Has John Kerry had enough time to "take a closer look" at Feingold's bill?

[file83]

Because....I'm looking at John Kerry's website, and I'm not seeing much support. Actually, I'm seeing ZERO support.

John Kerry said Monday:

"I want to make sure that is the best way to do it before I make that final judgment."

2 days ago I was told by loyal Kerry supporters here on the DU that Kerry "supports" the bill after I complained that Kerry hadn't hit the ground running on Monday in support of Feingold. Turns out that I may have been lied to (or they were lied to and just passed it on to me).

Here we are, 2 days later, still no word. That's plenty of time to go over the bill, send of a few emails, make a few phone calls....and still, looking at John Kerry's Senatorial website, I'm hard pressed to see even a mentioning of the Feingold's bill. I'll be damned if I can find a news article announcing Kerry's support.

So...can anyone help me out in locating any documented evidence that Kerry is actually in support of Feingolds push for Presidential censure?

If you do, I'm sure the Washington Post would love to have a copy.

The Feingold Resolution and the Sound of Silence
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; Page A02

Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost.

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

[Botany]

1. Kerry is Supporting Feingold.

End of Story.

Kerry, John F.- (D - MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html

Call and ask yourself

[incapsulated]

5. "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said

I'm not picking on Kerry, but that doesn't sound like an endorsement, regardless of what his office said yesterday. Has anyone called today?

[karynnj]

77. I assume he would like to control his statement and position

He has many many times said the Bush broke the law. His office says that he will vote for censure. That's what is known.

I would guess the complexity may be that he feels that censure at this time, done without getting adequate support (there was no time line that precluded that) is not the right thing to do. If there were a vote tomorrow - Bush would declare the results as vindication.

[blm]

88. Cuz he's superbusy with ANWR - GOPs are attacking it again while activists

aren't paying attention.

Why can't people ACCEPT that Kerry supports it, his office is all saying so and has for 3 days now, but Kerry is the pointman on ANWR and is submitting an amendment on it - this HAS to be done and done NOW.

Feingold has what he needs right now - he has the censure in the judiciary committee, right where it needs to be.

Kerry's doing what he needs to be doing AND he supports Feingold - yet Kerry is having mnore crap thrown at him than the 95 senators who aren't supporting censure yet.

Typical knee-jerking day at DU. They really do HATE the lawmaker who has done the most to expose corruption in government.

Ya gotta wonder what feeds the braincells around here at times.

[MH1]

113. Gee, has FEINGOLD had enough time to sign Kerry's DSM letter?

(from last June!)

No I didn't think so. :eyes:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/24/161514/338

Co signers:
Sens. Tim Johnson, Jon Corzine, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, Thomas Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin

Nope. Feingold's not there? What, "cowering"? "Running and hiding"? Where the F*** are you, Feingold?

Kerry gave him at least a couple weeks (and now it's been months). Feingold whines after ONE F*****G DAY.

[still_one]

I applaud him for do so. It is amazing that most of the

democratic senators officies I have called today have NOT expressed an opinion

I guess they are looking to see which way the wind is blowing, NOT what is the right thing to do

I am glad to hear the John Kerry is not one of them

[file83]

12. Has John Kerry heard of press briefings? Why hasn't he

Made a statement of his support to the media? (can't find any)

Announced his support on his website? (again, can't find any)

If we have to call his office to find out whether or not he supports Feingold, then John Kerry is failing in getting the message out. What is the difference?

[blm]

18. Cuz ANWR's being attacked by GOPs again TODAY and he's leading the

fight against them.

GOPs are using the distraction of the activists for a censure that Feingold has already moved to committee.

Damn the naivete.

[file83]

28. I'm naive? You actually think John Kerry is incapable of making a 5 min

phone call to the Washington Post or NY Times stating that he supports Feingold's bill? You give John Kerry very little credit, and one hell of an excuse to publicly ignore Feingold's bill.

[blm]

38. Feingold MOVED IT TO COMMITTEE for later. ANWR's TODAY!!!

Kerry supports censure yet you want to harrass HIM while he's got a battle going on TODAY in the Seante over ANWR.

Curious position.

[file83]

42. Wow, "blm" mischaracterizing my position...

...how unusual.:rofl:

Welcome back blm!

[file83]

50. Still waiting to hear what your excuse is for Kerry YESTERDAY...

:popcorn:

[enough already]

81. Apparently Kerry can't walk and chew gum at the same time

Honestly, his "support" of Feingold is a joke.

[blm]

87. Yeah, so was Feingold's nonsupport of the DSM inquiry and Alito filibuster

when it was Feingold who, as a judiciary committee member should have led, not Kerry who had to stand up while in Europe doing his duty for HIS fnance committee role.

Kerry's doing his job on ANWR and he's supporting Feingold and censure - anyone who attacks him is showing their own bias and ignorance.

Why aren't you agitated folks working on senators who AREN'T supporting censure and leave the ones who are supporting it the space to do their OTHER duty = lead the fight for ANWR.

[IndianaGreen]

109. Feingold was part of the Alito filibuster! Get your facts straight, blm!

This is not 2004 so there is no need for you to get bees in your pants in defending Kerry on any perceived criticism!

As to the DSM inquiry, where in the HELL is Nancy Pelosi on this? This ball is on her court, for the inquiry will lead to impeachment.

[blm]

110. You missed the point - Feingold was a judiciary committee Dem and should

have called for a filibuster and brought more into it AFTER the judiciary hearings. When no judiciary Dem would STAND with Kennedy to lead a filibuster, Kerry begged the other senators to do it as he was scheduled for a week in Europe for his committee duties at the economic summit and a major speech in Ireland.

NO ONE WOULD. So Kerry had to scramble for a filibuster from Europe and taking all the attacks that came with it. Feingold quietly came around to support filibuster. He didn't work to HELP it and didn't choose to lead it when it should have been his area of duty.

Or have you forgotten how it all came down?

