Cowering Dems - Only 3 Senators' names are on Feingold's resolution.

[paineinthearse]

Feingold, Boxer and Harkin

Support Feingold - Censure Bush - Stop Cowering!
By Bob Fertik

On 3/13/06, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced a resolution to censure George Bush for illegally wiretapping American citizens.

Of course we believe Bush deserves far more than censure. Feingold said Bush's illegal wiretapping "is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors" - so impeachment is "an option that we could look at." You go, Russ!

Naturally, Republicans went ballistic. Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) called Feingold "crazy" and tried to strangle his resolution in the crib. But Democrats wouldn't let him, so now the bill will go to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.

Feingold's gutsy action has forced a debate on a topic that has been taboo in Washington: how to hold George Bush accountable for his innumerable crimes. Obviously this is a debate Republicans are desperate to avoid at all costs. But why are Democrats (other than Feingold) avoiding it too?

Feingold himself is baffled. He told Fox News "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide... Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they'll say we'd better just focus on domestic issues... cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you're helping the terrorists."

We couldn't agree more. The time has come for Senate Democrats to stand up to George Bush and the Republican thugs in Congress and the Media.

Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641 or directly at the # below and deliver a simple message:
"I urge you to support Senator Feingold's bill to censure George Bush."
And for Democratic Senators, add this:
"And stop cowering in fear of Republican thugs!"

This is not a one-day issue. We're going to keep after all 100 Senators until they censure Bush - and ultimately impeach him. Let us know the answers you get when you call by posting below, and we will update our tally below.
http://democrats.com/senate-censure

Censure Champions (S.Res.398 Cosponsors)

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) 202-224-5323
Tom Harkin (D-IA) 202-224-3254
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 202-224-3553

Cowering Democrats (* supported censure of Clinton)

Mark Pryor (D-AR) 202-224-2353
*Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR) 202-224-4843
*Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-224-3841
Ken Salazar (D-CO) 202-224-5852
Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) 202-224-2823
Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) 202-224-2441
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) 202-224-5042
Bill Nelson (D-FL) 202-224-5274
*Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) 202-224-6361
*Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) 202-224-3934
Barack Obama (D-IL) 202-224-2854
*Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) 202-224-2152
*Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824
*John F. Kerry (D-MA) 202-224-2742
*Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) 202-224-4543
*Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) 202-224-4654
Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD) 202-224-4524
Debbie A. Stabenow (D-MI) 202-224-4822
*Carl Levin (D-MI) 202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D-MN) 202-224-3244
*Max Baucus (D-MT) 202-224-2651
*Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) 202-224-2551
Kent Conrad (D-ND) 202-224-2043
Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) 202-224-4744
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 202-224-3224
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 202-224-5521
*Harry Reid (D-NV) 202-224-3542
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) 202-224-4451
*Charles Schumer (D-NY) 202-224-6542
*Ron Wyden (D-OR) 202-224-5244
*Jack Reed (D-RI) 202-224-4642
Tim Johnson (D-SD) 202-224-5842
*James M. Jeffords (I-VT) 202-224-5141
Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) 202-224-4242
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) 202-224-3441
*Patty Murray (D-WA) 202-224-2621
*Herb Kohl (D-WI) 202-224-5653
*John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV) 202-224-6472
Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) 202-224-3954

Bushkissing Democrats

*Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) 202-224-4041
Evan Bayh (D-IN) 202-224-5623

Goosestepping Republicans

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) 202-224-6665
Ted Stevens (R-AK) 202-224-3004
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 202-224-4124
Richard C. Shelby (R-AL) 202-224-5744
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 202-224-4521
John McCain (R-AZ) 202-224-2235
Wayne Allard (R-CO) 202-224-5941
Mel Martinez (R-FL) 202-224-3041
Johnny Isakson (R-GA) 202-224-3643
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) 202-224-3521
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) 202-224-3744
Mike Crapo (R-ID) 202-224-6142
Larry E. Craig (R-ID) 202-224-2752
Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) 202-224-4814
Pat Roberts (R-KS) 202-224-4774
Sam Brownback (R-KS) 202-224-6521
Jim Bunning (R-KY) 202-224-4343
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 202-224-2541
David Vitter (R-LA) 202-224-4623
Susan Collins (R-ME) 202-224-2523
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) 202-224-5344
Norm Coleman (R-MN) 202-224-5641
Jim Talent (R-MO) 202-224-6154
Christopher S. Bond (R-MO) 202-224-5721
Trent Lott (R-MS) 202-224-6253
Thad Cochran (R-MS) 202-224-5054
Conrad R. Burns (R-MT) 202-224-2644
Richard Burr (R-NC) 202-224-3154
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) 202-224-6342
Chuck Hagel (R-NE) 202-224-4224
John Sununu (R-NH) 202-224-2841
Judd Gregg (R-NH) 202-224-3324
Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) 202-224-6621
John Ensign (R-NV) 202-224-6244
George Voinovich (R-OH) 202-224-3353
Mike DeWine (R-OH) 202-224-2315
Tom Coburn (R-OK) 202-224-5754
James M. Inhofe (R-OK) 202-224-4721
Gordon Smith (R-OR) 202-224-3753
Rick Santorum (R-PA) 202-224-6324
Arlen Specter (R-PA) 202-224-4254
Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) 202-224-2921
James DeMint (R-SC) 202-224-6121
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 202-224-5972
John R. Thune (R-SD) 202-224-2321
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) 202-224-4944
William H. Frist (R-TN) 202-224-3344
John Cornyn (R-TX) 202-224-2934
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) 202-224-5922
Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) 202-224-5444
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) 202-224-5251
George Allen (R-VA) 202-224-4024
John W. Warner (R-VA) 202-224-2023
Michael Enzi (R-WY) 202-224-3424
Craig Thomas (R-WY) 202-224-6441

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:
http://www.democrats.com/senate-censure

[fooj]

1. We know what to do! Time to make some more calls, DUers!

:hi:

[blm]

10. WRONG - demanding censure vote now is SIDING with GOPs.

Feingold wanted censure in committee for further debate and investigation.

Why are so many left bloggers spreading BAD INFORMATION that benefits the GOP position to stop debate and investigation of NSA spying?

[guidod]

33. I don't think everyone is demanding

a censure vote, I agree with you that there shouldn't be one, but 2 Senators supporting Feingold appears to the average voter as very weak. I think we have to come from a position of strength if we are to be credible.

[blm]

37. Caving in to demand for quickvote by GOPs and bypassing investigation by

committee that Feingold moved his censure to IS the actual weak position. GOPs are well aware that they have the numbers to squash censure completely, and Feingold's only way to keep it alive for debate and investigation was by moving it into committee.

[radio4progressives]

39. so it's been moved to committee... that happend already..

so what's your problem?

[blm]

42. Dems wanting to stop committee and investigation and side with GOPs

position to demand a quick vote. Plus, they are using old lists out of context to promote a false impression that these Dems will censure Clinton but not Bush.

[radio4progressives]

48. I think that was to show who was willing to Censure Clinton but is AWOL on

this one... that's my guess, that's how i looked at the list.. :shrug:

[blm]

50. Willing to censure Clinton INSTEAD OF impeaching him. If you AREN'T on

that list it is because you favored letting the impeachment proceedings against Clinton continue in the senate.

And YES, Feingold was FOR letting impeachment proceed against Clinton but tells the press that he offers censure now because he thinks it's wrong to impeach Bush at a time of war. Go figure. And yet, despite that, many of us will still side with his move to censure even though we support impeachment for serious reasons.

[Ken Burch]

114. If we give up on censure, will we still even be opposing the GOP at all?

Hasn't the history shown that we weaken ourselves every time we ever avoid standing up to them?

[radio4progressives]

118. exatly so..

and avoiding Censure will give "legs" to the claim that if the Democrats had a problem with illegal domestic spying programs - then they should have made it clear as law makers that they had a serious problem with it.

By avoiding this nominal action now, it will help a potential defense down the road when and if impeachment proceedings led to prosecution. which will then taken up in the Senate.

it's insane not to support Censure..

[blm]

123. Who is giving up on censure? The committee investigation is FOR censure.

.

[Ken Burch]

131. Never mind, I guess I don't understand what those who oppose Feingold

are calling for.

(And there isn't any reason to rehash the Clinton thing.

