Just got this Act for Change email re: JK and Teddy

[whometense]

I've been out of town for a few days, so tell me if this is old news. Edited to add a primal scream. :banghead: Sorry I'm back.



http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=20513&afccode=n35lk1

Senators Kennedy & Kerry: If Bill Clinton Deserved Censure, So Does George Bush

Back in 1999, Senators Kennedy & Kerry co-sponsored a resolution to censure President Clinton for his conduct in the Lewinsky affair. Now, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin has introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure President Bush over his illegal wiretapping program. Unfortunately, Senators Kennedy & Kerry have not yet come out in support of this resolution -- a position that seems deeply hypocritical.

Click here to tell Senators Kennedy & Kerry to be consistent and censure President Bush for his illegal conduct.

While deplorable from a moral standpoint, President Clinton's actions did not deprive Americans of their civil liberties. On the other hand, President Bush has openly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as well as the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution. Bush lied to the public on several occasions about his warrantless wiretapping program -- and it's recently been revealed that the program may include warrantless physical searches as well.

Tell Senators Kennedy & Kerry: Warrantless searches are a serious offense, deserving of censure.

Congress simply must hold the President accountable in this case. If it abdicates this duty, the governmental system of checks and balances crafted by our nation's founders has effectively been thrown out the window -- and we will have taken a very big step down the road to dictatorship.

Tell Senators Kennedy & Kerry: If President Clinton deserved censure, so does President Bush.

Then, please forward this newsletter to everyone you know in Massachusetts to help spread the word and bring serious pressure on Senators Kennedy & Kerry to do the right thing!

Thank you for working to build a better world.

Will Easton
Manager
ActForChange.com/ Working Assets

I know I'm probably the only one who feels this way, but I am sick of being asked to micromanage my senators. I do my job well. I trust them to do theirs well, too, without me nagging at them every step of the way. If my senators were Tom Coburn or Li'l Ricky S I'd take great pleasure in making their lives miserable.

If JK and Teddy feel the censure is the right way to go, I'm all for them. If they don't, then I believe they probably have a real good reason for their position, and I'm willing to wait to hear what it is.

That is all. x(

[Mass]

1. Not surprised. I dont have a pb with that b(except that the comparison .

with Clinton does not hold).

If Kerry was asking us to do the same thing, we would find that great.

I actually would like to know where they stand on this issue. I thought I knew where Kerry stood, but now, I dont know and wonder why he does not make a statement. That would make things so simple.

[TayTay]

2. I got this too and deleted it.

Mostly because I had already called the Senate office and was satisified with the response. I think I am a bit spoiled as I do expect them to do the right thing.

However, I did see the GOP.com ad in GD about Sen. Feingold and that looked personal and bashes Feingold for daring to oppose The Idiot. I think Dem Sens should take a stand against that. It walks like a swift boat attack and quacks like a swift boat attack and I won't tolerate it. I would like to see that kicked down by all Dems. (As JK did after the GOP went personally after Jack Murtha last Nov.)

BTW, I unsub-ed from the list.

EDIT: Hey, how was your weekend? Did you have fun?

[wisteria]

3. I received this also, and deleted it. I didn't like how they singled out

Kennedy or Kerry, for criticism and the suggestion that they would censure one of their own party members but not Bush.Never mind that The Clinton censure was done under different circumstances and for a different reason.

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. What a dishonest email

It neglects to mention that the censure of Clinton was proposed as an alternative to impeachment. Feingold himself has said that HIS censure is being proposed as an alternative to impeachment. Does ActforChange not believe Bush should be impeached for his crimes?

I DO see some hypocrisy here, but unsurprisingly, it's not coming from Kerry or Kennedy.

[TayTay]

5. You know what is so awful about this whole Censure thing?

It has no ending. The censure resolution could go on months. It is quite possible that the Senate will never hold hearings on it and it will just sit there, unresolved and unacted upon for a long, long time. Everyone in DU will be expected to mention it and be challenged if they don't support it, then nothing will happen. The Democrats, to my knowledge, have no ability to force this issue to debate. If it does come up on the floor for a vote, it will likely be scheduled for the last minute and Frist will give each side 15 minutes to debate it first. Sigh!

Sigh! I think, alas, this is going to end up being an action full of sound and fury, but, in the end, signifying nothing. I really do think that. (And I support the censure resolution! Gawd in heaven.)

[Dr Ron]

7. No end

Yes, it will go on forever. At least with Alito there was a definite end point. This could distract from the real issues, and reduce the chances of winning, all year.

[sandnsea]

6. Mine is to bug Wyden & Smith

It's a mass email and targets each person's own senators. I can understand how you might think it was targeted at Kennedy and Kerry, but not this time. :)

[whometense]

8. did realize that, right after I posted,

and almost took the post down.

But my last paragraph stands. I'm still sick of being instructed how and when to communicate with my senators. I find I really resent it. I don't march in lockstep with anyone, except in my complete and total loathing for Bush and his evil minions. For the rest of it, I think for myself.

For an example, I was really enjoying reading firedoglake, which I found to be highly informative and fact-based, until they suddenly switched from getting the facts out to activism, after which my interest just plummeted. It's just me, and I don't expect anyone else to agree with me, just as I fully expect someone to call me out as a Kerrybot.

I find political activism exhausting, trying, depressing. I do it as a duty of citizenship, but I don't much like it. And once I find a pol that I trust and mainly agree with, I just don't spend a lot of time riding their ass. I certainly wrote JK before the IWR vote, and completely disagreed with his vote, but that didn't shake at all my basic faith and trust in him. Likewise with the censure resolution thing. I 100% believe he has his reasons for not coming out full-voiced to back it, and I also believe his reasons have nothing to do with a.) jealousy of Feingold or b.) cowardice. I trust him enough to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

Again, this has a lot to do with my not being in love with politics. For me there's not much point in fretting over this. As I said earlier, I trust there are aspects to the question that are much more complex than the blogosphere's take allows, or else the liberal lions would have jumped in with both feet.

[sandnsea]

9. I understand

I generally feel that way with DeFazio. He is almost always on top of whatever issue I'm concerned about, and I generally figure if he hasn't signed on to something he's got good reason. I hardly ever write or call his office, only on things that are way below the radar like when a friend was trying to get a stop light on the federal highway here. But he doesn't deserve beating over the head just because I disagree with him once every year or two. So I see what you mean I think.

[ProSense]

10. Why can't they just stick to the facts?

The thing that got to me most was how the Clinton censure was misrepresented. That damn near bordered on swift-boating. Also, calling out all the Democrats as cowards because they haven't issued public statements about censure was wrong. Harkin, for example, voted for the IWR, but is sponsoring the censure measure. On the other hand, Dayton voted against the IWR, but spoke out against censure. So are they cowardly and courageous?


I asked this question once before: If Congress had not passed the resolution and Bush went ahead with the war (he absolutely would have) at a time when he had full public support, we'd be discussing now why Congress didn't act ahead of time. I still believe the IWR was Congress' way of holding Bush accountable.

I find it funny that everyone signed on to AUFM that gave Bush spying powers that he wound up abusing, but nobody asks why they trusted Bush on that score. They gave him fifteen minutes and that meant forever. Bush violated the AUFM in the same way he violated the IWR. They gave him 15 minutes and he took it to mean forever, as Feingold points out here:

FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html