Kerry supports Feingold censure motion, according to --

[MH1]

this post at dkos:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/3/13/114144/941/12#c12

anyone else know anything?

[TayTay]

1. Just called Senator Kerry's office

I am a constituent, etc.

Senator Kerry is on board with the resolution to censure the President of the United States for his illegal wiretapping of Americans without a legal warrant.

Yeah! Sen. Kennedy is, of course, also on board with this. I am very happy.

[fedupinBushcountry]

2. Thanks for calling

This is wonderful news.

I see Feingold will be on the Senate floor at 4 P.M. now. Kerry will be back from Ohio by then.

[Mass]

3. Here is what NBC is reporting -

However, this sounds a lot like what he said for Alito.

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/7965950/detail.html

Kerry Unsure If He'll Support Censure
Massachusetts Senator In Cincinnati To Meet With Mayor

POSTED: 2:04 pm EST March 13, 2006


CINCINNATI -- Sen. John Kerry said he'll need to take a closer look at a proposal to censure President George W. Bush before he decides whether to support it.

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee from Massachusetts is in Cincinnati to meet with Mayor Mark Mallory and attend a roundtable discussion with small-business advocates.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Sunday he will introduce a resolution to censure Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping of suspected terrorists.

Kerry said that although he wants to hold Bush accountable for his actions, the proposal to censure the president needs more study.

and of course, god prevents he took the time to read the bill. He is a traitor already.

[TayTay]

4. I called his office

they said he's suporting the censure motion.

[Mass]

5. I know, I posted that on the GD thread.

However, nothing will stop the naysayers. It is Kerry, after all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=647694&mesg_id=647908

Let's hope he comes soon with an official position, though I understand he is not going to announce this decision in Ohio in the middle of a meeting that is totally unrelated. It is important enough that it needs the proper announcement.

[ProSense]

6. Since this is

only a slap on the wrist, why was this done so hurriedly?

Sunday, March 12, 2006
Feingold introducing censure resolution against Bush for eavesdropping program
Stefanie Presley at 4:02 PM ET

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said Sunday on ABC's This Week that he plans to introduce a censure resolution in the US Senate Monday condemning President Bush for approving the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program and then misinforming the public about the program's existence and legality. Feingold has argued that the program is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) , which forbids wiretapping of citizens in the US without a warrant or a court order. Feingold asserted Sunday that the President's action in allowing warrantless wiretaps of terror suspects was an impeachable offense "right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors", but questioned whether removing the President from office would be right for the country at this time. Republican leaders have already responded to the proposal with derision. ABC News has more.

A censure resolution is a formal statement of disapproval by the Senate. Unlike impeachment, it has no formal legal impact but can be politically problematic. The Senate has only censured a President once - in 1834, members voted to censure President Andrew Jackson for assuming power not granted by the Constitution in the context of the controversy over the failed Bank of the United States. After the political balance in the Senate changed, the censure motion was expunged in 1837. In 1999, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a resolution to censure President Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal but the measure was blocked after the Senate acquitted Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice in his impeachment trial.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/feingold-introducing-censure.php

I'm for impeaching Bush, but it will not happen until the Democrats control at least the House or Senate. It's enough now to get more people, communities, etc. on board.

[Mass]

7. Let's see - What do you think Feingold would prefer:

A Feingold censure motion or a Reid-Feingold-Boxer-Kennedy-Kerry censure motion?

I am more or less sure that this why it was done so quickly. This is plain silly and it makes me mad at Feingold (that I like a lot).

[TayTay]

9. That would be bad.

There is no political hay to be made from solo gimmick moves. They sound good for a couple of days, then disappear. Taking the time to get a few votes lined up is a much, much better strategy. It has staying power and will still rebound to Feingold's credit.

[Mass]

10. But it is clearly what he did not do. He announced his decision

before he talked to any senators, from his own admission.

The right move would have been to get a few senators around him BEFORE he announced the move.

[TayTay]

11. Sigh!

We shall see how this plays out. I am in favor of the censuring motion, on it's face. We shall see what happens. Is this why the Senate has been so loopy today?

[Mass]

12. I agree\nt

[karynnj]

13. Where are all the people bemoaning his "free lancing?"

My guess is that Feingold is striving to stand out and to differentiate himself from others, especially Kerry.

[whometense]

14. I agree with you here,

and that's why I thought it seemed like grandstanding when he announced it yesterday. Why not ask around first? If no one wanted to support it he could have still been the brave lone wolf. Something about it doesn't smell right to me. It seems like he's angling for the Howard Dean faction.

[TayTay]

8. I think it's a good move.

It is a chance for Dems to have a vote on the floor of the Senate as to whether or not they agree with the idea that the President should be allowed to break the law at will.

Ahm, I am not in favor of that. The Senate Intelligence Committee seems to think it's no big deal. I am glad that Sen. Feingold is introducing this. I like it. I bet Sen. Kerry will too! (He is for accountability and has publicly said that illegal wiretapping is wrong.)

No big deal.

[karynnj]

15. It sounds like Durbin is trying to use the Censure

as a lever to get hearings or investigation. (caveat - I'm not sure I fully understand what's happening.) Spector seemed to disagree with Feingold, but is troubled about things he has no answer to - such as whether all the calls involved an Alqaeda suspect on at least one side.

Why did Feingold run away?

[Mass]

16. Shaun at upper-left has it right.

http://upper-left.blogspot.com/

I'm sympathetic…

…but unsold. Sure, I’d like to see Bush in the dock as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure Russ Feingold's got the right approach. Feingold's censure resolution may be, as Anonymous Liberal argues at Glen Greenwald's blog, "moderate and reasonable," but that doesn't make it wise.

In fact, the censure resolution, which Feingold unveiled on the Stephanopoulous show apparently without consulting any fellow Senators, let alone his caucus leadership, smacks, frankly, of stunt. Our anonymous friend offers a likely outcome...
...
In other words, the resolution will fail. It may never reach the floor. There are reasons, in fact, other than an effort to appear 'reasonable,' that Democrats not be aboard. One might be a reluctance to participate in a futile, if not farcical, campaign that appears to serve no larger purpose than to ehnance Feingold's stature among a certain class of activists who might be helpful in 2008.

If Feingold wants the cooperation of his colleagues, he could try something other than "Tommorow I define the debate. Sorry if that's a problem for you." as his approach. If he wants to be a leader, indeed, the leader, of the Party, he can't operate like a loose cannon.
...

[kerrygoddess]

17. Ouch

It does smack of attention getter syndrome in my opinion.

[ProSense]

18. I agree

Even on the floor Feingold was speaking as if Bush WILL be censured after the voting. This is a message vote, it's not even a slap on the wrist. Sometimes a message is necessary, but given Bush has clearly violated several laws keep pressing.

It almost seems as if Durbin salvaged a reason for doing it: urge more investigation.

[fedupinBushcountry]

19. It would have went over much better

if Feingold had stayed on the floor and debated Spectre. Hell I was shouting back at my TV the most reasonable response, he broke the law Sen. Spectre, you yourself just admitted it. But instead of holding him accountable for the law he broke, you instead are going to let him get off scott free and put another law in place. Why, so others can break the law too? Sen. Spectre no one is above the law, not you, not me, not any American citizen, and neither is the POTUS.

[MH1]

20. Where'd Feingold go?

I got home and Durbin was quizzing Specter. Doing a nice job, too, I thought. But where was Feingold?

If Feingold free-lanced this then DU and dkos ought to be ripping him like they did Kerry on the Alito filibuster (to be fair there weren't that many attacking Kerry, but then Kerry did have some discussion with others before doing the filibuster thing).

[fedupinBushcountry]

21. I have no idea

But he left as soon as he finished speaking. But he was still in the chamber when Specter asked him to stay, and Specter also told members of his staff that were still there to ask him to come back for a colloquy. Bad move on Feingold's part IMO.

[wisteria]

22. So does Kerry back Feingold or doesn't he? What is the official word? n/t

[Mass]

23. rawstory says he does but still does not have the resolution

last thing I heard.

[karynnj]

24. That may be why he's getting so little support

if he isn't even getting the resolution out to other Senators.

[wisteria]

25. You know, I am beginning to think that Feingold is very disorganized.

He doesn't plan very well.

[Mass]

26. Not sure, on the contrary.

He becomes the netroots white knight. He does not really look for co-sponsors, does not want the resolution to go to a vote, so he does not offense others.

This is pure grandstanding, IMO.

We'll see tomorrow. If, as I expect, this disappears from the senate and only allows him to add a couple more blogs on kos, we will know. If he announces a few more co-sponsors and that other people continue to speak on it, it will be different.