[blm]

134. Calling for left blogs to stop harrassing senators supporting Feingold's

hearings and investigation. They are demanding senators declare their support for censure now, when Feingold already moved censure into committee which allowed for further investigation and these hearings.

They obtusely were playing into the strategy of the GOPs who also wanted senators to declare their vote on censure quickly to STOP the investigation and debate on NSA spying, have the vote and move on, knowing they controlled the numbers.

[dionysus]

132. when does siding with censure = quick vote?

I know you defend the establishment hardcore but damn....

[blm]

135. READ and understand - we are FOR CENSURE and the moment Feingold

moved censure into committee was the moment to SHIFT support to INVESTIGATING the NSA spying in committee and THAT is why there are hearings today on censure in the judiciary committee.

Demanding that senators declare their position now BEFORE any investigatory hearings was the position of the GOPs. They knew they had the numbers for a vote and wanted to move the vote quickly, resulting in NO HEARINGS.

Senators were supporting Feingold by saying they NEEDED more investigation and documents to examine BEFORE they could make a decision - which is HOW these hearings came to be.

Yet left blogs are insisting that senators declare their positions BEFORE these hearings, which coincided with the GOPs position, and using the misleading list from Clinton impeachment to do it.

And I NEVER defend the establishment - that PROVES you aren't bothering to READ and comprehend what I've been saying. I want censure in the senate and congress's IMPEACHMENT and think Feingold's approach is TOO moderate and he was wrong to sell censure as an alternative to impeachment the way he did.

Is that too "establishment" for you?

[radio4progressives]

38. LOL..

position of strength.. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[guidod]

45. I understand that the word trength

and democrat are tough to put together, but 3 would even look better than 2. I'm trying to come up with the third name but you'll have to give me time. But I will.

[guidod]

34. I don't think everyone is demanding

a censure vote, I agree with you that there shouldn't be one, but 2 Senators supporting Feingold appears to the average voter as very weak. I think we have to come from a position of strength if we are to be credible.

[guidod]

35. Woops! Hit the button twice, sorry

[radio4progressives]

36. Drinkin Arlen Specter/Joe Biden Cool aid - It's called another Cover Up

just like all the other cover ups..

why isn't it obvious to you? you think that dog and pony show yesterday means a fucking thing in the Bush World?

It's only been six years now... when has he EVER been held accountable by either party masters? EVER???

NAME ONE SINGLE THING THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS EVER BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE ON ANYTHING WHATSOEVER!

NAME ONE THING.

Just one. Where leaders in both parties didn't give him cover?

Name one.

[blm]

40. Either you side w/Feingold and furthering censure debate or side w/GOP

and demand a quick vote - there is no other position that matters right now.

And you already know that I do NOT side with Specter or Biden so your post was a gratuitous attack that certainly didn't illuminate any position.

[radio4progressives]

49. My apologies.. i'm frustrated.

The "investigation" is apparently over though.. that happened yesterday.. i didn't get the sense that Specter is conducting anymore hearings, and we have Biden and Schumer aiding and abedding Specter in quashing any further hearings for "investigative" purposes, as far as i understand it..

[blm]

53. WRONG - Hearings are set for Friday and John Dean and Bruce Fein are

testifying.

Please don't spread bad info - Dems have a hard enough time with the corporate media. There REALLY ARE Dems who support the investigation and hearings, and it seems there are a few left bloggers pushing bad info onto Dem sites to create the impression that there is no support.

[radio4progressives]

57. I stand Corrected! Good More Testimony!

but they'll still be voting it up or down in committee, won't they?

[blm]

2. Why are you spreading that BOGUS list of Dems who wanted censure INSTEAD

of impeachment of Clinton? Why are you not noting that Feingold voted AGAINST censure then and sided with the GOPs so the impeachment proceedings could proceed against Clinton? That's how the GOP typically mischaracterizes Dem votes. Why would you do it?

Plus, the day that Feingold's censure moved into committee was the day that Dem positions needed to shift to supporting the debate of censure in committee, and especially the need for further investigation - and Feingold said this is what he wanted on the Ed Schultz show, less than 2days after he submitted censure. Don't pretend that no one heard about it.

Why are so many left bloggers supporting the GOP plan for quick vote on censure instead of supporting Feingold's moving censure into committee for further investigation?

[AtomicKitten]

4. I wholeheartedly agree it is much better strategy.

We are on the same page on this issue.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Feinstein tried to bring up censure resolution again right after acquittal

of Clinton in the Senate. Republican Senator Mitch McConnel blocked the vote by callling for it to be tabled, and it was.

They should have let it go, as Kerry suggested at the time.

[MH1]

24. Okay, I'm convinced. Feingold is an ass.

Why was FEINGOLD "cowering" in June 2005 when he could have joined in a call to investigate the Downing Street Minutes?

After circulating the letter for a couple weeks for signature - and only 9 Senators signing AND FEINGOLD NOT AMONG THEM - you didn't hear Kerry attacking the rest of the Democratic Party as "cowering."

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=1022


And now you tell me he DID want to censure Clinton, after impeachment failed. Sheesh. :eyes:

[BlueCaliDem]

66. I Hope you mean FeinSTEIN (a DINO), NOT FeinGOLD...

...because I don't believe Feingold was Senator in the Clinton "era".

I know that Feinstein's only been a democrat since she'd been getting a LOT of nasty emails from her Democratic constituency (circa post 2000 SCOTUS theft of the Pres. Elections), but I also recall Megamouth Matthews is a Feinstein-fan, and we all know where he's been swingin' these days---waaaaay right-wing!

Feingold is a liberal Democratic Senator, and a junior Senator from Wisconsin, so I hope you meant Feinstein not Feingold.

[Mass]

68. Feingold WAS a senator in the Clinton years

He was the only Democratic Senator voting against the Byrd motion to dismiss the impeachment trial.

He voted then Not Guilty to the two charges.

I dont think he said anything concerning the censure because it never came to a vote.

[BlueCaliDem]

133. Haven't been into politics until *after* the 2000 Debacle. But...

...now I know Feingold was, indeed, a Senator in the late Clinton era.

Thanx.

However, this is a little confusing:
He was the only Democratic Senator voting against the Byrd motion to dismiss the impeachment trial.

There was a Byrd motion to dismiss the impeachment trial and Feingold voted against it??

[MH1]

78. I meant FeinGOLD. Please read my post.

Also check the op, and the list who voted to censure Clinton INSTEAD of impeachment (ie before) ...my response was to a post saying Feingold DID support censure - after impeachment failed.

If that post is true, then yes indeed he is an ass...but then I've felt that way after he made that "cowering" remark, considering his own failure to stand strong on the DSM investigation (again, please read my post).

[incapsulated]

166. Feingold did NOT support the Clinton censure.

It was brought forward by Feinstien but Feingold was not a co-sponsor and it died.

Edit to add what Russ DID do that was controversial, and probably what people get confused about. He was the only Dem who did not vote to dismiss the impeachment case going forward because he said he believed that "prosecutors must have every reasonable opportunity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" the perjury/obstruction charge. He then voted to acquit on all charges.

[Faygo Kid]

3. Disappointed in Levin, Stabenow from Michigan

Glad we have them, but it's time to push back. The Dem leaders and elected officials are so far behind their own constituency, it's frightening.

[MH1]

28. Their constituency is not a monolith composed of DUers and like-minded.

Just sayin.

[Faygo Kid]

29. I think it's the right thing to do.

I have no problem holding Bush responsible for breaking the law. If we stand for nothing, we deserve nothing. That's my just sayin.

[blm]

30. We're all for censure - and FOR Feingold moving it into committee

for investigation and debate to continue. It's the GOPs who demanded senators to declare their positions on censure immediately so they could bypass investigation and debate.

Some left bloggers are helping the GOP position either knowingly or unknowingly.

[radio4progressives]

41. oops... self delete duplicate

[blm]

44. Wrong - Feingold had said it was set for Friday.

.

[radio4progressives]

43. BLM it was moved to committee two weeks ago, the moment Feingold

was through introducing it..

the committee had their little dog and pony show yesterday, and that's it for investigations.. that WAS the "investigation". (read smoke and mirrors)

the only thing left to do with the Censure vote now is for it to be voted down and everyone's name on record.

and both party leadership will be happy.

[MH1]

31. You may be right (or not), but in any case it is beside my point.

I was only responding to the poster's apparent assumption that the entire constituency is behind censure - and I strongly believe that's not true. So if a rep has to think of their constituency, they will not necessarily take the position a typical DU poster takes.

