Why won't Dem Senators back Feingold on Censure?

[dajoki]

WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401752.html?nav=rss_email/components?nav=slate

A Senate Maverick Acts to Force an Issue
Democrat Feingold's Motion to Censure the President Roils Both Parties

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 15, 2006

For months the Democrats have resisted calls from their liberal base to more aggressively challenge President Bush. Now a maverick Democratic senator from Wisconsin has forced his party and Congress to confront head-on the question of whether Bush should somehow be punished for secretly ordering warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens.

Sen. Russell Feingold's call this week to formally censure Bush for what some say was a clear violation of a federal statute regulating domestic surveillance has touched off a fierce debate on Capitol Hill that is likely to persist throughout the congressional campaign season.

GOP leaders who had been reeling from the impact of Republican political scandals, an unpopular war and Bush's mishandling of the port-security issue sensed that Feingold overplayed his hand and denounced the censure resolution as a political stunt by an ambitious lawmaker positioning himself to run for president in 2008. Many Democrats, while sympathetic to Feingold's maneuver, appeared to be distancing themselves from his resolution yesterday, wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics.

Feingold, 53, says he is convinced that Bush broke the law in ordering National Security Agency wiretaps of overseas telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens that involved people suspected of terrorist activities without first obtaining special court approval, and that his party must take a firm stand in protest. Unless Democrats make the case that they are more trustworthy than Republicans on national security issues, Feingold says, the party cannot win control of the White House or Congress.

"We have a great case that they have done a poor job of fighting the war against terrorism," Feingold said of the Republicans in an interview yesterday. "We need a different strategy, one that shows we stand for something."

[rwenos]

1. No Cojones (nt)

*

[Pirate Smile]

2. Milbank has a column too.

The Feingold Resolution and the Sound of Silence

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; Page A02

-snip-
In a sense, they were. The cause of so much evasion was S. Res. 398, the resolution proposed Monday by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calling for the censure of President Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party.

-snip-
Republicans were grateful for the gift. The office of Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) put a new "daily feature" on its Web site monitoring the censure resolution: "Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0."

Many of Feingold's Democratic colleagues agree that Bush abused his authority with the NSA spying program. And they know liberal Democratic activists are eager to see Bush censured, or worse. But they also know Feingold's maneuver could cost them seats in GOP states.

Hence the elaborate efforts to avoid comment. Five Democratic senators called a news conference yesterday to talk about the Bush budget's "dangerously irresponsible priorities" -- but three of them fled the room before allowing questions. The other two were stuck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401519.html

[demdiva]

3. I've been working so much I totally missed this

How are other Senate dems reacting? I assume not favorably from your title ....

[dajoki]

10. a few responses...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401752.html?nav=rss_email/components?nav=slate

Democratic views were mixed . Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) dismissed the proposed censure as "getting way down the road on this issue." When asked on NBC's "Today" show yesterday morning whether Feingold was "grandstanding for 2008," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), himself a 2008 prospect and a leading Democratic voice on foreign policy, replied: "No, I think it's more of an intense frustration. Do any of you in the news media or any of us have any idea what the president is doing?"

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he hoped the Feingold measure would spur the intelligence committee to complete an investigation of the wiretapping program, to determine whether Bush broke the law. "Senator Feingold is a man of principle," said Reid. "I think that people should cool their jets and let the process takes its course."

[demdiva]

30. Thanks very much

[Jeffersons Ghost]

65. His Royal Chimpness is also...

Mishandling airport security by endorsing foreign ownership of U.S. airlines is his newest idea. Now not only port security but also safe flying is on the chopping block and congress critters say he better not do the airline deal as they vacation.

[dajoki]

66. thanks...

do you have a link?

[Heewack]

4. Why?

Because it is not clear cut that he broke the law. He broke the law as it is written, but the law as written is likely unconstitutional. That is the reason why.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Bush broke the law, period!

FISA has been the law of the land for several decades. If Bush doesn't like the law he could have either ask Congress to change it, or challenged it in court. Bush did neither! Bush placed himself above the law, a clear impeachable offense.

