Digby on Huff Post: "The Dems are Missing the Boat on Feingold"

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/digby/the-dems-are-missing-the-_b_17475.html

Digby answers Democrats' reasons for not supporting Feingold:

None of these reasons hold up for me. They do not denote timidity, so much as a kind of political blindness. Let's take them one by one:

One: The port legislation was reported on CNN. And it was reported with as much fanfare as it ever would have been. But it is as dry as tinder. The mojo of that controversy is past. It did its job. It helped to further drive the president's approval ratings into the dirt and split the Republicans from the president. Any thought that the controversy could be effectively extended by legislation announced in a press conference by Nancy Pelosi is wishful thinking. That's not a good reason not to do it, of course. But it isn't an excuse to be angry at Feingold.

Two: Please tell me that the Democrats are not going to withhold criticim of Bush because it might make Republicans rally around him. Karl Rove and Tom DeLay have run the GOP with an iron fist for almost eight years. The Republicans have lost the ability to function without them. They are confused and rudderless and they will run back and forth toward Bush and against him dozens of times over the next few months. They literally don't know where to turn. Yes, Feingold probably did bring Republicans together. For five full minutes until the latest polls came in which have George W. Bush at 33% today. Do Democrats really think that Republicans can turn that around if they vote for this censure motion? (If they do then Rove and Delay have already done their jobs well. They have convinced the Democrats that the GOP is omnipotent.)

Three: It's apparently true that Feingold didn't consult with the party. But considering the response I can sort of see his point. Something dramatic had to happen to change the dynamic. If party coodination means being forced to wait for them to hold plodding press conferences about x-raying cargo boxes, then it's hard to see why anyone who wants to take the fight to the Republicans would bother.

Four: Iraq is the issue that's killing the Republicans in the polls. It is going to be with us thoughout the campaign and the Dems need to use it effectively. All national security issues, planned or otherwise, should seamlessly pivot to Iraq. If it isn't part of the agreed upon calendar of events for a particular day, then make room for it every chance you get.

Five: Well yes, by all means a strategy whereby we count on Arlen Specter to hold "real" hearings is spot on. What could possibly go wrong? Why, if we wait until after the 2008 election, he might even do it. And Democrats worry far too much about looking "silly" to beltway pundits and Republican attack dogs. They need to start worring a little bit more about how they look to their base. This image of "powerlessness" at a time when the Republicans are on the ropes is the biggest problem Democrats face for the fall elections. If Democratic pols don't understand that they are flirting with terrible grassroots defeatism, then they are going to lose. They must take action (and I don't mean boring press conferences and 10 point plans) or it won't matter a damn if the Republicans are imploding --- demoralized Democrats are not going to bother to vote. Rage is not enough. People must see that Democrats have the will to win or they are going to lose hope.

Feingold stepped up and spoke for millions of Americans who see this administration's abuse of power as a very serious matter for which this president should be held to account. We are desperate for such leadership and we care nothing about the lack of political politesse with which it was raised. The president and his party are held in very low esteem by two thirds of the country. If not now, when?

[still_one]

1. feingold spoke for me

the majority of the democrats in the senate DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. THEIR SILENCE SAYS EVERYTHING

[IndianaGreen]

2. Hear, hear!

Evan Bayh was licking the GOP's ass saying that he thought Bush did not break the law. The moron should read Bush's poll numbers in Indiana, now tanking at 37%!

[still_one]

3. WOW, he said he thought bush did NOT break the law!!!

What kind of moral authority is that?

[flpoljunkie]

5. Are you perhaps responding to another post?

[ewagner]

4. It's becoming much clearer

Look at this as a strategy....

Bush is wildly unpopular because he has made so many bone-headed moves that even his base is furious with him. The Republican strategy is to RUN AWAY FROM BUSH as fast as they can...

but....

If the Feingold Censure resolution gets debated in the Senate, either in committee or on the floor, the Republicans HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO RALLY AROUND BUSH...

