Why is Kerry off FDL's Lion list?

[ray of light]

uh oh!!! That doesn't seem good. Now I'm worried.

[JohnKleeb]

1. What is FDL?

[ray of light]

6. sorry...

www.firedoglake.blogspot.com

[JohnKleeb]

7. Eh its just a blog

I think there are more important things at hand.

[ProSense]

2. He couldn't be on both

Greenwald's and FDL's, that's a contradiction. Seriously, don't know.

[Mass]

3. Why is it such a big deal?

The point is that Kerry has not made a public statement, so, whatever he thinks of that, he does not want to be seen as a leader on this issue.

Why are people so upset?

[ray of light]

4. Me personally...I'm upset because it's so clear...rule of law is the..

rule of law! I think he should be a leader on it. And how can I be angry at my own Representatives for failing to support the rule of law when this man who I like and support doesn't?

[Mass]

8. He does. Call his office and you will get the answer everybody

that has called his office got, I imagine (the blogger says one person called the Boston office and got a different answer, whatever the answer was). If she wants to know, the best she can do is call herself, not rely on people who can have their own agenda.

This said, how do people know that one of the people who is silent (not the ones who are saying it is bad) is not trying to build the coalition that Feingold does not see as useful. Supporting Feingold publicly is not necessarily what matters. Keeping Bush's feet on the fire is possible by all sorts of means. Remember the DSM letter and how Feingold was silent then and did not sign the letter.

[kerrygoddess]

9. This whole thing is different

from pushing for support for the Alito filibuster and I don't think that FDL and the others in the netroots get that. This has gone to committee, it won't be debated on the Senate floor now until it gets debated in committee. Feingold needs a committment from Senators on the committee it was referred to (Judiciary?) before it will go anywhere.

Personally I'm sick and tired of the division in the party and I feel that FDL, and the rest of the netroots pushing this ise only creating more division. Labeling Senators Lions and Lemmings is a petty attack.

[TayTay]

11. This has very little chance of getting out of committee

These are the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

REPUBLICANS
Arlen Specter CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA
Orrin G. Hatch UTAH
Charles E. Grassley IOWA
Jon Kyl ARIZONA
Mike DeWine OHIO
Jeff Sessions ALABAMA
Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn TEXAS
Sam Brownback KANSAS
Tom Coburn OKLAHOMA

DEMOCRATS
Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE
Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN
Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA
Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN
Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS
Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK


There are some real Rethug 'true believers' on that committee. (Including Coburn, who doesn't belong on a it as he is a boob and unqualified. What an embarrassment.)

There is little to no chance that this measure will ever get voted out of that Committee. Sessions, Coburn and Brownback would have to be absent for that to happen. Hearings on it in committee would turn into one of the ugliest episodes in Senatorial history.

I think the censure motion is a good idea. However, I can read that list of Rethugs and understand that it has no chance of ever getting to the floor. The only chance it has was when Frist offered to bring it to a vote Monday night or Tuesday afternoon. Now that the Rethugs see that it is not the loser with the public that they thought it would be, it will die in Committee.

This fight is now solely an intra-Democratic fight. There is no downside to co-sponsoring this thing. (It's not like we don't know which side Sen. Kerry is on, that is hardly a mystery by now.) This censure motion has changed since it's solo introduction on Monday. It has taken on a life of it's own. I say that the Dems should sign on to it. It has become one of those legendary 'stands' that define the Party. (Whether we wanted it to be or not. The deck has been re-shuffled.)

[kerrygoddess]

12. Well

Maybe they (the netroots) should focus on prodding the committee first and then focus on the rest of the Dem caucus. Not that they will, but it seems like commonsense to me.

[sandnsea]

10. Maybe Feingold doesn't want him to

Feingold regularly goes way out of his way not to mention JK's name, maybe he doesn't want the failed northeastern liberal wackadoo connected to his independent maverick censure motion. Did anybody think of that?

