What is Kerry's position on Feingold Censure resolution

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

I have heard his staff as quoted that he supports, but have heard him quoted as saying he was studying it (this was about a week ago)

anyone know his official position? thanks.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I think Kerry is in favor but doesn't want to turn off right wingers

Maybe it's because I'm Cuban and our emotions run high, but I wish all Democrats, no exceptions, not even if they're Senators, would get out there and yell, "CENSURE THE CRIMINAL!" rather than take an elegant pose, use elegant words and stand away from the issue.

[blm]

35. He isn't. Dems are using censure to demand NSA documents to assist

them in investigating the spying. Just as Feingold wanted. It's the GOPs and obtuse left bloggers who clamored for immediate declarations of support.

Why would any Democrat side with the GOPs who wanted senators to declare their position on censure right away so they could avoid further investigation, have their vote and move on?

[MODemocrat]

49. Bush needs to apologize to this country

Censuring him would be the perfect way to make him admit he's been wrong about a thing or two. He's told so many lies, I think he actually believes them now. :nopity: :spank:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zulchzulu]

4. His office says he supports it...Who's your senator?

I don't give a rat's ass about your Kerry bashing...just wondering who your senator is... is it also Ted Kennedy?

Why no baby noises about him?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

26. So who do you think is not a wimp? n/t

[Mass]

28. You talk like a Romney's friend here.

Dont care what your site says.

[wisteria]

5. This is just an untrue slime posting against Kerry.

Your lack of understanding and knowledge about this situation and the obvious lack of proper research, leads me to believe that you would be as ineffective as an anti-Kerry antagonist during his next election as you are trying to make a point with your silly post.

[TayTay]

8. 60% approval rating for Kerry in MA according to the Globe 3/12/06

Maybe that disgust is a 'hidden factor' and will come out at some secret time that you know about the rest of us in the state don't.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

16. It's excellent to know

that you will be devoting your time energy and money to a futile attempt at "unseating" a good Democratic Senator.

Actually it IS excellent to know that one less anti-Democrat will be pretending to be "helping" the progressive cause. Isn't it about time for you to head back to counterpuke and/or freakrepublik?

[Mass]

21. God, a Romney friend here.

[tatertop]

6. Actually, he is so boring he put himself to sleep two weeks ago

[wisteria]

7. Hey

How old are you? I use to babysit five year olds who could come up with smarter comments that actually contained an element of truth to them. Your comment is just lame and obviously untrue. When you grow up I would suggest that you actually listen carefully to what Senator Kerry says- he has been correct on at least 90% of the things he talked about during the election and since that time.

[tatertop]

29. Saw him speak in person twice. He is boring.

[LittleClarkie]

33. He's pretty groovy when he's pissed off though

We just have to find ways to keep him pissed off.

[blm]

36. Not to me - but, then, I love intelligent men and have utmost respect for

those who work to uncover government corruption - that takes a great deal of risk. I guess that could be boring to someone who has no respect for the corruption fighters.

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. I've seen him speak in person three times, and met him

He is far from boring. In fact, he's the most charismatic person I've ever met - the man exudes charm, wit, and gravitas.

I'm sorry he didn't say "fuck" or blow something up or perform some other inane childish stunt to appease your ADD attention span.

[TayTay]

9. Yeah, I kind of figured that out.

This seems like one of those sleep-typing posts. Perhaps a doctor's visit is in order, it might cure that 'Restless Typing Syndrome.'

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. Man, this thread is BRINGING THEM OUT IN FORCE!

AMAZING how the name "Kerry" brings out all the disruptors! It's the best trollbait in the world!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

27. Which Senator , Representative and Pres. candidate got your vote? n/t

[tatertop]

30. When push comes to shove he is a horrible candidate.

Try listing his positions on major issues.
Good luck and good night.

We need Gore.

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. I can read, therefore I know his positions on major issues

If you cannot read, I can see where this might be a problem.

And in response to your other post, yes, I find that people who seek out threads merely to post ignorant, childish one-liners free of actual thought or analysis and which serve only to spread division are, in all likelihood, disruptors of some sort.

[tatertop]

32. Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is a troll or disruptor

Kerry lost once. Kerry would lose again.
This party needs to move along.

[incapsulated]

10. Kerry will reject the resolution because...

His Skull and Bones co-conspirators told him to! It's all part of the PLAN which will involve disappearing Feingold in a freak air balloon "accident" that will pave the way for Manchurian Candidate Kerry to take the reins from his good buddy (and secret half-brother) Bush and continue the PNAC agenda! His mind control pre-programming will then kick in anytime someone says the words "would you like to play a game of TWISTER??" After which he will nuke Switzerland.

