Senator Harkin: "Democrats don't have the GUTS..." (audio link)

[Senator]

The Bill Press Show (audio at link)

Senator Tom Harkin: Well, Bill, quite frankly I don’t know, and I’m embarassed that more democrats haven’t lined up on this. I mean, for crying out loud, the republicans, they can see fit to impeach… IMPEACH a president, Bill Clinton for lying about having an extramarital affair. But they won’t stand for a censure. The democrats don’t have the guts to stand up to censure a president who misled us, who lied to the American people, who broke the law and violated the Constitution of the United States in spying on the American people. I tell you, we’ve got to get some more backbone to a lot of democrats. We need to hear from people. We need to hear from people. The American people need to know, and to show support for this resolution.

Ouch!

Pretty extreme. But he's right "Violence" is the answer.

--
www.january6th.org

[JI7]

1. does that mean he is willing to challenge Reid for Senate Dem Leader

position ?

[still_one]

3. I doubt he would suceed

the cowards he is critisizing would never allow it

[JI7]

4. well, what chances are there of censure succeeding with Republicans

holding power ?

i think there is a bigger chance of him beating Reid for Senate Dem Leader.

[still_one]

5. The censure would NOT suceed but it would show without ambiguity

that the Democrats believe in seperation of powers, and the president is NOT above the law

[JI7]

6. i'm not sure it would show that

especially since a censure wouldn't result in much, especialy if it fails.

but Harkin doesn't need all the Dems to become Senate leader. he just needs more than others.

[still_one]

7. hey, I have no problem with what you are saying about Harkin

but I do think that standing for the censure is extremely important win or lose

I look at it in very simple terms. Those who vote against the censure are for volation of the FISA act, and seperation of powers

They will NEVER get my support, money or vote.

Time is running out for the current democrats to take a stand.

I can only tell you my impression from my republican associates, and it is that they do NOT understand why the democrats do NOT behave as an opposition party?

If we win in 2006 it will be in spite of the democrats in congress, and more because of the screw ups of this administration, plus the new blood coming into the democratic party.

You indicate that censure wouldn't result in much, especially if it fails? I disagree. For six years most of the democrats rubber stamped everything this administration sent to them. How can those that voted for the medicare drug plan now critisize it? How can those that voted for the bankrupcy law now critisize it? If we don't send a message in very strong terms that we DO NOT APPROVE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH violating the FISA resolution, then we obviously agree with that voilation

[pat_k]

30. Hear, Hear!!

. . .I look at it in very simple terms. Those who vote against the censure are for violation of the FISA act, and separation of powers. . .

Spot On!

The principles and institutions we established under the Constitution are under attack. Members of Congress are sworn to support and defend. The choice is simple. Break their oath and be complicit OR carry out their sworns duty.

It doesn't matter what others members will or won't do. Their oath is an individual oath. Their decision is a personal decision.

Unfortunately, for too many inside (and outside) the beltway, the simple truths and moral positions that make the right course crystal clear have been buried in political "gamesmanship."

I'm frustrated that others aren't joining Feingold, Harkin, and Boxer, but I'm DELIGHTED that Feingold introduced the resolution. In every interview, Feingold and Harkin demonstrate how powerful it is to take an unassailable moral position grounded in reality.

His action is an object lesson and we can help to make sure our "leaders" learn from it.

We are chipping away.

. . .I can only tell you my impression from my republican associates, and it is that they do NOT understand why the democrats do NOT behave as an opposition party? . .

Your observation goes to the core of the insanity of our "leaders." They fear that "swing" or "right-wing" voters will be turned off if they take a strong stand, when the opposite is true.

If Dems stood up for principle and went after the criminals in the Bush administration PERSONALLY they would command respect and support from the very people they fear they would "turn off."

It is critical that we get a few things about "our side" and "their side" through our thick Democratic skulls.

Lesson One:
Accusation and punishment activates people -- particularly those on the right.

Republicans tend to focus on people, not ideas or systems. Their beliefs tend to be adopted from other people; not reasoned observation. When they perceive wrongs, they do not look for systematic causes or solutions; they go after the wrong-doers and demand punishment.

They do not engage in personal attacks for some strategic reason. The tendency to attack people (individuals or classes) is a consequence of how they conceptualize the world. The policies that activate "people-focused" people are "people-focused" (make the immigrants go away, stop homosexuals from making their evil partnerships, put women in jail for attempting to end a pregnancy, and on and on.)

In terms Kohlberg's stages of moral development the reactionary-right would be labeled "Pre-Conventional" (obedience and punishment orientation).

Lesson Two:
When we fail to hold people personally accountable by accusing them and demanding punishment for proven wrongs, we undermine our moral standing and appear weak.

Folks on "our side" tend to focus on ideas and systems. Instead of going after wrong-doers personally, we "investigate" and look for systematic changes that will change the dynamics and "make sure it doesn't happen again."

We tend to get so caught up with fixing the system that we overlook (or deemphasize) the wrongs committed by the people operating in the system. We even object when others demonize people for their bad behavior. (The egregious actions committed by the criminals in the Bush administration have prompted many to give up their "no name calling" stance, but the tendency is still there.)

