinary measures...

Motion to Censure is light weight compared to what really needs to be done, but under the circumstances, it was a single solitary tool that had not been used and needed to be...

Instead of laying down, doing nothing, Feingold used the only means available to him to call attention to a critical matter facing our democracy.

[SaveElmer]

117. I'm not arguing against it...

Just that when something is so little used...and has never been used in the lifetime of anyone currently in the senate, it is natural that it would not be the first thing they thought of doing. Many Senators have condemned the spying as illegal and have been pushing for hearings for example. I mean Jay Rockefeller has been fighting like mad to get the Intelligence committee to take this up, to the point where Frist has threatened removing the 50-50 split on the committee.

It really would have been to Feingold's advantage to line up a core of support before he introduced this. Over on another thread Will Pitt is making this same observation. Organization matters almost as much as being right.

[blm]

106. Actually, this is the best reason I've seen for his unconventional attempt

at censure. It's a shame that media forces Senators who normally believe in senate process and procedures to resort to dramatic flair to get any attention.

But the whole matter about being FIRST on specific issues is hardly the realm of just one senator.

[Neil Lisst]

118. I know! I know! I know!

You don't ask permission first if you know the answer will be NO.

I like Feingold a lot, but he's shrewdly staking out the left position in the party. He's not going to let Kerry or any of the others get left of him. He's going to run hard to his beliefs and his constituency, and this move is part of it.

Yes, it will piss off all those to his right, who are crammed and challenged by his efforts.

More than any senator in the Senate today, Feigold represents the spirit of DU, IMHO.

[SaveElmer]

119. So it was a political move...

Not a sincere attempt at censure?

SUrely he could have lined up the support of several Senators.

[Neil Lisst]

123. it's a sincere move that is also political

as for getting support, they can get in or not

[Hippo_Tron]

120. How do you know that he didn't already try to?

It's been months since the illegal wiretapping story was published. Perhaps he has been lobbying support all of this time but has failed to get any. So he finally went public on his own.

[SaveElmer]

124. Well he said so on Sunday...

Feingold admitted he hadn't shown the resolution to any Democrat. Kerry, who has come out in support, was out of town and couldn't comment on it at that time.

[Hippo_Tron]

121. Let's assume that your premise is right, Feingold wants the thunder

I refuse to believe that Feingold is merely doing this as a stunt, by that I mean that he doesn't truly believe that the president deserves to be censured. However, for the sake of argument I will accept the idea that he introduced this measure on his own to get some attention.

In that case, I pose the same question about the rest of the democratic senators who aren't standing up to support Feingold. Do they truly believe in the censure and are just pissed off at Feingold because they aren't getting any media attention? So if your premise is correct aren't the other 43 dem senators also avoiding doing the right thing because of media attention?

[radio4progressives]

122. "The Pres. Has Committed a Crime & We Have to Deal With that"

as citizens, we have to deal with that. Professor Turley, former NSA Atty.

[Radical Activist]

125. He attends the caucus meetings

He knows most of the Senators are the play it safe chickenshit types and the rest will support him anyway. He isn't timid.