From today's press conference, Feingold in his own word:

[ProSense]

Senator Russ Feingold Holds a News Conference
On His Resolution To Censure President Bush

March 16, 2006
TRANSCRIPT

NEWS CONFERENCE

U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)
WASHINGTON, D.C.

SPEAKER: U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)


Snip...

QUESTION: Senator, this resolution, if it were passed, would
have no legal effect.

FEINGOLD: No.

QUESTION: So the only thing that would affect the NSA program,
if it's illegal, is to cut off the funding? You don't support that,
do you?

FEINGOLD: Well, there are several things that could affect the
program. First of all, one would hope, if this passes, that the
president would acknowledge what Congress has said and would bring the
program within FISA, which is what he should do.

Another approach, of course, is the legal system, is hoping that
we could get some kind of a court order and a response in the legal
system ordering the president to come within the law.

So I don't think that necessarily the idea of cutting off funding
-- even cutting off funding, how are you going to enforce that? If
the president has inherent power, he'll just shift some money around.
He'll just keep doing it. I mean, that's the problem with this
doctrine. If the president isn't going to acknowledge that a law we
passed, such as FISA, binds him, why should the cutting off of funding
affect him?

QUESTION: Senator, for those who are your critics who would
liken this or they talk about your central resolution in the same
breath that they talk about impeachment, and just say this is nothing
but one step ahead of impeachment. How do you counter that,
especially when they're using it as a weapon before the midterms to
say: The Democrats get in power, you're going to see impeachment.

FEINGOLD: Clearly, I chose to pursue censure rather than
impeachment, certainly at this point, because I believe at this point
it's a way to help us positively resolve this issue.

In other words, without getting the country in the middle of a
huge problem, like we had with the attempted Clinton impeachment, we
have a passing of a resolution of censure, and hopefully the president
would acknowledge it and say that he maybe went too far, and we would
be able to move forward and stop worrying about this and get a pledge
from the president that he's going to come within the law or make
proposals to change the law to allow it.

I think this actually is in the area of an impeachable offense.
I think it is right in the strike zone of what the founding fathers
thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.

But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong.

But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road. And anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.


Snip...


QUESTION: Do you see any chance whatsoever that your resolution
would be passed by this Republican Senate?

FEINGOLD: I'd be pretty surprised. But this president,
presumably, will be president for several years. And it is very
possible that others will later on control the Congress. And this is
something that could be examined at different points.

If the president changes course and indicates that he understands
that this was not lawful and that he should not have done it, then it
becomes less important.

But if he continues to assert not only this but other extreme
executive power doctrines, it will continue to be important to push
back and to ask the president to return to the law.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html

[ClassWarrior]

1. Beautiful. Thanks.

He told the American people to not think of an elephant, and suddenly folks are dreaming of dancing pachyderms from coast to coast.

NGU.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

2. Even Feingold Is Naive

I agree with his main points. I think he is one of the few willing to stand up and voice the problems going on. However, when he makes comments like...."If the president changes course and indicates that he understands that this was not lawful and that he should not have done it, then it becomes less important."....we look so naive and stupid.

Hey Russ.....If you think there is even a 0.000000000000000000001% Chance that King george is going to change ANY COURSE WHATSOEVER, then I have a bridge to sell you. Is that what your years of experience in Congress have taught you? Keep an open mind? FACE REALITY! Perhaps it would be nice if there was a single democratic member of Congress who realizes that this administration is CRIMINAL, and couldn't give a shit about laws.

[Sugarcoated]

3. He's saying it's the right thing to do. Which it is.

But he knows damn well it isn't going to happen, but he has to say it. And I don't think people think Bush will, or that Feingold really thinks he will. He's saying what has to be said.

[radio4progressives]

5. Exactly..

:hi:

[wisteria]

7. Oh, NOW he decides he should have a strategy and be diplomatic? n/t

[incapsulated]

lol

Clearly, he can't win with some people.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

9. I'm Going To Win The Superball Lottery....I'm Going To Win!!

Well, it's possible, isn't it? I just had to say it. I don't actually have a ticket, but perhaps I'll find one on the ground, and it will be the winning $200 Million ticket. It's possible.

[radio4progressives]

4. Feingold is being Diplomatic.. he's not Naive.

This action actually accomplishes a great deal. and it helps make the case for impeachment, since Feingold and everyone else knows that the President will never acknowledge wrong doing - and will continue these programs.

which makes the case for impeachment even stronger than already is..

Feingold knows this, and it's pretty much spelled out in the transcript.

[jillan]

8. He is just taking the first step.

A soft step. But huge.

Russ has accomplished alot.
He has alot of people talking about this issue.
If you look at the GOP website, Russ is all over the place there.
Impeachment is now on the minds of the Repugs.
It is being discussed in the msm.

This is what Russ accomplished.

[incapsulated]

If he believed Bush would do that

He wouldn't have pursued censure. He won't and everyone knows this.

Feingold is trying to appear rational and fair, because if he came out like some rabid partisan, not only would he not get any support, the media would make him the new Dean and destroy him.

I think he is playing this exactly the right way.

To me, impeachment was always a pipe-dream. We don't have the majority or sadly, the balls to do it. However, should we get a majority, having censure on the record would be a fine launching board for impeachment, should that ever happen.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

11. Our Whole Entire F&*DED Up Country Is Naive....

Calling this administration CRIMINAL should be FACT, not partisan. The fact the media probably would destroy him if he were to attack the King, shows just how screwed we truly are.