[dajoki]

12. yes, law was broken...

our senators have no balls.

[Heewack]

14. It has never been challenged.

It's not the "law of the land."

"Feingold, 53, says he is convinced that Bush broke the law"


Feingold is not the determiner of the law.

That is the crux of the issue whether people want to admit it or not. The constitutionality of that law will have to be decided. That is why there isn't sweeping support behind him.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Bush is not above the law!

It doesn't matter whether the law was challenged or not. Could you break the law in your state and then tell the judge that since the law was never challenged you shouldn't be held accountable?

[Neil Lisst]

69. Contrary to your stated opinion, no court finding is required.

Censure is a political action, and it doesn't need any findings from courts construing the statutes. Congress writes the statutes. Congress can decide to censure the president if IT thinks he violated the law.

Your comments have no applicability regarding censure. They apply only to the legal enforceability of the statute as construed by courts of competitent jurisdiction.

[TexasLawyer]

35. YES!

He broke the law and we have no idea who he is listening to and what he is doing with the information. Is he blackmailing members of Congress? Journalists? Election officials? Who knows? It often seems like it.

If Bush is JUST listening in on "terrorists" then why can't he comply with FISA, which is very lenient.

Also, the same logic used by Bush to support ignoring FISA can be used to support ignoring ANY law. ALL laws are supposedly trumped by Bush's magical war-time powers.

Hold US citizens without letting them speak to an attorney? We already know he's doing this. Extra-judicial killings? How do we know he's not doing this? Concentration camps for US citizens-- Can this be far behind?

[dajoki]

41. Well said!!

[Sparkman]

40. Our FREEDOM to associate & f'g talk to each other w/o oversight...at risk

AND this is the best way to see just which representatives have our liberty and our freedom from government interference as a CORE VALUE.
Can you see the Fascism in this country, anywhere? just asking.

[stillcool]

8. nice try...

but I don't understand the purpose of such a post. Stating a fallacy in order to....????

[Heewack]

16. The purpose...

.. is to answer the question of why there is no support. It's not about spine. It's not about will. It's about the fact that the FISA laws governing this situation are very iffy.

[stillcool]

20. and that is total Bull....

the time to address modifying that law was way back when after 9/11 when Congress specifically asked the administration if it was necessary. And, don't forget Daschle's letter in the Times. You just can't say the law is broken AFTER you've broken it...the administration has done nothing but break, bend, and manipulate the law for DECADES. As for the dems...I think the media is pushing the 'non-support' meme...and the zombies in DC are buying it.

[Heewack]

23. How many times do you have to have your head...

... beat up against a wall before you realize you are being played like a Stradivarious?

It should be pretty friggin' obvious by now.

This has nothing to do with our Senators not taking a stand. THEY CAN'T!

WAKE THE HELL UP!

[dajoki]

26. why can't they?

and when do you think thet should? i believe the time is way past due.

[stillcool]

27. that was nice......

but I have to disagree...we all have choices. That the United States is no longer a democracy, no longer a nation governed by the rule of law, but rather ruled by the global-corporate-militarized-empire, may make one hesitant to excercise those choices, but does not negate them.

[wtmusic]

33. If stillcool's a Strad, you're Bill Frist's plastic banjo

the president is a fucking criminal. Wake up, take a deep breath. Smell the coffee. There is no legal justification for what he did, and it would be a good idea if you learned WTF you're talking about. So read the Constitution, the War Powers Act, and FISA--then try to make your claim with a straight face. :eyes:

[dajoki]

24. well maybe...

it's time to find out exactly what the law means.

[IndianaGreen]

25. FISA is very clear, not "very iffy" as you tried it to portray it

Published on Friday, December 30, 2005 by FindLaw

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably

Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security

by John W. Dean

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-39.htm

[wtmusic]

32. too funny

nothing iffy at all, and he knows that. Why did he CLAIM, on four different occasions, that he was getting warrants then? Why did he LIE? Is there any doubt that HE LIED REPEATEDLY about obtaining warrants?

