Question: Were Feingold and Leahy the only ones at the censure hearing?

[Padme Amidala]

My understanding is that all the other Dems were no-shows. Is this true?

[Padme Amidala]

1. Did anyone else even do a drop by?

n/t

[robinlynne]

3. I think there was one democrat who dropped by.

can't remember who it was.
you're right. our senators didn't even show up.

[Padme Amidala]

2. This is a question. Didn't anyone here see the hearing?

[robinlynne]

4. yes I saw it.

[ThomWV]

8. Yep, We Watched It

The coverage didn't begin when the hearing did so I did not see it continously from start to end. When they replayed the first half hour I wasn't really paying attention any more - I had become accoustomed to the disgustingly empty room.

[liveoaktx]

11. Yes, go look on my journal for clips made of the hearing

CanOFun clips

There were only TWO Dems who showed up, Kohl showed up BEFORE the hearing started and told Specter, obviously, he wasn't going to be there. It was like watching a firing line attack against Feingold. During the hearing a whole bunch of people called the other Dems on the judiciary committee to find out WHY THEY WEREN'T THERE. You know, they didn't have to agree with him, but they could have at least shown up. Cowards.

[LA lady]

5. furious

I can't post the message I would like to

WASHINGTON -- Senator Russell Feingold was a lonely man yesterday.

Of his seven Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, only two showed up for the committee's hearing on Feingold's call for a censure of President Bush. One of them -- Feingold's fellow Wisconsin Democrat, Herb Kohl -- ducked out early without uttering a word.

So Feingold sat amid a sea of empty chairs in the hearing room, withstanding a withering Republican barrage
Feingold's resolution has no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled Congress. Only two Democrats have signed on as cosponsors, and party leaders, fearful of rallying Bush's supporters with direct attacks on the president, have resisted the GOP's offers to bring the resolution to the Senate floor.

[radio4progressives]

7. this is an accurate account.. who is the quoted source?

[LA lady]

14. Boston Globe

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/01/sharp_exchanges_fill_censure_hearing/

[cureautismnow]

10. Fearful of Rallying 35ish% of the Electorate?!

What is wrong with these people?! :wtf: Yes, timidity is working out just well for the cowards. :eyes: For crying out loud, fear will keep the Dem.'s a minority party for years to come. The Repukes certainly weren't scared to rally the opposition when they tried to impeach a popular President. These Dinos need to follow the winning advice of FDR - we have nothing to fear, but fear itself. Grow some, already! :mad:

[radio4progressives]

6. First there Were Three Democrats, Then there Were Two, Then there was One

Senator Kohl was there during Senator Specter's opening remarks of the hearing (beginning) then he bailed as soon as he was finished, leaving only Senators Leahy and Feingold on the Democratic side.

Leahy left after he had his round of questioning. Leaving Feingold to close for the Democratic side.

[EVDebs]

9. C-Span was there, meaning the public got to keep score

Like Santa at election time in Nov, we remember who's naughty and who's nice.

[TayTay]

12. Please read on Dkos. Yesterday was a victory for Sen. Feingold and Dems.

Gawd, it wasn't necessary for all the Dems to be there. This was a preliminary hearing on a Friday. If all the Dems were there and all had opening statements and such, Senator Feingold would not have had as much floor time as he had. This is not how hearings work.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot on this and making something out of nothing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/1/12914/21500

[radio4progressives]

13. Okay. I just read kos..

thanks for the link. It serves as a sort of pep rally and that has it's uses and purposes, and if it helps to lay the ground work for actual impeachment proceedings as opposed to Censure, i can understand the strategy... I have argued that impeachment isn't something Dems are actually going to pursue for both political and strategical reasons, if that's really the goal after all, the Feingold's proposal for Censure is smart because it was a reasonable option being proposed....

However, Schumer's END RUN around this goal, by proposing a bill to send the entire matter to the Supreme Court, to let SCOTUS decided whether or not what the President has done was unconstitutual and unlawful (when the Supreme Court Justices are largely his allies) gives me much to be concerned about.

[TayTay]

15. There is a larger point here.

That I think we are missing. This hearing was, in and of itself, a victory. It was a victory for Sen. Feingold, a victory for those who want this Admin to be forced to defend it's actions in public and on the record and a victory for the people outside of Washington DC who have pushed for Congress to stand up.

Read what Karen wrote in the DKos post: The Rethugs were livid that these hearings were being held at all and were contemptuous of Sen. Specter because he gave Sen. Feingold and the two sympathetic witnesses a platform from which to speak. Sen. Feingold did a great job. It's his resolution and he defended it well.

Now, this issue has to escape from the liberal blogs and get into the public debate. Let it play out, the longer the better. There will be Senators who don't want this to happen, some because it is inconvenient and some because they don't think this is the way to go. We have heard Sen. Schumer's answer on this and it at least opens another avenue in the debate.

What is the greater goal here? Why are we backing the censure measure in the first place? What do Democrats and progressives want to have happen? What will this Congress, as presently constituted, allow to happen in the real world?