[kerrygoddess]

13. I could have sworn

that Kennedy was on that list at FDL earlier in the week too, but now is not.

[JI7]

25. you know, i actually think this is true

although it's not because he thinks Kerry is a loser or anything. but the exact opposite.

[Mass]

5. More from their blog.

Now, there is nothing surprising there. As long as Kerry is not making HIS statement on the issue, people who dislike him will try to muddle the water. As I have said several times already, I'd wished he made a statement, whatever the statement is, but if he does not, there is no doubt that what is office says is going to be interpreted differently depending on how the person feels about Kerry.

A housekeeping matter: We've removed Kerry and Menendez from the Lions box on the Feingold censure resolution until we can get a firm answer from both their offices on Monday whether the current position is for, against, or on the fence. I didn't feel comfortable leaving them in the Lions category at this point, because we've gotten some mixed signals the last couple of days via regular posters in the comments and via e-mail.

[ray of light]

14. ok..folks...so I'm a worrier. Thanks for your help.

[Mass]

15. Worry about what? The fact that FDL changed their list?

I am not following here?

I posted a thread a couple of days ago asking whether Kerry would make a public statement because I knew that otherwise it would come to exactly this: people writing posts saying he does not support without no way to be sure (not talking about you here, but about the person (people?) who gave the info to FDL). How do we know what is the agenda of the person? I read the thread on FDL and the people who are attacking Kerry are barely hiding the Kerry bashing.

All I know is that every person I know who called Kerry's office got the same answer, but that there is no public statement except the one the first day.

What I dont like in the FDL threads is that they are all about 08 and NOT about what is good for the country.

Now, if Kerry did not want his position of censure to be known, he has some pb with his staffers.

[ray of light]

16. Well, I'm worried for kerry's sake that if he is

'pissing off' the people at FDL then he's making the battle more difficult for himself.

Regarding your post a few days ago, I've been working long hours and not able to be around here much, so I'm not sure if I saw your post.

And also, I'm worried that there are trolls just yanking redd and jane's chain. Yet, they are this year's 'in blog' and so they reach high volumns of people.

sorry if my question irked you, Mass. The question wasn't directed at kerry so much as "What is going on" etc...And yes, I do worry about Kerry. It's my protective instincts. I think it's difficult to know what is going on when he's pulled off that list when he's been on it for days. Yes, it worries me because does the reasons represent trolls online, or staffers who don't know, or his real position.

[Mass]

17. I would not say I dont worry, but truth is that there is little I can do

more than I have done on this subject, and I know others here have done the same thing.

Those of us that have called (and I know people that have called that are not Kerry's supporters) have received the same answer: that Kerry was supporting censure. I still have noy seen anybody I know and trust who said the opposite.

I have sent two emails asking that he made his position public (exactly for the reasons you give). I know I am not the only one here to have done that.

So, I can only think and hope that Kerry knows what he is doing.

ADDED: With the DCCC survey result, I have another reason to write in and I will ask again that he continues to be a leader on this issue, but I would not disregard the fact that he considers that he can be more useful for 06 by continuing to attack the government as he has done, but by letting the Judiciary Committee do his job. I dont know and I cant second-guess, but I certainly understand your anguish on this subject.

ADDED again: Note that Harkin and Boxer have been fairly silent though they co-sponsor the resolution. It is clear it is feingold's baby and he intends to keep it his.

[ray of light]

21. I'm sorry Mass and everyone! I've just had a hellish week.

I'm not thinking clearly.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. You don't have to apologize

You shouldn't have to be made to feel like you have to apologize for a question about Kerry in the Kerry forum. There's nothing wrong with asking a question.

[karynnj]

18. They may be the in blog, but consider that

there is a tendency of all the blogs to blow things up beyond all reason. Consider that many Democrats have done or said things on this issue. Al Gore gave a speech that was spoken of as the speech of the decade for at least a week. Many Democrats, Kerry included. have unequivocally said they thing this violates the law. Where they differ is how they chose to address it.