[TayTay]

27. Yeah, but those kinds of white knights last only days

If nothing was truly accomplished then the deed itself fades quickly.

What a weird day in the Senate. Where did Russ Feingold go when Sen. Specter asked for a debate? That was bizarre. This is a symbolic vote and is absolutely doomed to fail. The only reason to do it is to take a stand on principle and this is a very sound principle. (The President of the United States knowingly broke the law cuz he didn't feel like obeying it.)

Where did Sen. Feingold go? That was just plain loopy. It looked like he ran away from a fight. (That can't be right. What the hell was going on.)

I am beginning to side with the folks who said this was a gimmick. If so, this is damaging to 'the cause' and will have no impact at all.

[wisteria]

28. Well, if you are correct, than he can't expect to gain to much support

for a run outside the net roots. He could do real damage to the party if he continues to ignore what is good for the whole party and just concentrates on what is good -attention wise -for Russ Feingold. Time will tell. I'll wait and see what comes of this Tuesday like you.

[kerrygoddess]

30. No official word yet

I asked - the reply I got was no word yet.

[wisteria]

31. Thanks for the update. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

32. Wish there was more. N/T

[jillan]

29. I just can't imagine WHY Russ wanted to do this alone.

I think it is great, but it would have been better if he would have had
support.

When Kerry went for the filibuster, he did it alone. BUT then got busy to get
support.

And I just want to say FU to Reid for not standing with Feingold on this.
Russ probably should have gone to Reid first, if he was following a protocol.
But - Kerry didn't go to Reid first either. I don't want to go off on Reid here,
but he should stand with his Senators imho.

[wisteria]

33. Kerry had the support of Senator Kennedy to begin with and the

Alito filibuster did not involve the security of our country and the need for secretive wiretapping to protect us all as the Republicans frame it. Kerry just seemed to be more organized and more sincere with doing what was right for us and less about what was good for him.

[jillan]

35. While I wish Russ would have gotten more dems to stand with him

I am glad he is doing this.

With this screwed up administration, it seems like a new scandal comes up and knocks the last
scandal out of everyone's minds. The NSA spying is something that needs to stay up front.

[wisteria]

37. IMO, for right now, this NSA spying is a done deal. No one wants

to touch it for fear of appearing weak during an election year. For Democrats, who have just recently regained some momentum on security issues, this one issue could be used against us with little effort. Most American's don't understand the implications and the scope of the administrations power on this issue.
I agree, he should be held accountable, but I feel it can wait until after before someone is wiretapped or spied on who shouldn't be and it will be back in the news again. I suppose my point is why rock the boat now?

[TayTay]

38. I believe that the Alito filibuster was aired out at the Sen. Caucus

on the Tuesday before Sen. Kerry decided to go for it. I remember hearing that Sens. Kennedy & Kerry had made a full case for a filibuster in the Democratic weekly meeting and had informed their fellow Senators of the case for a No vote and the case for a filibuster. That means that the subsequent actions were certainly not a surprise and certainly not without advanced warning.

[ProSense]

39. Greenwald,

even he had an update about the lack of coordination:

UPDATE (by Glenn): One of the problems which A.L. is referencing here is quite vividly illustrated by this article from The New York Times, which reports that Sen. Carl Levin, when asked about Feingold's resolution on CNN's Late Edition yesterday, said this:

"I think what the president did was wrong," Mr. Levin said. "But even though I think he was wrong, I would rather wait until the investigation is completed, which has now been started by the Intelligence Committee, before I go beyond that."

In fairness to Levin, it seems that Feingold told nobody about his Censure Resolution until he announced it with George Stephanopolous, and so Levin wasn't prepared to address it yesterday when he was asked about it. Still, Levin's response, which was both frightened and incoherent, illustrates a serious instinct problem which so many Democrats have (and, just incidentally, someone really ought to tell Sen. Levin that waiting "until the investigation is completed" before deciding what to do is going to be a very long wait, since that Committee voted last week not to investigate).

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

While he understands why Levin wasn't prepared, he then goes on to justify why the Senators should blindly support this: instinct.

On IWR, stolen election, anything, I don't want my government acting on instinct when there is evidence to be weighed. Bush acted on instinct (cause the evil bastard wanted to) and started an illegal war. Why stop there? Just sign off on anything another Democrat proposes without reading it. Beyond that, this was a distracting moment for no reason. Bush and the Republican are so in deep. People were looking at them with a WTF glance after the port deal. I will wait to see what happens on censure.

The attempted filibuster could have actually stopped Alito, and I still don't know why Fiengold was so laid back in that fight? The attempted censure, doesn't even censure Bush, just sends a message. He was already hearing the noise of complete disapproval loud and clear on the port deal, Katrina and other failures. Towns are impeaching the crook.

[karynnj]

43. Levin's answer seems perfectly sensible to me.

To me it seems that Feingold may regret that he didn't use his position to lead the Alito filibuster. Since then he has tried to rally the base on this and on the Patriot act. Neither of the charges he has led are winnable, Alito was winable and far more important. I may be getting too cynical, but it may well be that he sees Kerry possibly taking the part of the political spectrum that he thought would be his alone.

His fund raising material really emphasizes the IWR vote and the Patriot Act vote. I think the IWR vote will help in the primaries and not hurt in the general election, but I think the Patriot Act and this censure would hurt in the general and possibly in the primaries. My guess is that it may also be that he needs this type of thing for fund raising. But he risks being a better looking, better sounding Kuchinich.

[sandrakae]

34. Can someone explain what censure means?

[ProSense]

36. There is an explanation in post 6

It's basically admonishes Bush for doing wrong and calls on him to stop doing it.

[beachmom]

40. Just my 2 cents, but . . .

I am opposed to this censure vote and hope it never comes to the floor. Why? It's pointless and useless, and nothing changes even if Feingold actually got the 51 votes. This is completely different from the Alito filibuster, because had that filibuster succeeded, something REAL would have come out of it. Like, maybe no South Dakota total ban on abortion, for example. And maybe a more moderate choice or at least someone like John Roberts, who (hopefully) is less radical. The other issue is that * is not Nixon, and I predict he will stay in office through '08. BUT, he's such a lame duck we need to stop thinking about him, and focus on the Congress which we can get back in '06. THEN, we can do some investigations and, more importantly, start working on the people's business. I hate to bring it up again, but after the impeachment of Clinton, the Republicans LOST seats. Unless you have the majority of the American people behind censure or impeachment, it's a loser and looks like empty partisanship signifying nothing. We need to approach this differently, because we don't have Americans on our side in regards to civil liberties. People are frightened and don't seem to be outraged by this stuff, so that means we need to focus on where the people are with us which is the main theme that our government is broken and needs to be fixed.

I don't blame Feingold on this. He has consistently fought for civil liberties, and I admire his principled approach, but he's just going to have to stand alone on this. Reid is right on this one, and if Kerry does indeed support this censure, well I respectfully disagree. We can't run on "I hate George Bush" anymore. We have to run against the Republicans and how they only serve THEIR interests, not the people's.

[karynnj]

41. I agree totally with you on this

I do blame Feingold on this one. He could have made the same speech and demanded an independent prosecutor (or more investigation). We don't know the full story on these violations.

I think that Senators, like Kerry, who have said that it appears that Bush did break the law are in an awkward position. I would assume that they it is possible that they would have pushed Feingold not to push this. A big down side I see to the vote coming up is that it may lead to both the Democrats and Republicans voting against it. This would close the issue and Bush could take it as vindication.

I'm not sure there's any difference between Kerry and Reid - the MA people said Kerry's office said he would vote for it, but Kerry has made no public (or Senate) statement. It's possible that he would vote for it, although he might think it a bad idea to do this or he could be 100% behind it.

[TayTay]

42. There is no personal downside in Sen. Kerry voting for it.

He is on record as strongly opposing the Bush Admin's blatant disregard for the law in this respect. The Senator comes from a state where Bush has a 28% approval rating and is widely disliked. Kerry can easily weather this vote. (It will have no impact on him at all.)

Sen. Feingold is the one with something to lose here. Wisconsin is not as 'blue' as Massachusetts. This will be perceived as a very liberal action (which is actually isn't, btw) and I don't think it is working out the way Sen. Feingold thought it would. (Or maybe it is. Maybe he wanted a symbolic throwaway vote that would cast him as the sole Keeper of Values in the Senate. Ahm, that is not going to work.

Who here is actually from Wisconsin? How is this playing in Sen. Feingold's home state? (Cuz I have no way of knowing that and it sounds important.)