Anyway, to your point -

But what does censure do?

Isn't it just an admonishment with no consequences?

In Clinton's case, censuring him still could have damaged others in the party. In Bush's case, the members of his party are scurrying away from him as fast as they can already. So what damage can we inflict?

Meanwhile, will we put ourselves in a situation where impeachment is moved out of reach? THAT would be a bad thing.

I would much rather have the option of impeaching Bush in 2007 - for his very real crimes - than censuring him in 2006 - especially since censure is doomed to failure if we don't own the Senate.

[radio4progressives]

46. Censure Could have Meaningful Consequence, but Not with These Dems

We don't have a party. We have a bunch of spineless morons who drink from the same trough as the pigs in the other party -

there are a few exceptions.. Feingold is one of them.

Censure could have had important consequences, but Schumer and Biden and what's his face from Illionois? oh yeah, Durbin intercepted the pass, and punted the ball back to the GOP the very moment Feingold introduced the resolution.

it was over that day. yesterday's committee meeting was a smoke and mirrors/dog and pony show - Specter made his snarky remarks at the end of the hearing and Biden chortled along with him like ole pals would..

Today Schumer took the ball and announced that he is sending it to the Supreme Court so that the President will get his uber authority annointed by SCOTUS to continue conducting his domestic Spying... so that when HRC gets annointed (by Diebold) to be the next president, she'll have authority to spy on her political enemies, and will already have at that point, a decision sanctified by this Bush appointed SCOTUS who loves theocratic dictators and hates the working class and democracy.

It's all over.

no need to go on this kill Feingold campaign any longer.

it's over.

[blm]

47. I'm FOR censure but know it has no meaningful consequence and

especially after being sold to the press as an ALTERNATIVE to impeachment when impeachment is the only legal remedy if the president has committed crimes.

[radio4progressives]

51. do you actually believe impeachment investigations and hearings

will commence in 2007/2008? the year of the next presidential campaign, even with a weak Democratic majority controll of the House, with this Democratic Party leadership?

[blm]

52. I trust that Conyers and others are dead serious. I hope the Clintonites

don't move to stop it, because THEY have become too chummy with the Bushites.

[radio4progressives]

55. Want to make a wager that the Clintonistas will quash that attempt

for meaningful impeachment inquiry/hearing Conyers wants to move ahead with (I know that Conyers has done a lot of work already) this?

Can't you just see Nancy Pelosi working behind the scenes to say, we have other priorities, that "elections have consequences" and "if you don't like who is in power then you have to make it to the polls and vote them out" --- she's already issued that edict a month ago.

I've said this before, I really want you to understand that IMPEACHMENT is exactly what I have always wanted - Censure was the weakest action to take - but i believe that Feingold KNOWS damn well that the party leadership will block impeachment proceedings if the Dems are victorious in regaining the House - I believe that is why Feingold introduced the Resolution for Censure when he did - because he already knows the Dems will NOT impeach ..

This is why I'm frustrated with the party.

Everybody in Washington knows there will be no move for impeachment, but all of those outside of the beltway are clinging to hope that this is somehow going to happen.

But all we have to do is think about this for a few minutes, realize who's calling the shots in the party, and based on decision thus far these past several years - it's not so hard to figure out that anybody who thinks impeachment is going happen in 2008 is simply dreaming.

Impeachment hearings needed to begin in 2004/2005 at the very latest.

it's too late now.

[Ken Burch]

115. Is anyone who wants us to lay off of Bush even going to think about

voting Democratic? ever?

Can't we assume that people like that are straight-ticket neanderthals?

[msgadget]

5. K & R!

:kick:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[radio4progressives]

8. k&r

:thumbsup:

[blm]

9. THIS IS NOT TRUE - The moment Feingold moved censure into committee is the

moment when he needed support to shift to INVESTIGATION OF NSA SPYING as part of the debate of censure in the committee.

Why are you siding with the GOPs who demanded a quick vote to stop debate and investigation of NSA spying? Feingold said two weeks ago he WANTED the investigation in committee.

[radio4progressives]

102. It wasn't Feingold who moved the Resolution to Committee, it was Durbin

at the behest of Specter and Schuman.

[AuntiBush]

11. Thanks paineinthearse

Keep the post going. Not everyone logs in at the sametime. Thanks to your post it's reminded me to call my Senators "again!"

You're right. We can't give-up. Period.

[blm]

13. Except it's selling A FALSE PREMISE. The info in it is BAD.

.

[radio4progressives]

92. The info is not bad - it is revealing who voted for Censure of Clinton

for a blow job, but yet refuse to Censure Bush for his domestic spying.

[blm]

128. YES, it's bad - If you're NOT on that list you wanted IMPEACHMENT PROCESS

to continue against Clinton....for a gawddam BLOWJOB.

Censure then was to stop the impeachment process in the senate. I can't believe that ANY Democrat would spin that vote any other way.

[blm]

12. STUPID left bloggers supporting GOP demand for quick censure vote to STOP

debate and investigation of NSA spying.

The moment that Feingold moved censure into committee is the moment that the NEED shifted to supporting INVESTIGATION of NSA spying in that committee.

Why are so many left bloggers playing dumb on this? Feingold said he wanted censure in committee and left bloggers claiming to support him are instead siding with the GOP demand for a quick vote.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[blm]

23. Siding WITH Feingold's moving censure into committee to continue

debate and investigation of NSA spying is stupid to you?

I'm stupid because I know that list of Dems for censuring Clinton was a vote to STOP further impeachment process?

Please tell us what is smart about supporting the demand for a quick declaration on censure that just happens to coincide with the GOP position?

I'm not here to be popular or jerk my knees at the drop of a false post - I base my "stupid" positions in FACT and I will always correct whatever lie I encounter along the way. If that bothers anybody that's their problem.

[katinmn]

25. No. It's stupid to call people stupid because they don't agree with you.

You made your point. Actually overkilled your point.

[blm]

27. There are left bloggers spreading BAD INFO because they're not getting

the fact that Feingold moved censure into committee for further investigation and demanding quick declaration of vote is supporting the GOP position.

Either spreading bad info is stupid or it isn't - in fact, the entire misleading direction of the Fertik's posting could be purposeful and not just stupid.

[katinmn]

58. Committee investigation? Please. I'm getting a side ache.

:rofl:

Name one investigative committee that has done something besides cover up Bush lies and corruption the past five years. One.

[blm]

82. Apparently you disagree with Feingold whose committee is holding hearings

on Friday with testimony from John Dean and Bruce Fein.

Are Democrats now targetted for their efforts supporting Feingold's committee hearings to investigate Bush, too? Because that is what the thread is really about.

[Iowa]

60. People don't seem to be writing in to support blm on this...

blm, I have followed many of your posts on this issue. The twists and turns aren't readily obvious and you have kept me on track. Don't read the lack of replies here as disagreement or indifference. I suspect many of us simply do not know enough to chime in - we are just taking it all in and learning from you. Speaking for myself, I trust you have it right. Thanks!!

[MH1]

26. Facts, schmacts.

Who needs 'em and why would you base your positions on them?

;-)

[ProSense]

56. Schmacts is right. Post 19 clearly shows the author's true color n/t

[farmbo]

77. Sorry...The question is: Why aren't they listed as Co-sponsors?

The issue of the timing of the vote in committee, while important, does not address the OP's underlying thesis; that Democrats are cowering on this issue for less than noble reasons. The suggestion that we as dim-witted "Left wing Bloggers" are actually supporting the GOP position by calling for a quick vote, is simply a red herring.

Why haven't all Democratic senators signed on as co-sponsors of the censure resolution? Warrantless, illegal domestic spying by Bush on his political enemies (sorry...it's not just a "Terrorist Surveillance Program") is, next to election fraud, (which, just by the way, may be inextricably linked to the NSA spying) the greatest constitutional crisis of the last hundred years.

Some here opine that the cowering senators are simply (even shrewdly) waiting until the "facts" come out in the committee investigation, until they weigh in in favor of the resolution...blah blah blah. Intuitively, we can see that that is not the case.

Bush succeeded early on (e.g. google March 14th MSM entries) that Feingold had to be marginalized as a kook...and it worked, if only temporarily. The beltway purveyors of conventional wisdom quickly concluded that Feingold was embarked on a Quixotic, mis-informed quest that was bound to fail. The cowering Democrats called their respective Bob Schrams and they told them that censure was just too controversial to support.

