I JUST CALL THEM AS I SEE THEM (Feingold-Great Interview-Ed Schultz)

[kpete]

Feingold on Ed Schultz: About Censure
by Armando
Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:49:51 AM PDT

This interview of Feingold by Ed Schultz is excellent.


But Feingold makes a great argument for his view and our view BUT also counsels patience on building support - i.e. avoid defeatism.

Listen especially to his words about Harry Reid - very very complimentary.

And then listen to the first caller miss the point. Don't be the first caller.


http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/31506Feingold.mp3

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/16/94951/6431

[blm]

1. I notice alot of people (and media) are missing that point - Feingold is

exactly where he wants to be on this right now - he has censure in committee to slow it down for DEBATE.

It's the Republicans who wanted to rush it through and demanded a quick vote to drop the story without debate.

Why some here at DU are complaining that they want Dem senators to demand a vote NOW is beyond suspicious. Either they ARE that stupid or they support Republicans.

[kpete]

2. you understood the point EXACTLY...

[blm]

3. What I don't get is why those demanding their senators listen to

the censure proposal do not bother to listen to what Feingold is saying himself about censure?

Pretty odd. It's like they've only processed about two points and completely ignored everything else Feingold is saying.

[sandnsea]

6. Exactly right

And saying that people who support this route are "anti-Russ" or "against censure" is to just not understand how to make this work against Bush. I do wish Russ had been clearer about this from the beginning.

[jsamuel]

9. I personally, don't want a vote now, but I do want to see Dems supporting

the censure proposal and Feingold for bringing it up.

[blm]

10. Except you can't denand censure immediately when no investigtaion

has has been done - there has to be evidence of wrongdoing and THEN a censure. Heck, censure was created postConstitution to address activity that didn't rise to the level of illegality or couldn't be proven to be illegal. I believe the house IS strengthening their case for impeachment.

Try reading Russ' press conference transcript from yesterday - he doesn't WANT a legal remedy for Bush's criminal activity because it would be bad for the country during a time of war - he IS offering censure as a slap on the wrist with no legal implications as the MODERATE APPROACH.

Sorry, but I am FOR censure and FOR impeachment.

[jsamuel]

11. I read it, I think he is just framing the issue. He calls it high crimes

and misdemeanors. I think he is doing the censure to lead to impeachment. I understand that you are worried that this is not going to lead to impeachment, but I think that is exactly why he is doing it.

We already know Bush broke the law on purpose. That is all that is needed for censure. Investigations should continue.

[blm]

12. Not according to him. You think he would put

himself in the position of making these clear statements against impeaching a president during wartime, just to set himself up for flip=flop charges later?

I don't think so. I think he's clearly trying to USE impeachment's radicalness to sell the "moderate" approach of censure which has no legal remedy for criminal activity.

Censures don't LEAD to impeachment, they're done in tandem or offered as an alternative. The left blogs got it wrong when they spread the word that censure would lead to impeachment.

[jsamuel]

13. I don't think so, he used "at this point" while describing this if you

noticed

[blm]

14. The greater point he made was clearly that censure was appropriate

as the moderate approach containing no legal remedy.

He clearly states his opinion that impeachment is wrong in a time of war. Ther's no taking that back after you say it. He doesn't add any "buts" about it.

He says have the censure and MOVE ON.

[jsamuel]

15. I don't think so, he said "at this point"

sorry, but I don't agree

he is clearly leaving it open

[blm]

16. You THINK based on 3 words when he has a HUNDRED that say otherwise.

.

[bigtree]

4. it sounds like Sen. Feingold is doing the work behind the scenes

that'll be necessary to get this thing rolling.

good interview

[blm]

5. I think Durbin is helping him on the qt, too.

How do we get the fire and brimstone crowd to see that having it in committee is exactly what Feingold wanted? They think he wants them to harass other senators to vote for it NOW without debate.

[bpilgrim]

7. glad to see you have come around on this issue

:hi:

peace

[blm]

8. I'm where I always was - I'm FOR censure, but not as an alternative

to impoeachment.

You should be with ME on that - not Feingold who said impeachment was bad for the country at a time of war and censure, since it is not a legal remedy, is a moderate approach. I think criminal activity by a president DESERVES legal remedy.

I guess you didn't read the transcript from his press conference? I gave him benefit of the doubt on his first diss of impeachment. Then again on the second. The third diss in the press conference was CRYSTAL CLEAR and there is no spinning his intention. I think we were spun early on into thinking he really was for impeachment, too, and censure was a step towards impeachment.

I support censure now that he started it, but, I'm pissed that he is selling it by minimizing the case for impeachment. He can sell censure without making any reference at all to impeachment.