Thus, the Republicans bind unto themselves all the incompetence of the Bush Administration just in time for the '06 elections.....

Risky?

Maybe

High risk...high reward. Or as my old, reprobate father used to say, "No guts, no blue chips!"

[corkerjoe]

6. Russ needs a little help

Russ Feingold has nailed their balls to a stump, he needs help setting the stump on fire.}(

[sallyseven]

9. Russ Feingold for President

[mac56]

7. K & R

nm

[kentuck]

8. This should be sent to every Democratic Congressman and Senator

It's the closest thing to a strategy against the Repubs that I have seen.

[blm]

10. Except, Mr. Digby old pal, Feingold THEN turned around and is SELLING

censure to the press as an ALTERNATIVE to the legal remedy of IMPEACHMENT which is the ONLY way that holds Bush accountable LEGALLY.

Feingold's case for censure IS strong - why did he need to sell it by using impeachment as his bogeyman, saying it' would be bad for the country in a time of war so support his "moderate" approach and MOVE ON away from legal remedy?

[flpoljunkie]

11. NO possiblity of holding Bush accountable by impeachment in the House the

way it is run with the minority having no power.

Some prospect that Schumer may hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee about the legality of the warrantless NSA wiretapping approved by Bush.

It is all about what is doable. Must the weak-kneed Dems let another opportunity pass to hold this imperial president accountable?

By standing up to Bush's overreach, we show the American people that we stand for something, and are not just hoping the electorate will be so pissed at the Republicans that they vote them out of office in November.

LIke Digby said, "If not now, when?"

[flpoljunkie]

12. That would be Specter, Judiciary Chair, not Schumer, altho he's a member

of the Judiciary Committee. Sometimes my fingers do not cooperate with my brain!

[KittyWampus]

14. After the 2006 elections, it's that simple. But Feingold has imprinted

DU'ers like a Mother Goose with her goslings.

All hail Feingold, the only Democrat with balls :eyes:

[blm]

16. Censure - YES! But don't sell it by using impeachment as the BOGEYMAN

for your case. Feingold's case is strong enough.

Why is that hard to see?

[flpoljunkie]

18. Calling Bush to account via a censure motion is smart and feasible, the

"bogeyman" of impeachment is not--not as long as the Republicans control the House. Feingold has also not ruled the "bogeyman" of impeachment out. It is far more likely that Specter will holding hearings, and Feingold will ask for a full vote on the censure resolution on the Senate floor, if it not taken up in the Judiciary Committee in a "reasonable time period."

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/20063166.html

I really don't see who is selling impeachment as the "bogeyman." Feingold surely is not.

[radio4progressives]

17. BLM - Feingold KNOWS that the DLC will NEVER Impeach.. ..

He offered it as an alternative measure, but he also stated that a Censure would not preclude impeachment, and of course you know it does not..

However, please answer this:

If you were a Junior Senator, and knew first hand - (vis a vis discussions, strategy sessions etc)that the party leadership have no intention of ever supporting impeachment (following mid-term elections victory)and will actually intend to undermine Congressman Conyer's work, knowing that in advance, what would you do?

[blm]

19. Baloney. He just went through Alito filibuster so he knows senators aren't

in lockstep formation. Alito also proved you need to ORGANIZE your actions. The filibuster should have been planeed immediately after the judiciary hearings, and instead, Kerry was forced to announce filibuster from Europe. We lost almost 2 weeks of planning on that.

And Feingold already KNEW some senators were making NSA spying a priority when they PUBLICALLY requested NSA documents on ALL spying cases. Plus, other senators had put out statements objecting to the spying when it was first revealed, so why would it be ASSUMED by you or Feingold that he would have no support for censure?

I think you have totally misread Feingld - his censure action was dramatic, and THAT I am all for, since it did get media attention, but then within two days he started selling it as an alternative to impeachment, and I think that is WRONG no matter how you spin it.