[beachmom]

45. You're right about Mass., wrong about the national stage

Which I believe is where Sen. Kerry wants to be. I can give you a thermometer check from red state land, and a lot of people HAVE given up on *. But if the Dems start pulling stunts like this, then we'll have squandered any good will that could be coming our way. A lot of people hate "partisanship" and just want to see government working again. I think the Dems are in the perfect position to capitalize on this, as they are on the right side of so many issues. But censuring the president? What does THAT accomplish other than fill the time of a few cable news talk shows and fire up the blogosphere. How does that help your average Joe? It doesn't. Look, people aren't stupid. They know now that * is an incompetent and is unworthy of their trust anymore. It's time for the Dems to say "help is on the way"; let's move forward. That will not just resonate in the blue and purple states, but in the red states, too.

Kerry will be bitten in the a** during the presidential race if he votes yes on this. That's just my opinion, and like many others of mine, I could be wrong. But this is just my gut speaking that this thing feels wrong. It's best to put energy into thinking about Iraq, then censuring the president.

[Mass]

48. In that case, blame Feingold. He is the one who brought the subject.

If they can cast that as accountability, this is not necessarily a losing issue, I think, which is why I am not sure the NSA wiretaps were the reason to do that. Katrina would have been better.

[beachmom]

49. Well, Feingold is just being . . . Feingold

He's always been a maverick, and he's always going to be a maverick. But I believe the Dem leadership can stop this thing, and since it appears there is less consensus on this issue, EVEN IN THE LEFT BLOGOSPHERE, there will be less pressure to cater to the lefties. In two words, KILL IT. Bad idea.

[Mass]

50. In my book, this is grandstanding, if you do it without even asking

others to follow.

It is maverick when you do it after nobody has agreed to follow.

(I really like Feingold, but on this one, he disappointed me, not by what he did, but the way he did it).

[beachmom]

54. By definition a maverick is in it for himself, not the party

Unlike other Dems, he's not a leader in the party. Which is why I think the leadership should make this thing go away. And yesterday. Since even us at the JK forum are a bit divided on this, I think Reid and the other leaders will weather this storm just fine.

So, I think that we're kind of in agreement that Feingold is NOT helping our cause; I'm just less outraged by Feingold, because I've never seen him as a team player anyway. Why, as a potential presidential candidate, would he start playing on the team now? This only is a disaster if it comes to a vote, which is why that should be prevented.

[Mass]

55. Actually, Feingold is part of the Senate leadership

He is assistant whip.

I guess I am mad at him because I agree with the proposal, but the way it was brought did not allow other Democrats either to agree with him or to disagree with him properly.

[beachmom]

56. Oops -- thanks for that clarification. I guess I never perceived him

as being part of the leadership, but I was wrong on that count.

I agree with you that it was bad the way he brought it up, but I'm probably in disagreement with many of you in the fact that this censure vote is a political loser and should not nor ever be voted on, unless new compelling evidence comes out that outrages the public.

I'm bored with hating *, and just want the Dems in power, so we can start solving the many problems of this country to make it a better place for my kids. Dwelling on * keeps us stuck, and this censure vote is mostly about hating *, and wanting to stick it to "The Man", even if it changes nothing.

[ProSense]

59. No he will not. A huge majority of the public is behind impeachment

And a lot of independents and some Republicans are in that figure. The problem with censure is it is a pointless act at this time and trivializes the severity of Bush's illegal activities.

[beachmom]

60. Can you cite the poll, please, because I never saw a poll

that showed BROAD support for impeachment the way it was for Nixon. And for what, precisely, are we going to impeach him for? At the top of my list is his botched war in Iraq but being a f***ing idiot is unfortunately not an impeachable offense. And the Republicans are now patching things up for him for breaking the FISA laws, so then he won't be breaking the law anymore. Like it or not, we're stuck with him until January 19, 2009, so it's best that we take the House and Senate in '06 and stick it to him. Censuring or impeaching him are the perfect way for us to blow our lead in the '06 elections.

Look, I come to you seeing a bright future for Dems. My * supporter friend no longer talks about him, and raved about Kaine's Democratic response after the SOTU. We can WIN in '06; but that's IF we don't make mistakes like this. We need to grow up and ACT like we're going to be governing this country very soon, at least in the Congress. I am opposed to any of these stunts, unlike the Alito filibuster, which was based on principle with Exhibit A being the South Dakota abortion ban -- very tangible and easy to understand unlike the NSA fiasco.

[TayTay]

61. The pivot to blaming the Rethugs for the state of the union today

starts with actions like this. The Republican Congress enables Bush to continue his programs that don't work. The Republican Congress refuses to hold oversight hearings, in apparent violation of their own oaths of office. The Republican Congress tolerates a President who is incompetent and who evades his responsibility as a Chief Executive.

The Republican Congress is complicit in the whole Republican program of ineptitutude, incompetence and indifference that have done so much damage to this country. This Congress could have done something but instead chose to stay quiet and stay docile.

It is also their fault. They have the House and Senate, they have the dominant power at the moment. It isn't Bush alone, it's all of them.

[ProSense]

63. This is the November 2005 poll

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114159845480489827-g93DzQ22Z0aYaykefmfaC_5SwSw_20070306.html?mod=blogs



And the movement grows:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=641621&mesg_id=641621

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=644081&mesg_id=644081

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060130&s=holtzman


Nixon:

July 22, 1973
A Louis Harris poll shows 44 percent of participants agreeing that Nixon should resign if it can be proven he ordered a cover-up, with 70 percent rating his handling of the matter as “only fair or poor.” An even 50 percent believe Dean’s charges against the president but split 38 percent to 37 percent over whom they would believe if Nixon denied those charges.


April 20, 1974
Given what the public knows about Watergate, a Louis Harris poll reveals that 49% believe Nixon should not resign, yet 51% believe he “will be found to have violated the law….” Most believe the president is using executive privilege as an excuse to keep incriminating evidence from Congress.


August 8, 1974
President Nixon announces to the nation in a televised address that he will “resign the Presidency, effective at noon tomorrow.”


August 19, 1974
A Gallup poll shows 56% of those surveyed believe Nixon “should be tried for possible criminal charges arising from Watergate.”


http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page=d

[beachmom]

68. Thanks for the info, Prosense

That poll doesn't convince me since there is a big "if" in the question. Even Kerry hasn't been willing to say the president lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq because he doesn't know what their intent was. To be honest, that new article in the NYT about Saddam Hussein, if true, casts doubt on * lying us into war. If the Iraqi military ALSO thought they had WMD, then Saddam Hussein's ruse was complete. He had fooled the whole world. But (and this is the big but), what Kerry said in the campaign still holds true today. * RUSHED into war. He TRUMPED up all evidence that propped up going to war while DOWNGRADING or downright censoring any evidence to the contrary. The whole administration was absolutely not forthright in the possible difficulties we may have encountered in Iraq and did not put together a post-war plan for the country nor send in enough troops to get the job done. All of this is very troubling, shows an unbelievable amount of negligence, and should have led to him being kicked out of office. But impeachable? I don't think so. And you know he would fight until the end with his blinding sunglasses on. And the blood let from the Republican party would also be spilled from the Democratic party, and we'd be looking at an even lower voter turnout.

I don't live in a deep blue area, and until I hear more centrist and conservative Democrats, Independents and Republicans (except the hard core ones) screaming impeachment, I think this is a VERY BAD direction for the party to go. It basically says that our policy amounts to hating *, and not what we're going to do to fix things. And if my idealism about this doesn't inspire you, what about cynicism? We NEED * as president so that we can win in '06 and '08. He's a pariah that we can put in every TV ad across the land to get Repubs kicked out of office.

I definitely feel like the odd man out here, but sometimes you have to grit your teeth, hold back from revenge, and instead do the right thing and take this country back. Revenge will only make you feel good for a little while, and if impeaching * means a McCain or Allen presidency I don't want ANYTHING to do with it, and do not think that that kind of personal vendetta helps the American people. They are our constituency, aren't they? The true revenge on * will be history and how he took the country in the absolute wrong direction.

[jenndar]

69. You think this is personal? n/t

[beachmom]

71. Yes, I do. There are MANY complicit Republicans involved here.

Yet all the talk is impeaching *. Why? Even if we don't have the evidence.

Plus, once again, our revenge will cost us everything. I'm not willing to go along with that.

And, when our guys are dying and chaos rules the day, do you not think that I don't curse George * more than anyone else. So at least for me, it's pretty damned personal. But my eyes are on the prize.

