Clinton is to Dubai Ports AS Feingold is to Warantless Spying

[Sensitivity]

Both senators are passionate and well intentioned. Feingold is certainly beyond reproach for his
consistent progressive stands.

But, in both cases the interest of the Party in dragging out the matter and having a full investigation does not fit the time-table of the senator who wants to distinguish themselves and have their names splashed across the media.

In the case of Dubai Ports it would have been much better for the Party if there had been a full 45 day investigation which highlighted the contradictions in the Republican Party, debunked the “war on terror,” and exposed the incompetence, corruption and cronyism in the regime.

In the case of Bush’s warrantless wire-tapping, while Bush certainly deserves censure, bringing it to a vote so soon closes off more hearings, investigations and aborts growing press interest in following the issue through the courts.

In both cases, letting the issue percolate in the press through the year would certainly have been more useful for the campaign trail in November.

That's my opinion.

[EST]

1. I appreciate your opinion but find your reasoning flawed.

[Sensitivity]

3. My point: differing democratic approaches to the issues at hand is OK

[AlGore-08.com]

6. Except that you're comparing apples and oranges

You're comparing a position that is so popular with most voters that almost everybody in the party and almost everybody in the GOP agrees with it (Clinton's opposition to the Dubai Ports) and a position that is popular with a smaller majority of voters but almost every Dem and Republican in Congress opposes (Feingold's call for censure).

Although the underlying issue of outsourcing our ports is extremely serious, a lot of the public (and media) response to the Dubai port deal was fueled by ignorance and bigotry. (Would the media have even covered the story if it was the government of the UK or Canada or Australia which was going to take over the ports? Would there have been such a huge public outcry against Canada running our ports?) Many of the folks in Congress who rushed in front of TV cameras to scream bloody murder (the minute it became apparent that their constituents were violently opposed to this deal) would have embraced the deal if the public had not had a cow about it.

Looking at it from a purely strategic perspective, the Dems in Congress win when they oppose the ports deal - - it appears to be a "wedge" issue we can milk in the midterms; opposing the Dubai ports deal is a very, very, very easy way to "make the Democrats look strong on National Security". The Republicans in Congress also have a purely strategic reason to oppose the deal. As Smirk's poll numbers sink lower and lower, they need a way to distance themselves from Smirk in time for the midterms in a way that won't hack off their base. Opposing the Dubai Ports deal has so few short term political risks, it's really a no-brainer for Clinton or anyone else to oppose it.

Feingold's call to censure, on the other hand, is a position which is supported by a small majority of Americans but is not supported by a huge, angry public outcry. It is also not supported by almost all of the Dems in Congress, mostly for strategic reasons. The Party bigwigs all think of impeachment (which censure opens the door to) in strictly strategic terms - - they know that we don't have the votes to censure or impeach Smirk; they know that if we did take back the Congress and we did impeach Smirk & Satan Cheney, the GOP would stuff John McCain into the Oval Office to win back the public, and then we'd almost certainly loose 2008; they know that GOP lost mondo seats after the attempted impeachment of Clinton; they know the press will be hostile to a call for impeachment.

For this reason, Feingold's position is much risker than Clinton's position IMNSHO.

[NanceGreggs]

2. Yeah, okay ...

"... better for the Party if there had been a full 45 day investigation which highlighted the contradictions ..."

Yeah, that would have happened. A forty-five day investigation that would have ended in, "Nothing untoward happening here, citizens, and NOW it's OFFICIAL!"

"In both cases, letting the issue percolate in the press through the year ..."

Mmm hmm, the same way the voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 election 'percolated' in the press.

If you want to see something 'percolate' in the press, it had better be blonde, blue-eyed, with cheerleading credentials, that's missing in Aruba - otherwise, forget about it.

As for "the senators (Clinton and Feingold) who want to distinguish themselves and have their names splashed across the media," the only way to accomplish that nowadays is to have your name linked to Abramoff money.

Such is the state of our country, and our news media.

[EST]

4. If a brave man of integrity steps up and loudly proclaims

what the shortsighted weaklings have been studiously trying to ignore and obfuscate, he deserves to have his name splashed across whatever there is to splash it across. That sort of man, whatever his secret motivations, and I'm sure they are not simple, I will gladly shout the praises of, follow, work with and contribute every available dime to--to get him whatever he needs to keep on doing exactly what he's doing.
The warm stream media's attempt to portray this man as a purely selfish grasper, challenging the crooks as some sort of darkly dishonest method of catapulting himself into the presidency, is despicable!
Even if his plans include using this confrontation as a springboard to greater things, what the hell is wrong with that? If anyone is willing to go up against the monster, then that is exactly what we need and rewarding him with success is a very good thing.
After all, the reprobates decided to become criminals and liars to achieve notoriety, why can't an honest man win wide recognition and acclaim, by being the honest, ethical fighter he is?

[NanceGreggs]

8. I think you've missed my point ...

... or perhaps you meant to respond to the original poster, not me.

I spent the better part of last night defending Feingold and his actions on another thread here at DU. I am behind what he did yesterday a thousand percent, and then some.

What I was taking issue with is the original poster's thoughts about dragging things out, in order for there to be more publicity and press about the issues. It should be obvious to everyone by now that NOTHING gets MSM coverage, unless it falls into the category of singing Bush's praises.

I wholeheartedly support Feingold's actions yesterday. And for those who say he should have waited for more support from his fellow Dems before he acted -- well, maybe he wasn't willing to 'wait' forever while his colleagues debated whether to grow a backbone or not.

[EST]

10. I meant to add my voice and support to yours.

Itching from the many less than supportive posts, perhaps I was too obtuse--sorry!:toast:

[NanceGreggs]

11. No apology necessary!

Check out the thread from last night ... it sure was a battle!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2512292

[pnwmom]

5. I think you're right with regard to warrantless wiretapping, and any other

issue that calls for impeachment. We don't have the numbers to get an impeachment now, much less a conviction in the Senate. But if we get a majority in either house in November we'll have Committee chairs and subpoena power -- and will be able to do a real investigation. If enough comes out, even some Republicans could vote for impeachment and/or conviction. But first we need the subpoena power.

If we try for an impeachment now, and fail, there will be a "been there, done that" attitude among the general public. Timing is everything.

[Sensitivity]

7. I think it works for Pukes to get problem issues quickly to a vote and to

a close before we get too close to November.

[pnwmom]

9. Agreed. n/t