Actions speak louder than words. Our claims to value personal responsibility are empty if we do not hold people personally accountable for their actions.

We naturally seek to understand and fix systems. We don't have to worry that we'll stop doing that. Our challenge is to make sure we also go after the people who commit crimes and corrupt systems.

Lesson Three:
It is not reasonable to be immobilized by "reason."

Our "reasoned" approach to things is another Achilles heel because far too often we talk ourselves out of acting for strategic or "practical" 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.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

32. kick

:kick:

[still_one]

2. absolutely right on

many of the democrats in congress make me SICK

I am very selective who I contribute to now. No more blanket DNC contributions, and I have taken my name off their solicitations

Of course I will support, and contribute to those who are NOT afraid to speak truth to power, and match actions with their words

[Senator]

8. Censure v. Impeachment -- Distinction without a Difference

Unless and until one of these options actually proceeds to the point where they have to DO something, like vote, calling for one or the other, or both, has the same symbolic, PR effect at this point.

What they should be doing is trying to provoke the paranoid, impatient Republicans with notions like:

"You know. Joining the Dems to support Censure might avoid impeachment."

"It's either Pres. Hastert now, or Pres. Pelosi later. You decide."

"It might sound crazy, but dumping bush before the midterms is your only chance to hold the House and Senate."

--

[pat_k]

9. Kick'd and Recommended! -- "We need to hear from people. The American . .

. . . people need to know, and to show support for this resolution."

Harkin puts the ball firmly in OUR COURT!!

The time is NOW -- Call Senators: "Why Aren't You Co-Sponsoring Censure?!"

Call your Senator. Ask why they're not co-sponsoring.

Ask to speak to the Judicial LA (or just ask to speak to someone who can answer your questions).

Don't just ask them to do it. Ask them WHY they haven't, and Challenge Their Reasons!!! . . .

[melissinha]

10. Yay Harkin!

As a former constituent, I am happy to be represented in spirit by you.... Will I ever be truly respresented by KBH and Cronyn.

I guess I don't need to call Harkin this time.... I was really pissed that Dayton was critical of Feingold, and as usual Kohl was silent.

I guess I'll call Durbin who used to be my Senator too....

[bobbieinok]

15. also former constituent....now 'represented' by Inhofe + Coburn

Harkin 1st ran for national office in 72; he lost but his wife Ruth won the race for Story Co district attorney. She was the first woman district attorney in IA. For years afterward, only women were elected district atty in Story Co.

My son was 3 in 72 and 'worked' at the Story County democratic headquarters picking up pins, etc, from the floor.

Harkin won in 74, the year of the 'democratic revolution' when so many democrats won in the Nixon era; my son and I also worked at the county headquarters for him that year.

[melissinha]

19. OMG

You live in OK...... thats gotta be tough!!!!

I hail from Decorah, Nussle is actually a alumni of my school Luther... ick. I was crushed when they redistricted and two incumbents ran against each other...

Everytime I hear of an OK person on Air America I cringe.... I'll never forget the gay guy who called, just shattered my "view" of Oklahomans....

Kudos to you for even living there!

[bobbieinok]

23. was born + grew up in OK; went to college in Houston TX +

grad school in CA.....then moved to IA in Aug of 68 and left in May of 89; now back in OK where I grew up and where my family (except for my ex and son) live

my grandparents and her parents moved to Tulsa in 1906 (1 year before OK became a state) ...... my dad (1908-1995) was born in Tulsa and lived most of his life here........my mom, who died just over a year ago, was the last to be buried in an 8 person family burial plot in town; the first was buried in 1906 and my mom was the last in 2005......my grandmother's grandparents moved to IA from VA in 1849; I always thought it was odd and sort of right that I ended up living much of my adult life in IA and that my son was born and grew up in IA and lives there now

a small apology for more info about my links to IA and OK than you really wanted to know

[Hardrada]

24. Another LC grad! So am I and I have been unhappy

that Nussle is also an alumni. Nick Preus told me about a faculty dinner he was at where the guests were Nussle and wife and NEWT GINGRICH and his wife (also an LC grad)!! Glad I missed that (not that I would have been asked anyway).

:hi:

[mdmc]

11. nah, the dems are mad tough!

:eyes:

[flpoljunkie]

12. Not too late to co-sponsor Feingold's citizen petition to censure Bush

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/page/petition/censure0306

Co-Sponsor Feingold's Resolution to Censure the President

Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a resolution in the U.S. Senate to censure the President of the United States. Feingold’s resolution condemns the President’s actions in authorizing the illegal wiretapping program and then misleading the country about the existence and legality of the program. Please sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of his resolution if you agree that we need to hold the President accountable.

The President must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality.

The President’s actions, as well as his misleading statements to both Congress and the public about the program, demand a serious response.

If Congress does not censure the President, we will be tacitly condoning his actions, and undermining both the separation of powers and the rule of law.

I therefore sign on as a citizen co-sponsor to Senator Feingold's resolution to censure the President.

[aikoaiko]

13. Mixed feelings

he's right that many of our leaders are scared, but maybe they should be scared of losing votes.

