Dialog is
far more effective than one way communication. Influence requires back and forth. Without back and forth, the things we tell them in email and calls have a tough time getting through their fog of rationalization.
When you call, or visit,
ask for a specific member of the staff -- the Judiciary LA (legislative assistant) is probably the best bet. To get the name, go to
congress.org => Your Member of Congress, and then click the Staff Members button.
Leave messages, follow up. When you get them on the phone, ask them why the Senator hasn't announced their public support for Censure. What concerns does the Senator have? Why are they hesitating?
If their answer is too general, ask more questions to get them to tell you the basis for the rationalization. Challenge whatever they say. They are not giving you reasons. They are giving you rationalizations that won't hold up when confronted with reality and principle.
The goal is to cut off every escape, until the only thing left is to do what principle and duty demands of them: support Censure. It's tough to close off each exit they try if you aren't pushing them in a back and forth dialog.
For example (CL = Citizen Lobbyst = You):
LA: The Senator needs more information.
CL: What kind of information? Does the Senator believe Bush broke (and is continuing to break) our laws?
LA: The Senator isn't sure that the program is illegal
CL: So, the Senator thinks Bush can arbitrarily violate FISA and order surveilance on Americans without a warrant?
LA: um, uh... it is not clear that the President doesn't have the power.
CL: So, the Senator doesn't reject John Yoo's fascist fantasy of an American "unitary authoritarian executive"?
LA: The Supreme Court hasn't weighed in.
CL: The Senator is a member of Congress, not the judiciary. If Congress had to wait for the Judiciary, our Constitution would have given the judiciary the power to impeach. We didn't. We put that power in Congress for a reason. We look to Congress to enforce our will and the intent of our laws.
LA: The Senator needs to investigate further and consult experts. The law is complex.
CL: What is complex? Ordinary Americans know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.
LA: I'll pass your thoughts on.
CL: I have another question. If the Senator concludes that Bush is arbitrarily breaking the law, will the Senator announce their public support for Censure?
LA: . . .next attempt to squirm out. . .if they tell you they don't know what the Senator thinks, ask them to transfer you to the scheduler so you can find out when you could speak to the Senator for a couple minutes directly.
It's intimaidating to do this (I'm always a wreck when I put on my "Citizen Lobbyst" hat), but these folks are just people. If we want them to conquer their fears, we have to get over our own. Compare your task, and fear, with what our soldiers and marines are facing.
If they evade answering from the get go, you can create a dialog by citing things that are reportedly blocking them from standing up for Censure. For example:
There are reports that some members of the caucus are upset that Sen. Feingold put them on the spot.
This is mystifying to folks out here -- outside of DC. Every Senator who is keeping their mouth shut, when they know (or suspect) Bush is breaking the law and abusing power, is seen as an accomplice to Bush's crimes.
A majority of the Senators are paying a hefty price for their complicity with the war. It's hard to believe they don't see that failure to stand up for censure is the same thing -- that as more and more of this administrations crimes come to light, they'll be viewed as unprincipled weasels who betrayed us becasue they feared being called names.
It's clear to ordinary citizens that Senator Feingold is giving every member of the Senator a fantastic opportunity to break their silence and complicity. We don't understand why Senator X hasn't jumped at the chance to redeem himself/herself.
Do you have ideas about why there is such a vast disconnect? What do the people in the office think the folks out here don't understand about the situation?
The following doc provides some ammunition you can use to challenge their nonesense.
To Impeach, or Not Impeach?
That's the Wrong Question
http://thedeanpeople.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html...
Being an accomplice to crime is NEVER good politics Our leaders just need to look at their failure to take a stand against the Iraq war for proof. The public believes that most of them voted for the war because they feared they would be called names ("unpatriotic" or whatever). They are now paying a serious price for giving in to threats of "backlash" then.
There are reports that our leaders are allowing the same fear to deter them from taking up the fight for impeachment. ("We can't demand an impeachment inquiry. If we do they'll call us unpatriotic for attacking a president in a time of war").
If our leaders do not overcome this fear and act, they will be digging themselves into a hole they may never get out of.
When we find out the magnitude of the crimes committed by the Bush administration (and we will, sooner or later) do they really want to pay the political price for being accomplices in those crimes?
...
The most serious problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak Contrary to what many Democratic strategists believe, the perception of weakness has NOTHING to do with stance on national security. It is rooted in:
- The reticence that centrists seem to have when it comes to accusation and punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) Instead of going after wrong-doers, Democratic leaders seek to "investigate" or "make sure it doesn't happen again" (and the Republicans chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.")
- The tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.
Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?
. . .
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(435 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