This is the biggest constitutional battle of our lifetime, Folks, and like it or not, Russ Feingold is our commanding general. And just when he needs support from the troops... he looks around and they're in the rear with the gear.

[blm]

83. WRONG - The MOMENT Feingold moved censure into committee the action

needed to shift to supporting the INVESTIGATION of NSA spying by committee hearings. It does no good to say you already support censure and you don't NEED to hear any evidence - Feingold WANTED hearings so the PUBLIC could learn more and many senators are saying they need to hear evidence because it helps focus on the case.

A quick declaration of censure vote was desired by the GOPs who did not WANT further debate or investigative hearings on NSA spying.

So - you either side with Feingold's moving censure into committee for hearings and further investigation with the support of many key senators, or you side with the quick vote that GOPs want with NO further debate or investigation. There is no other option on the table right now.

[farmbo]

86. Strawman alert: The co-sponsors aren't saying " vote now, no investigation

Please check their websites. Absolutely no Democratic co-sponsors are calling for a quick vote. Also review the other blogs:

http://www.dailykos.com/

While Democrats still remain hesitant to back Feingold's measure, opting instead to wait for (Godot?) an "investigation," their stance will look more pathetic than prudent as members of past Republican administrations testify to the gravity of the President's crimes...

...Let's see. We have Nixon's former lawyer saying this program is "worse than Watergate." Reagan's Deputy AG will testify that the President violated the Constitution. And yet Democrats don't want to sign on to censure for fear of appearing partisan. By the way, why aren't the Democrats calling for an end to this program? If they are still ambivalent as to the program's legality and want to play the prudent politician (an absurd position, given the evidence thus far), they should demand the program be halted pending the investigation, and that the President use the FISA court process instead. After all, every day this program is in existence is a day the 4th Amendment and FISA are violated... <snip>

No... the cower-camp of Senate Democrats are taking this pathetic position BECAUSE IT IS THE EXPRESS POSITION OF THE DLC!

<snip>Gov. Tom Vilsack (Head of the Democratic Leadership Council) said Monday (Jan 2006) that Democrats risk political backlash if they object to the Bush administration's wiretapping but cannot show that Americans' civil liberties are at risk...

. . . "If the president broke the law, that's unacceptable. But I think it's debatable whether he did," Vilsack told Des Moines Register editors and reporters. "And I think Democrats are falling into a very, very large political trap," he said. "Democrats are not going to win elections until they can reassure people they are going to keep them safe."
<snip>

So please...don't try to convince me that the Senate Cower-er caucus is withholding support for censure owing to some lofty political strategy that is incomprehensible to we "left wing Blogggers." I may have been born at night...but it wasn't last night.

They are doing so because they would rather FOLLOW their focus grouped- political consultants than LEAD our country.

[blm]

87. Their SUPPORT for investigation helped GET THOSE HEARINGS FRIDAY.

Just as Feingold wanted.

The point was that those demanding Dems declare their position on censure immediately don't help the issue of WHY hearings are necessary to bring the debate to the public, including examining the evidence.

If your view is that there is enough evidence already known to the senators to declare their position on censure, then why hold hearings? Have your vote and move on, just like Cheney and Frist said.

I side with Feingold and the senators supporting the call for further investigation which helped set up Friday's hearings.

[farmbo]

88. Bush has admitted skirting FISA...and given Congress the old "Vaffanculo!"

Plus there won't be any new, fresh "evidence" coming out of the hearings. Each of these witnesses has already revealed their public positions...and the Bush Administration is not providing any new information. They've just declared it a "Terrorist Surveillance Program" then put out a gag order...under threat of felony prosecution.

Every thinking person agrees that the investigation is a good thing. But as opposed to crediting the timid Dem Senators, I believe it shows more than anything else that Senator Specter is still pissed that Dewine, Hagel and Snow (THEY'RE the TRUE COWARDS!) cut the backroom deal with Rove three weeks ago to forestall full Judicary Committee hearings.

If these Dem Senators back censure after the hearings, all is forgiven. But alas, BLM--you're a pretty smart cookie-- would you care to make a sporting wager on this?

I predict that they'll either run for the exits if a vote comes up, or outright vote "no" on the Feingold resolution.

In the end, their political consultants are running around like Robbie the Robot spouting: "Danger, Danger!Warning, Warning!" and their default position is to "..back the President in time of war...blah blah blah". They really just want this censure matter to go away.

Pathetic.

[blm]

89. Some already do and have been helpful to Feingold's push for hearings.

It was a far better move to say they NEEDED to hear evidence and see more NSA documents before they could declare their position, though.

I would wager that many more Dems will support censure than you are hearing about in the corporate media AND the left media, that's for sure.

[radio4progressives]

163. Farmbo, I missed this little factoid... please clarify for me..

you said:

Ibelieve it shows more than anything else that Senator Specter is still pissed that Dewine, Hagel and Snow (THEY'RE the TRUE COWARDS!) cut the backroom deal with Rove three weeks ago to forestall full Judicary Committee hearings.

:wtf: please refresh my memory ... so much has happened, i don't know what this about... :shrug:

[farmbo]

169. Check this out: from March 17th (Rove's handiwork)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601861.html

The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.


The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday. They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

All but Graham are members of the sharply divided intelligence committee, whose Democratic members have unsuccessfully sought an investigation into the NSA program. Hagel and Snowe threatened last month to join the Democrats' request unless the administration and Congress agreed on a way to bring the wiretap program under the review of FISA's court and Congress.<snip>

[Norquist Nemesis]

98. I agree with you

I also think Schumer's recent move to put the question of constitutionality to the Supreme Court is another piece in support of this.

As much as we all want to see quick action, it's serious stuff and needs to be rock solid. That takes time. Schumer's motion in no way jeopordizes the Feingold motion. It strengthens it and puts the Republicans on the defensive in two fronts.

The Committee is going to have to be very thorough and have a lot of sunshine on their hearings. Elections years can push some kick-ass performance, and they're scared shitless.

[radio4progressives]

164. are you serious? Schumer's move was a complete OUT and END RUN

it gives the Dems cover for not taking any freaking responsibility, AND i am begining to suspect that some in the party would relish the idea of having the same uber powers the jerk offs in the white house is flaunting now ..

especially the likes of Schumer and his cronies, Biden HRC et al.

[rodeodance]

14. hey, i like the aesthetics of your photo arrangement.

[paineinthearse]

15. Act locally

Partial text of my town committee's unanimous vote to adopt a resolution to call on state legislature, US Rep and US Senators to take action. Full text is at http://impeachpac.org/?q=node/742

Be it further resolved that our two Senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, join as co-sponsors to Senator Russ Feingold’s resolution “Relating to the censure of George W. Bush” - S.RES.398.IS

Two other Massachusetts town committees have taken similar action.

Edit: added www.impeachpac.org logo from DU's home page

[blm]

20. WHY are you supporting GOPs position instead of Feingold?

Feingold WANTED censure in committee and Kennedy, Durbin and Jeffords are supporting the investigation that Feingold wanted when he MOVED CENSURE INTO COMMITTEE.

A demand for a quick declaration on censure is what the GOPs want to end debate and investigation of NSA spying.

SHAME ON THOSE SPREADING BAD INFO THAT BENEFITS THE GOPs.

[rodeodance]

16. I have called Kohl's office but will do so again.

[rodeodance]

17. the hearing is Friday (below)--email cspan and ask to cover. I checked

the scedule and nothing is scheduled yet for Friday.


Friday, Mar. 31, 2006
9:30 a.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine the call to censure
the President.
SD-226

[rodeodance]

18. here is email address for cspan

Suggest Events: Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover - [e-mail]

[blm]

21. BEWARE - The OP benefits the GOP position, NOT Feingold's.

.

[ProSense]

19. Why does this person's list keep changing?

January 27, 2006

TODAY, WE MUST SAVE AMERICA
by Bob Fertik
http://www.opednews.com
We have just two days to save American Democracy - TODAY and MONDAY.

Through a stunning set of events, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy will lead a filibuster of Sam Alito on Monday.

Snip…
John Kerry decided to lead a filibuster because he cares passionately about American democracy - and because he was inspired by the hundreds of thousands of emails and calls from progressive activists like you.

