Tell me again why "censure " is such a bad idea?

[kentuck]

Is it the timing? Is it the messenger? How is this supposed to help the Republicans? If this is changing the subject, what subject is more important than making sure the President of the US does not break the law? Please explain why this is such a "bad" idea?

[Vincardog]

1. Snot

[ProSense]

2. Censure is not a bad idea, but

framing it as the end all solution is, and not bringing people on board ahead of time (may have prevented this frame) didn't help.

Senator Russ Feingold Holds a News Conference
On His Resolution To Censure President Bush

March 16, 2006
TRANSCRIPT

NEWS CONFERENCE

U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)
WASHINGTON, D.C.

SPEAKER: U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)


Snip...

QUESTION: Senator, this resolution, if it were passed, would
have no legal effect.

FEINGOLD: No.

QUESTION: So the only thing that would affect the NSA program,
if it's illegal, is to cut off the funding? You don't support that,
do you?

FEINGOLD: Well, there are several things that could affect the
program. First of all, one would hope, if this passes, that the
president would acknowledge what Congress has said and would bring the
program within FISA, which is what he should do.

Another approach, of course, is the legal system, is hoping that
we could get some kind of a court order and a response in the legal
system ordering the president to come within the law.

So I don't think that necessarily the idea of cutting off funding
-- even cutting off funding, how are you going to enforce that? If
the president has inherent power, he'll just shift some money around.
He'll just keep doing it. I mean, that's the problem with this
doctrine. If the president isn't going to acknowledge that a law we
passed, such as FISA, binds him, why should the cutting off of funding
affect him?

QUESTION: Senator, for those who are your critics who would
liken this or they talk about your central resolution in the same
breath that they talk about impeachment, and just say this is nothing
but one step ahead of impeachment. How do you counter that,
especially when they're using it as a weapon before the midterms to
say: The Democrats get in power, you're going to see impeachment.

FEINGOLD: Clearly, I chose to pursue censure rather than
impeachment, certainly at this point, because I believe at this point
it's a way to help us positively resolve this issue.

In other words, without getting the country in the middle of a
huge problem, like we had with the attempted Clinton impeachment, we
have a passing of a resolution of censure, and hopefully the president
would acknowledge it and say that he maybe went too far, and we would
be able to move forward and stop worrying about this and get a pledge
from the president that he's going to come within the law or make
proposals to change the law to allow it.

I think this actually is in the area of an impeachable offense.
I think it is right in the strike zone of what the founding fathers
thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.

But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong.

But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road. And anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.


Snip...


QUESTION: Do you see any chance whatsoever that your resolution
would be passed by this Republican Senate?

FEINGOLD: I'd be pretty surprised. But this president,
presumably, will be president for several years. And it is very
possible that others will later on control the Congress. And this is
something that could be examined at different points.

If the president changes course and indicates that he understands
that this was not lawful and that he should not have done it, then it
becomes less important.

But if he continues to assert not only this but other extreme
executive power doctrines, it will continue to be important to push
back and to ask the president to return to the law.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html

[blm]

3. It's not a bad idea - as long as it isn't an ALTERNATIVE remedy to

the impeachment case gathering strength in the congress, though.

[mattclearing]

11. Exactly.

I'm somewhat concerned by Feingold's comments in yesterday's press conference where he seemed to be justifying censure as a way to avoid Impeachment without letting Bush's illegal acts go unaddressed.

That is unacceptable.

[blm]

15. I was willing to give benefit of doubt on 1st diss of impeachment, then

the 2nd diss, but this press conference made it crystal clear that Feingold does NOT support impeachment.

I'm for censure AND impeachment.

[MadMaddie]

4. In my opinion it' not a bad idea...

however, the Democratic powers that be are pissed about it....

They were waiting for the most perfect, ideal, smiley faced situation before they did something..Feingold opened a slim window of opportunity and the rest of the non-supporting Democrats ran for the hills like the cowards they are....

[madaboutharry]

5. Censure is not a bad idea, except for

members of the United States Senate who are too timid to actually stand up and speak out for something meaningful. The Senate is now occupied not by statesman or great minds, but by prima donnas and spoiled brats who have become accustom to a life of privilege. Nothing, not even protecting democracy, will stand in the way of their life style.

[Mz Pip]

6. It would be terrific

if it happened. I don't know how much worse things have to get before people demand action be taken. I would love to see Bush leave office in 08 bruised, humiliated and scorned.

Feingold may be committing political suicide by bringing this up but I do think it's important to call attention to the incompetence and misdeeds of the Bush Administration. We shall see.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Beelzebud]

7. Because it might make the Republicans mad, and we wouldn't want that!

I get very scared when I see Republicans being held accountable. It is frightening.

Let's just all support our president in every decision he makes! It's god's will afterall!

[madaboutharry]

12. Make sure you are

chewing bubble gum while you say this, just like Brittney Spears in Farenheit 911. "He's the president and we should just go along with whatever he says!!" Yep, that is what it means to be an American, oh, I mean a Senator.

[Beelzebud]

13. LOL Thats who I was thinking of as I typed it. :D

[sandnsea]

8. Floor vote, "no"

Bush is exonerated and the wiretapping issue is dead. If Feingold used censure to open up a real investigation, it would be good. But he's not, he's saying it's a way to resolve the issue and get back to work, he's the "voice of moderation". I don't know what he's trying to accomplish.

[mdmc]

9. don't rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby

don't tip the boat over...

[Generator]

10. Because it means the Dems

have to call bullshit on our little "war" president. It means the war is a lie. It means they fucked up by voting for it and going along for the last five years. HE MUST SPY ON US OR WE WILL ALL DIE. We must support that or look weak. We can't say there is no threat from Iraq-and the boys and girls are dying for nothing. We can't say that they are dying for a fantasy of a middle east that will never be-and that we can't force. They can't tell the truth. They can't. So it's much easier to go along and issue little statements about how shocked they are at what the president does-but they won't hold him to account. Because then they go against the WAR president. They can't do THAT. They would be traitors. They can't say the truth. The war is a fraud. Voting for it was WRONG. And it must end. The traitor is in the white house. As someone here posted, it seems Americans can't handle the truth. They know the truth-the polls tell us that. But if they keep lying to themselves like the Dems-they shouldn't be surprised when the draft comes for Iran, now should they? The president-whom we must defer to because we are at "war" says pre-emption in Iran is a-okay. America, it was nice knowing for you. All we can do is PRAY someone has enough sense to stop this insanity. I know it's not going to be the CONGRESS. What a joke that is.

In the end-the only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

[understandinglife]

14. Obviously, it's not a bad idea ... and even with the puke media spinning

... for Bu$h, a plurality of polled voters want it to happen ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=678813&mesg_id=678813

Just imagine what those numbers would be if we had an effective opposition party ...


Be The Bu$h Opposition - 24/7