And Feingold REFUSED to sign the DSM letter of inquiry, too. So, all these attacks on Kerry who supports censure but was extremely busy on current time issues he was also leading on, are just gratuitous and INACCURATE, and HYPOCRITICAL, considering NONE of these people called out Feingold or called him cowering for his inaction on other important issues. And neither did Kennedy or Kerry call other senators cowering for not stepping up to lead on Alito.

Besides, Feingold WANTS the debate on censure in committee and slowed down. It's the GOPs who want the senate to hurry up and declare their positions. Slowing it down allows the committee to get more documents to nail Bush. So, what side are some of these DUers on?

You WANT me to just go away so inaccurate accounting and revisionism rules the day and so people can get their kick-Kerry jollies in? AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

I watched GOP ops try to do exactly that throughout the 80s and 90s and am not gonna sit on the sidelines ever again. Not even when uninformed lefties try to do it. Cuz I loathe DISINFORMATION.

[IndianaGreen]

111. You can only filibuster when the matter comes up for a floor vote

There is no such thing as a filibuster within a committee!

Your facts are still wrong!

[MH1]

114. So why didn't Feingold LEAD the filibuster????

Because he WOULDN'T.

[blm]

119. You choose to LEAD a filibuster AFTER you HEAR the evidence in committee

hearings. THEN you PLAN your filibuster.

Kerry didn't sit there hearing evidence - Russ did and Kennedy ASKED others to join him. There was almost 2 weeks that went by without a judiciary Dem standing with Kennedy. That was 2 weeks of planning for a filibuster LOST

You know this IG, and I shouldn't even have to say a word.

[karynnj]

121. Feingold did vote against cloture -so as you say he was part of

the filibuster. But reading here and on dKos, he was one person whose vote on cloture wasn't known for days. (He voted against Alito in committee - so the vote against confirmation was known.)

This is equivilent to Kerry staying silent on this - and then voting for censure.

Feingold did not speak in the Senate or elsewhere in favor of the filibuster. (Just as Kerry is NOT a sponsor on the Feingold censure.)

Similarly, Feingold didn't sign the DSM letter, but I assume he would vote for the WMD part2 investigation.

[Why Syzygy]

62. I called my two repuk senators yesterday

and they are "undecided" haven't made a statement. I would hope the Democrats are making statements but that doesn't seem to be the case, eh?

[Marie26]

104. Feingold stole his thunder

He wants to be privately for the censure (avoid alienating the base) while publically keeping mum (avoid alienating the ind./moderates he's hoping to attract in 2008). This way, he has it both ways & hasn't offended anyone yet. Once the censure motion proceeds, he'll be able to determine its popularity & chances of success to decide how forcefully to support this motion. I think it's sort of like putting up a finger to see how the wind blows. That said, it's great that Kerry has agreed to support the motion at all. (Ducking, running from the flames)

[ProSense]

105. Asking Bush to apologize is thunder? n/t

[Marie26]

107. In a political sense, yes. Very loud thunder. n/t

[ProSense]

108. Exactly, it's largely political, with little or no punitive impact. n/t

[file83]

10. Wow, that's some support - so we have to call his office to learn of this?

You've got to be kidding me, right?

[Why Syzygy]

53. um no

thanks for the heads up. If a SENATOR cannot multitask . oh! horrors TWO ISSUES at once . then I think maybe they should seek a single tasked job. Thanks for bringing this up.

[file83]

56. You're welcome. I love how in todays fast paced world of...

...blackberries, cell phones, email, websites, test messaging, and the most sophisticated media networks the world has ever seen, John Kerry can't handle two tasks at the same time?

Here is my insight on the issue. What I noticed in this thread is that defenders of Kerry's silence on the Feingold bill claim that Kerry is "too busy" fighting Republicans that want to drill in ANWR (not sure how that distinguish's today from any other day).

What they fail to tell you is that Kerry mysteriously (and conveniently) had HIS OWN bill he was promoting today. And now we see the TRUTH behind Kerry's silence: He wants all ears on him to see what he'll say about Feingold. And right when everyone is listening, he comes out of the doors saying "I've got a GREAT energy bill for AMERICA!".

Politics. Just politics. Same shit, different pile.

[karynnj]

120. I assume that Kerry has been working on the energy bill for some time.

He and is staff didn't sit down and say "let's write a bill so we don't have to hink about Feingold's move. Also, he didn't go out and get a lot of press on the energy bill.

Kerry long ago said several times it was illegal. He's called for an independent investigator - so I assume he is in agreement with Kennedy and Leahy. His office said early on he would vote for Feingold. That's more than most Democrats.

It may well be that the former prosecutor prefers more investigation to a censure now. If that is the case (and likely is as that is what he demanded, perhaps his silence is that he doesn't want to state that he thinks it is premature and that there should be more investigation.

I know you think censue now is the best path, but if that is not Kerry's position - would you rather he:
- State his view and why he prefers it to Feingold's
OR
- Leave things as they are with his statements that Bush definately broke the law - which backs Feingold (Kerry's statements were strong). In addition, his office is saying he's a "yes".

The latter allows him to not be against Feingold, while perserving his right to do what he thinks best.

[dajoki]

76. how about a public statement of support n/t

[MH1]

112. delete - dupe

found a better place to post this.

[IndianaGreen]

116. Did Kerry testify at the Conyers' DSM hearings?

I don't recall seeing him there.

[MH1]

117. What Senators did?

I don't recall seeing any there.

[karynnj]

118. He's not a House member - were any Senators there?

Conyers referred to Kerry's letter as positive. Too bad only 9 Senators signed it - when Kerry asked all of them.

I don't recall similar outrage at the Senators who ignored it that we have on the motion to censor - though it's a much larger issue.

[incapsulated]

2. lol

"When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.)."

:rofl:

Sounds like they can't run away fast enough. Literally. :)

[fooj]

3. Get a grip...ya rat bastards! You know what the right thing is to do!

Do it!

peace.