Many Democratic Senators urged Kerry not to lead a filibuster because they were afraid to stand and fight.

But Kerry is not a coward. He said, "Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court. The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously."

You said it, John Kerry!!!!

Snip…
WITH JOHN KERRY LEADING THE WAY, WE CAN WIN THIS BATTLE.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bob_fert_060127_today_2c_we_must_save_.htm

Home » Blogs » Bob Fertik's blog

Feingold Ignores Fascism and Kisses Presidential Hopes Goodbye

Submitted by Bob Fertik on September 22, 2005 - 1:11pm.2008 President | John Roberts | Russ Feingold

Snip...

But today, Feingold threw it all away.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts To be Chief Justice of the United States

September 22, 2005

Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.

Snip...

Impeccable legal credentials - like being a leader of the Federalist Society - and lying about it?

Reputation and record as a fair-minded person - like helping George Bush steal the 2000 election in Florida?

Snip...

When he cast his deciding vote for Ashcroft, Feingold said "maybe I'm naive." Five years later, nothing has changed. Feingold's vote for Roberts proves his naivete is his fatal incurable character flaw - just like Bush's greed, cowardice, and stupidity.

Senator Feingold, you worse than naive - you are a suicidal idiot. Right in front of your eyes the Federalist Society - led by John Aschroft, John Roberts, and their "modest" cronies - is turning the American judicial system into an instrument of Republican Fascism. Don't you remember how they conspired to appoint Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor for Clinton, and then set a perjury trap for him? Didn't you read Bush v. Gore, which legalized the theft of the Presidency? Haven't you read the Torture Memos? Didn't you read the 4th Circuit's latest ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which gave the President the unlimited powers of a dictator? These are all the products of the Federalist Society, and they are systematic steps towards fascism.


http://www.democrats.com/feingold-supports-roberts

[guidod]

32. I've called Feinstein three times now.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Adelante]

54. DUers, take a BREATH!!

Read what blm is saying calmly and carefully.

[AtomicKitten]

59. absolutely correct.

[Nothing Without Hope]

61. I'm inclined to agree wth Paul Craig Roberts' assertion that Dems are

being BLACKMAILED by the Bushies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x338735
thread title (Feb 6 06): Ex-Reagan official- Dubya uses spying to blackmail media & Dems

All that NSA spying - just think of all the secret trysts with lovers, questionable payments, all the other things that the cowardly senators and representatives would not want revealed. Same goes for GOPs who are tempted to buck the trend and try honesty. And then there's the media execs, judges, and who knows who else.

Sure it's money and power - but I'm betting these guys have secrets they want to hide, and with all the spying, the Bushies have dossiers on all of them.

[katinmn]

62. It would explain some of the very strange behavior of elected officials

In the past some Congress members have come out very strongly (i.e. Dayton on 9/11) but they back down usually within 48 hours and become downright docile. They'll even attack fellow Dems (Dayton again) to protect BushCo.

[Nothing Without Hope]

63. Exactly. Some of the GOPs, too, have acted very strangely, first

expressing outrage and then backing down 180 degrees. It's happened more than once. The media, too, acts strangely.

I do believe that there are threats and blackmail involved and this is one of the major uses of the NSA spying - getting the ammunition to control key people. I also suspect Jimmy/Jeff Gannon/Guckert's "escort" agency and others like it play a role in all this. What easier way to get blackmail fodder than to take compromising-looking photos that suggest hetero- or homosexual liasons outside marriage or infinitely worse, questionable dealings with child prostitutes? And then there are questionable financial dealings, quid-pro-quo bought favors... Just think of all the sting operations that could be set up with the resources of the government and all the dirty tricks to make even the mostly honest ones look guilty.

Oh yeah, these guys are cowering all right. They are completely in the pockets of the Bushies who hold their careers and reputations in their hands.

[Nothing Without Hope]

64. RFK Jr estimated last year that 95% of the GOPs and 75% of the Dems

are corrupt in Congress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2999611

The behavior on this issue, as so many others, makes me think maybe that wasn't such an exaggeration.

[Andromeda]

65. Listen to what blm is saying...

You don't have to agree with somebody ALL the time to find merit in what they're saying. What blm is trying to tell you makes a lot of sense and you should listen to her.

[paineinthearse]

67. "The time has come for Senate Democrats to stand up to George Bush and..."

At the same time, I have seen precious little discussion of the author's main point: "The time has come for Senate Democrats to stand up to George Bush and the Republican thugs in Congress and the Media."

At the time of the resolution's introduction, the excuse many Democrats were giving not to sign on as co-sponsors is that they were involved in other issues.

It has been more than three weeks. It takes just one signature and reading the name into the record to become a co-sponsor.

Whether the correct strategy is to take the committee or floor route, the question today is

unless they prefer to remain identified as spineless * apologists and boot lickers, what is their excuse for failure to sign on as a co-sponsor?

[ProSense]

69. The author is not credible. Why does he keep changing the list?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2541462&mesg_id=2541552


To use this person's statement as an indictment of the party is wrong.

[Mass]

72. The problem is that the focus is wrong - They should be calling committee

members.

If the censure motion does not get out of committee (and it will not, as it stands now), there will not be a vote and we can call whoever we want on this issue, it will make no difference.

So focus your efforts on the committee members for now.

http://www.democrats.com/feingold-witnesses

[ProSense]

73. That's fine, but this article promotes a bogus argument on many levels n/t

[Mass]

74. We'll see what happens Friday - Specter seems committed to bring this

to a floor vote in the next few weeks, even if it receives a negative vote in committee. Not really a surprise. The GOP thinks they will win something with this vote.

(rawstory story this morning).

[Mass]

70. So, what is Feingold's excuse voting for Roberts? for Ascroft? ...

Does he want to be seen as a spineless * apologist and boot licker.

I don't think so, but this proves how your argument is hollow.

What is Barbara Boxer's argument for voting for a totally empty lobbying bill?

...

You can ask this question for each and every act of each and every senators.

If it makes you feel better, yell. I prefer to focus on things that will bring something to us.

[MH1]

79. What is Feingold's excuse for not supporting DSM investigation?

Yes, the list could go on.

I really don't dislike Feingold. But I dislike his attitude that people who didn't immediately hail his move are somehow "cowering" ie "cowards." Bulls--- on that!

And I REALLY dislike his so-called supporters who try to exalt him because they like this one stance, at the expense of tearing down other good Dems who have consistently worked hard for Democratic goals. That is REALLY bulls---.

[blm]

85. Except Feingold WANTS THEM TO SUPPORT INVESTIGATION AND HEARINGS

and to say that they NEED to hear evidence before they make a decision - what the Fock do you think set up the hearings he's having Friday?

[radio4progressives]

93. Dems voted to Censure Clinton For a Blow Job, but Refuse to Censure Bush

for Domestic Spying... Something is very very very wrong with this picture and the putrid odor of rotten fish is wafting stronger and stronger.

[blm]

124. You do know that censure then was to STOP impeachment process in the

senate, and the DEM SENATOR who is not on that list stood with the GOPs to let impeachment process continue in the senate = for a BLOWJOB!

Care to note which Senator sided with the GOPs instead of voting for censure then?

[radio4progressives]

150. you seem to suggest that Censure is always in lieu of Impeachment

by definition.. it isn't. But that's beside the point..

In all of your posts, i can't tease out exactly what your intention is..

[blm]

154. I never suggested that even once.

When censure was offered in 98 it was INSTEAD of continuing impeachment process. That list of senators above did not WANT impeachment process to continue in senate - Feingold did want impeachment process to continue, and that is why he isn't on that list above.

BTW - I have stated REPEATEDLY that I am FOR censure but that censure should NOT be offered as an alternative to impeachment. And, unfortunately, that is exactly how Feingold decided to sell censure to the press. Read his press conference transcript. I don't know how you draw your conclusions, but they are not reflective of my position, at all.

A little comprehension and sticking to the FACTS ONLY would be helpful. - there is no mystery in facts.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[blm]

76. Not people who disagree, bloggers who spread FALSE INFO and help the GOP

position by doing so.

Disagreement has nothing to do with it. It's either STUPID to help the GOP position or it is intentional. The info in the blog posted was FALSE and supporting the GOPs position. Where on earth is there even room for disagreement? Either the blogger is not factual or he is - there's no wiggle room for opinion - it's one or the other.

