This is why some best dem Senators were censure-shy:

[thereismore]

Maybe this is not an original idea. If it isn't please forgive me. I seriously think that there are some good dem Senators out there who did not support censure because they think it is premature. They are thinking: "if we censure him now, how can articles of impeachment be brought later?" I think it would be difficult to include the FISA lawbreaking as part of impeachment in 2007, if he got censured for it in 2006. I know, one is a Senate matter and the other is a House matter, but you bet your boots that repugs would start screaming in 2007 about censure if it did happen.

[Journeyman]

1. I've read recently that (right or wrong) . . .

some are shy of censure and impeachment talk for fear it will galvanize BushCo supporters to go to the polls in November so as to maintain a Republican majority and so avoid the ultimate showdown.

[Dhalgren]

3. You mean all 34% of them?

[Journeyman]

11. I think there fear is that it will tip the balance in undecided areas. . .

places where Republicans outnumber Democrats and where the hope is the Republican voter will be discouraged and potentially not go to the polls. Also, whether a Republican supporter likes or dislikes George Bush, they may vote to "protect" him by maintaining Republican control not so much to protect George W. as to protect their interests and the power of their elected representatives (a power they may perceive as facing erosion if Bush is impeached).

Again, not saying this is right or wrong, just explaining one possible cause for Democratic reluctance. If true, it would need to be addressed in any effort to sway the effected Democratic representatives and candidates. And of course, anyone who remembers 2004 and the uses the Republicans made of local anti-gay and anti-abortion issues to get-out-the-vote, can see the potential for censure or impeachment to generate a kneejerk response.


On edit: Further reading (Kos & Digby) finds this issue may be a story placed by Republican operatives to discourage Democratic response to censure and impeachment. If so, there's even less reason to give it account, though in particular instances it may indeed motivate some Democratic politicians. As Digby pointed out, however, it may in fact motivate the Republican faithful and the Democrats may be unwise to push it for this reason (snark). But what are the Democrats going to do to motivate their base?

[gunsaximbo]

28. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON the money!

You got it! Finally someone who understands WHY they are not censuring - - - at this moment. Because the Republican base will come together to support Bush and the Republicans we are trying to get out of office.

I've been freeped for the last two days over this and you are the first person who actually understands what is going on.

Thanks for your post

Here is more support for you and for me.

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0603160158mar16,0,6825867.column?coll=chi-ed_opinion_columnists-utl>

Gunsaximbo

[Blaze Diem]

14. Ha..(snort)

all 34% of them...that's not much is it! lol

oh ya baby!! George has a freakin, whoppin 34%...and they all work for him!

[karynnj]

34. Not 34%, the point is that some Republicans who now

say they disapprove of Bush may come back. If they see the threat of censure implying the threat of impeachment, they could be afraid to let the Democrats have power. On way that this perception is fed are comments that Clinton's impeachment led to him not be as fully focused on other things. I actually think this wasn't true - he's great at compartmentalizing, but it's often been said.

I do think a Bush administration would essentially go into lockdown mode if impeachment was started. As I think most of what they are doing is bad, stopping it is good and career service people exist in all organizations so things will still work. There are people who will be afraid of this in a "time of war".

[gasperc]

5. in March? the GOP voted for impeachment

[Journeyman]

12. Thanks for sentence fragment. It was very

[Doctor_J]

16. So in other words they're taking their instructions from hate radio

which comes directly from Rove. Great idea!

[gunsaximbo]

2. Thank YOU!

There are a lot of "people" in DU that don't have a clue. They think the Dem Senators should be frog marching bush out of the white house. LITERALLY!

They think they know all as they sit behind their computers and type away while the Senators are on the floor communicating with everyone involved.

Give the Senators a break.

[Dhalgren]

4. Right, the stupid peasants should just keep their mouths shut

and let their Betters tell them what is right and what is wrong. No point in us worrying our dim little heads about it...:eyes:

[gunsaximbo]

29. I can't argue with that.

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0603160158mar16,0,6825867.column?coll=chi-ed_opinion_columnists-utl>

[Webster Green]

9. Communicating with everyone involved?

Oh great! That's really working well. :eyes:

I guess it's asking too much for them to respond to a constitutional crisis? :shrug:

[gunsaximbo]

30. Read this and you MIGHT understand why they are not voting TODAY for Censu

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0603160158mar16,0,6825867.column?coll=chi-ed_opinion_columnists-utl>

[MadMaddie]

23. Somebody correct me if I am wrong...but we the people

put the Senators in their places of position.....we voted for them...right?

So if we the constituents would like to check in once in awhile and hold them accountable and ask them to tell us what the hell they are doing...do we not have the right as constituents to know this information?

Is it too much to ask for a plan...not just for censure but for...oh let's say an agenda...they have had 6 years....

Do we expect them to march lock step on every issue, absolutely not...but when it is obvious that their individual steadfast beliefs are hurting not only the constituents but the country.....we expect them to form a wall...and do something...

You know how we expect Congress to have oversight over what the White House does?

Well we the people must have oversight of our elected Democratic Congress members to ensure that they are doing what we want!

That's all...I don't think it's too much to ask for!!

[gunsaximbo]

31. Agenda? I love Russ Feingold but he wasn't following the agenda

The agenda this week and next week is. ELECTION.

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0603160158mar16,0,6825867.column?coll=chi-ed_opinion_columnists-utl>

[0007]

36. You've been here a month and now your a KIA..(Know It All)

[gunsaximbo]

37. I knew it all before I came here...

If I wanted to be insulted I would have gone to conservative underground. Maybe that's where you belong - freeper.