I don't agree with those who think he was grandstanding, I think he really wanted to focus attention on the debate, and then the media spin compelled him to start selling censure as an alternative to impeachment.

[ProfessorPlum]

21. You're just in a twist because your beloved Kerry is getting left behind

on this.

You know that this is a good thing. Feingold is going for censure not as something that would preclude impeachment, but rather as an additional goal. Bush should be impeached, imprisoned, censured, tarred, feathered, and be taught as a cautionary tale to our children for years to come.

Feingold speaks favorably of impeachment, and also is trying to get Bush censured, both because it is the right thing to do and because it might even be politically within reach. It is a great move for Feingold, it is a great move for Democrats.

And I was thrilled when I heard that Kerry supported his action. Now it turns out that Kerry's support was over-reported, and that it seems like he is still "considering" it. Harkin and Boxer are no longer hesitating. What does Kerry have to lose? Is he worried that the press will say he's "helping the terra-ists"?

I swear to God, what is it going to take for these Dems to wake up? The president is barely even popular with his own party anymore. Digby is right on the money.

My bet is if Kerry had had the balls and foresight to stage this move, you'd be championing it to high heaven.

[blm]

23. You read it wrong - COMPLETELY WRONG. I am FOR censure and always have

stressed that point.

I clearly state that I am for the dramatic way it was offered as THAT got attention.

I am not FOR the fact he chose to not even discuss it with any other senator first. And I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to his using impeachment as his bogeyman.

I can't believe people here at DU agree with Feingold that Bush shouldn't be impeached at a time of a war and that it is appropriate to sell censure as an ALTERNATIVE to impeachment.

I subnmit that the censure case is strong enough on its own merits and that Feingold doesn't NEED to remark negatively on impeachment in order to make his case.

Kerry supports censure after further investigation. Isn't that exactly what Feingold wants? Why support the immediate up/or down vote on censure that the GOP wants? Feingold said early last week he was pleased it was moved into committee and NOT forced to vote on it right away. It gives other judiciary Dems the basis for further access to NSA documents.

Methinks your comprehension gear needs some tweaking. I have not made one unreasonable point, and I think many of you have misread much of the entire debate to fit your corporate media spin against the Dems and internal discord.

BTW - since when is it a good thing to reference Alito and revise what went down then to change the storyline?

[ProfessorPlum]

26. Feingold's position is excellent for all Democrats - I just wish he had

more support.

"I am not FOR the fact he chose to not even discuss it with any other senator first."

Because, presumably, all the other senators have been doing such a great job. Since, even now, he can only get, what, two other senators to fully support his resolution, I'm sure they would have been really gung ho about his idea.

"I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to his using impeachment as his bogeyman."

I have to object to this characterization. I watched his press conference and heard what he said and it was clear to me that if it was within Russ Feingold's power to impeach this idiot, he would do it. That's what his strike zone comment was about. People keep saying he shouldn't have brought up impeachment, and he didn't. He was asked about it by a reporter. And he said it wasn't the right thing at this time. And I agree with him - after the 2006 elections will be soon enough.

Feingold never said Bush shouldn't be impeached at this time - he said Bush has done something which is exactly what the founders had in mind when they created impeachment - and gave a throwaway excuse about it so that he could get right back to talking about what he wanted to talk about. You and I both know that Bush will not be impeached at this time.

His remarks on impeachment were barely negative. Since he can't start impeachment, and since impeachment is currently politically impossible (when even his own colleages won't support even CENSURE) at this time, he acted like there was some legitimate reason he didn't want it. But he left the door WIDE open on the possibilities . . .

"Kerry supports censure after further investigation. Isn't that exactly what Feingold wants?"

No. Feingold can see that Bush clearly has already admitted breaking the law, and that is enough for censure. Feingold wants censure based on what we already know. AND he wants further investigation with further consequences. But Feingold is calling for censure NOW, not after further investigation, because he knows there will be no further investigation. All of the committees have already voted to have no investigation, so what is there to wait for? You know Spectre is not going to do anything with this.