You're WAY backed into a corner, pal. Nice try, but desperation is never a pretty sight.

[Vinnie From Indy]

54. Says who?

What credible legal scholar can you produce that believes the 4th Amendment and the FISA laws are "iffy"? They are not. They only people cliaming that the issue is "murky" are the usual media suspects, Rush Limbaugh and you!

[DURHAM D]

11. What ? eom

[rwenos]

28. War Powers Act

You've raised an interesting issue. The War Powers Act probably IS unconstitutional, as is the FISA court. Neither has ever been tested in the Supreme Court. My ConLaw professor, a liberal, still thought the War Powers Act was PROBABLY an unconstitutional invasion of the President's war powers.

[Rebelry]

49. Okay, I'll bite.

How is this law (I assume the FISA Law?) not constitutional??

Even arguing that....

I don't see how the fact that the law may not be constitutional would be an excuse for the most powerful man in the country/arguably the world- who is supposed to uphold the law or work to fix it if it's unconstitutional- to break it because he thinks it might be unconstitutional or inconvenient.

It'd be like me deciding I'm not going to follow the speed limit laws because I think they're stupid and then expecting that I won't have to pay the fine.

Hello, he's had FOUR years to fix this law. FOUR Years since 2001 to fix it.

Sorry, he broke the law. And Even if your argument is correct that he didn't break a viable law, he still acted in POOR FAITH and LIED TO US. Over and over again this man told us that he was following the FISA court rules and not spying on American citizens without warrants.

And that's what our senators, ALL of them - republican and democratic - should be dealing with. And why Censure is a good first step.

Reb

[xkenx]

64. If FISA law is unconstitutional, it is because it removes freedoms.

If there were no FISA law, there would be just Amendment IV of the Constitution of the United States of America to go by, and Bush would certainly be in violation. Here is Amendment IV, word-for-word.

AMENDMENT IV, SEARCH AND SEIZURE: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[burythehatchet]

5. Here's your answer in equation format

Focus group results + Poll numbers + (political ambition calculus - Corporate contributions) = No friggin balls

[file83]

47. In short hand: FGr + Pn + (pac - Cc) = NFB!!!!

[DURHAM D]

7. Senators and staffers are simply out of touch. They have no

idea what is going on in this country. They don't know that everyone, and I mean everyone, wants to take their country back.

Now when I talk to people that previously supported the war and this current administration they are puzzled and angered by the Bush incompetence. They have figured out that their party can campaign but can not govern.

Repubs are citizens too and want someone to help - look at the polls.

Everyone wants leadership - everyone knows the ship of state is beaching itself.

Repubs, dems and independents are sharing information instead of arguing and we all end up just scratching our heads.

Everyone is worried and wants a course correction.

And, everyone wonders what in god's name the dems are doing. Or, should I say - not doing.

[dajoki]

15. they have been out of touch...

people are just realizing that.

[valerief]

18. You're too generous. They know and they don't care.

[fearnobush]

9. They are afraid because of many reasons.

1 Clintons poll numbers went up when Impeached.
2 Afraid they will lose the big $$ from Corporate backers
3 Afraid because polls show the public approves of the illegal spy program.

Yet they don't understand that the public is once again mis-informed by the GOP spin.
There is no doubt in my soul that Bush is spying on us right now. What the Dem leaders fail to do
each and everytime the GOP is allowed to get the upper hand, is to frame there own debate. Ask the question why? Why is spying on you good for America. Ask, "do you really want the Big Hand of Government to know how many guns you have? Who your last date was with. How you plan on voting for etc...

Bush can say no I'm not spying on you, but can he prove it?

[Patchuli]

13. I disagree

Clinton was popular and most Americans did not support his impeachment. Even so, I can't see impeachment proceedings making * popular, EVER!

However, if dems are afraid to lose corporate money, they don't deserve their job anyway; plus, they should concern themselves with polls because if they don't support popular opinion, the populace will not support them.

