WTF? Dem Senators Don't Even Show Up For Censure Hearing.

[cali]

Color me disgusted. Earlier today I posted a thread positing that the hearing today would be a disappointment because the repukes would attack and the dems would put up a half hearted defense of Feingold. It's far worse than that: Practically no dem Senators even showed up. Leahy's there and at least he said that the pres broke the law and he's inclined to think censure is appropriate, but as far as I know he's the only dem aside from Feingold to speak so far. Meanwhile, the usual hitmen; Hatch, Sessions, Cornyn and Graham, all slammed on censure.

Not showing up is a display of shocking cowardice. I'm furious. Even if some of them make an appearance later to question members of the panel, that's no excuse for not showing up for opening statements.

[mdmc]

1. ...

:mad:

[librechik]

2. most of em voted to censure Clinton. AFTER acquittal on impeachment.

what did you expect?

Face it we have a serious problem. It's not just a dream.

[Mass]

5. Could you direct us to a rollcall on censure?

To my knowledge, there has never been a vote on that. The list that the blog are listing is a list of co-sponsors.

[librechik]

9. Here's what I mean:

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/031206.htm#031506

snip

"...Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the many Dems who have refused to take a stand on Sen. Russ Feingold’s resolution censuring Dubya for his illegal wiretaps, was happy to introduce a resolution censuring Bill Clinton in 1999.

But why just pick on Feinstein? She had many co-sponsors.

In fact, there were 24 other sponsors who are still in the Senate -- 19 Dems, 4 GOPers and 1 GOPers turned Dem-friendly Independent. (Full list at the end of this post.)

The question for all of them is: why would you censure a president for an office affair but not for illegal wiretaps?"

snip

and

"Here’s the list of Dem and Independent Senators who backed censure for Clinton (S. Res. 44 in the 106th Congress) and have yet to back censure for Bush:

Daniel Akaka
Max Baucus
Byron Dorgan
Dick Durbin
Dianne Feinstein
Daniel Inouye
Jim Jeffords
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry*
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Carl Levin
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray
Jack Reed
Harry Reid
Jay Rockefeller
Chuck Schumer
Ron Wyden

The four GOPers who backed censure for Clinton are:

Pete Domenici
Mitch Mcconnell
Gordon Smith
Olympia Snowe

*LiberalOasis was told by a Kerry staffer that Kerry supported the Feingold resolution, yet Kerry has not made any formal statements and he ducked reporters’ questions about it yesterday."

(links through firedoglake and BusyBusyBusy)

[Mass]

11. As I said, no votes.

[librechik]

13. my syntax was sloppy--indeed no votes.

still, the list is revealing

[BonnieJW]

3. I think an email is called for

Is there a DU'er out there who is eloquent with a keyboard? Please come up with something short and to the point, and WITH a point (as in knife-edged) that we can send to every dem door mat who couldn't even bother to show up. This is blatant.

[Joe Fields]

8. An 2-mail, at the very least!

Color me disgusted, too!

[laruemtt]

4. oh i WILL remember each and every one

who didn't show up today. VOTE THEM OUT!

[Mass]

6. What did you expect? It is the same Judiciary Committee who

did the Roberts and Alito's hearings.

We'll see who shows up for questionning though. Hopefully, others will come.

[cali]

7. I didn't expect much

but I did expect them to show the fuck up and keep their cushy seats warm. Seems I overestimated them.

[AnnInLa]

10. I will repost from your earlier thread on being disgusted/disappointed

I find it heartening that, after a few years of lock-step support of bushco, that someone has actually stood up in the public arena and dared to say that bush should be censured. This move is all over TV, print news, and people in this country are actually discussing it...I have seen the issue brought up in my local media here, with letters to the editor and with op-eds. ANYTHING that focuses attention of the people on the grab for power by the executive branch to destroy the balance between the three branches of gov't is a GOOD THING. People must start thinking about these things.

Don't be dispirited, be proud.

Adding: please don't forget that the purpose of the proposed censure is to stir PUBLIC DEBATE on the issue of expanding the presidential powers at the expense of the other two branches. The very fact that this is being shown on C-Span right now, will be discussed on the political news shows, will be discussed in newspapers. Do you think that Feingold actually anticipated that the whole Dem party would support this...I think he had no such expectations. I think that he wanted to move this issue into the public debate....and is exceeding famously. Also, please remember, that if a Dem is elected president, the repukes will be clamoring for a REDUCTION of presidential powers and an INCREASE of congressional/judical powers....this way, they are all on record for the expansion of pres powers.

Your constant expression of disappointment/disgust about the hearing is disappointing/disgusting me, lol.

[Marr]

12. It's not cowardice. It's complicity.

[Ufomammut]

14. Now that is a kick-ass "opposition" party!

"presidential power for the sake of presidential power."

Indeed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Why do you think I am now an Independent?

There is your reason... right in front of your eyes... we have a serious problem and right now it can be defineda as laughing at the base...