[sasha031]

4. the liberal media is trying to cause a crisis again

Kerry said yesterday he is in full support of Feingold, below is a partial list of Dem's, many more have signed on.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/15/9466/19457

[NYCGirl]

8. You should read that Kos link you posted more closely...the censure

they were in favor of was for BILL CLINTON (in lieu of impeachment).

[file83]

15. OMG - I can't believe that guy posted that link to dKos as "proof" when

it was a list of Senators that supported censure of CLINTON!! :rofl:

Actually, :cry:, this is doubly pathetic.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

9. Read the fine print of that Kos article..........

those were the Senators who came out to censure CLINTON.

[incapsulated]

11. Did he say it himself?

Or was it just his office? If he has come out in support, then they should be corrected for a misleading article.

[Vincardog]

6. Note to Democratic "Leaders" What the hell are you afraid of?

The 'backlash' against the Clinton fiasco was because it was BS.

george is wiping his a$$ with our constitution and it is your job to stop him.

[Why Syzygy]

63. that is a succinct description.

Hadn't thought of it in those terms. But, yes, I agree.

[BlueManDude]

7. They're waiting for Bush to sink to single digits. n/t

[blm]

13. Kerry's supporting censure BUT HE'S BUSY now with ANWR being attacked by

GOPs again in the senate now that they know the Dem activists are distracted by a censure that Feingold has already moved to committee.

[incapsulated]

16. I applaud him for that.

I really appreciate what Kerry is doing to fight them off on this issue. :thumbsup:

[file83]

20. Oh really? How long would it take Kerry to tell a staffer...

"Put a brief statement on the front page of my Senatorial website in support of Feingold's bill."

That takes like, what, 4 seconds to delegate? Furthermore, if democrats that are HUNGRY for any sign that John Kerry is supporting Feingold, why is it IMPOSSIBLE to find any documented evidence of it?

The only thing I've seen are DU'rs claiming that he is in support of it. Yet none of them can proove it, unless we call his office. WHAT A JOKE!

I'm sorry, but "support" doesn't mean shit if it stays in your office. "Support" means making a statement, getting the word out! So far, John Kerry is failing Feingold, Democrats, and the U.S. Constitution. And all he has to do is make a 4 second statement to a staffer...

[incapsulated]

23. That is quite extreme

"So far, John Kerry is failing Feingold, Democrats, and the U.S. Constitution."

Who is this guy, Hitler??

Lookit, ANWR is a very important issue that is on the table RIGHT NOW. The censure resolution has been moved to committee.

[file83]

29. It's quite "extreme" to think John Kerry can't make a public statement...

...don't ya think? :think:

[incapsulated]

30. Who is?

Honestly, I would like to know who is out there speaking in support of this?

[file83]

49. Good question. And THAT'S my point. Why are the Democrats

avoiding this issue and remaining silent? John Kerry just so happens to be a leading Democrat that I picked to make that point. It's impossible to get an answer to "why are Democrats silent". One must pick an actual person to make an example of. Kerry is as good a Senator as any - especially with his long track record of fighting corruption.

[incapsulated]

57. Harkin will co-sponsor the resolution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2168683

Maybe Kerry and Boxer, too? I can't be sure.

Russ is on Ed Shultz saying give it time.

[file83]

60. Harkin must not have anything better to do...

...with his time than support Feingold's bill. :sarcasm:

If Harkin can find the time to Co-Sponsor the resolution, he must not be supporting Kerry agains ANWR! :sarcasm:

(My sarcastic points here are aimed at the people coming up with excuses for Kerry today. Not you :-) )

[enough already]

82. I suspect Harkin is also fighting ANWR

Imagine that, tackling 2 issues at once...

[blm]

97. Kerry is WRITING amendment and LEADING the fight - Harkin isn't a pointman

on ANWR - or do you have contrary information?

Kerry is also battling on the debt ceiling.

Uh.... why are YOU so keyed in on Kerry who already supports censure, but is leading on a hugely important bill going on rright now, instead of focusing your barbs on senators not chipping in at all?

Are YOU trying to promote distraction from ANWR and the debt ceiling? You DO know that Feingold already got his censure into committee for debate, don't you? That's where he wanted it. It is Republicans who wanted to rush a vote. Feingold wanted it slowed down FOR debate - so which side are you on?

Here, in case you're interested about other serious business going on NOW that has to be dealt with, too.


Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, about 16 months ago, we debated an $800 billion increase in the debt limit. At the time, this was the Bush administration's third request to increase the debt limit for a grand total of $2.2 trillion. During this debate, I discussed how in less than four-years, a 20-year $5.6 trillion budget surplus was turned into a $2.4 trillion deficit. I thought at the time the fiscal outlook could not get much worse and the budget situation would have to improve.

Unfortunately, I was wrong. Since the last debate on increasing the debt ceiling, the administration has not submitted budgets that would put us on a path towards deficit reduction. As part of last year's budget resolution, Congress passed legislation that would reduce spending by almost $40 billion. Many of these cuts will impact those that have the least. Now Congress is in the process of wrapping up a $70 billion tax bill. When you combine the spending and the tax bill, the numbers do not add up to put us on a path towards deficit reduction. The combined total increases the deficit and increases the debt.

The Bush administration's budget for fiscal year 2007 includes more of the same and the fiscal situation even gets worse. The administration estimates that the deficit for 2006 will be $423 billion, the largest in history. The projected surplus of $5.6 trillion that this administration inherited will now turn into a $3.3 trillion deficit, a reversal of $8.9 trillion.

The repeated pattern of deficits and irresponsible budgets necessitate another increase in the debt limit. Today we have before us an increase of $781 billion, which will bring the total to $3 trillion under this administration's watch. If the President's budget is adopted, the debt is expected to reach $8.6 trillion at the end of this year. Under this budget, with alternative minimum tax reform and ongoing war costs added in, the debt will explode to $12 trillion by 2011.