[gunsaximbo]

38. You've been here forever and still know nothing?

[0007]

40. You got it KIA, LOL!!

[Minnesota Libra]

6. So we are supposed to allow our Constitution and our country........

.....to be ripped to shreds even more than it has been so far because censure might be premature?? Am I understanding this right??:shrug:

Wouldn't a Senate censure later on support the need for a House impeachment??

From my way of thinking it isn't like these WH criminals haven't done so much that a censure on one issue and a impeachment on another issue couldn't be easily supported.

If your claims are true then why not just jump on board and bow down to the boy king and get it over with??:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[thereismore]

19. Hey, fcuk the boy king. I was just saying what they may be

thinking. I myself would much rather censure him right away, hell, impeach him right away!

[dusmcj]

7. have enough to censure, then censure. have enough to impeach...

then impeach.

[still_one]

8. first of all impeachment is done in the house, NOT the senate

second, the repukes have decided to backroom the FISA violation to a limited number of people, and then change the law.

It really comes down to this though

If you don't censure for violation of the FISA act, then you support the administration breaking the FISA act

It really is that simple, along with seperation of powers

[thereismore]

15. I know where impeachment starts. Read the original post.

All I'm saying is, this could be their frame of mind.

[sendero]

22. Based on the history..

... of the Dem senate, I have a more plausible theory. They are all useless, timid, hand-wringing appeasers who's only concern is holding on to their perk-encrusted jobs.

We've waited for 5 effing years for them to do something, ANYTHING, to regulate the Bush** demolition derby. But no, there is no task too small for them to weasel out of with a myriad of bullshit excuses.

Nobody had to read the "Patriot" act in order to vote on it, but this important complex move must be studied until it goes away.

I've had enough of this crap. Those of you still accepting excuses are effing CHUMPS.

[thereismore]

24. You are right. That's much more plausible. I was just dreaming. nt

[sendero]

25. Sorry..

... my vitriol was not aimed at you, I'm just fed up with the glacial pace of nothing happening :)

[ChiciB1]

27. Well, I'm NO Chump!

But I must say I'm CONFUSED!! Why would WAITING to Impeach even be an option??

For crying out loud, to Impeach This Idiot means we get a Gun-Toting Snarling heap of Buck Shot! Uh, I think his name is Cheney, a Dick that is. I SERIOUSLY doubt that the Dems are ever going to do the IMPEACH thing, and even though I would LOVE to see the ass-wipe gone... I don't see what good Impeachment does!

Now, if on the other hand, we could IMPEACH all the "corrupt ones" then you have my vote! All this Impeachment stuff is just that.... STUFF!

As for WHY Censure doesn't have more support, I can only presume it's what you say. They're doing the C.Y.A. Dance! I realize we need to regain control of Congress, but I must ask beforehand, do we really know what we are going to get?? I don't really want to jump on Dems, but why are do they give us to much ammunition???

Oh, Wait! Maybe they have a plan!!!

[sendero]

32. Sorry to break the news...

... we've ALREADY got Cheney. :)

Yeah, maybe they have a plan. But you'll forgive me if I've heard this stuff before.

You can only let a person down so many times before a rational person starts expecting to be let down. I'd love to be wrong. We'll see.

[ChiciB1]

41. Hey... My "Plan" Thing Was Tongue In Cheek!".... n/t

[quisp]

10. Because the House brings articles of Impeachment...

Censure is, like Feingold told Soledad O'Brien, the only recourse the Senate has.

It would have zero effect on articles of impeachment.

[ladjf]

13. OK. I've got the most optimistic theory yet as to why the Dems

have not supported the censure. Maybe they are luring Frist into forcing the vote, at which time all Dems will vote yes, and maybe even a Pub or two. (I don't really think that this is likely to be the case so don't flame me)

[abbiehoff]

17. If only

They won't of course, because they never do (act together).

And I'm not flaming, just observing.

[ladjf]

18. While out of power in Washington, the quality of the Democratic

leadership as deteriorated. Part if that is attributable to the series of key assassinations. Part is because the remaining Democratic leadership that was focused on humanistic ideals was unable to comprehend the full depravity of the Republican thugs. In fact, I don't think they've gotten it yet.
And without a full understanding of the corrupt nature of the enemy, it is difficult to overcome them. I believe that the American people themselves will finally make their power known in one way or another and lead the way to America resuming it's march toward better quality for life on Earth.

[thereismore]

20. Democracies have always been ineffective in resisting fascism. nt

[ladjf]

21. Yes, mainly due to the fact that fascist governments financially

reward those who are in collusion with them. They simply buy the lawmakers.

[guidod]

26. A censure by the Senate would

make it that much easier for the House to Impeach. I don't understand what you're saying.

[Disturbed]

33. It is really this simple.

If any Senators don't censure for violation of the FISA Law, then they support the administration violating the FISA Law.

[guidod]

35. That's not true at all

Cowards yes, but I don't think they support the administration violating the FISA law. I totally disagree with what dem senators are doing and think they should all stand up and support Feingolds censure resolution. They know that Rove and the rest of the repugs would start saying they're anti-american, they don't support the troops and they're siding with the terrorists. They also know that the repug media machine, CNN FOX MSNBC, would start doing the same thing. The dem senators know they have the majority of the voting population with them and feel it could hurt them in the 2006 mid-term elections. I don't think they support the administration in wire tapping though.

[gunsaximbo]

39. You sound just like the Chimp

"If yer not with us, yer agin us"