I'm really starting to think we have some stupid chicken$hit bastards in the dem party.

[fearnobush]

22. Our party won't win period unless they start framing the debate.

[Patchuli]

38. That is true

and they should all be standing behind Russ Feingold on the censure issue. Not to mention, if there are any repubs true to their own values and beliefs, they too should be standing with Russ against the illegal acts of *! They all look like lap dogs at this point, both sides!

Our 'leaders' better wake up and FAST!

[ShockediSay]

17. Sure the majority supports wiretapping

but that's because the way the issue is framed.

Frame it in a way of a secret police state cutting out the requirement of checking it out w/ any kind of judge, even after it's done, for data mining that can go to insurance companies, employers and all kinds of corporations - that's how to frame it. Can we trust Bush and Cheney to be honest that that's not what they're doing? Can we trust them not to sweep up the innocent?

Time to show some leadership by framing the issue so it resonates.

[dajoki]

21. exactly...

the thugs definately have us beat on spin. it's time we took control of the message.

[Pierogi_Pincher]

31. You are right on--"take control of

the message". Works for me!
:patriot:

[opihimoimoi]

29. Every Force needs a POINT MAN...the Pawn....able to take a hit

[JI7]

34. why don't we make some lists of Senators and call them

make a list of those who are not supporting him and we can call on them to do so.

and include some Republicans also since we will need them in order to get this passed.

[Sparkman]

39. BOXER phone person just told me the senator will support Feingold!! .

[dajoki]

42. Hooray!! there's one n/t

[Golden Raisin]

36. Too many are professional pols which means:

o Too many are paid whores to the corporate interests and lobbys.
o Too many are afraid Rove has ruinous dirt on them.
o Too many have no spine and no balls.
o Too many just don't want to give up power/job/fame.
o Too many want power/job/fame rather than serving their constituents.
o Too many Democrats voted for the so-called "Patriot" Act & everyone of them should not be reelected (we should not be remembered by History as the Party that enabled Fascism to take root.)
o Too many play along with this insane "Emperor's New Clothes" world we live in. Feingold at least holds Bush accountable and publicly points out the nakedness.
o I used to be livid with people who voted for Nader. Now I begin to understand.

[sheelz]

37. They're still ducking

on Iraq. :grr:

[dajoki]

43. two good threads on this issue...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2514961&mesg_id=2514961
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x667618

[jljamison]

44. swing voters

The censure resolution does nothing to bring in and solidify swing voters, rather it probably turns them away.

It all boils down to that. The only thing that is important is democratic victory in november 2006 and november 2008 defined as retaking the house and/or the senate and then the presidency in 08.

Ask yourself, how does censuring Bush on this help achieve these goals? Answer the question after putting yourself in the mindset of a voter who voted for Bush in 00 and 04 but who is leaning towards a change. If all they hear from the democrats is retribution & vindictiveness, why would they go out & vote for that. That is how it will be spun.

the only thing that gets this swing voter to vote democratic in 06 and 08 is better ideas and not endless investigations & censures and all that stuff.

And there is nothing more than I would like to see than some accountability. But I am not a swing voter.

JJ

[dajoki]

45. we can't run scared...

i agree with you, i want nothing more than wins in '06 & '08, but we can't keep letting them get away with everything. we must show some spine and do the right thing, hold the liars and thieves accountable.

[Imagevision]

46. Dems are blowing it - the timing couldn't be better, especially with

Bush numbers going down almost weekly!!!!!!!!!

[file83]

48. 5...4...3...2...

Senatorial Defenders for Feingold Neglection talking points:

"Give it some time! They haven't had enough tiiiiiiiime...." :silly:

"Stop bashing (insert Sentators still "making decision" here)" :freak:
"We're too busy batteling pro-ANWR Republicans TODAY" :wtf:

"Feingold could have used better timing!" :puke:

"I question Feingold's political motives - and YOURs for that matter!" :dunce:

Take your pick.