[blm]

30. Feingold said on Ed Schultz he was pleased that censure was in committee

because it allowed for further debate and investigation.

And be clear about the press conference, Feingold specified he wanted censure to "RESOLVE" accountability for Bush.

Als, do you recall ANY Kerry supporter snarkily characterizing ANY Dem as being left behind because they made the decision to not lead a filibuster on Alito? I don't. I recall only working to help the effort, not mischaracterize other Dems, especially when they came out and spoke positively about the effort.

[Mass]

29. If you want to know where Kerry stands, call his office.

rather than relying on whatever you read wherever?

For the rest, God, Kerry said the first day he wanted to hold Bush accountable. I know your attention's span is short, but he certainly has more balls than YOU have.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. Mr. Balls "hasn't decided" yet, as far as I've heard.

I called both of my senators that day and talked to their phone people and got the tepid, they "have not decided" response.

But what I heard that first day was that people who were calling Kerry and Kennedy's offices was that Kennedy "hadn't decided" but that Kerry was supporting the resolution. That made me happy.

Then, it turned out that Kerry really didn't support the resolution, but "hadn't decided".

Now, I know my attention span is short, but I do remember being happy that Kerry supported censure, and then disappointed that he "hadn't decided". Do you know something different? I'm all ears.

[Mass]

36. I called both of my Senators.

Kerry was decided. Kennedy has not.

I dont know where you heard the "has not decided" rumor. I would be curious to know.

BTW, half of humanity has no balls and a lot are among the most courageous people in the world.

[blm]

37. He spoke positively about censure and when Feingold moved it into

committee it changed the focus to further investigation and further debate, just as Feingold wanted in the first place.

Is that a problem for you?

Did people attack Feingold or any other Dem gratuitously when Kerry was stuck leading on Alito? Not that I recall.

Why do you find it important to attack a Dem who was the FIRST to speak out positively about Feingold's censure? You act as if he spoke against it.

Why?

[ProfessorPlum]

40. I'm sorry, WHO is attacking Dems here?

I seem to recall some harsh words for you about a certain senator Feingold somewhere on this thread.

I was thrilled when Kerry lead on the cloture vote on Alito. And also when he spoke up for Feingold's resolution.

So why isn't his name on it?

[blm]

44. Because it moved into committee where it better supports investigatigation

and furthering the debate - just as Feingold said he wanted early last week. during his Ed Schultz interview.

I'm not attacking Feingold for submitting censure - I support censure 100%. I also support impeachment since Conyers hearings on Iraq last year. And there is nothing inconsistent about being pissed that AFTER Feingold submitted censure resolution, he decided to SELL it to the press by using impeachment as his bogeyman.

You think it's a grand tactic - fine for you. I think it's wrong for any senator to pre-judge an impeachment case that has been gathering strength in the house.

[ProSense]

20. What's with trying to kill impeachment? Bush is a damn criminal. n/t

[ProfessorPlum]

22. Feingold is certainly not trying to kill impeachment.

He's a senator, though, and impeachment starts in the House.

[blm]

24. Read his press conference.

It may be that he's not trying to kill impeachment, and I don't think that was his intent. However, he did decide to SELL censure to the press by using impeachment as his "bad for the country at a time of war" bogeyman.

I think his case for censure was strong enough where he shouldn't have even referenced impeachment to sell it, let alone the obvious wrong of ANY senator pre-judging a house's impeachment case, especially one that has been growing in strength lately.

[ProfessorPlum]

27. Again, I watched his press conference

He's not selling censure because impeachment is bad . . . he's selling censure by pointing out the president broke the law, in a way that was certainly within the realm of the impeachable.

I just wish some of the other Democratic senators had stepped forward in this way earlier, or would support this now. What are they waiting for, again? Bush's numbers to fall into the 20's?