We cannot continue on this unsustainable path. Yesterday, Senator Conrad offered an amendment to the budget resolution to restore the original pay-as-you-go-rule that led us on a path to a balanced budget, projected surpluses, and expectations of paying down the debt. These pay-go rules simply require new mandatory spending and new tax cuts to be offset. The current pay-go rule has a glaring loophole. Tax and spending increases that are provided in the budget resolution are exempted. This rule does not promote fiscal responsibility. A prime example of this is the tax and spending reconciliation instructions included in last year's budget resolution. These bills will increase the deficit by $30 billion.

Repeatedly, efforts to restore pay-go have been defeated and these efforts were defeated once again yesterday. In the context of today's debate, I do not know how anyone could oppose an amendment to restore these rules. Without strong pay-go rules, we will be back here in a year debating another increase in the debt limit.

We have a fundamental obligation to restore fiscal responsibility rather than merely voting to raise the debt limit as if there was an endless credit card at the expense of the American people. Americans struggle every day to balance their own budgets. Across this country, I have heard how families struggle to keep up with the rising costs of health care, tuition, and gasoline. Median household income has declined by $1,669 or 3.6 percent after inflation. Americans are sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out how to pay their bills. They do not have a magic credit card with no limit. Congress should play by the same rules.

We need to be responsible and think about future generations. We made tough choices during the 1990s in order to dig ourselves out of a hole, and now we are back in an even deeper hole. We need to face the consequences. The interest payments on the debt alone are


staggering and depriving of us choices that we need to make for the long term investment of our country. This debt will affect our children and grandchildren. Each individual's share of the public debt is over $16,000 and a family of four's share is a staggering $64,533.

The interest on the debt for this year alone is over $220 billion and according to the administration's budget it will grow to $322 billion in 2011. Just think of how this money could be put to better use. It could be used to help uninsured Americans with the rising cost of health care. We cannot afford expensive interest payments and ever-increasing debt with the retirement of the baby boomers on the horizon.

Not only is the amount of debt a problem, I am also concerned about the amount of debt that is foreign held, almost $2.2 trillion. Japan holds the most, $685 billion. China holds $258 billion. Even the Caribbean banking centers hold $111 billion. Over 51 percent of the public debt is held by foreign investors.

Sixty percent of the foreign debt is held by official foreign investors. It is dangerous for our Government and our standard of living to be dependent on foreign capital. If foreign investors decided to stop financing our borrowing habits, it could have a spiraling impact on our economy. If those investors began to withdraw their capital, our financial markets would plummet and interest rates would climb. This would filter down to American families. Homes, education, and cars would become more expensive.

Debt is more than a financial liability it--weakens our security, our diplomacy, and our trade policy. The negligence of our borrow and spend policies leaves us vulnerable to the priorities of foreign creditors. How do you go to a country that holds so much of your debt while your economy is closely linked to theirs and make an argument about nuclear proliferation, human rights, democratization, or other issues that are of importance and great consequence to our country?

We need to make economic opportunity and fiscal responsibility a common goal. We need to live by rules that give the debt limit meaning. I will not support a borrow and spend economic policy that has no limits. There are better alternatives.

[karynnj]

78. The most logical possibility is:

- He totally agrees that Bush has broken the law on this and other things.
Back up:
Kerry has said this violated the law in several interviews.

-He will vote in favor of censure
Back up:
His office has told many people this. A Senate office is not going to state a position without the Senator's approval. (For example, Laughtenberg's office didn't know his position on ANWR, so they said that they didn't know - even though he has voted against drilling many times)

- He may feel that other ways of dealing with this are better. There may be things going on behind the scene that he did not want to jeopordize.
Back up:
Totally Conjecture based on:
- His own call for an independent investigation made a couple of weeks ago. (Durbin seems to want more investigations too, as he said speaking after Feingold barreled out of the Senate rather than debate with Spector.)
- The likelihood that a quick vote can help Bush by being interrepted as vindication. (At a point where ALL the news has been bad for Bush.)
- his refusal to give an answer in a crowded hall way where he could not have controlled how his position was portrayed.
- As Spector admitted their are things still not known on this - the Sentors still don't know who was wire tapped. (If those wire tapped weren't connected to terrorism - I hope ALL Senators would censor Bush.)

Incidentially, I don't remember your many posts when Feingold refused to sign Kerry's letter to the Intelligence Committee demanding that WMD, part 2 be completed. It referenced the DSM. Although everyone here, spent months demanding Kerry speak about the DSM. He did - most others didn't. Where were the posts for others to sign - nowhere.

[ProSense]

25. Stop! Desperation is embarrassing to watch. n/t

[file83]

31. ???

Is that supposed to pass as humor or personal attack?

So, you think that the expectation of full Democratic public support of Presidential censure is "desperate" and "embarrassing". Wow, that's funny. :eyes:

[Why Syzygy]

64. this isn't the first time he has failed miserably

so let's please understand that he is a politician.
I'm pretty damn sure they will drill ANWR. I admire legislators for trying to stop it because it should NOT be done. But have you seen any repuks lately who don't get their own way? I didn't think so.

[karynnj]

79. Actually they HAVE suceeded several times in the past on this

They had enough Republicans willing to join them. This is again on the budget bill - so stopping them is tough. Last time, a group of House Republicans (including mine) stopped it. The Republicans are becoming weaker - if they suceed this year in defeating the issue, they may prevent it forever. (Though if they need to fight it a few more times they will.

The censure vote could hurt and give Bush a victory. As such it may not be a good idea at a point where we will likely lose. The news is a nightmare for Bush - I really don't agree with Feingold that no one is speaking about these issues. For the first time in years, the News media has started to speak of all the things Bush is doing that are wrong. His censure actually replaced bad news for Bush with negatives about Democrats.

Also, as he according to you, "failed miserably" , why are you calling on him to become actively involved. Shouldn't you be asking one or more of the Senators you fell are better. The fact that you have hundreds of posts bashing Kerry seems pretty interesting given that you see him as a failure. On this, Harkin and possibly Boxer have signed on as co-sponsors. To my knowlege, of the remaining Senators, Kerry is one of very few who have said he would vote for it. Are you targeting those doing less?