[saracat]

50. Kerry ,Kennedy , Boxer and Harkin have all said they support censure.

Not all Dems are running away. I wish people would stop the propaganda! Lets encourage those who are standing up and push those who are reluctant for whatever reason.

[cosmicdot]

52. it was posted that Harkin had become an actual co-sponsor

of the resolution ... have Kerry, Kennedy and Boxer become co-sponsors, too?


If so, that's great.

[karynnj]

59. You can support without being a co-sponsor

[dajoki]

56. Harkin is the only one...

who i have heard of supporting it. if you know of others that's great.

[saracat]

58. Harkin is NOT the only one. A closer reading of even DU woul;d show you

that!

[dajoki]

61. yeah, i forgot Boxer...

anyway you look at it, the vast majority of dems don't want to touch it.

[progressoid]

51. Afraid they will look weak on terra......again.

The rumor is that this will give the RW ammo to say that Dems won't give the prez the tools to protect us.

[pat_k]

53. Who says the don't? I haven't heard one commitment against. . .

The Republican spin machine has been hard at work.

Resisting Frist's attempt to rush a vote is not "running away," it is demanding time -- and with time comes clarity. As long as questions like "did Bush break the law?" and "if he did, do we hold him accountable?" are being asked (and they will be asked as long as the vote on Censure is ahead of us), more and more people will get:

1) The immorality of the Republican failure to hold Bush accountable;

2) The desparation reflected in the Republican smears (none of which apparently argue that the program is NOT a violation of the law, an ommission that will not be lost on the public).

Time is on our side too. We have time to help our "leaders" to "get" what this is. Some think Feingold "put the on the spot," when he is actually giving them an INCREDIBLE opportunity -- one that they had better not pass up if they want a political future.

Until now, they have keep silent on Bush crimes. As long as they maintain that silence, they are ACCOMPLICES. With censure, they have an opportunity to break their silence and 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.

Fiengold 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.

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!

[dajoki]

57. yes he has...

Unless Democrats make the case that they are more trustworthy than Republicans on national security issues, Feingold says, the party cannot win control of the White House or Congress.

"We have a great case that they have done a poor job of fighting the war against terrorism," Feingold said of the Republicans in an interview yesterday. "We need a different strategy, one that shows we stand for something."

[pat_k]

62. ?? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem to be an answer to

. . .my post.

But, on Dems and National Security (From To Impeach, or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question, emphasis added):

. . .
The most serious problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak

Contrary to what many Democratic strategists believe, the perception of weakness has NOTHING to do with stance on national security.

It is rooted in:

1. The reticence that centrists seem to have when it comes to accusation and punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) Instead of going after wrong-doers, Democratic leaders seek to "investigate" or "make sure it doesn't happen again" (and the Republicans chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.")


2. The tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.

Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?
. . .

[dajoki]

67. i may be confused...

but that is my point.

[gristy]

55. All in good time, all in good time.

They will. :bounce:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

60. here's why they won't get behind Russ on the censure

because they are ALL;

[pat_k]

63. Hey, the chicken is on a lead -- we can drag them. They may kick and . .

. . . scream, but we can save them from making another terrible mistake. They are home this week. Pay a visit. Call. Ask for a specific staff person (for names, click the staff button for your Senator at Congress.org -- probably want Judiciary LA). Keep prodding until they tell you why they are hesitating, and make mincemeat of their reasons.

From To Impeach, or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question

. . .
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.

There are reports that our leaders are allowing the same fear to deter them from taking up the fight for impeachment. ("We can't demand an impeachment inquiry. If we do they'll call us unpatriotic for attacking a president in a time of war").

If our leaders do not overcome this fear and act, they will be digging themselves into a hole they may never get out of.

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

[caligirl]

68. And with tomorrows news on warrantless searchs of homes

I say Feingold is a GENIUS! will other dems want to get in line now or what?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x690798

[dajoki]

71. when will it end?

[magellan]

70. Before censure, Feingold polled 22% with Dems; now at *** 52% ***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x692482

Ain't nothin like the real thing, baby, ain't nothin like the real thing....