[wtmusic]

6. Feingold is not only being courteous but shrewd

He's offering W an escape hatch. Instead of cornering the snarling GOP dog, he's offering a constructive resolution to the issue, a resolution which is good for Americans.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

12. To Hell With Courtesy....

This administration doesn't give 2 Shits about courtesy. But I guess that's since they can get away with it, while the feeble democrats can't.

[wtmusic]

19. you're right about the admin,

but instead of butting heads with potential Republican allies, why not win them over by showing respect for the system and firm commitment to boot?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

21. Because We'll NEVER Win Them Over....

They never crack. Never yield. NEVER Compromise.

They will continue to behave in this manner, regardless how kind, sweet, sugar coated, conciliatory the Dems are. But it's their right, since they basically are running the government, and probably will be for many years to come.

[ProSense]

10. Impeachment during a time of war is not good for the country. n/t

[incapsulated]

13. He said something I disagree with

I say we all crucify him and forget censure.

Feingold has done and said things I disagree with. But it was Feingold who had the balls to do this and I stand with him on it.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

15. I Stand With Him Too...

Just saying that even he is unwilling to go far enough, by calling a Spade a Spade.

We try to work things out with the other side. We try to be courteous, and give them the benefit of the doubt. WHY? Does the other side even care about us? NO! Of course not. If they could eliminate the 45 Dem senators, and have 100% rule, they would. I can't say the same about our side.

It's WAY WAY WAY past time for being nice, and saying...."well, if georgie decides to change his bad habits." If you think he's going to change ANYTHING, then I've still got a bridge to sell you.

[incapsulated]

16. If he came out and called Bush a war criminal and so forth

He really wouldn't get anywhere, even though it would make people here feel good.

From a DU perspective, censure is the least he deserves. But DU isn't the world. Censure is a serious and controversial action and he has to approach it with caution or he will just be labeled a kook and the whole thing will be forgotten. I want a serious attempt at this, even if it fails. I want people to think about the issue, that Bush broke the law, not talk about "the shit Feingold said!!", you know?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

17. That's What's Sad....

If the tables were reversed, you can damn well bet the repubs would be calling Clinton a criminal. They would be throwing every trick in the book at him.

Of course, being the ethical and lawful citizens we are, there would be many dems more than willing to throw their party's leader under the bus.

It's just a sorry situation that our country is in, and I don't see any way we'll get out of it. Baby steps don't even work. The democrats can't even get behind the censure, and Feingold has to choose his words correctly so as not to tick off the other side, otherwise they might really get mad and say nasty things about the dems. We couldn't have that.

[incapsulated]

20. I'm all for calling them out

On thier shit in no uncertain terms. But not in this case. It is fine for day to day business or a campaign. But with this issue, they have to be a bit careful. I think Feingold's speech on the floor was pretty strongly worded and didn't pull any punches. But I really think that the toned down approach is as much about not scaring Democrats away from supporting this as it is about inflaming repukes or the media, at this point.

Also, this is really the way Feingold is, as a Senator. Despite his dissents, he is a cautious and sometimes conservative guy when it comes to his approach. That's why he wanted to "hear all the evidence" with Clinton, even though I wanted to kill him over that. That's the way he is.

[ProSense]

18. I think people outside DU know Bush broke several laws

He's at 33% in the polls and as of November 2005, 51% of Americans supported impeachment (that was featured in a WSJ article and posted all over DU). So they know.

I'm all for the groundswell of support for an apology and giving the impression that absolves Bush of his crimes. And when this doesn't pass, as Feingold indicates, he will be on record has having called for Bush to apologize.

I can pull dozens of more harsh statements by Democrats, across the board, than asking for an apology.

I hope all the Democrats vote for it. It's not shines a negative light on Bush, so I'm all for it.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

14. Impeachment Is Only Good In Cases Of Oral Sex And Blow Jobs nt.

[sandnsea]

22. "voice of moderation"

I guess he doesn't want to really hold Bush accountable, just "resolve this issue" and "get a pledge from the President".

I really don't know what Feingold is doing, this makes no sense at all.

[Generator]

23. See he's being diplomatic

but not saying the truth. Very very few say the truth. The war needs to end. The reason for the law breaking is the war. We are not "at war"-but we have a war going on-basically we are meddling now in the Iraqi civil war and FOR WHAT? "It may not be good to remove a president from power from a time of war". Is THAT the most bullshit you've ever heard? THE WAR IS A FRAUD. There is NO reason to be AT WAR with Iraq. When we continue the lie-this war- we will never achieve anything. And we will be on to the next war-Iran. The president deserves no quarter-he lied us into a war-the ultimate fraud against the American people. Until we have represenatives that say the truth-this war as nothing to do with 9/11-Iraq is no threat-bring the troops home-and Mr. Bush will no longer be the "war" president and have no reason to spy and break the law-since the war is his excuse.

Frankly, until there is a draft-and thousands and thousands are on the streets daily and people go to jail,and we find a leader to stop this military mindset sham-nothing is going to change. That might light enough fire under the people to find someone to tell the truth-hell maybe even elect someone. A fantasy, I know.