Or, do you really see Kerry as a valuable ally who use his Johnkerry.com site? Even, if at this point he may feel pushing this is not a good idea.

[blm]

98. So far, Kerry has won every battle on ANWR.

And from what I read,in the congressional record, Kerry has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history, so why would ANYONE be so hateful towards him, unless they were supportive of the corruptors?

[blm]

14. Kerry's supporting censure BUT HE'S BUSY now with ANWR being attacked by

GOPs again in the senate now that they know the Dem activists are distracted by a censure that Feingold has already moved to committee.

[wisteria]

17. He has said through his office that he is backing Feingold. Give him

the benefit of the doubt here. Right now, he is fighting the Republicans who are trying to attempt another try at Drilling in ANWAR. THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF TOO. The censure vote is in comittee right now and we have time to act on it. We only have maybe 24 to 48 hrs on the Drilling in ANWAR issue. So when you contact your senator's about supporting the censure, drop in a few words of support for the Catwell/ Kerry Amendment and, "Tell your Senators to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and take real action toward achieving energy independence."

"As we did last year, Senator Maria Cantwell and I are offering an amendment on the Senate floor to strike the proposal to drill in the Arctic Refuge. The vote could come within the next 24 to 48 hours. So please act now."


http://www.johnkerry.com/action/call/senate/index.html

[mtnsnake]

21. Not according to any research the OP'er did n/t

[wisteria]

24. They should call his office, and when they do, get infor on ANWAR! n/t

[mtnsnake]

32. His work on ANWR is great, but what's that got to do with this thread?

Talking about ANWR isn't the proof that file83 is looking for in his OP.

[blm]

39. Priorities. ANWR's today. Feingold already moved censure to committee

and Kerry's already supporting censure, but his priorities TODAY are on the fight for ANWR happening TODAY.

[file83]

48. What about YESTERDAY??? What's your excuse for Kerry YESTERDAY?

:shrug:

[blm]

51. Why the hell do you hound Kerry who's already supporting censure when

you didn't do the same to Feingold when he DIDN'T support the Dowing Street Memos inquiry?

KERRY IS BUSY WITH ANWR - pick up the clue phone. He heard they were going to push it yesterday, no doubt thanks to people like you who are too distracted hounding Kerry for a censure he ALREADY supports.

Go hound someone who DOESN'T SUPPORT IT and let Kerry do what he needs to do to protect ANWR being attacked TODAY.

[file83]

54. I've noticed when you can't answer my question - you accuse me of

"hounding" or "bashing" Kerry. Then you move right back to your talking point that he's too busy "today" (completely ignoring my question of what was Kerry doing "yesterday"?) and other historical references that have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand YESTERDAY.

Kind of sucks not having a valid answer, doesn't it?

I've made my point - you've made yours.

Moving on to a DIFFERENT topic...Of course I'm supporting Kerry's proposal's for energy policies that he is putting forth today. That's a no brainer. So is publicly supporting Feingold's bill (*oops* I'm sorry - oh well...)

[MH1]

71. What Kerry was doing yesterday..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2515429&mesg_id=2516540

And how many Senators did you call to support Pay-Go?

[file83]

26. That is no excuse. Kerry can EASILY call up a reporter and go on record

of his support. Why hasn't he taken the 5 minutes to do that? Office staffers are NOT John Kerry. HE needs to make the statement to the general public. Staffers making individual, one by one declarations to public callers does NOT constitute "support".

"Support" doesn't mean shit if stays in the office. Stopping the drilling in ANWAR is important (duh.), but don't act like Kerry isn't capable of making a 5 minute phone call. That's pathetic.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Good for Senator Kerry! And thank you for fighting ANWR drilling again!

[file83]

33. Good for Senator Kerry! Thanks for ignoring NSA wiretapping by NOT

publicly supporting Feingold's bill!

Oh, and thank you, flpoljunkie, for completely obfuscating the issue through appeals to humor! Try the Red Herring, I hear it's quite effective.

[flpoljunkie]

58. Check my posts. Am heavily supporting Feingold's censure resolution.

Start with this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2511864&mesg_id=2511864

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Oh no!! Are you saying that

John Kerry is a bad man???? Do you have any documented evidence that Kerry is actually against Feingolds push for Presidential censure?


Look, why try to pick apart everything and everyone all the time? What's your point?

I like and support Feingold's censure motion. I also like and support Conyer's bill for an investigation into whether impeachment is warrented.

But constantly whining because everyone isn't doing what you want them to when you want them too is lame.

Feingold announced his motion on the Sunday talk shows, and then introduced it on Monday, without so much as sending around copies to his Demo collegues first. It is something that people might want to coordinate, don't you think? And that takes time and opportunity.

Have you been down to your Republican Congress critters constituency office and asked them to support either of these two bills?

Why not?

Or is it a lot easier to complain about what others aren't doing?

Give it a little time. And have a little faith. ANd be your own leader and make a difference and quit whining about what others aren't doing. If you want it done right, do it yourself.

[mtnsnake]

36. Obviously you missed it

when people were running around making claims that so-and-so supported censure and so-and-so didn't, yet no one can back their claims up with proof. Is that what you want? Why should anyone not be held to their claims when those claims are stated as fact?

[file83]

55. Thanks for your support...

...in this thread. :patriot:

[mtnsnake]

74. No problem

:smoke: :headbang:

[file83]

37. John Kerry has not made a press statement in support of Feingold's bill.

That's ALL I'm saying. You are reading WAY too far into this and moving into your own imaginative territory.

Again, repeat: John Kerry has NOT made a press statement in support of Feingold's bill.

That is my point, and all I'm asking is, "Am I wrong?" The answer is quite clearly: No.

Kerry's silence is an issue...but also:

Bush is the issue. The NSA is the issue. Our Civil and Constitutional Rights are the issues.

I take this very seriously and you should to. John Kerry is supposed to, but he isn't. That concerns us all.

Why am I picking on John Kerry? I expect more from this man, that's why. You should to.