(Remember the Chinese proverb: if you want revenge, it is best to dig two graves)

[ProSense]

73. Beachmom, there is a lot of evidence

that point to Bush breaking more than one law. Look at the NSA alone, the only defense Bush has is an interpretation that only he, his administration and staunch supporters are pushing. In fact, Specter is trying to change the law to match the interpretation. The article about the WMD states Saddam didn't have weapons. Bush is not being accused of knowing Saddam was delusional. Bush had evidence that there were no weapons and presented false information. The question is was it intentional, and many believe it was.

The conversation isn't always focused on about impeaching Bush. There are the 2006 and 2008 elections, and a lot of time is spent on the latter. There are the investigations: Plame, Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Noe and others. The fact that Bush and many Republicans are entangled in some way (Katherine Harris is about to drop out of the 2006 Senate race), is their own doing.

Holding someone accountable, punishing them, for intentional breaking the law is not revenge, it's justice.

[beachmom]

75. The NSA was the one instance I saw where he DEFINITELY

broke the law and even admitted he did. And now we see how the Republicans are going to change the law for him. This would not be the case if Dems were in the majority. But I don't see a big movement of people out in the country (other than us in the Dem base plus maybe some libertarians) outraged by it. Even Bill Maher talked about how he wasn't all that worked up about it. Here is a clear cut case, and it's like we already lost.

The WMD/Iraq case is where there is more anger and outrage in the public. But when I delve in, I find most of the evidence as circumstantial or could be interpreted a few different ways. I think an impeachment proceeding hinged on proving that the * administration knowingly lied to the public to get us into war would be next to impossible to prove. I think Sen. Kerry, the prosecutor, would concur on that.

So I think we should continue to talk about these things and definitely investigate it, but leave the I and the C words out of it. And I also think we should use Tim Kaine's approach by focussing on what we intend to do to fix government, and our criticism of the Republicans should be about the corruption, the incompetence, and how they are not doing the people's work.

[ProSense]

79. Sorry, the evidence that Iraq did not have WMD is not

circumstantial. The intelligence community knew and there is evidence they made the administration aware of these facts. Impeachment is a trial, which is usually preceded by an investigation and wrong doing found. So impeachment isn't just toss out, there are procedures. In fact, a clearer determination of wrong doing should have preceded the censure. That's why all the talk about investigations that never happened. The Democrats can't launch an investigation with subpoena power, only the Repubs can at this point. So until the Republican decide to or the Democrats regain Control, impeachment will not happen. That doesn't mean that people can't call for it base on what we know.

[beachmom]

84. Let's see if this makes sense, Prosense.

In a general way, the whole world thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD and Saddam himself added to it because he was afraid his own military or the Shiites might overthrow him if they knew the truth. The Germans, the French, the Italians, the Brits, and us. We all thought he had something lying around.

But * decided that he wanted regime change for who knows why, but at least in part due to the WMD. So they start putting the evidence together for war. But within the intelligence community there were doubters. Had * been a good and thorough president, he would have set up a parallel group of people to argue AGAINST war in Iraq and AGAINST the premise that Saddam had WMD. It's called a cost/benefit analysis, and had * stayed awake during his MBA classes at Harvard, maybe he would have done that. But he didn't. He had decided to go to war, what, 10 days after 9/11/01, and was going to assemble the evidence to get the public on board with him.

So to me it's like there are two things going on. One, people thought Saddam had WMD but they weren't going to go to war over it. However, it was CW that Saddam had at least some of the weapons. The second part was a country that had decided they WERE going to go to war over it, and decided to ignore any details that didn't go along with their march to war. You had a president who literally couldn't handle "the truth" -- that it was NOT a slam dunk that Saddam had weapons.

The whole thing to me remains a mystery, what the motivations of * and Cheney, et al were. I still don't understand why they wanted to go to war. But where you and I totally agree is that this needs to be investigated, and investigated by a Democratic Congress. However, it should not be an "impeachment" hearing, but instead just to investigate pre-war intelligence and how the administration affected it. Then we see what it turns up. But the thing that liberals need to be cautious about is the fact that other countries thought Saddam had the weapons, too, so it may not be so easy a case to prove.

[ProSense]

89. Accurate to a point

Impeachment hearings couldn't happen without prior investigation. There has to be basis for the hearings, it's a trial. The public perception was created by the administration. The public didn't weigh the evidence. Public support was based on the information reported. The public was misled. The public is now outraged having learned the facts.

So if the intelligence community knew and shared information with the administration that they kept from Congress and the public, that needs to be investigated. This is a war that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. What matters is not who believed Iraq had WMD, but who knew they didn't.

[Mass]

46. I agree with all you said.

In addition, the resolution is going in commission, so it is now up to Specter to bring it in session.

We will soon know whether Feingold is serious or was grandstanding (as I doubt Specter is in a hurry to have a hearing).

[Dr Ron]

51. He may survive as a Maverick

I'n not from Wiscosin, but with nobody being from there to respond I'll go with my guess from what I've read about him.

I get the feeling that many in Wisconsin see him as an independent/maverick type, not as someone on the far left. I would guess that how this plays out at home will depend upon how it is framed there. Feingold is likely to portray this as opposing abuse of power (which is nonideological) while Republicans will try to portray it as far left Bush hatred. Regardless of the wisdom of proposing this now, I hope that Feingold gets it interpreted his way at home.

[karynnj]

53. He also isn't up for the Senate until 2010

The impact would be if he ran for the Presidency - where Beachmom's post may be even more relevent to him. (If it's kept in committte, the question is whether he's affected by introducing it. With this and the personal things, I assume he is probably 2008's Kuchinich.

[Dr Ron]

57. This shouldn't be a factor in 2010

I agree the political significance is more for 2008. While he's a long shot, I don't see him as a Kucinich. Being from the Senate as opposed from the House, and not being seen as far out of the mainstream, he has an outside chance.

This may help in the primaries--at being a long shot he has to concentrate on getting the n omination as opposed to thinking of how this will play nationally. Considering how low Bush's approval is, and general opposition to warrantless wiretaps (as long as asked in this manner) he might get away with it.

I do wish he had concentrated on getting an investigation as opposed to calling for censure at this time. Republicans voting against an investigation would have far more to explain than voting against censure if it actually came to a vote.

[beachmom]

44. That's why I hope it never comes to a vote

I don't want Kerry voting for this thing; what if he did become president one day? Then everyone will be jumping for the first chance to censure him, and they can say -- hey, YOU voted to censure *, so now we can censure you. Look, I also think * broke the law with the NSA spying without a warrant, but that's not exactly the same as the mob-like behavior of the Nixon administration. Perhaps * is doing stuff like Nixon, but nothing that explosive has come out from legitimate sources, and I just don't hear people talking about the NSA story -- it's a big yawn to them (Katrina, OTOH, is still being talked about). A slow methodical investigation would have been best, but the rubber stamp Republican congress won't do that. We just need to win big in '06, not have empty votes like the one Feingold is suggesting.

[karynnj]

47. We don't know how badly Bush broke the law, just that he did

Clearly more investigation is a better alternative to a censure vote - it keeps the story out there. Also, if those not submitted included people like Senator Kerry, it would be a huge story and important.

Kerry almost has to vote yes - because he has said that Bush broke the law on many things. (He may qualify it by saying he would have prefered more investigation.) I hope a vote doesn't come up because it will put many people in an awkward situation. (almost as bad as the IWR, but we're doing this to ourselves) The net outcome will almost certainly be used by the Republicans to say this vindicates Bush.

[jenndar]

66. What you said.

"Kerry almost has to vote yes - because he has said that Bush broke the law on many things. (He may qualify it by saying he would have prefered more investigation.) I hope a vote doesn't come up because it will put many people in an awkward situation. (almost as bad as the IWR, but we're doing this to ourselves)"

If JK voted "no," he'd be a flip-flopper. There are consequences either way.

[karynnj]

67. He has a little wiggle room

At this point he has said nothing definitive on the resolution. His office has said he would support it. He would though need a good reason - because he has said the program breaks the law. Maybe if he thought the resolution was premature and that more investigation is needed or that something in the wording needs fixing. His comments on the spying itself DO acknowledge that the program over all is very important, but it can and should be done within the letter of the law.

[jenndar]

72. At this point, I wonder if he will say anything definitive.

There's budget and ANWR stuff going on in the Senate. IMO, Feingold's timing on this is pretty bad.