Kerry called for investigation.
Durbin called for investigation.
Kennedy and Leahy have already put up legislation demanding an investigation.
Feingold called for Censure.

Feingold's approach is not necessarily the best and it is not true that the others are doing nothing. (In a way it's like the Murtha thing. Where people posted demanding all Democrats immediately back his plan - even if they thought a different one was better.) The censure thing will continue or fade away as it gets buried in committee.

What I find more interesting is the contrast with Kerry's filibuster. Feingold was not one of the first on board, he never spoke in favor of the filibuster, but he voted against cloture in the end. For, this he was never criticized. Although Feingold did this without talking to his peers, there were calls trashing Kerry for not signing on before Feingold even submitted the bill. Feingold went to the press 2 days after he first mentioned it complaining that his peers weren't behind him.

What will be the reaction in a few weeks when this goes nowhere? I think this helps Feingold, but in the long run I don't know how it will look.

[ProSense]

19. My guess is

this was a premature move followed by premature hype. Given what censure is, this is hardly worth individual public statements by Senators, especially those pushing for investigations and full disclosure.

Anyone wonder why only one president has ever been censured (and even that was removed from the record)? It's largely a measure for reprimanding members of Congress. Here is the definition:

Censure

Less severe than expulsion, a censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) does not remove a senator from office. It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate. In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Censure_vrd.htm

What is "Censure?"

Although ill-defined, censure is a process of Congressional reprimand--the political equivalent of a strongly-worded letter. In 1834, a Whig Senate "censured" Democratic President Andrew Jackson in retaliation for his withholding documents. Three years later, a Democratic Senate "expunged" the censure from the record. However, that act of censure had no basis in either the Constitution or the Rules of the House and Senate. This remains true today. Ordinarily, Congressional disapproval of the President is relayed either through its legislative power including the veto override power or through impeachment.

Presumably, censure of the President would take the form of a resolution adopted by both the House and Senate and then publicly announced. Legally, the resolution would have no effect. Censure derives from the formal condemnation by either the House or the Senate in rebuke of a Member of their own body. After a majority vote, the Member is publicly denounced, but still retains the position of Representative or Senator. However, the House removes the offending Member from any leadership positions in committees or sub-committees.


Probable Censure Procedure (from C-SPAN)

A resolution censuring the President is not contemplated by the rules of the House. This means it has no inherent privilege; it is not a question of the privileges of the House, nor is it a matter of personal privilege. Thus, there is no framework for considering it.

A special rule from the House Rules Committee would be required for its floor consideration and to set debate parameters.

A censure resolution could be drafted, considered, and then reported from the House Judiciary Committee, or

A censure resolution could be introduced and taken up immediately under the auspices of a special rule from the House Rules Committee, or

A censure resolution could be introduced by an individual Member, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee for its consideration.

In the Senate, a censure resolution could be introduced and would be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or

The Senate Judiciary Committee could draft, consider and report out a censure resolution to the full Senate; or

A unanimous consent agreement could be worked out in advance to introduce a censure resolution by sending it to the desk and providing for its immediate consideration.

Floor debate and possible amendment of a censure resolution would most likely be governed by a unanimous consent agreement among all Senators.

If there is a single objection to a unanimous consent agreement, the Majority Leader could move to proceed to a censure resolution.

Adoption of a motion to proceed requires a majority vote, unless it is filibustered. In that case, a 3/5ths vote (60 or more) is required to end the filibuster.

[TayTay]

20. True. Joe McCarthy was censured for his actions

in the '50's and his over zealous investigations into whether or not their were communists in the US government. He kept his seat.

I don't see this going anywhere. I really and truly don't. I still like the idea of censuring the President for his illegal wiretapping. I think it might have served notice that Congress isn't going to put up with that sort of thing anymore. (And Gawd, it just came out that this crimnal Admin thinks that physical searches of suspects are okay, under the same logic. Phsyical searches. This must not stand.)