[John Q. Citizen]

52. And I think you missed my point. Does J. Kerry owe you (or me)

an answer today on this issue?

I would argue that he doesn't. It ain't going away and that's a good thing. I want this issue to build and boil and hang around for awhile, because even if every single Democratic senator voted at this moment for Censure (or impeachment) it wouldn't pass. And then the issue would be gone.

So the value isn't in winning, it's in the arguement, it's in the struggle.

Here's my view of the impeachment issue (and that goes for censure to) I hope you take the time to read it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x26835

[TayTay]

27. Why no, he decided to spend his time blaming other Dems for it

Why? Is this important or is the all consuming need to bash Kerry something that can be put aside for little things, like the fact that he has already instructed staff to answer the phones and say he supports it.

Just asking? So, can you give me a time for the next regular bashing post on Kerry? I have some errands to run and I don't want to miss this. After all, I might spend my time otherwise going after Senators who haven't instructed staff to say they would support it. We can't have that now can we?

[file83]

41. I expect more from Kerry - this isn't "bashing". Kerry is a very

prominent Democratic leader - his support/silence/lack of support has great impact on the political landscape.

All I'm asking is, how much time does Kerry need to make a press statement? You see, "support" that stays silent (restricted to the office) isn't "support" at all. NOT in politics.

So, if questioning/demanding support from Kerry for censure of a President that supports illegal NSA wiretapping is considered "bashing" by Democrats, then our party has bigger problems than we think.

[HuffleClaw]

34. god, this is truly disgusting.

an appalling show of collective cowardice.

on edit: there is, imo, no excuse for NOT supporting this. NONE. its simply a censure, a statement. it will be voted down anyways, so why not FOR ONCE, demonstrate some BACKBONE instead of letting on of yer own hang in the wind?

[blm]

35. Kerry supports it - he's BUSY fighting GOPs over ANWR again TODAY

because GOPs are trying to attack it again knowing the activists are distracted by a censure that Feingold has already moved to committee.

[file83]

44. So Kerry is fighting ANWR "today". Hmm. What was he doing YESTERDAY?

:shrug: What's your excuse for Kerry yesterday? What will be your excuse for Kerry tomorrow? And the next day... :shrug:

Excuses, excuses, excuses. That's all I'm hearing. Well, that and Kerry's silence.

[John Q. Citizen]

66. I'm glad this is still an issue. If the Dems had voted for and the

Repos had voted against yesterday, It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but besides warm and fuzzy what would be gained?

What I'm saying is what is your purpose in introducing losing legislation?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, only that their needs to be some good reason to do it. If the reason is to show that Dems are willing to stand up for what's right even as they lose, perhaps it might be smart to drag out the issue for a long time so everyone can hear about it, (as in the voters)people can start to think and decide if bush in fact should be censored, and then when a vote is eventually taken, the country will be paying attention.

If you just want them to prove to you that you should love them, that's not going to fly.

What is your hurry to vote on a losing resolution? I know why Frist was all for it, (So it would go away and bush would get a quick painless win) but why are you all for it?

[MH1]

70. THERE'S ABOUT 18000 OTHER EFFING THINGS IN THE SENATE

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Ever hear of Pay Go?

It FU**ING FAILED BY ONE VOTE yesterday - CHENEY's.

AND ALL YOU PEOPLE CAN DO IS TALK ABOUT A WASTED FU**ING MOTION THAT PLAYS INTO THE REPUBLICANS HANDS.

:banghead: :banghead:

And ya know what? I'm not the only one saying this stuff.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6864.html

March 15, 2006
The reaction from Feingold's colleagues

Posted 3:17 pm | Printer Friendly

Snip...

First, a lot of Dems were bothered by the fact that Feingold took the party off-message. The DP World controversy was still reverberating, and congressional Dems had hoped to keep the momentum going this week with a vote on the "Sail Only if Scanned (S.O.S.) Act," which requires more effective scanning techniques be implemented at our ports, and a bill that would expanding government scrutiny of foreign investments. Instead, both of these are getting less attention because of interest in Feingold's resolution.

Second, there's a sense that Feingold helped bring Republicans together. As of last week, the GOP's fissures were showing and all the talk was about Republicans on the Hill exerting independence from the White House. Now, Feingold's resolution has pushed the GOP back together again and Republicans are back on the offensive. Some Dems think the censure resolution basically helped the GOP get off the ropes.

Third, there was not even a hint of party strategy on this. The past couple of years, there's been an effort to try and have Dems coordinate more on major political and policy initiatives. Coordinating Dems is like herding cats, but there's been some progress of late. Feingold, however, decided to go his own way; he announced his resolution without even letting his colleagues know it was coming and with no real regard for what it would do for the party's short-term agenda. Some see this as a slap in the face — if Feingold wanted party support, they said, he should have worked within the party. Instead, Feingold took the lead, and no one followed.

Fourth, ......Yesterday, however, whenever a Dem senator tried to talk about the war, reporters just asked about Feingold.

And fifth, one Senate staffer in particular said if Feingold wanted to push warrantless searches again, there were (and are) effective alternatives to a censure resolution.

(snip)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008426.php (Kevin Drum):

FEINGOLD'S CENSURE MOTION....Everyone wants to know how I feel about Russ Feingold's motion to censure President Bush over the NSA's domestic spying program. I'll give you two and a half answers:

First, substantively: Sure, censure away. God knows Bush deserves it.

Second, politically: I'm not so sure on this score. Anytime a congressman introduces a measure that's certain to fail, it's done for reasons of political theater: to make a point, to get some attention for an issue that's being ignored, or to reach out to some constituency or other. So the relevant question is: is this good political theater?

For example, when Harry Reid shut down the Senate last year to protest the slow progress of the investigation into prewar intelligence, that was good theater. He highlighted something that the press had been ignoring, he worked Bill Frist into a practically incoherent rage, and he embarrassed Pat Roberts into (sort of) promising to speed things up. All in all, a good day's work for the minority party.