[paineinthearse]

80. Show me the "FALSE INFO"

Here are the author's points, please tell me which is "false".

1. On 3/13/06, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced a resolution to censure George Bush for illegally wiretapping American citizens.

2. Feingold said Bush's illegal wiretapping "is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors" - so impeachment is "an option that we could look at." You go, Russ!

3. Republicans went ballistic.

4. Feingold's gutsy action has forced a debate on a topic that has been taboo in Washington: how to hold George Bush accountable for his innumerable crimes.

5. But why are Democrats (other than Feingold) avoiding it too? (OK, somewhat false....Boxer and Harken joined the resolution on March 15 & 16; the article was written 3/21). To determine if any more Dems have grown a backbone, I just checked the resolution's status in Thomas - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SE00398:@@@P - Co-sponsors remain the same: Sen Boxer, Barbara - 3/16/2006 Sen Harkin, Tom - 3/15/2006

6. The time has come for Senate Democrats to stand up to George Bush and the Republican thugs in Congress and the Media.

7. This is not a one-day issue.

:shrug:

Show me the "FALSE INFO".

[blm]

84. The false info is saying the list supported censure for Clinton but DON'T

support censure for Bush.

Most people don't realize that those Dems NOT ON THE LIST supported continuing the impeachment process in the senate.

The other implication is that Feingold needs co-sponsors - he doesn't - he WANTED censure in committee and GOT censure into committee and NEEDED senators to say they wanted INVESTIGATION by the committee and needed to hear evidence, setting up Feingold's hearings set for Friday.

The moment that Feingold moved censure into committee was the moment the need changed from supporting censure without further investigation to supporting INVESTIGATION and hearings on NSA spying to determine guilt by show of evidence.

Feingold said he was pleased to have censure in committee where it could be investigated two days after he submitted his resolution - why so many left pundits don't get that the action shifted at that point is troublesome - are they that obtuse and don't realize that a demand for a declaration on censure now supports the quick dismissal of censure (GOPs have the numbers) with no hearings or investigation, OR intentionally trying to further the position of the GOP?

[radio4progressives]

100. Where's the Evidence that any of these Senators support Impeachment?

I have posited the notion that even with a Democratic Majority of the House, will not move to impeach. There might be some hearings, but it will not result in what we have been advocating for 5 years, despite mounting evidence of the most corrupt, law breaking President we've had in our nation's history. And I believe that FEINGOLD has knowledge of this either by being informed of this directly, or by coming to this conclusion based on his own information, vis a vis beltway Democratic party caucus meetings or other private ruminations.

People we have been advocating for impeachment, signed countless petitions and have posted such - but it's too late. by the time the newly elected Congress is in session, it will be time to campaign for HRC's election presidential 2008 election and the Dems will not put HRC in the position of voting on impeachment.

You think I'm crazy? Think about what we have experienced and observed these past five and six years, and then really think about the election cycle calendar and all of the machinations going on right now. and then tell me with a straight face, that you actually believe that all we need is a Democratically controlled congress in order to remove Bush and Cheney from office.. before 2008.

Yeah Right.

[blm]

126. Senators have no business pre-judging impeachment, especially since

that impeachment case has been gaining strength in congress in recent months.

Feingold had no trouble siding with Republicans against censure to allow Clinton impeachment process to continue for a BLOWJOB, but thinks it's appropriate to merely censure Bush for his crimes as an alternative to impeachment - that's a true disconnect.


I support censure and investigation of NSA spying, but also support impeachment of Bush for his crimes. Why you side with Feingold against impeachment, citing some secret knowledge is beyond reason, imo.

[radio4progressives]

140. Reading the Tea Leaves is not citing Secret Knowledge...

speculating is different than "citing"...

Today's hearing just proved part of my theory, it's only a matter of time (post mid term elections, when we will see no impeachment results even with a Democratic House Majority) when the rest of my theory will prove out.

Feingold is not opposed to impeachment, and he said as much. What he knows from the vantage point as an insider (sort of) who is privy to a hell of a lot more than we are, both about the machinations of the oppposing party, but also the machinations and ruminations of our own party (as per leadership and strategists), informs his own personal strategy on the move to Censure, i posit is based on the likelyhood that the Dems will not pursue in any meaningful level impeachment post mid terms.

we as observers can and should draw certain conclusions based on observations and knowledge based on history.

Not terribly difficult, and not terribly far fetched, as today's charade of a hearing proved once again..

[radio4progressives]

95. BLM this is getting a little bit over the top here...

over and over again, you're assertions have been proven to be incorrect.

It seems that you protest a bit too much, in my view.

The Op simply reveals who was willing to vote for Censure of Bill Clinton for a blow job - but who refuses to back Feingold's resolution to Censure Bush for his violations of the Consitutition and FISA laws.

There is something rotten going on here. For you to ignore and disregard these essential facts is strange.

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. Censure INSTEAD OF IMPEACHMENT

Really, if you don't get that, you're dense. Dense.

What part of "censuring Clinton AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO IMPEACHMENT" is not clear to you?

How obtuse can you get? It's pretty obvious that you're deliberately playing dumb here because it enables you to lob bullshit accusations at other Democrats with no merit. Tactics worthy of Free Republic.

[blm]

125. YOU don't know who is against censure because they haven't VOTED ON IT.

YOU are being overthetop when you act as if you know who supports censure or not when they HAVEN'T EVEN HAD THEIR HEARINGS YET.

YOU don't even know that the list above was for censure to STOP impeachment for a blowjob, which Feingold REFUSED to support because he sided with REPUBLICANS to allow impeachment process to continue for a BLOWJOB.

Now do you see the absurdity of your claims?

[riona]

75. i got this automated response from bill nelson

,,,,,,,,," I will continue to look carefully at the circumstances of this program, and I await the outcome of congressional investigations into the program before judging the appropriateness of any action, like, censuring the President...."

"I appreciate hearing from you on issues that affect the nation. Please know that I will keep your concerns in mind."

i'll sleep better now
:sarcasm:

[seabeyond]

81. cowering???? or just dont agree with feingold on approach

to nsa issue

what bullshit.

but hey, lets keep the momentum going that dems are cowering, doves, lack lack lack..... regardless if their is a real argument for it.

cowering my ass

they know they are going to be hit by fellow dem blogs yet still stand by conviction this isnt the way to go. they dont agree with this author, ergo author states cowering

just stupid

[garybeck]

91. yes, cowering.

maybe it wouldn't be cowering if they were doing something, anything, to stand up against these bastards. But they are spineless wimps. if they are worried about what the blogs are going to say, then give me a break. there are at least a half dozen things I can think of that they should be censuring the pres on, like LYING to congress about the war for one. any time any one of them gets a drop of guts and does something like this, they should be praised and the ones who turn their back should be shunned. How else can the american people show the dems that we want them to stand up against these fascist bastards.

[ProSense]

94. I can think of more for impeachment, Censure is weak!

If they vote tomorrow and every Democrat sides with Feingold, Dems show unity and the measure fails. Weak!

[radio4progressives]

97. If they won't go for Censure, they won't go for Impeachment..

what can be more obvious?

[ProSense]

101. Isn't it obvious that until they take back Congress it's moot? n/t

[radio4progressives]

107. I've been suggesting, that we won't see a Democratic Congress Impeach

Bush.. if they can help it. Yes, Conyers wants to go forward with it, but his attempts will be blocked by machinations from certain leaders in the Senate, like Schumer, Dodd, Durbin and a few others for whatever reasons have no desire to see this president Censured.

We need to know why Durbin and Schumer is running interference on this resoltuion. and we need to know why now, before tomorrow.

[ProSense]

110. Why stop everything. Is there Republican support for censure? n/t

[radio4progressives]

113. Stop? Stopping what?

[radio4progressives]

96. Hear ! Hear!

:applause:

[seabeyond]

104. well they are doing "something". but obviously it doesnt matter to

you, isnt enough for you because you either are uninformed or purposely ignoring what they do,.... so you can spout rhetoric. so bash the dems. i am not going to waste my time listing the things done, the results, and all the other stuff of the last couple years, cause so much easier to attack and say they are cowering

btw, obviously they are not worried about what blogs are saying, cause they are not doing what you want. hence my point, they arent cowering, they are telling you no.