However, the gesture is just that now, a gesture. It will never make it out of committee. And I think it will fade when the 'next big thing' comes along. (Which should be in about a week and a half.) I am basically being somewhat neutral and honest about it in GD. I like it, but it doesn't mean much and will not go anywhere.

[kerrygoddess]

22. Could not agree more

It was a gesture. Feingold as much as said this in the interview with Big Eddie the other day. This will fade when the next big thing comes along and there will be a next big thing. That's probably half the problem, isn't there a list of things W could be censured on? Maybe Feingold's res. didn't include enough.

[TayTay]

23. It is sad in a way that this will happen.

But I can't think of a way in which the Dems could force the issue. (Feingold could add it as an amendment on the floor to another bill, but it wouldn't pass and it wouldn't have enough time to gather steam and affect the public dialogue.)

Sen. Feingold did get some exposure and some backing from doing this. Good for him. But I don't think anything long-term will come of it. (Sadly. Again, I was in favor of this. I am in favor of anything that tries to hold this criminal Admin responsible for their actions.)

[kerrygoddess]

24. Agreed again

There's a lot of stuff sitting in Committee right now that hopefully will be pulled out fast and furiously when we regain control of Congress. That's my hope.

[ProSense]

26. That's all it ever was:

a gesture. I have no problem with that. But a gesture needed to be coordinated to show strength and unity, not be framed as the end all and then masked as significantly punitive. Unity? Instead of accepting that some Senators will support the measure that is purely a gesture, the goal became demeaning Democrats who have worked long and hard to uphold Democratic values: Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy, not one was spared. The disingenuous part of it is that last week they were screaming (again, because Clooney blogged at Huffington) about the Democrats who voted for the IWR, but Harkin is now a champion. I hope it's still clear that he has always been a champion after this issue goes away.

There is so much disinformation being spread, how can we ensure that our voices are heard over the noise? It's intentional, these people are not stupid. They know censure was offered as alternative to impeachment for Clinton. They know that the current censure proposal is symbolic, and by that I don't mean censure (which would require all Democrats and some Republicans to vote for it), I mean the attempted censure. Getting Republicans on record as having voted against this will have little meaning if the investigations don't go forward. Screaming for Senators to issue public statements in support of this, when it's being framed as an alternative to impeachment (regardless of whether impeachment moves forward) is ridiculous. They can vote for censure at minimum without committing to the intent that this is the end all---that it's bad for the country to remove Bush during a time of war.

Was it necessary that every Senator issue a public statement in support of the DSM letter? No, they just needed to sign it.

[kerrygoddess]

29. There's no easy answer...

"There is so much disinformation being spread, how can we ensure that our voices are heard over the noise?"

One thing is to make sure that we are speaking up loudly and disagreeing with them - via their comments and other blogs. As long as these A-Listers continue to dominate the scene, we have to dispute what they are doing. I'm disgusted with the bashing against our Dem leaders and org's like NARAL who have been there for Dems all along.

By the way, incase you missed it, Clooney did not blog on HuffPo - HuffPo pieced together quotes from Clooney interviews and put his name on it - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2279.

P.S. Prosense - I'm PM'ing you.

[ProSense]

27. It's saving face time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2522611&mesg_id=2522611

Digby: The Dems are missing the boat on Feingold

Snip...

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


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

Finally, after five days of branding all Demmocrats, including some of the party's strongest and most progressive leaders, as cowards with disinformation about the Clinton impeachment, the cry is now political blindness. There are clearly Democrats who need to wake up, but this campaign to tarnish Democratic leaders was wrong.

One: The port legislation was reported on CNN. And it was reported with as much fanfare as it ever would have been. But it is as dry as tinder. The mojo of that controversy is past. It did its job...

Yes, it and a number of other things are contributing to Bush and the Repubs downfall. That will not end anytime soon.

Two: Please tell me that the Democrats are not going to withhold criticim of Bush because it might make Republicans rally around him...