Conversely, it's not clear what Feingold hopes to accomplish with his censure motion. Bush's shortcomings are already getting plenty of attention, so he's not galvanizing any new media attention. He obviously didn't bother telling his fellow Democrats about his plan, which has had the result of making the party look muddled and stupid. And Republicans, far from being nonplussed by his censure motion, are having a field day with it.

Political theater has its own rules, and fair or not, the only measure of success is success. So while I'd vote for Feingold's motion, I don't think I'd hire him as a political theater consultant.

And meanwhile, what was Senator Kerry doing? His fu**ing job. You know, there's a little more to the job of being a Senator than some folks here seem to realize.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2283 (Statement by John Kerry on Nomination of Richard Capka to Serve as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration)

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2281 (John Kerry Backs Democratic Small Business Health Care Bill)

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2277 (John Kerry: Five Better Ideas than Drilling in the Arctic Refuge)

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2270 (Study Shows Bush Rejected More Storm Loans than Any Admin in 15 Years)

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2268 (John Kerry to Put Hold on Bush Pick for Federal Highway Administration)

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2264 (Kerry Criticizes Bush For Not Keeping Promises on Broadband)

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2263 (John Kerry visits with Cincinnati Mayor Mallory)

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2262 (Kerry: Vote for Change - prepared for delivery Wednesday to the Communications Workers of America)

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2250 (John Kerry Attends Cincinnati Small Business Roundtable)

The last one was on Monday, and there were more Monday, I didn't feel like continuing to look them up. All the rest are from Tuesday and Wednesday. Amd while Dem Daily does an excellent job of posting most of Kerry's public activities and major statements, even they don't post them all.

And meanwhile there are committee hearings, and this minor item called the 2007 Budget, which strips funding from many Small Business programs for women and minoroities (you did know that Kerry is Ranking Member on the Small Biz Committee and has some responsibility to fight on this stuff, right?)

And so on.

(why oh why do I waste my time though?)

[leesa]

40. Kerry won't do an damned thing...just like always. Oh. I'm too busy with

this or that...always an excuse to avoid the huge elephants in the living room.

[mtnsnake]

45. !

:popcorn:

[file83]

46. EXACTLY. Kerry apparently doesn't have the time to call the NYTimes

and make a statement of support. What a joke.

The issue isn't that he even supports it or not - according to his staffers and blind followers, he DOES support it, even going back to Monday.

So why didn't he make a statement Monday? Tuesday? Wednesday - oh, that's right, he's "fighting" the Republicans today...:wtf:

When is Kerry NOT fighting the Republicans?!?!

[Imagevision]

43. Finally Kerry has backed Feingold censuring of Bush

[file83]

47. Care to post a PRESS STATEMENT to that claim?

:popcorn:

[LittleClarkie]

59. Why fixate on Kerry. What is he, the swing vote or something?

Will you be starting a thread for each and every one of the other Senators you're not sure about?

When folks called his office yesterday, he said he supported Feingold. I'm not burning any more brain cells than that on whether or not one damn Senator is supporting Feingold or not. You can call him if you like. You can start calling the other Senators if you like. But fixating one one Senator seems counterproductive to me.

I like him and all. But like I say, he's only one dude. Sadly, I noted yesterday when it was announced on a thread that he supported Feingold, that someone took offense saying that who was the leader now on the issue, because it wasn't Kerry, as if he was bogarting the limelight or something. So either way, SOMEBODY ain't gonna like it, just because it's Kerry.

So, why fixate specifically on one guy when you have several more to call. Have at it.

[file83]

69. Why not Kerry? He's a better Senator than most and I expect more from him

Furthermore, you have to pick someone as an example. Questioning a generality like "all dem senators" isn't going to be any easier (more excuses). What I find interesting is that no one has come up with a solid answer as to why Kerry didn't simply make a press statement yesterday. His office supposedly started answering callers on Monday that he was in support of it. So if he was going to be so busy today fighting the ANWR push by Republicans, why didn't Kerry say something yesterday (or was he too busy fighting something else yesterday as well?)

I just expect more from Kerry. Others....uh....not-so-much. :shrug:

[karynnj]

80. Here's my best attempt at an answer

As others have said, there really are very critical budget votes that are happenning now. The ANWR vote is soon. These are real things with real impact. The censure issue is in commettee for now and there may be better alternatives then pushing for a vote that ends in Bush's vindication.

So here is what I think:
- He totally agrees that Bush has broken the law on this and other things.
Back up:
Kerry has said this violated the law in several interviews.

-He will vote in favor of censure
Back up:
His office has told many people this. A Senate office is not going to state a position without the Senator's approval. (For example, Laughtenberg's office didn't know his position on ANWR, so they said that they didn't know - even though he has voted against drilling many times)

- He may feel that other ways of dealing with this are better. There may be things going on behind the scene that he did not want to jeopordize.
Back up:
Totally Conjecture based on:
- His own call for an independent investigation made a couple of weeks ago. (Durbin seems to want more investigations too, as he said speaking after Feingold barreled out of the Senate rather than debate with Spector.)
- The likelihood that a quick vote can help Bush by being interrepted as vindication. (At a point where ALL the news has been bad for Bush.)
- his refusal to give an answer in a crowded hall way where he could not have controlled how his position was portrayed.
- As Spector admitted their are things still not known on this - the Sentors still don't know who was wire tapped. (If those wire tapped weren't connected to terrorism - I hope ALL Senators would censor Bush.)

Incidentially, I don't remember your many posts when Feingold refused to sign Kerry's letter to the Intelligence Committee demanding that WMD, part 2 be completed. It referenced the DSM. Although everyone here, spent months demanding Kerry speak about the DSM. He did - most others didn't. Where were the posts for others to sign - nowhere.

[radio4progressives]

89. Why focus on Kerry? Maybe because He's Running for Prez in 08?

and maybe because he was our candidate in 2004, and maybe because we know that the election was STOLEN from him and he should be in office right now, and if he were in office as he should be, the significance of this issue would be resting on his admininstration, his NSA, his policies.

and sense we know Domestic Spying isn't simply about listening in on conversations of "terra-ists" but POLITICAL OPPONENTS (like Democratic Party members, staffers and officials) as well as peace activists and anti-war dissindents - this should be a no brainer.

so that's why it's important for Kerry to be out and in front of this. but gee, guess things like this never happened in our country before.