[seabeyond]

105. btw, censor is fine with me, impeachment is fine with me,

speaking out is always good, and i hear it,..... and winning 2006 would be the best. i personally see the dems doing things on a regular basis that is going to allow the win of '06. unfortunate that you cant see, but then oh well. yours to do

[garybeck]

116. speaking of rhetoric... what exactly ARE they doing?

you said they are doing something. what????

[radio4progressives]

119. that's what i want to know.. exactly what are they doing?

apart from enabling this administration with their lawlessness?

[garybeck]

142. exactly. the lack of response is your answer...

they are doing nothing.

[radio4progressives]

149. Their lack of response reminds me of Scalia's jesture

[LittleClarkie]

144. What I don't get is that we have two men

both running for president. Both pulling Don Quiote moves against windmills with little chance of winning. One man was accused, at least by some folks, of knowing he would lose, and only attempting the stunt in the first place because he is indeed running for president and it would endear him to the base. I haven't seen even a peep, though I grant you I haven't been trying very hard, of anyone suggesting that this move by Feingold is at all related to his bid for president.

I don't believe it of either man. But I do find it interesting that near identical moves on the part of Russ Feingold and John Kerry were met with different reactions.

Personally, I'm just not sure why we put such stock in spectacular displays to the exclusion of day to day, meat and potatoes work on behalf of our legislators. It's as if when they're not jumping up and down on camera, we think they're sitting around eating bon bons or something. And I also don't see how anyone could look at such acts and see political benefit. On the contrary, I think Kerry and Feingold have been shunned to some extent for making moves that the leadership doesn't want.

While such displays make life more interesting on CSPAN, I wish people would also pay attention to the quiet

Speaking of which, what has been Reid's take with all this. I don't think he was pleased with Kerry and the filibuster. How does he feel about Russell at the mo'.

I do hope I'm wrong and Russ is able to pull a rabbit out of a hat and gain momentum for his censure. But he's been alone, or near alone, before, and I suspect he's going to be nearly alone again.

[radio4progressives]

146. I never saw this as a political stunt, or that Feingold would succeed

I'm not sure what it takes to make clear that simply standing up to Goliath to say: Stop! No More! - as this Resolution for Censure obviously is, why that is considered a "stunt" for political purposes having no other real constitutional merit.

I don't get it. When someone sees clear blatent wrong doing by elected officials including and especially the president, isn't it their duty and obligation to the american people to take whatever action is at their disposal to try and stop it or at the minimum call on others to help enforce the laws of the land and restore trust?

[LittleClarkie]

147. Did you see Kerry and the fillibuster as a stunt?

I can't remember.

[radio4progressives]

148. absolutely not... I was very pro-filibuster

and very pleased that Kerry lead it. very disturbed at the Dems who didn't join him ... Feingold was with him.

[LittleClarkie]

153. Groovy. I was very disturbed when a Dem/near Green co-worker

suggested that Feingold was only doing this because of his possible presidential run. The thought would never have occurred to me.

If this thing comes to a vote, I think we'll see Kerry is with Russ as well.

[WildEyedLiberal]

171. Actually, R4P didn't support Kerry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=251602&mesg_id=253309

In fact, she hates Kerry, as well as the Democratic party in general. I think it's sad that she uses Russ Feingold as a cover to pretend that she's just a far-left Dem, when in fact she hates Democrats. I think Feingold deserves better than to be manipulated to an anti-Democratic agenda by people who hate Democrats.

[blm]

155. Kerry shouldn't have HAD to lead it - he's not a judiciary Dem.

Feingold and others would NOT lead it out of the judiciary hearings and Dems lost two weeks of planning for that filibuster. Kerry HAD to step up because no one else from that committee was willing to stand with Kennedy then who took the brunt of the media hits against Dems during those two weeks.

BTW - you didn't hear Kennedy or Kerry call the other Dems cowering for not stepping up, did you?

[radio4progressives]

162. Kerry wanted to lead this because it was a campaign promise

And actually Kerry, Feingold and Kennedy made comments that demanded party unity from Dems, but used polite Senatorial tone and speech...

and i don't know if you picked up how soft that generally is..

[WildEyedLiberal]

170. BULLSHIT you did not!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=251602&mesg_id=253309

You didn't support the filibuster, and you accused Kerry of EXACTLY what you just denied.

Here's proof of your dishonesty.

[garybeck]

90. the BIG missing point in all of this discussion is:::::>

that they are selling the idea that it was only used to monitor phone calls that come from outside the US, and only where one end is an al-queda suspect.

THE WHOLE POINT to the warrantless spying is, that WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE. In fact we have every reason to believe they are actually spying on Americans, without international calls, and without one end being an al-queda suspect. Why? Because they are doing it! They have already been caught spying on the Quakers, peace activists, environmentalists, and even vegans, and in some of these cases they did not have a warrant.

We can't allow them to keep saying it was only done on phone calls that come from outside the US, and only where one end is an al-queda suspect. I call BULLSHIT. I say, without a warrant, we can only assume it's being done on all kinds of americans and we already know it's happening.

I have not seen any Dems bring this up. I wish they would wake up and smell the freaking coffee. By assuming it's only being done under certain circumstances, and echoing it verbally, they are falling into the trap, playing their game, and BEING STUPID.

[radio4progressives]

99. exactly

the fact is, that Nixon used domestic spying not just on anti-war dissidents, but on POLITICAL ENEMIES - we have history here people!

that's what the Bushies are doing! I am beginning to believe more and more that the Dems are being blackmailed, it's the only thing that explains their running for cover on this. the only thing.

[ProSense]

103. And how exactly does censure, attempted or real, stop Bush?

What is the punishment?

[radio4progressives]

106. Censure Resolution Officially Puts him "On Notice" and

it's also a Cease and Desist Mandate, and it gives MORE WEIGHT for criminal prosecution, following impeachment (should we ever have a courageous and principled Congress ever again)...

Without at least a Censure motion in the Senate at this juncture, (having just received knowledge of illegal spying activities reported in the press) any future attempt to prosecute Bush will be WEAKENED by a Defense that will claim that the Senate had no problem with Bush's spying activities/programs - otherwise they would have at least taken some action to stop it - in fact, if you'll recall, that's exactly what the Bush administration and his PR has been actually saying in the Media, until the day Feingold introduced the motion to Censure, making a valid point that would weaken the case to prosecute in the future.

[ProSense]

108. An investigation, with or without censure, can lead to impeachment n/t

[radio4progressives]

109. true, but don't we also want prosecution and conviction?

or do we just want to see him embarrassed?

I want prosectuion and conviction and no pardons. that's what i want, anything less than that is a dog and pony show.

[ProSense]

111. Censure is not prosecution, and has no impact on an investigation. n/t

[radio4progressives]

112. omg. i know that.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::banghead::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[WildEyedLiberal]

122. I don't think you do.

Since you apparently don't understand that Democrats voted to censure Clinton INSTEAD OF IMPEACHING HIM, I truly doubt you have the capacity to understand what censure really does, since you seem so utterly convinced that is is THE ONLY WAY TO FIGHT GEORGE BUSH!!!!!1111

That, or you're just being deliberately divisive. Hmm... that wouldn't exactly be new for you.

[garybeck]

117. who cares.

do you not fight just because you can't win? maybe the point is not to actually censure or impeach him, but rather to show the american people that what he's doing is illegal and wrong and someone has the guts to make it known.

[ProSense]

120. I do. I don't want an apology from Bush. Americans don't know? n/t

[garybeck]

129. no, they don't know.

in case you haven't noticed, half the nation thinks the spying program is just fine. they think it's only on alqueda when you and I know they're spying on american dissidents - peace activists, environmentalists, etc.

and in case you haven't noticed, most of the nation still watches Fox News and have no idea what is really going on.

people have to stand up against this tyranny. it's not only about whether or not censure passes. it's about the debate. it's about standing up for what is right. I don't care if there's only one democrat or one person with a brain or one person who gives crap in that whole government. If there's only one, he/she should stand up and do what's right. And what's right? Call them on their shit. Expose their lies. Try to prosecute them. It doesn't matter if you win. It matters that you try and stand up for what's right. When people cower because they know they can't win, or their afraid of ridicule, we then have a one party system.

[ProSense]

130. About 65% of the other half don't care, and the rest want proof. n/t

[blm]

127. Kennedy and Leahy already demanded ALL the NSA documents for the committee

investigation of censure.