[wisteria]

52. I personally think this places Kerry in a tough position. He has, as

you mentioned, said in his opinion, Bush has broken the law. He also indicated that if Bush felt the rules were too restrictive then he should request changes to these rules. He did say these things when there was all indications that it was going to be investigated- another Specter bulls*t moment. As I understand it now, there is going to be no investigation because a compromise was worked out between the White House and Senate Republicans. Matter taken care of and all indications are that a majority of the public is satisfied with the compromise.
It's an election year, the Republican's are running on national and homeland security and the frame on the wiretapping is now the, Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Senator Kerry may have very little wiggle room here. It doesn't look good if he doesn't support Feingold after saying publicly that Bush broke the law. It can be viewed as supporting illegal activity. However, this also places Kerry in a position of appearing weak on defense and homeland security with a vote of support for Feingold because of the way this has been framed by the Repubs.
IMO, I wouldn't vote with Feingold on this. He brought this up at the wrong time.Kerry, may be able to say the issue has been addressed for right now and we are keeping an eye on the President, if he abuses his power again on this, he will be held further accountable.

Think of this as a card game, you got to know when to hold them and you've got to know when to fold them. Feingold, should of held on to the cards for a while longer.

[karynnj]

58. It really puts all Democrats in a bad place

I hope they can wiggle out of a vote on this.

[ProSense]

62. My feeling is that

the awkward position this puts the Democrats in is they probably don't think it serves any purpose, but have to vote for it because it is punitive, albeit mild. It sends the wrong message about the gravity of Bush's actions when so many Democrats have been pointing to serious infractions of law. They now are forced to be party to a slap on the wrist. What impact will this have in holding Bush and others accountable. The reason why Bush has to be in focus, even though he is not running again, is all the information and evidence is with his administration.

People seem to think this is about holding Bush and his administration accountable while he is in office. It could be, but Scooter Libby's indictment doesn't go away when Bush leaves office. There are some serious charges being leveled against this administration. We assume impeachment is the end all, but we don't know what happened. Is censuring Bush the punishment for intentionally lying about the war? That's some serious stuff, and why Kerry makes the distinction between acting on faulty intelligence and intentionally falsifying the evidence.

[wisteria]

64. Agree, that when and if we are able to hold Bush accountable for

the war and the lies he should receive more than a slap on the wrist. That is one of the reasons I questioned Feingold's move on this now. What was the rush? I think a case is still building against the President. I also couldn't see risking what gains we have made to do this now, before an election, for so little benefit.

[karynnj]

65. Also this isn't primarilly on the war

I don't understand why more Democrats didn't back Kerry on the WMD intelligence, but that is the biggest issue. It may be that the spying is more clean cut.

[beachmom]

70. At this point we don't have the evidence to impeach him over WMD

and the war. However, we should investigate all of the abuses of power that the administration has done, and we may find something in there that hasn't been uncovered before. As I said in another post, I oppose impeachment. It will hurt us unless we had VERY convincing evidence which we do not have and the vast majority of the American people wanted him removed from office. Unfortunately, gross negligence is not an impeachable offense (or is it? anyone know?).

[TayTay]

74. But we do need to take a stand.

I repeat that I don't think John Kerry has anything to lose on this. I think he has everything to gain. We need to take a stand against a President who broke the law. We have to force the hand of a Congress that enables him and gives him the legal standing to do unspeakable things to this country and to our foreign policy and so forth.

I want this censure amendment to pass, though I know it won't. It is simply the right thing to do. I am sorry if Sen. Feingold didn't do it right and didn't line up the Dem Sens in the right way. That is a problem. The idea of censuring the haughty and elitist President who thinks he can make up law as he goes along is not. It is the correct action. (Perhaps after hearings. Whatever.)

I don't care if the Republicans hold Feingold/Kerry/Boxer and anyone else in contempt for this. That's what they do. They held Sen. Kerry in deepest contempt when they wouldn't even let him finish his speech on opposing the Alito nomination back in Jan. Sen. McConnell took the floor, left it after a few minutes and purposelessly left the speaker's list blank just to make a mean point.

There is no compromising with these people. They don't care about anything but amassing more power. Vote to censure their Fearless Leader. I would do it because it is the right thing to do. I wouldn't give a tinker's damn about whether or not it plays well in the Red States or the Blue States or the Purple States. I would do it because I believe in it.

[beachmom]

76. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Tay

I don't think it's the right thing to do as it is an empty gesture AND it gets us nothing in the way of helping us win elections. The Alito filibuster was the right thing to do because it affected people, whereas this censure affects no one other than allowing Dems to scream out "yeah, we got you". That's not enough for me.

[TayTay]

77. We will have to.

I see it as a good effort to hold the Rethugs accountable for their complicity in allowing Bush to break the law. I think it is a good in and of itself. I am glad that Kerry is going to vote for it and I hope other Dems do as well.

[beachmom]

78. As a constituent of Sen. Kerry though he should honor what you

all want. In that sense, I would understand him voting yes, because after all you guys in Massachusetts elected him to the Senate. So as a Virginian, my opinion is only on the periphery and doesn't matter much at all compared to yours.

edited for bad grammar

[TayTay]

80. No, your opinion matters a lot

and informs a lot of people in here. You brought up good points that made people stop and think about what the consequences are of this action and what it means to the greater picture of getting Dems elected.

I tried to stop and think about it too. I am glad that Sen. Kerry is voting for this. (He was when I called his office yesterday anyway.) I think, again, it's the right thing to do. (I think that Sen. Kennedy will vote for it also. I think that they have some cover to do this as the come from a state where Bush is overwhelmingly unpopular. I also, again, think it's the right thing to do.)

I did call Sen. Kerry as a constituent. (Ahm, it's in my phone number and I think they have the phones that show incoming numbers up there.) I did ask for his vote on this. (I didn't do that during the Alito filibuster for obvious reasons and it was nice to call and ask for action. I liked that. It felt like democracy.)

[beachmom]

82. In a general sense, you're right that my opinion matters

But in a technical sense, John Kerry is the Senator of Massachusetts, not the USA. It is his duty to listen to his constituents and vote accordingly (from what I understand he did NOT honor his constituents for the IWR vote and that got him into a lot of trouble in his state, right?). But I guess what I was saying is the rest of the country (well, at least in Virginia) is not in the same place as Massachusetts. For example, on the day the NSA story broke, I went out with friends for dinner. NOBODY talked about it; they probably didn't know or care about it. But with Hurricane Katrina, EVERYBODY talked about that. That's why I think it's a political loser. But as far as it being "the right thing to do", I see your point, although I just can't go along with it, better explained by Wisteria down below.

It does seem though that no matter how people stand on this thread, everyone seems to be at least a little annoyed with Feingold. THAT we can all agree on.

[wisteria]

83. Absolutely, I always consider the national Kerry not the state Kerry .

So many of my opinions are based on the broader picture. Ultimately, the senator will do what he thinks is right and I will respect his vote. I don't consider this vote an easy one though, because by waiting we could gain so much more. I am very angry at Feingold for making this move.

[TayTay]

85. True enough. Well, that plus I have mixed feelings on it.

This is the sort of 'civil war' that the Dems have been having for a while. We want the Dems to be strong and stand up for basic principle and then we also want them to recognize that politics is also the 'art of the possible' and that we have to be practical and recognize that things like gay marriage and abortion and such are not garnering votes. (Or at least not with the language we are using now.)

That plus I want Sen. Kerry to be the Senator form Massachusetts and be a national voice for the Dems. Those things sometimes are in conflict. That really bothers me sometimes. Sometimes I wonder if it is better for a state to have national names for Senators or not. (This is a case of 'wanting to have your cake and eat it too,' I'm sure.) It is a real fuzzy area for me. It will become more so over the next couple of years. Undoubtedly that will come out in here in posts. I will make posts that are proprietary in nature and want Sen. Kerry to be the Sen from MA and do what 'we' want.

The IWR vote is a case in point. I hated that vote. I have back-justified it since, but I hated that vote at the time. I thought he voted that way for technical reasons that, being technical did not invoke the passion I felt at the time over a bad decision to go to war. (I really think that Sen. Kerry believed that the Constitution gave the President the right to protect the country from imminent threat and that the possibility of WMDs constituted an imminent threat. That is a cold argument for such a hot topic and I was pissed at his vote. Not pissed enough to not vote for him in 2002, but still.) I never thought that Sen. Kerry, of all people, was voting for war. (That was a silly argument, based on his history.) But I did think it was the wrong vote and for the wrong reasons. I was not a happy little camper. It bothered me then and it still bothers me, even though I know more now than I knew then. Sigh!

There is a lot that depends on how the elections go this fall. I want a Dem Gov in MA. I more than half suspect that if Sen. Kerry wants to run again for Pres that he might wind up resigning his seat. (I am really starting to think strongly about this. Especially since last weekend. Hmmmmm.)