Which Democrat said that? And how will putting the Republican on record for voting against censure going to have an impact if the investigations don’t go forward.

Three: It's apparently true that Feingold didn't consult with the party...

This is responsible for the confusion, along with statements framing censure as an alternative to impeachment, which would be bad for the country during a time of war.

Four: Iraq is the issue that's killing the Republicans in the polls...

Sign the DSM letter and support the Leahy/Kennedy resolution and calls for investigations.

Five: Well yes, by all means a strategy whereby we count on Arlen Specter to hold "real" hearings is spot on. What could possibly go wrong? Why, if we wait until after the 2008 election, he might even do it.

Does this mean the Democrats will lose in 2006 and will not regain control of Congress?

Desperation is no reason to treat censure as the most damaging thing we could do to Bush. It’s good to put the Republicans on record if we vigorously pursue investigations. Unity means supporting all Democrats. And, 2006 is the issue not 2008.



Maybe it's time to focus on why the Republicans are not voting for censure. That is the missed opportunity.

[karynnj]

28. Having watched some of the Sunday shows

I have 2 observations:
1) The Democrats speaking (Murtha, Reed) seem very very close together - and very close to Kerry's comments on Friday. (On This week, Biden and someone else who I forget were also quoted as saying we should give them 6 weeks to get a government together.) That the Democrats seem to have an agreement here - which they haven't had before is great.

2) Iraq is by and far the dominant issue. This is also why Bush is losing points. In the real world for the first time everyone is scurrying away from the war - except McCain and the Bush Administration. Murtha was fantastic in saying this was Bush's war. He then listed all the people Bush ignored and did what he wanted.

From this the censure is a distraction. When it was mentioned it was referred to as a play to the blogosphere. It has given Feingold more visibility which helps in terms of the primary but it will also put him more in the spotlight. This is an opportunity, but also a risk. Can he deal with the high intensity spot light that will magnify all errors. Dean actually had better timing on this - he took the spot light about 6 months before the first primary. Much shorter, but long enough for him to implode. In a way it good, if Feingold can look good under the spotlight for 2 years, he might be a good candidate. If not, he will not be a force. (Edwards scares me more - as I find it mind boggling that he is being touted as a left of center alternative to Hillary - who I think is likely really to his left.)

[ProSense]

31. Great points.

Censure is not a bad thing, but I took issue with Feingold's framing of it: impeachment bad for the country during a time of war and censure as an alternative course? BS! Does anyone really believe that if the Democrats don't try to hold Bush accountable, pursue these investigations when they regain control of the Congress, and Bush is still doing what he's doing when 2008 roll around, the Democrat will have any credibility left?

Having said that, this is an opportunity, but it's an opportunity to put the Republicans on the spot not berate other Democrats.

Some made a point that the discussion of this is actually more damaging to the Republicans than the actual vote, which is so true and another reason that the timing and framing of this is important. There should be much more discussion about the Republicans dereliction of duty, than the across the board bashing of Democrats that's going on.

People on this board are now saying this is a political move, someone is even trying to frame grandstanding as the way to win: not good for staking out a position as the Senator who rises about politics.

Then today the LA Times compares Feingold to Dean and McCain in an article referencing him as Mr. McDean. Yes, 2008 is a long way off for such antics. We have to win in 2006.

[karynnj]

32. McDean - that's interesting

It seems to me that unless he stops it very soon this may be the overall summary:

"Having said that, this is an opportunity, but it's an opportunity to put the Republicans on the spot not berate other Democrats."

I really have a problem with him running to the press - using almost RW meme (Democrats cowering -> Democrats weak) because he wasn't getting backing a day or two after he dropped this unilaterally on the Senate with no prior attempt to get backing. Neither of these actions score well in the "plays well with others category".

