"Censoring Censure" by the Nation's John Nichols

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060410/nichols

Censoring Censure

by JOHN NICHOLS

Unfortunately, the group of Americans that mattered most in the immediate aftermath of Feingold's announcement, his Democratic colleagues, displayed little enthusiasm for a fight. No one doubts that most, if not all, Senate Democrats share John Kerry's tepid but true "I think he broke the law" statement. This was Kerry's assessment of the President's refusal to follow the guidelines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires a warrant for domestic wiretaps, when he directed the National Security Agency to begin listening in on the phone conversations of Americans without required judicial oversight. Yet only Iowa's Tom Harkin and California's Barbara Boxer expressed support for Feingold's censure motion before senators exited Washington for spring break. While Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee hailed Feingold's motion as a "positive" vehicle for promoting debate about constitutional concerns, the majority of Democratic senators, some of them stung by the fact that the maverick Feingold had not consulted them but most merely as cautious as ever, either refused to comment or expressed a preference, as did Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, for working with Republicans to construct cover for the Administration's lawbreaking by rewriting rules regarding surveillance programs.

The line that has been peddled quietly by a number of the senators, and somewhat more loudly by pundits--when they aren't crudely claiming Feingold raised censure only to distinguish himself as a 2008 presidential candidate--is that this is the wrong time for Congressional Democrats to develop a spine. With Bush's poll ratings sliding to record lows, and with indications that Americans are ready for change, Democratic insiders are afraid to do anything that might upset their chances in November. The fear is that being "too tough" on Bush--by, say, demanding that the Administration obey the law--will make Democrats appear shrill and cost the party's candidates votes this fall.

Apart from the fact that White House political czar Karl Rove's spin machine will label Democrats "shrill," not to mention "unpatriotic," simply for suggesting that voters shift control of the House and Senate from the President's party, the rejection of censure--a more moderate rebuke than the articles of impeachment that a growing number of Bush critics on the left and right, including Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration, suggest are appropriate--put the Democrats right back in the corner of overly calculated caution where they positioned themselves for the miserable 2002 and 2004 election cycles.

The opposition party that too rarely opposes appears to stand for nothing. There does not seem to be any principle, not even respect for the rule of law, that motivates most Democrats. As such, they come off as the party that will compromise on anything and everything in order to win elections. In so doing, cynical Democrats create another undeserved opening for Republicans who have argued, time and again and with considerable success, that Bush, Cheney and their Congressional allies may not always get things right but at least they operate from a place of conviction.

[Minnesota Libra]

1. I'm going to say this again and probably get flamed again but........

......how the crap do we expect our representatives to stand up for anything when we - right here at DU - can't even agree on much of anything excpt opposing neocons/fundies.:wtf: We can't ask from our representatives what we can't even do.:banghead:

[rodeodance]

3. No flame--but what is it that we can do? specifically?

[ClassWarrior]

6. Don't expect an answer...

That poster has sprung up from virtually nowhere to being all over the place, and every one of his/her/its posts that I've seen is chock full of lots of "nots" and "can'ts" and other assorted words of negativity. So much so that I wonder if that's the point.

NGU.

[Teaser]

14. Please

trolls don't donate.

[Minnesota Libra]

7. We could always start right here at DU to see if there is........

....ANYTHING that EVERYONE here will agree on. Probably not much but it would be worth a try. If everyone can't agree on something then we will know for a fact we have no right to ask anything more our of our representatives.

PS: sorry is the "r" and the "e" is missing in any word but my keyboard is sticking. Am trying to catch them all.:banghead:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

8. i won't flame you!

I say, if we are too gutless to put on a massive peace rally or protest, why should we expect any changes in government?

[Minnesota Libra]

9. You have definitely got a VERY GOOD POINT there, imho........

......we need a return to the demonstrations of the 60's. That would be hard to arrange and carry off though because people are too "I" and "ME" oriented these days.

One thing I've noticed about democrats/liberals today is a certain level of discrimination has filtered in from the neocon side.

PLEASE listen me through before jumping to conclusions.

First of all people seem to forget that in the 60's (I know that automatically ages me) it took forever for people to actually hit the streets in large numbers. The large demonstrations built over a period of months and years. People just aren't there yet these days, why I don't know. They are still too self-absorbed I guess.

When the demonstrations really started making some difference there were people in wheelchairs, walkers, etc who demonstrated but what really made the difference is we watched each other's back. To arrest one demonstrator the police had to go through a number of demonstrators because people weren't giving up easy. These days we definitely practice "better my neighbor than me". When the demonstrations started getting air time MANY people were arrested, put in jail for months on end, before the country sat up and took notice.

One thing I've noticed today - to our detriment - is that demonstrators in walkers and even wheelchairs are given the raised eyebrow sometimes. Since the 60's I suffered an injury that continues to worsen and so walking without aid is absolutely impossible. Even with aid, I can only walk VERY SLOWLY and only for one to one-and-a-half blocks before my legs crumble underneath me. So people with disabilities often feel like the younger set is making a silent "not welcomed" statement with raised eyebrows and the faster moving demonstrations.

Anyway, you didn't ask for my impute on this part and I apologize for the :rant: here. Just some of my thoughts.:shrug:

[Toots]

12. This one sentence is the Problem with the Democratic Leadership IMHO

"As such, they come off as the party that will compromise on anything and everything in order to win elections."
This is my opinion of them as well...This IMO is why Kerry lost against Bush*. I always felt his answers were calculated as to how they would get him votes and not just an honest opinion...

[bpilgrim]

13. the majority of DU supports censure and over 70% of dem voters

as well as many other issues though there is a vocal minority here and on the teeVee who will defend out of step politicians no matter what.

but political staffers have to do something for a living i suppose :evilgrin:

peace

[rodeodance]

2. Wonderful headline considering the smackdown/indifference to Feingols

Resolution!--by both parties.

[rodeodance]

4. the rewriting rules to cover BushCo is what concerns me!--It is like a

"solution" has already been found!


.......as did Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, for working with Republicans to construct cover for the Administration's lawbreaking by rewriting rules regarding surveillance programs.

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. It's analogous to watching a mugging and

not doing a damn thing about it.

[radio4progressives]

10. John Nichols is Spot On...

In the final analysis, Nichols' says it all:

Apart from the fact that White House political czar Karl Rove's spin machine will label Democrats "shrill," not to mention "unpatriotic," simply for suggesting that voters shift control of the House and Senate from the President's party,the rejection of censure--a more moderate rebuke than the articles of impeachment that a growing number of Bush critics on the left and right, including Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration, suggest are appropriate--
put the Democrats right back in the corner of overly calculated caution where they positioned themselves for the miserable 2002 and 2004 election cycles.

for the Washington Democrats to remain "tin ear" on the underpinning concerns at issue which calls out for Censure at the minimum, is a outrageous as well as pathetic and self-destructive.

Last night I watched Ken Burns special on Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the Women's Sufferage Movement - how many decade it since the first inaugeration of the progressive movement pushing for the abolition of slaves, and among other issues, Women's Rights and the Right to Vote 1848, until it was finally agreed in 1919 and then finally ratified in 1920 is nearly 72 years, and that done long after Women had the right to vote in Canada, Russia, Australia, Sweden and several other countries in the world. That's just insane.

To run for cover on Censure, is beyond insane, it is depravity of the worst order.

[paulk]

15. insane AND depraved, huh?

outrageous, pathetic, and self destructive too!

Gosh - those Democrats sure are some horrible people!

[pstans]

11. When will Democrats stand up for something?

Feingold is the only leader in the Senate (Kudos to Harkin and Boxer though).

www.russforpresident.com