[beachmom]

86. God, that must've hurt for you folks in Mass.

Kerry, the anti-war protester, the senator who had bravely voted against the '91 Persian Gulf War, voting yes on the IWR. I can feel it in my gut the pain. You know, I have a feeling it's a painful vote for him, too. He says he wouldn't have voted yes, knowing what we know now, but I wonder if he thinks that he shouldn't have voted yes even with what he knew THEN. That's what's painful for a Massachusetts liberal who has to move to the center in order to go national. I haven't thought about that in a long while, but I do think that when Kerry is much older and retired, he will call that the worst vote he's ever made. In its small way, it did lead to the suffering of men and women in the armed forces much like what happened to him in Vietnam, something he thought would NEVER happen again. And, yet, there is his vote, etched in the history books. A vote that cannot be undone.

You're right that in a technical sense he, you, and I can defend that vote up and down for hours. But in our gut, it just feels wrong. And mostly due to the POTUS being George Bush. But going back to you guys in Massachusetts, that must have been SO demoralizing watching your esteemed senator vote that way, feeling like the whole world was against you.

Anyway, enough lamentation. I may break into a sad Irish tune, if I keep going on.

[TayTay]

87. Thanks, but

I honest-to-gawd think that Mr. Kerry voted for that, at the time, because I think he believed that the Constitution already gave the President the authority to go to war. (Imminent threat.) I really do. It makes good, wonky sense. (Oh double and triple sigh! I think Mr. Kerry believed he was doing the right thing, based on the info at hand. He can be maddeningly cautious sometimes and will pause to make sure the i's are dotted and the t's crossed.) That was what was worse about the vote. In a lot of ways it was like arguing with the lefty freepers, only this was the wonk version. (The Spock argument: It was technically the right thing to do as the legality of this issue clearly favors the executive epxression of power and oh, gag me. Sigh! I wanted a passionate vote. I got traffic school.)

I think this is why the taller Senator from MA was able to make so many challenges to the actual way the war was planned for and executed. I don't believe he thought at the time (or really thinks now) that he really authorized the war. He did not. He authorized the UN inspectors and so forth, but he never voted to give Bush any power that the Constitution didn't already give him. (Again, that is a cold argument. Others, obviously saw it differently and saw that vote as a vote for war. It never was. Neither was it a vote against war and that also bothered me.)

[karynnj]

97. I think he might say it was the most painful vote

Because it was twisted and seperated him from a large group of people who were his natural consticuency. Kerry was one of the first people I remember speaking out in summer 2002 when there were rumors of war against Iraq. The leak was that Bush would invade using the WoT resolution. Kerry and others succeeded in getting people to demand that he go to the UN and Congress.

It seems clear that what Kerry (even in some way in the recent Ireland talk)was attempting to do was to get the world community involved and possibly avoid war. During 2004, reading some comments on Iraq from Teresa actually convinced me that he was hoping the UN process of sending in inspectors could avoid the war - and it did delay the war 4 months. The combination of Teresa seeming so honest and it being so consistent with Kerry's history, that made me take Kerry's comments at face value.

As the IWR would have passed without Kerry, I think his vote was to say that if in the last resort Iraq wouldn't give up WMD, he agreed war was necessary. Whether he feels any more responsibility for the war because of his IWR vote than he would feel had he voted the other way may depend on what his motivations really were. I don't think any action he would have taken would have led to the war not happening. Even if he would have become the most eloquent voice against war, the war would have happened - even if the resolution was defeated. (which it wouldn't have been.) If anything the consequence of the vote was that it was used politically against him and the Democrats.

[wisteria]

81. I agree with you on this one, the Dem's lost the framing war on this

wiretapping issue a while ago, I am now concerned it will affect the elections, just when we have gained some of the security ground. I am also not worried about what the the Re pubs think about Kerry, I am more worried about how the American public perceives this censure and Kerry's involvement in it. I am so angry at Feingold because this could have waited and it could have been done with more support, even to just make a stand. Feingold did this more out of political gain than anything else and he may have hurt the party because of his selfishness.
I really hope I am wrong on this one, but this issue just doesn't seem to resonate with the public right now. Feingold and the other Dem's are correct on this issue,but consider when they started the drug testing for job applicants. Now that is evasion of privacy also, but people just don't get excited about it. This issue now concerns our possible safety. It is difficult to frame safety virus privacy.

[ProSense]

90. That's the problem

None of this should be leff to framing alone. When investigation happen, the facts speak for themselves. No one had to spin Abramoff or Libby after the investigation was launched. Before was a different story. So, I agree with you, timing is every thing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

94. You're right, Bush isn't Nixon.

He's MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse.

Bush:

- manipulated and doctored intelligence to lead us into war with a country that never attacked us

- gave billions of dollars worth of no-bid giveaway grants to his Vice President's oil company, Halliburton, to build oil pipelines and exploit Iraq's oil for his corporate crony buddies' benefit

- surely is involved (as much as Nixon was involved in Watergate) in the CIA Plame leak case, which, need I remind you, constitutes TREASON (at least Nixon never committed treason)

- has authorized prisons such as Guantanemo Bay and numerous "secret" detention facilities in which detainees are kept without legal recourse in a clear violation of both US and international law - this constitutes war crimes

- has condoned and excused the use of torture as an "executive privilege," also clearly against US and international law, and also a war crime

- has authorized the NSA to spy on American citizens, in violation of FISA and in violation of the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution

Case for impeachment? Are you kidding? Any lawmaker who still actually takes the Constitution seriously should impeach this SOB in a heartbeat. ANY of those above listed crimes makes Watergate look like a high school prank. This administration has done ALL of that and more.

You can't be serious when you say this is about "revenge" and "hating Bush." This is about respecting the CONSTITUTION. If Bush is never legally punished for his crimes against the United States Constitution, then the document has been rendered impotent and the beginning of the end of the republic is nigh. What good is a legal framework if it is allowed to be broken? If Bush sets a precedent that the President can break any law he wants and get away with it scot free, then we have not only destroyed the spirit of the Constitution but the MAGNA friggin' CARTA! Forget pre-1776 mentality; this is a pre-1215 mentality!

The Constitution will be dead is Bush and his administration are not held accountable for their crimes against the law and against the people of the United States and the world.

[beachmom]

108. Great post about things most Americans apparently don't give

a s*** about. Maybe my acquaintenances here are the shallowest people on the planet but they seem to either not care or condone torture. They LIKE that the NSA is spying on Americans (aka al Qaeda) and "keeping them safe". They don't care about the poor joes at Gitmo either because those aren't people; they're all terrorists and therefore animals. They don't seem very moved by Halliburton one way or the other. And I guess they're now bored with the Plame case.

There are only two things they care about -- the Iraq War being an absolute disaster with Americans dying every day and the humiliation with the response to Hurricane Katrina. As I said up thread, we do not have at this time enough evidence to prove that their was an INTENT to mislead on WMD. We might get that evidence yet, but I haven't seen it.

You know why I know that they don't give a rat's ass about this stuff? Because they KNEW about it and yet, they still voted for *. No, Diebold didn't steal their vote, they voted for * on purpose. And these were not Republicans. These were people who had voted for Gore in '00.

THAT is why impeachment will fail. Because we live in a country of self centered morons who don't even know what's IN the constitution. And they're scared of al Qaeda striking again. They've lost faith in *, but impeachment means attention being taken away from protecting the country, and it will NOT fly.

But you know what, WEL. We need to think of a way to get through to these people. And a partisan tone doesn't work for them. A lot of people here hated Tim Kaine's democratic response, but it resonated with a LOT of people. You start talking up impeachment, and they'll turn away. If it's "I" talk all the time, these probable Dem voters next time around might just stay home.

If things change (the chatter, I mean), and every other person is saying "impeach the bastard", I'll let you know.

[Mass]

110. Well, that is part of the problem and part of the reasons why

Feingold needs to get people on board.

His speech was great, but totally unrelated to people's life. The problem is that this censure (and potentially an impeachment) can work with somebody who explains how this relates to people's lives.

Get Kerry, Boxer, and a few others on board. Let them make these speeches that are not about the constitution, but about how it relates to people, and may be you will get others on board.

[WildEyedLiberal]

112. It's a big mistake to base our actions of the thoughts of people like that

Most Americans were supportive of William Calley and thought Hugh Thompson was a traitor, but that doesn't change that My Lai was wrong and that Calley deserved to be court-martialed for it.

It's always a mistake to let "self-centered morons" dictate our policy and our behavior. These are the people who would elect Hitler because nothing evil he did matters as long as he can "keep us safe." Remember, Hitler and Mussolini were elected and supported by a majority of the people of their government too. They told their people they would "keep them safe" too.