[TayTay]

11. Damn, now you have to be neutralized

Those plans were supposed to remain secret. I'm telling The High Command in Arkham Mass that you are on to them. Sigh! It's going to be a long weekend at the 'delete and redo' section of the Organization.

[incapsulated]

12. I am protected from any and all attempts at neutralization

That's what the hat is for!

:tinfoilhat:

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Easiest way to find out is to call his office tomorrow and ask

Many others have called and reported that yes, he will support it.

[zulchzulu]

17. Yep..I called...he's for it...here's the number

[phone]

[MH1]

18. Aw c'mon now! Why spoil the

"let's bash Kerry" party with facts or (gasp) actual effort to find out?

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. True, threads like this are quite useful

The name "Kerry" brings 'em out like no other.

It's like MAGIC!

[Mass]

22. You can update your ignore list. at least

[Mass]

20. Call his office if you want to know - I did and I know.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Will he then be signing on as a Co-Sponsor of Censure Resolution, S.398?

[blm]

34. Dem senators are using censure now to demand NSA documents since

they NEED to investigate further before they decide to censure. That's why Feingold is glad that censure is in committee instead of senators being pressured into declaring their position right away the way the GOPs wanted.

I am always surprised that so many Dems don't GET THE POINT here.

[flpoljunkie]

37. We all understand all too well what is going on--"duck and cover."

The media focuses on the non-support for the censure because that is what they do--focus on the controversial.

[blm]

38. I do - the corporate media ignored the senators supporting Feingold and

and those who have spoken positively about censure and who support investigating NSA spying by judiciary committee members - like Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin and Jeffords, while they focus on the stray Democrat who doesn't support censure or investigation and spin the story against the whole Dem party.

[flpoljunkie]

45. Beinart makes a point in "Big Russ" you would appreciate re investigation

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060403&s=trb040306

So Democrats should only eschew censure if, by so doing, they can make censure and impeachment what they historically have been: constitutional weapons wielded in only the rarest, gravest of circumstances. And that depends on the GOP. Prominent Republicans don't talk much about Clinton's impeachment today; it doesn't quite square with their more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger fretting about Bush hatred. But I don't know of a single major Republican politician or conservative pundit who has admitted the obvious: that impeaching Clinton was a farce and a disgrace, the likes of which we should pray never to see again. The Republican strategy on Feingold's censure effort is to keep calling it absurd without engaging it on the merits But, on the merits, Feingold's case is much stronger. As former Reagan-era Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein has put it, Bush's actions are "more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath, because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages." If Republicans want to keep suggesting that censure (let alone impeachment) is a singularly extreme act to be taken only when our constitutional system is in peril, then they need to apologize for what happened in 1999. I'm not holding my breath.

But what about question number two: Is censure good for the Democrats? The conventional wisdom is that, by making Democrats look radical, Feingold has shot his party in the foot, if not the head. But some radicalism is politically useful, particularly in the long run. Liberal bloggers often make this point, and they're right: Occasionally you need to stake a position beyond what is mainstream in Washington--and take some hits--in the hope that you eventually redefine what "mainstream" is. Social Security privatization has always been a political loser for the GOP, and yet, by sticking with it for decades, they have made it politically respectable and shifted the terms of debate. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a huge backlash when they pushed gay marriage, but, by putting it on the political agenda, they made civil unions--once a radical position itself--the centrist alternative.

So there's a value for Democrats in having Russ Feingold inject censure into the political debate. (In fact, a Newsweek poll found that 42 percent of Americans support the idea--more than backed the president's Social Security plan.) With censure as the extreme position, a full, tough investigation of the surveillance program now looks sober and reasonable, whereas, not long ago, that too might have seemed beyond the pale.

The challenge for Democrats, as The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne has pointed out, is to let some people push the bounds of acceptable opinion while others use the specter of radicalism to make modest, incremental progress. The press fetishizes party unity, but, in a way, what the Democrats need is creative disunity: different kinds of politicians who pursue different tactics but agree on a broader goal. Washington Democrats may not like Russ Feingold very much these days, but they--and the country--need him all the same.

[blm]

46. to an extent. I don't think senators much agreed with the suddenness of

the censure without talking to them, but I think they moved beyond that quickly to say let's USE CENSURE to force investigation.

Most media still hasn't caught on or they're awful quiet about it.

[flpoljunkie]

48. Am unsure, but hope that they will use censure to force an investigation.

Let's see what unfolds in the next few weeks.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

25. time for trolls to put away their toys and goto bed...

If you hurry, we'll buy you a brand new toy made by a labor union in Alabama.