[blm]

32. READ THE TRANSCRIPT. It's CLEAR he decided to sell censure as alternative

to impeachment.

[ProfessorPlum]

35. Censure is all he can get for now

This is called playing up your strengths. He also spoke very positively of impeachment at various times.

The first person that steps forward and makes the well-reasoned case that Feingold is making for censure (but makes it for impeachment), will ALSO have my support.

Feingold is trying to herd the cats in the press to think about what he is proposing, not impeachment. Ja get it?

[blm]

38. So he's STRATEGICALLY using impeachment as a bogeyman for the press boys.

Well, DUH.... That's exactly my beef with it, PP.

He doesn't NEED to do that, since his case for censure is STRONG ENOUGH.

[ProfessorPlum]

41. Do you really think that after reading or seeing his comments,

someone would think, "Feingold will never support impeachment"? I mean, really?

[blm]

42. Not the point is it? The point is he's not helping impeachment by

pre-judging it as bad for the country at a time of war AND offering censure as a MODERATE approach to accountability knowing that's a slap on the wrist and NOT a legal remedy.

He clearly states that he wants censure to RESOLVE Bush's accountability. There is no spinning it any other way.

[ProSense]

25. Read his comments

Impeachment may originate in the House, but the Senate convicts. He doesn't have to support impeachment, and obviously didn't when he made these remarks at a press conference. A lot of Senators, who were called cowards, are are stepping up to provide cover.

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

[ProfessorPlum]

28. Well, I'll tell you what

the other Democratic senators should feel free to make Feingold look bad and too cautious by standing up and loudly calling for impeachment, then. When they do that, they'll have my support, too. Until then, I'll take what I can get. Bush should be impeached, censured, spat at, ridiculed, tarred, feathered, blocked, frog-marched, and shunned.

Why can't we do them all? Let's start by supporting Feingold's measure, which seems to be criticized here for not being bold enough. Is that really the problem?

[ProSense]

31. It's being criticized because of how it was presented and framed.

Not getting support and framing it as an alternative because impeachment would be bad for the country during a time of war hampered the move to begin with.

[blm]

33. We're ALL for censure - we want it sold on its own merits because the case

is strong enough for it. We DON'T want ANY senator pre-judging the house's impeachment case or USING impeachment asa bogeyman to sell censure as the "modearte" approach to accountability. And there is no way else to interpret Feingold's press conference remarks.

We are FOR Feingold's censure - we are also for the house's gathering impeachment case and know it shouldn't be dangled before the DC press as a bogeyman.

[ProfessorPlum]

39. Fine. I would submit that Feingold really isn't hurting the effort

for impeachment to the extent that you are presenting it. He came right out and stated that he believes these are impeachable offenses, for weeping out loud.

And, by positioning himself as "reasonable" on this issue, he can get farther with the press, which will pee its collective pants if Papa George is threatened with impeachment. Have you seen Conyers' forum covered anywhere else but at C-SPAN?

I think we can have censure and impeachment, too, and you know this and Feingold knows it, too. If he admits this is the first step towards impeachment, as Brit Hume so tremblingly put it on Faux the other day, then he can move close enough to stick the shiv in.

"Impeachment? Why no, I don't think that's prudent at this time. I just want to censure an obvious violation of the law". Once he gets everyone on record as seeing this as clear lawbreaking (and we win back both houses), don't you think that gets him even closer to impeachment?

I thought you were always going on about people who play chess and can see a few moves ahead.

[blm]

43. Nope - I'm not into the chess analogy.

Sorry, but I wish I could change his argument his the way you do. I can't. I believe that when he says he wants censure to "resolve" the issue of accountability for Bush and that impeachment is bad for the country at a time of war, he means it. I don't think he's a game player and never would think to put him in that mold, even if it better fits a storyline. I respect his overall sense of service for that.