When you allow your agenda to be set and defined by those who successfully manipulate popular fear, you WILL become a totalitarian state. People of every country time and again will support a strong dictatorial central government which feeds them fears of a shadow enemy in order to gain their complicity in the dissolution of freedom of thought and speech and to justify a police state. It has happened time and again in history and it is a fundamental weakness of human nature, and the measure of a dictator is how well he can exploit this weakness for his own benefit.

There is never a good excuse to forego doing what is right in order to "go along." "Going along" and appeasing dictators failed for the Czech Republic, it failed for Chamberlain, it failed for France, and the results were disastrous. It is far too easy to manipulate people into supporting what is evil by convincing them that their self-interest lies in the surrender of rights and the performance of atrocities such as torture and murder in order to "keep them safe." There is never an acceptable time to acquiesce to the fascist agenda - when it becomes clear that a government has usurped power, repeatedly violated the law and violated the rights of its citizens, and is responsible for international war crimes, it is time to remove that government from power.

To paraphrase Harry Potter, "Dark and difficult times lie ahead, and you will be forced to make the choice between what is right and what is easy. Choose wisely."

[beachmom]

114. But if we don't have the POWER, how are we going to DO ANYTHING?

We still have a democracy, sort of, and these morons that I know vote. And guess what? They voted for George Bush in '04, but for Tim Kaine in '05. Once we're in, we can start cleaning up the mess, but silly impeachment/censure talk when there isn't a chance in hell for it to happen strikes me as self defeating.

I do not disagree with the core theme of your post, which is why I am more involved than ever keeping watch over what's going on in our government. I would say I am borderline obsessive about Iraq, but there are people (even my husband) who think I am too "into it", and that it doesn't really matter anyway. We need to find a way to show how ALL of this affects them.

Because you know, my in-laws are German, so I think I know a thing or two about Hitler and people just going along to get along. So far, anyway, elections haven't been cancelled nor have there been mass euthanasia of undesireabls (I'm talking about the evil that happened before WWII) or descriminatory laws passed against an entire people, so I think your comparison goes too far for me.

[ProSense]

116. We can't wait until we regain control of the Congress to begin

making the case. That's not possible. The groundwork has to be laid. If the we all came out of the blue in November with impeachment talk, that would be crazy. Bush really broke the law, and there is no need to be silent about that or the potential consequences.

[wisteria]

126. I don't agree, why can't we wait? This issue isn't going anywhere.

You making an assumption that it is going to just fade away. I highly doubt that. This surveillance is to easy to abuse. It is just a matter of time before the public becomes more and more aware of how this affects them.
Are you saying you are willing to jeopardize our chances in the elections, in order to make this point known now?

[ProSense]

128. No that's not what I'm saying

None of this is going to fade or be resolved immediately. I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with discussing it now while it's going on. These are issues right now. The Republicans are trying to give Bush free reign and the Democrats are trying to hold him accountable. If Bush broke the law, there is nothing wrong with saying that. Do we have to wait until the election to say that and point to the consequences? And by we, I mean the public. There is nothing wrong with the public making that determination, which is why the pollsters are asking these questions. I don't expect Senators to go off screaming for impeachment without due process. It was OK for Conyers to do what he did because he is on the committee that would launch impeachment proceeding.

[WildEyedLiberal]

117. Why do you assume that Bush has to commit genocide to be called fascist?

The cornerstone of a fascist government lies in a strong central police state which systematically dismantles the rights of people which protect them from government power (eg the Bill of Rights), treats dissent as a crime, and emphasizes nationalism and jingoism - "safety" - above liberty and individual rights.

Hitler was a fascist in these respects and so is Bush. Committing genocide was incidental to Nazi-style fascism, but the abscence of genocide does not make a government somehow "less" on the path to totalitarianism if it possesses the necessary qualities eg, suppression of liberties, war crimes, hypernationalism, criminalization/persecution of dissent, and a strong central government that places itself above the law.

Impeachment is only "silly" if you truly do not believe Bush should be punished by the law for his crimes against the Constitution of the United States. Again, it's far more important to hold the president accountable for breaking the law than worrying about "oh, no, the Republicans might think we're partisan!" That line of thinking worked really well for the Democrats in 2000, 2002, and 2004, didn't it? NOT holding Bush accountable for his dismantling of the Constitution sets a dangerous precedent and lets future presidents know that they are above the Constitution and the laws and treaties the United States is party to.

I think it's a dangerous mistake to underestimate the fascist tendencies of this government. VERY dangerous. Saying "they haven't gassed Jews yet, so it's ok" doesn't fly. Bush has already committed at least 4 impeachable offenses, and if he is not held to account for them, the Constitution will officially be a joke.

[ProSense]

119. Reminds me of this: "First they came for...

It was use in this relevant article:

First They Came for Lynne Stewart ...
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 15 February 2005

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945

Snip...

It is essential that people feel safe in these perilous times. But, as Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a 1995 opinion, "It cannot be too often stated that the greatest threats to our constitutional freedoms come in times of crisis." The confidential relationship between attorney and client sits at the heart of our criminal justice system. We must zealously guard it or we will all be at risk.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_021505A.shtml

Then there are her recent words:

Published on Monday, March 13, 2006 by the Guardian / UK
Former Top Judge Says US Risks Edging Near to Dictatorship
· Sandra Day O'Connor warns of rightwing attacks
· Lawyers 'must speak up' to protect judiciary

by Julian Borger

Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.

In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.

Snip...

Such threats, Ms O'Connor said, "pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom", and she told the lawyers in her audience: "I want you to tune your ears to these attacks ... You have an obligation to speak up.

"Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence - people do," the retired supreme court justice said.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0313-03.htm

The Republicans are trying to frame the criticisms of their power grab as partisanship or rantings from the liberal blogsphere, but a number of very moderate, even conservatives have pointed to the dangerous implications of Bush's actions.

[beachmom]

120. There was something familar about this conversation and then

I remembered. It was Andrew Sullivan making the ludicrous comment that John Kerry was "complicit to torture" because he didn't make it an issue in the '04 campaign. Now you're saying that I am somehow complicit to fascism because I do not favor impeachment/censure of the POTUS. I walked through Dachau, and I can tell you that George Bush is no Adolf Hitler, and I think I need to bow out of this conversation because it is just getting so far out for me, and I just can't go on. I mean, I'm sitting here in the JK forum being forced to defend George Bush -- that's where you've put me. And I will state again in defense of the president that he will NEVER commit genocide against an entire people. I have a million criticisms of him and his disdain for many democratic values and the constitution, but Hitler and Bush should not be in the same sentence in my book. It belittles the horrors that befell the 12 million murdered by the Nazi dictator.

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. Oh, good lord. Why do you keep insisting I'm talking about genocide?

I am pretty sure I didn't compare Bush's crimes to Hitler's. What I DID say is that fascism sneaks up on a nation quietly and slowly, like Sandburg's fog coming in on "little cat feet." Hitler didn't assume power in 1933 and then the next day start rounding up Jews. It's a slow, deliberate process, and if America does not stop the spread of fascism NOW, then it will become our style of government. Where do you get that fascism leads inevitably to genocide of all things? It did for Hitler, but it didn't for Mussolini, or Franco. But they were still fascist. It's pretty ludicrous to conflate fascism and Nazism, and I only used the example of Hitler's ascension to power because I couldn't tell you how Mussolini or Franco assumed power.

Do you not think fascism is harmful if genocide ISN'T committed? It's a pretty common theme of history that in times of crisis, governments attempt to usurp and consolidate power. I see no reason why America is excepted from this trend.

You know what? I've been to Mauthausen, and I've walked through a gas chamber too. I've been to the Holocaust museum and seen the room full of shoes of victims of the camps. Have you ever been to the Holocaust museum in DC? There's a candle vigil room you can go in after you've toured the museum and light a candle for the victims - not just of Hitler, but of dictators and tyrants the world over. Also present are the words "Eternal Vigilance." That is what their memory demands of us - eternal vigilance against all forms of tyranny. "Our president" may not commit genocide, but let's not pretend his actions in Iraq are anything other than a war crime, and that he should not be held absolutely accountable for them as well.

[TayTay]

124. We are veering off the point here

and into dangerous territory where people are being forced to defend things they never said.

Stipulated: Tyranny is a bad thing.
Stipulated: No one wants the USA to become a dictatorship
Stipulated: The rights of political and social minorities must be protected.
Stipulated: We see the USA sliding into dangerous political territory and want national pols who will stand up to this trend and enforce the law.

Part of the reason I come to this group is to hear from people in other parts of the country and listen to their views, especially when they are different from my own. If I didn't want this, I would stay home and talk to my mirror.