THAT information is not discussed by the mediawhores trying to spin this story as anti-Feingold and anti-Dem.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

136. I note with interest

That the OP doesn't even address the possibility that some of the Democrats not supporting the censure motion might be doing so for reasons other than "cowering" or "Bushkissing" - the belief, for example, that the censure motion's inevitable failure will reflect badly on the Democrats.

While you may not believe that, the fact that the OP didn't even touch on it, and most of the rest of the thread hasn't, either, lowers my opinion of the censurers' grasp on reality even further.

There is certainly a case to be made that even a bound-to-fail censure motion would be a good thing. However, that doesn't seem to be the case that's being made. I'm worried that a lot of the posts I've seen aren't even based on the believe that the motion may succeed - a belief I think is fairly clearly false, but at least one that can be argued with - but rather seem to be deliberately ignoring the question and hoping that if they call their opponents enough names they won't have to face it.

[radio4progressives]

137. Everything "Reflects Badly" on the Democrats

The Sun in the Sky Reflects Badly on the Democrats...

The time of day reflects badly on the Dems.

[garybeck]

143. "censure motion's inevitable failure will reflect badly on the Democrats."

I call Bullshit.

I'm sick of people saying they won't take action because it will reflect badly. in almost every case, it actually turns out to be the opposite. The few people who do stand up get a ton of support. Of course they'll get criticized by Bill Orielly but who gives a crap. It's time to stand and be counted. Do what's right. don't base your decisions on how the other side will spin it. That is cowering.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

152. I'm afraid this is rather what I mean.

The four questions that need to be answered are

"How likely is it to succeed?"
"If it succeeds, will it make America a better place?"
"If it succeeds, will it increase or decrease the Democrats' electoral chances?"
"If it fails, will it increase or decrease the Democrats' electoral chances?"

In practice, the answers to the second and third are irrelevant, because the answer to the first is "it is certain not to". That just leads the fourth to be answered.

You go some way towards answering it, to be fair, although I don't agree with your answer. The support that those proposing censure gets comes from people who supported them anyhow. It's a good way of whipping up the far left, but it does more harm than good, especially if you brand all those who - quite reasonably - refuse to support it as "cowering", and similar, which is *exactly* what the Republicans want the electorate to hear. It's principle effect will be to make the Democrats look divided, unrealistic, fanatical and ineffectual, and thus to *lose them votes* in November.

The answer to "who gives a crap" is "the electorate". The thing that is right to do is to try and actually change things, not to make empty gestures. That requires winning in November, and the censure motion, and the insults directed at fellow Democrats who don't support it which are an inevitable consequence of it, are hindering that. It's not cowering, it's calculating, and politics is too important to let emotions overule calculation.

[radio4progressives]

157. Since when did defending the Bill of Rights become a "Far Left" issue?

My Gawwwd! I thought that was an AMERICAN issue!

Standing up for the Constitution is a Left Fringe issue now!

Holy fucking shit.

How far away from our core principles as a country we now have come.

Why don't you love our freedoms?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

159. Empty rhetoric.

That's not an argument, it's a string of platitudes.

The censure motion will *harm* the Bill of Rights, not help it, because it will mean more Republicans in power.

[radio4progressives]

165. Talk about Empty Rhetoric and Tortured Logic

The censure motion will *harm* the Bill of Rights, not help it, because it will mean more Republicans in power.

Censure is a Cease and Desist mandate, effectively immiedately (when it's voted on) ...

Cease and Desist means STOP VIOLATING THE LAWS of the LAND and the CONSTITUTION .

Censure means RETURN to the LAW and the Constitution POST HASTE.

It doesn't give a wink and a nod (like doing absolutely nothing does) to the president to continue what he's been doing.

More Republicans in Power? :wtf:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

167. But it won't happen!

That's the point you and so many of its supporters are ignoring.

The censure motion *will* fail. No matter how little the Democrats "cower", there are *not enough of them* to make it work. So it won't be a cease and desist mandate, or anything else; it will be an embarrassing failure.

Stop thinking about what the merits and demerits of the censure motion *would* be *if* it passed, and start thinking about what they *actually are*.

If you believe that even a failed censure motion would be a good thing, fair enough - I disagree with you, but it's at least a rational position. But I don't think most of the supporters of the censure are rationalising even that far, unfortunately.

[NVMojo]

138. they are all dirty and they know it.

[radio4progressives]

139. My Hunch Proved Out Today & Feingold Nailed it when he said Cover Up!

As I had expected, this hearing today was going to be a charade and indeed it was - Specter didn't even bring the full balance of witnesses originally requested - indeed it was 3 lackeys to two witnesses who should have been more ancedotal - Specter did what he has spent his career doing, creating a smoke and mirrors/dog and pony show - essentially another Cover Up!

This is exactly what I predicted all week long and in this very thread, but I take no pride in being correct - i truly wish i was wrong, but it was so very predictable.

As far as the rest of the Dems... they might be gathered here:

[mdmc]

141. Russ

rocks

[radio4progressives]

145. yes he does... bless his freedom rocking heart and soul...

:applause:

[blm]

151. I think you're wrong - Feingold SUCCEEDED TODAY - he forced media to cover

the legal aspect of Bush's actions, and he forced the Republicans to DEFEND the illegality of Bush's actions for the PUBLIC RECORD.

I will always fall down on the side of those who work to keep focus on the accuracy of the accounting for the HISTORIC RECORD, even when it is known from the outset that the motion itself will never have the numbers to pass.

I have seen it many times on many issues, and heard the despondence many times when it didn't work out perfectly, BUT, the historic record is there and PRESERVED thanks to these hearings and this will matter when it gets to te Supreme Court.

Feingold SUCCEEDED at what he really wanted to do and THAT is why all of us should be pleased.

[radio4progressives]

156. Huh? There was no accountability for the Public Record Today..

As Senator Feingold put it so bluntly and accurately, this hearing amounted to a Cover Up!

There was an enormity of information NOT allowed to be presented for "investigation" or discussion and this was not even an investigation.

It was a Charade!

Three Lackey's for Witnesses defending the "President's right" to do what ever he wanted, but not even in possession of evidence, other than opinion and theory. and even then, we two against their three.

What exactly do you think was presented for the record, other than testimony based on opinion - pro and con?

[blm]

158. He got the Republican's defense on RECORD and the testimony FOR censure

is on RECORD no matter WHAT you think.

Every word from Feingold's opening statement thru all the testimony is on record - and those of us who look to the HISTORIC RECORD and expect this matter to come up in the Supreme Court DO appreciate what occurred today. Feingold succeeded way more than some can comprehend.

[radio4progressives]

160. Yes I agree with this point, which is why I supported it to begin with

Even a Senate Hearing Charade is better than no action at all.

But you were talking about investigation which i took to mean getting into some meaty fact and constitutionalality by a panel of experts and scholars - what we had was a lopsided charade of a debate - so all of it is entered in the record. Also a few statements like "Acting in Bad Faith", and quotes on the issue of "wiretapping" made by the President on various occasions were entered once again.

[blm]

161. That's what happens when you act on the fly - preparation and friends are

key to any battle, especially in the senate.

[robcon]

168. Feingold 'succeeded' today?

Only two Democrats showed up.

The committee hearing was called by Republicans.

Republicans, naturally, dominated the questioning and speeches, with a 5 to 2 Senators at the hearing.

Call to Censure Bush Is Answered by a Mostly Empty Echo
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK Published: April 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, MARCH 31 — "The Senate Judiciary Committee opened a bitter if lopsided debate on Friday over whether Congress should censure President Bush for his domestic eavesdropping program.

Senator Russell D. Feingold has drawn little support for his proposal to censure President Bush.

Although few Senate Democrats have embraced the censure proposal and almost no one expects the Senate to adopt it, the notion that Democrats may seek to punish Mr. Bush has become a rallying cause to partisans on both sides of the political divide. Republicans called the hearing to give the proposal a full airing as their party sought to use the threat of Democratic punishment of the president to rally their conservative base.

Five Republicans at the hearing took turns attacking the idea as a reckless stunt that could embolden terrorists. Just two Democrats showed up to defend it, arguing that Congress needed to rein in the White House's expansive view of presidential power. The Democrats' star witness was John W. Dean, the former counsel to President Richard M. Nixon who divulged many of the details in the Watergate scandal..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/washington/01censure.html

This is "success?"

[0007]

172. Jesus!