You should know by now I fall down on the side of accuracy, constructiveness, and historic record.

While I applaud his action for its constructive role of furthering the investigation of NSA spying, I am annoyed by his strategy of selling it as an alternative to impeachment which NO senator should even reference since it's the house's territory and they are pre-judging the case.

[stickdog]

45. No President has ever been impeached when his party controlled

the House.

So why is this even a point of contention other than the fact that Feingold's initials are not JFK?

[Vinca]

13. I've been thinking about Feingold's resolution over the weekend

and even though I don't believe it was a political ploy, I'm thinking it will benefit him BIG TIME among Democrats down the road, even if nothing comes of it. For some strange reason, the vast majority of our representatives in Congress either don't hear us, don't want to hear us or don't try to hear us. Feingold is the exception. Add to that his intelligence, compassion and charisma and we've got ourselves a winner!

[DaveT]

15. Political Ployness

The funniest strand in the snarling farce of American politics in this post-open-vote-count era is the GOP allegation that Feingold's proposal is a "political ploy."

In the first place, what is wrong with a political "ploy"?

PLOY: deceptive tactic: a tactic or maneuver, especially one calculated to deceive or frustrate an opponent

Of course, the adjective "deceptive" sounds suspicious, but what is wrong with trying to frustrate one's political opponents? Applied to Feingold, the "deception" could only mean that the senator knows that his resolution has no chance of passing and so his proposal is advanced for the ulterior motive of "frustrating" his opponents. I really cannot think of any other sense in which this "ploy" is deceptive.

Feingold is indeed trying to force his Senate colleagues to take a stand on President Bush's public promise to defy the law. Rather than expecting the craven and complicit members of the Senate to take a stand, he is using this ploy to expose the lot of them as co-conspirators. The ploy is working.


In the second place, the GOP is the font of a host of political ploys with no chance of ever becoming law, most notably a series of proposed Constitutional amendments about Federal budget deficits, the burning of the American flag and the definition of "marriage." These political "ploys" are all intended to jack up the GOP base with a political pipe dream. The only difference between these cynical ploys and Feingold's lonely stance is that the GOP hacks pushing their crap have no sincere desire to amend the Constitution for these dopey propositions - but Feingold is deadly serious about wanting to hold Bush accountable for his defiance of the law.


In the third place, early polling on the Feingold proposition shows that the anti-Bush majority does not strongly support either censure or impeachment. Rather than pandering to an existing prejudice or public anger as the Republicans do with their silly Constitutional amendment campaigns, Feingold is trying to change minds. In fact, the GOP calling Feingold's proposal a ploy is actually a ploy in itself.



Turning to the elected Democrats who are distancing themselves from Feingold, it is important to remember that politicians are always cowards. Bold politicians either come from "safe" districts or they are noble losers. Thus the habit of never going out on a limb becomes second nature for these cretins.

WE,the PEOPLE must never count on politicians to lead us. We must put heat on them to get anything done.

Now, they think they are seeing the fruits of their cowardly wisdom bearing fruit -- having given Bush almost everything he asked for, Bush's own incompetence and the contradictions within his support base have combined to drive his approval ratings down into Carter and Poppy levels. Now, they believe is the worst time to do anything to upset the dynamic in play -- a massive GOP meltdown.

Based on their individual calculations for future campaign contributions, stature within the Beltway echo chamber and their chances for re-election, few of these weasels are making the "wrong" decision by letting Feingold, Harkin and Brown carry on this lonely fight.

We should ask ourselves why we do not believe that politics as usual makes any sense in 2006 -- and that easy question should motivate us to put as much pressure on those incumbent cowards as we can to take a public stand against the destruction of the Constitution.

This is a Constitutional Crisis, even if the Mainstream Media refuses to report this fact on the evening news. Let's crank up the pressure every day and in every way.

We cannot let the fact that politicians tend to be hacks cloud our vision of what needs to be done.