Maybe we should start a new thread that talks about how history can inform and illustrate current events. We still do need to be respectful of each other's views and not force people into where they feel they are defending what they don't believe.

[wisteria]

127. I support you on this one. IMO, it not so much about Bush any longer.

It is about looking ahead and trying to regain some of our power in 06. Somehow, I don't see anything wrong with this way of thinking. Time takes care of many things, and it will take care of George Bush.

[wisteria]

125. We sometimes seem so wrapped up in our way of thinking that

we fail to see that others who do not share our views have a right to be heard and their POV considered also. You are correct, IMO. Those people you know who voted for Bush are average citizens- just like you and me. They just see things from a different perspective. That doesn't make them wrong and it doesn't make them enablers of this administration.It makes them Americans. Many in my family voted for Bush- both times- they are disillusioned now, but don't consider this administration to be full of Fascists. I like you, I feel many people aren't ready to see this wiretapping issue for what it truly is. I also see no rush or necessity in having to deal with and re frame this issue right now.Sure we are correct on this-I have no doubt.should it be addressed and Bush held accountable in some fashion, yes. However, it could have waited until after the elections. IMO, waiting would have been wiser. There is bound to be more to come on the misuse of this program and with some new support in the Congress and time to gain public support, we could get more accomplished.

[Mass]

88. Well, I guess I will not change my mind of Feingold now.

The mad is an idiot and is pandering. No other way to explain this.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Democrats_slash_Feingold_move_on_censure_0314.html




Democrats slash Feingold move on censure, as Feingold says party 'cowering

[wisteria]

91. I don't know whether to believe this or not. If it is true, Feingold's

actions can not be defended at all. What is he thinking?

[beachmom]

92. I agree with this statement in the article

“Democrats had decided that public hearings were needed on the wiretapping to educate the public before considering a censure,” one staffer quipped. “Hearings would’ve forced Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration. Everyone knew that was the gameplan. Feingold just wanted to hog the spotlight. If he were interested in holding George Bush accountable he would’ve made his pitch in the Democratic caucus behind closed doors.”


Although there is a little deja vu to this and the way Kerry was pummelled for the Alito filibuster. Thoughts, anyone? Does Feingold have a point or was he super clumsy on this one? I have to say there were moments during the Alito filibuster (especially when he was lampooned by the MSM) that I thought Kerry had botched the thing. Now I see Feingold and see how screwing the caucus is REALLY done. On nothing less than a national security issue just a few months away from the congressional primaries (at least in this state).

[wisteria]

93. Alito was different and Kerry had asked for support ahead of time,

it was discussed. Feingold's move was not. IMO, Feingold botched this. Kerry was able to gain at least half the Dem's to support his effort.

[Mass]

95. And Kerry did not go in the media saying that Feingold and others were

cowering to *.

May be he should have!

[WildEyedLiberal]

96. Is Feingold including Kerry and others who pledged to support him in that?

Is he actually daring to criticize the people who have already pledged to support him, or is he talking to those who won't?

[Mass]

98. Hard to know

Think progress and rawstory show statements saying "Democrats" without any indication. People can think whatever they want.

[karynnj]

99. I think this was another step too far

It's one thing to run as an outsider maverick, it's another to attack your whole party. Reid was very complimentary in his words during the failed PA efforts, but at some point Feingold has to be burning bridges. There was all the talk of Kerry having many Senators mad at him after ALito, so I wonder what this will do for Feingold.

I would assume a move like this would anger the others - not make them vote for it unless they already wanted to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. Simple: red meat for the base

IMO all Feingold is doing with this asinine and childish attack on Democrats is angling for the DU-type activist primary voters.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt yesterday, but now I'm almost positive he's just grandstanding and playing politics. He's been very immature about this whole business, and that's a shame, because I REALLY want a censure to pass.

[JI7]

122. yeah, why isn't he trying to get others on board with him

it's like he isn't even trying or cares to get them on board. and what's with the broadbrush attack on the party. how does he know if they are cowering or whatever if he hasn't tried getting them on.

maybe he is upset Kerry has shown support and doesn't want to share the spotlight with anyone. so instead if continuing to push for this he is just ranting about the party.

[wisteria]

102. They may have been angry at Kerry, but more than half supported

him. I wonder if Feingold can't get much support at all and is using the media to lash out at the others because of HIS mismanaged attempt to hold Bush accountable with out first consulting and preparing the others.

[JI7]

123. they are probably more angry at Kerry than Feingold

since Kerry called on people to call the other Senators and vote with him.

Feingold isn't doing that. he isn't laying out who is on his side and who needs to be pressured.

he will go off on a rant attacking the party in order to get the support of "netroots" or whatever, but it doesn't demand anything of anyone specifically.

[ProSense]

103. I agree.

At best, with every Democrat's vote, it would have ended up an attempted censure. That's sad. Alito was a fight to win, not a fight to show them.

Also, it seems to me from the article that some viewed this as badly timed, with the potential to derail (I think this means giving the impression of vindication) ongoing efforts. Bush broke the law. In an interview Kerry said there's no question. That can be based on knowing what happened: The law say Bush is not allowed to spy on Americans, Bush is alleged to have spied on Americans and there is some evidence pointing to that. It's that simple as that. But this is America, and that's not enough to convict. There has to be an investigation to prove intent and extent, and all the other stuff investigations vet.

[jenndar]

104. And that's the difference between a filibuster attempt and

a censure attempt. A filibuster can and should be one guy saying, "I stand for this, who stands with me?" to make sure the will of the minority is given its due consideration. A Congressional censure is Congress speaking in one voice. It's not something one guy can pull off, and I don't think it's fair for one guy to try - even if the censure is deserved.

[ProSense]

105. Well said. Excellent! n/t

[wisteria]

107. Right to the point- that is why Feingold was wrong to not gain support

first.

[fedupinBushcountry]

100. IMO

Feingold should of taken the steps. He didn't and it has gone badly. He should of discussed it with other Senators, instead of announcing on national TV, what was he thinking? He never thought of the fallout of doing it his way, and now he is jumping on others and calling names, not the right thing to do, and IMO grandstanding. Secret moves hurt both sides, no matter what the subject matter.

His second mistake IMO, was when he did not stay on the Senate floor and debate with Specter, I do not understand why he didn't welcome that debate.

I signed a petition almost 3 years ago to impeach the idiot, I've waited this long and I can wait until we get a majority in the House. I don't understand the censure thing that well, but I do understand impeachment, and IMO Bush should be impeached. Maybe I'm missing something on what this censure would do, or will it lead to impeachment, its still very blurry to me.

On a side note , I checked the paper this morning, not one mention of this anywhere.

Just my 2 cents. :patriot:

[ProSense]

111. Faux has the story up now.

What a mess.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187855,00.html


He is the one that jumped the gun, not lining up support before announcing the censure. What was the rush? And although a number of Democrats are saying the will support him, he's mouthing off generalizations. It almost sounds like Feingold is attempting to bring the party down. But why? I sure hope we're not getting the full story.

[wisteria]

113. You are correct. I also don' t think Feingold should be telling other

Dem's how they should be conducting themselves and voting on issues.

[fedupinBushcountry]

115. I don't get this

from the story you linked.

He also said that Democrats should not be outwitted by Republicans on the legality of the wiretap program. Asked it the program is illegal, Feingold said a law should be constructed to authorize it. He said he was just calling for the eavesdropping program to be brought within the bounds of current law, something he said "can easily be done."

Is that all this is about, changing the law ? I'm so confused.

[ProSense]

118. That's exactly

what a lot of Democrats have been against. Because there is no law that can be created to allow Bush to spy on Americans. The terrorists warrantless surveillance is already covered under FISA. One of the issues was instead of breaking the law in secret (never getting a warrant), Bush should have consulted the Congress, but that pertained to warrantless spying on terrorists. That has nothing to do with the aspect of illegally spying on Americans.

Then again, it isn't a direct quote, so this could be Faux BS.

[Mass]

106. Apparently, Kerry's office still says he is backing Feingold.

According to sasha031's post on GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x660369

[beachmom]

109. On a side note, Kerry has always been good about backing

other Dems in so many different circumstances. Obviously, if there were any quotes from one of his staffers in the Raw Story, they were not the mean ones. He's not a backstabber, even if Feingold was wrong here. I really like that about the Senator, very much so.

[Fredda Weinberg]

129. Here's the message I left at johnkerry.com

Now that the censure motion submitted by Senator Feingold has a second, please publicly announce your support for this measured response. Whether or not you think the president had good intentions in his actions, the principle of checks and balances must be upheld.

I have contributed to this website in the past and will again - please be the leader in whom we can invest our hopes.