:shrug:

[file83]

92. Bingo - people act like Kerry is some no name rookie league

Senator from Anytown, USA. "Why are you picking on that poor guy?" :dunce:

Those are all excellent points. :thumbsup:

[LittleClarkie]

94. If he stepped out in front when Feingold is already there

who is, btw, also running for prez, so some people I know think this is his big wet kiss to the left, it would be percieved as Kerry trying to bogart Feingold's thunder, and he would be derided for that as well. He's been positive about Feingold's efforts. If people want more, oh well. Kerry supports Feingold. But this is the Feingold show. Call somebody who hasn't said boo yet on the issue or taken any stand at all. Kerry is already in the camp, just not jumping up and down yelling look at me, look at me. And that should be enough.

[radio4progressives]

95. But we are focusing on other Senators, haven't you read my report?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2515315&mesg_id=2515315

[karynnj]

100. That's why he called for an independent investigation

weeks ago. At this point, the posiblity that the spying went beyond terror suspects is not proven - although a warrant would be given immediately to spy on someone with terrorist ties.

Many others who are not enthused about Feingold's censure resolution are pushing the issue in other ways.

As to Kerry having a responsibility on this and other issues, the Democratic party elite has given him very little of the respect that he should have as the last nominee. If Kerry would have come out with a fantastic statement backing this 100% on Monday and send out millions of emails explaining how people could get behind it - people would be saying he should shut up and not steal Feingold's spotlight.

As it is, it may be that Kerry preferred a different course of action (so is not actively speaking on this), but he will as he instructed his office to say will vote for it. At any rate this is a busy week with the budget, Kerry had other things scheduled and Feingold chose this timing and gave no one a heads up. Might that not suggest he didn't want support and maybe wanted to complain about the lack of support.

[radio4progressives]

61. Only Two Senators, other than Feingold have signed on to date

Harkin and Boxer.

[wordpix2]

65. let's just give these senators a little time & meanwhile, flood them with

email, letters and phone calls to CENSURE

[file83]

67. Doing that. Waiting to see what happens...

:popcorn:

[Jacobin]

68. It's called not being a leader and being too proud to follow

or too scared.....or too.......whatever the fuck it is on that particular day

[MH1]

72. Sounds to me that the one not being a "leader" is FEINGOLD.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6864.html

If someone is a good leader, people follow them. By definition. But gee, no one is following Feingold, huh.

Leadership takes TEAMWORK. And did he really think that calling his colleagues "cowards" would win them over to support him?

It may play well in the movies. I wouldn't suggest trying it in a real job.

[radio4progressives]

86. might have tried that already..only to meet with the sound of silence

and crickets... sometimes leadership requires different strategies, especially with the tin ear types (most of them) ..



Seems to me Feingold has the pulse of the situation and took a strategy to get this matter back on the radar screen, where it belongs.

[file83]

93. LOL!!! I loved the "chirping cricket" graphic!

That was awesome! :rofl:

[radio4progressives]

96. This one is even better.. (i think)

[file83]

99. It says "Ideal for Reptiles" - so you can feed this to Freepers?

[radio4progressives]

103. lol

:rofl:

[karynnj]

101. He said on tv that he hadn't talked to his colleagues

So, I assume they learned about it on Sunday.

[The Magistrate]

73. For What It Is Worth, Sir

Every Democratic Senator ought to support this resolution.

The self-admitted vilation of law by the Executive must be given the widest exposure and dternest denunciation possible: fealty to the Constitution demands nothing less.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[radio4progressives]

84. Right On, Sir!

[file83]

90. I agree - but making an example of a leading democrat is perfectly legit.

Getting ALL Senators to support it is the end goal - but sometimes the "sheep" need to have someone take the first step. I expected it to be Kerry, but it NOW looks like that was Senator Harkin.

[bpilgrim]

115. hear, hear!

:toast:

:hi: Magistrate, happy sunday, sir.

peace

[zulchzulu]

75. Called his office. Kerry supports Feingold's censure resolution

Perhaps you would like to call and see for yourself... [phone]

A announcement is pending...

[radio4progressives]

85. Well, this is good news..

I'd love to hear a more detailed report (paraphrasing is fine) on the exchange .. ??

[file83]

91. That "announcement" is EXACTLY what is needed...

...being "in support" of Feingold but remaining silent on the matter does no one anygood.

[ProSense]

83. I think all Senators should support the call for Bush to apologize

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2516651&mesg_id=2516949

[Usrename]

102. Yep, they have to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2518035&mesg_id=2518035

[zulchzulu]

106. Kerry's office said he supports it... maybe impeachment/investigations...

...are more where the efforts should go. After all, a censure is a slap on th wrist.

Chimpy needs handcuffs on his wrist!

[radio4progressives]

122. But has Co-Signed the Censure Resolution Yet? ..

Has he added his name, along with Senator Harkin's and Senator Boxer's signatures yet?

[karynnj]

123. Seeing that he said an independent investigator is needed

he likely is in favor of Kennedy and Leahy's bill and may be in agreement with Durbin - demanding legislation. I doubt Feingold is even trying to get signatures. At this point, it's in committee.

His office said he would vote for it, that doesn't mean he will sponsor it.

Did you question that Feingold didn't put his neck out (or even say how he was voting on cloture on Alito) when Kerry and Kennedy did? That was and action that with more real support was winnable and could make a real difference. (Bush would pick another pro-choice judge, but likely not in favor of a unitary President.) - if it was ok for Feingold (member of the Judiciary committee) to just vote right on this, why are the standards higher on everything for Kerry.

Did you question why Feigold, didn't sign Kerry's DSM letter? (Until Kerry did it people were up in arms here - it was the new threshold, why weren't Senators demanding answers?