A concern I have is that now that the port deal fell apart - the only Democrat I have heard speaking on the real underlying issue of Port Security was Kerry - and that was on the ridiculous Imus show. People were pulled in by the "Arabs running our ports" issue - but it opened a concern that could have been used, with the results of the Kerry requested audit. This is the issue that fractured Bush's mask.

Between that and Iraq, Bush is seen as incompetent. On Iraq, the Democrats seem united in saying we should get out very soon. (Hillary/Lieberman/Bayh crowd has been real quiet.) With that in sight, we don't need a prominent Democrat using words like "cowering" to describe Democrats - when they likely simply don't agree with his strategy and probably don't appreciate being blind-sighted. (I also agree that the same group would be crucifying Kerry if he had done everything Feingold did last week. All you need to remember is how they treated him when he dared to comment on Bush's Iraq statement - coordinating with Reed, after Reed was designated the spokesman. That Feingold commented indecently was perfectly ok.)

[ProSense]

33. Edited the post: it was the LAT, not the NYT. Link here

Just shows how the MSM plays people:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-feingold19mar19,0,4849829.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[karynnj]

34. Thanks for the link - interesting article

I think the last part about not being able to finance a run just via the web might be 100% wrong. Didn't Dean raise almost $40 million - which he blew mostly in Iowa and NH. I assume that the 4 years difference in time will mean more people who are willing to donate on the internet.

The McCain comparison is interesting - but I think it falls apart. When McCain was being a maverick, he broke with his party and took positions closer to the Democrats. That he really remained very conservative went unnoticed. Feingold's splits place him further from the opposite party than the bulk of his party. ( F (other Democrats) M (other Republicans)) on the maverick issues only. This gives McCain backing from conservative Democrats and Independents. If I add Greens to the left of F, it might suggest he would pick up their votes.

He really seems more Dean than McCain.

[TayTay]

36. Dean wasted a ton of money on stuff

It is my understanding that they were starting to hurt in Jan in Iowa. (No wonder. They bought laminated palm cards to give out at .75 cents a pop. That's some pretty pricey stuff. Geez. I heard that was Trippi's fault and that he was notoriously not good with money.)

Kerry saved his money and did his media buys late in Iowa. That seems to have been a prudent thing to do.

[ProSense]

37. Here's a tidbit

from the campaign:

Democrat Kerry Raises $10 Million Through Internet in 10 Days

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic U.S. presidential nominee, has raised $10 million from donations made on the Internet since he won nine of 10 primary contests on March 2, his campaign said.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arh68g48b3uY&refer=us

[karynnj]

38. I wondered how he went though so much

That he had that kind of money and lost decisively is, in an odd way, reassuring to me. Kerry's campaign likely had very little above the $6 million he loaned his campaign so Dean obviously must have outspent him by a factor of at least 4. Although it's true you can't win without serious money, it says that you can't win just by throwing more money into the campaign.

I'm not sure what it means for 2008 - I liked the Kerry comments on how he wouldn't have won without the people of NH and Iowa spending the time to get to know the candidates.

[ray of light]

30. Maybe it's time to focus on why the Republicans are not voting for censure

ABSOLUTELY!!!

[ProSense]

35. Here's an interesting article

Censure, an opening move

By JOHN HALL
Media General News Service
19-MAR-06

Sen. Russ Feingold's call for the censure of President Bush is a serious proposal from a serious man. But it comes dripping with political spin because no such process is prescribed in the Constitution.

The last time a presidential censure was discussed, President Clinton was in trouble in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was offered first as an alternative to impeachment in the House and then in the Senate as a compromise to sweep the whole mess off the table.

Both the Senate and the House refused to adopt censure because it was just a word with no meaning in law and carried no penalty. Both houses decided to take the course of impeachment and conviction or nothing at all. Eventually the House voted for impeachment and the Senate voted against conviction.

They did not mess with Mr. In Between because the Founding Fathers set no such middle course. The only choice was to remove Clinton through the impeachment process or to keep him. They kept him.

more...

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=HALL-03-19-06