[laugle]

39. Can we ever have a CIVIL discussion re Kerry? The OP

asked a question. I think it deserves an answer........

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. If he would follow the advice given in this thread, he would know

How hard is it to pick up a phone and dial ten digits?

Blame the incivility on the people who, upon seeing the name "Kerry," must rush to disrupt with their idiotic and thoroughly unclever snark. Two of the three have been deleted, so evidently the moderators agree that their disruptions are not welcome.

[laugle]

43. I noticed all the deletions but maybe that's the reason

for the ignore button.

And as far as incivility goes, I've seen it go both ways here. I'm really not into preaching, but I tuned into the thread to see what Kerry's position was on the Censure subject and just get tired of the bickering.

We all have strong opinions on candidates, in the end I'm sure we will all come together.

Lively debates are great, but snipeing at each other is useless, the whole discussion gets lost......

For one poster to get chewed out just for saying "Kerry is boring" IMO, is silly. He/She is entitled to their opinion.

[WildEyedLiberal]

44. When you've seen certain posters have a history of unhelpful one liners...

... eventually you get fed up with it and realize that they're just disrupting. How is "Kerry is boring" a legitimate answer to "what's Kerry's position on the censure"? It's not. It's completely unnecessary and completely unrelated to the question posed by the OP.

All the deleted messages were disruptors who came into this thread to whine about how much Kerry sucks. Is it any wonder people get fed up with it, when it's so blatant, so off-topic, and so obviously designed to disrupt?

You're right, people should be able to discuss Kerry without a flamewar, but until the childish disruptors stop pooping in every thread with their inane "Kerry SUX!!!" turds, I'm afraid the situation isn't going to improve.

[laugle]

51. With all due respect, I think you may have a

bias for Kerry. Would you be as adamant about Hillary?

We who like Hillary don't bother to post much on her, because we know there are many Hillary haters.

I remember posting that Kerry was a day late and a dollar short. I didn't think that was bashing, since he did IMO, seem to be coming in late on many things.

I guess my point is that,some people are clearly disappointed with Kerry's performance in the last election and simply don't support him now. I think they are just frustrated and need to vent.

I have no doubt that if he won the nomination in 2008 we would all support him then.

Posts like "Kerry is boring" don't need a reply, they should be ignored, and I agree it has nothing to do with the OP. But that's life here on DU!

[blm]

47. And the answers are there. Kerry spoke positively about censure and joins

with other senators like kennedy, Durbin and Leahy who want to use censure to force investigation of NSA spying - and exactly why Feingold moved censure into committee.

[laugle]

50. Thank you, appreciate that! n/t

[karynnj]

56. You've gotten the answer

- His office indicated he would vote for it if it came to the floor.
- He is not a sponsor
- He called for an independent investigation - so he is likely with the vast majority of Democratic Senators who wanted this investigated as their are things still not known (like who was spyed on) because it is bad and it is important. A vote now could lead to a vindication of Bush.
- He has repeatedly said that Bush broke the law.

Many people have answered this - it is all that any of us know. This is at least the third thread that asks specificly for Kerry's position. What about the other 40 or so Democratic Senators not supporting it.

Were there 3 threads asking why Feingold didn't sign the WMD part 2 investigation letter? NO.

I hope this is sufficiently civil.

[pstans]

52. I agree about Feingold's goal

being to continue the investigation. However, I think more than 3 Senators coming out and supporting it would have been a good idea. It has just made the base of the Democratic party feel that they have no voice in the Senate.

[karynnj]

53. Far more than three Senators spoke to the

need to have more investigations -

Leahy and Kennedy even submited legislation demanding it. Durbin on the floor of the Senate asked for it within minutes of Feingold's speech - He and Spector debated. Spector listed things we don't know. Kerry called for an independent invesigator in January.

I doubt this list is comprehensive - but there are 5 Senators not in your count. Not backing Censure doesn't mean not backing investigation.

[pstans]

54. You missed my point

My point is that the Democratic base wants censure (actually wants impeachment) and only 3 Senators came out and supported it. That makes the base, the people that the Democratic Party relies on to get elected, feel that there aren't any Senators on their side.

[karynnj]

55. Part of the problem is that the suvey asked a yes/no question

I would bet if you asked a question where you explained the issue and gave 3 options; accept that Bush did this, censure Bush, conduct invesstigations to learn more of the facts - you would get different results.

The other thing is that if a vote is held some Senators not sponsoring the bill will vote for it.

I also assume that if you questioned the Democratic base they would vot that the second part of the WMD investigation be done, it would be overwhelming too - but only Kerry and 9 others signed the letter. (This is probably Bush's biggest crime)