Moderate, center leaning republicans and center leaning democrats who voted for bush who are not happy with Bush, the war, the leaks, imigration wishy-washiness and, of course, the economy.

But a partison censure vote might just push them back into the republican camp. After all he was their boy.

I don't know. I'm just glad he'll be gone soon.

[pat_k]

18. When principle demands action, outcome expectations are irrelevant.

Would you advise a Marine or Soldier to break their oath to support and defend our Constitution because the battle they face may end badly?

We expect members of our armed services to risk death to fulfill their oath. Why should we tolerate dereliction of duty from members of Congress? Surely, losing a seat in Congress is far less dire than risking your life?

Duty or Complicity

Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

The power to Impeach is vested in Congress and Congress alone.

The Congressional oath and the power to Impeach makes each and every member of Congress uniquely, and individually, responsible to take CONGRESSIONAL action when the principles and institutions we established in the Constitution are threatened or violated by officials in the Executive or Judiciary.

It is irrefutable that George W. Bush's violations of FISA pose a grave threat to the principles and institutions we established under the Constitution for the United States. The violation of individual rights is intolerable; but it is Bush's claim that he has unitary authoritarian that is truly devastating.

Each day that members of Congress fail to carry out their sworn duty and demand Congressional action (e.g., Co-Sponsor Censure in the Senate or John Conyers' resolution in the House), George W. Bush can point to their failure to act as justification for his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to power ("If my actions were violations wouldn't more members of Congress, who are sworn to act, be demanding Congressional action?")

By providing cover, every member of Congress who fails to act (and every Candidate who fails to take a position that affirms the duty they will take on as a member of congress) is aiding and abetting Bush's efforts to unilaterally override the laws we have enacted to serve our will.

The Congressional oath is an individual oath that calls on each member to make a personal decision. The decision that faces each member (and those who seek to be members) right now: duty or complicity?

Unfounded Fears and Realistic Rewards

When principle demands action, outcome expectations, positive or negative, do not enter into the decision to act, but a realistic assessment of the risks and benefits can make it easier to take the necessary action.

Your comments reflect the exclusive focus on dire predictions of "backlash" or other negative consequences (predictions that have little basis in reality) that dominate public discourse on Impeachment.

Rarely, if ever, do we hear that taking up the fight to initiate Impeachment proceedings or co-sponsoring Censure will benefit any leader who does so. This omission is mystifying, particularly because there is solid evidence that fighting for impeachment is a political winner.

• 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.
  
  The secret surevelance without warrants, the secret torture, the secret and selective "declassification" . . . there can be no doubt that members of the adminstration are engaged secret criminal enterprises that have yet to be discovered. When we find out the true magnitude (we have only scratched the surface) 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:
  
  1. Failure to accuse and demand punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) Instead of going after wrong-doers personally, Democratic leaders seek to "investigate" or "make sure it doesn't happen again."
  
  2. 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"?



• There is no evidence to support the belief in electoral backlash
  
  Many are attempting to invoke the electorate's response to Clinton's impeachment to support their claims that the electorate will have a similar negative response to an effort to impeach Bush. Such claims are absurd on there face.
  
  More than 40% of the nation has opposed Bush from day one and the opposition is steadily growing. There is no conceivable scenario in which the support for impeaching Bush and Cheney would drop below 40%.
  
  The 30% who steadfastly supported the impeachment of Clinton will oppose to the impeachment of Bush. Opposition to the impeachment of Bush and Cheney may never drop below 30%, but revelations in the course of investigation could drive that number down.
  
  There is no evidence to suggest the 30% not yet accounted for would oppose impeachment, but evidence to the contrary can be found in polls. Even though leaders from both parties are keeping mum on impeachment, more than half the country believes Bush should be impeached if he knew his threat of mushroom clouds in 45 minutes was a lie.
  
  In the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton, the negative reaction was rooted in the belief that the questions about President Clinton's sex life should not have been asked in the first place.
  
  There are serious charges against Bush and Cheney, and serious questions that are unanswered. It is impossible to imagine a scenario in which the findings of an impeachment inquiry would lead the electorate to conclude that the charges should never have been investigated in the first place

[confludemocrat]

14. Censure of a lawbreaker is "extreme"? What moderate form of this is there?

if this is "extreme"? Don't get the rhetorical apologia implicit in calling this "extreme".

[Senator]

16. No, dissing fellow Senators is extreme

You do it in the chamber and you can get censured yourself.

But actually, at this point calling for Censure is (technically) "more extreme" than calling for Impeachment.

Censure requires that a conclusion be made and a "punishment" (however tangibly mild) is imposed.

"Impeachment" is only an accusation. What is literally being called for is a process, which may or may not lead to punishment (removal).

Certainly the reverse is true as a matter of public perception.

--
www.january6th.org

[CCBeck]

17. He is my Senator

I signed onto his petition to Censure the President and sent him a letter:

"Senator Harkin as news continues to unfold about the information that the Bush administrator choose to disclose about Iraq, I am becoming deeply troubled. I think it would behoove you to help force this issue more into the limelight by forcing your fellow members of the Senate to have thier voices counted. Right now there is little evidence of wrong doing but serious allegations have been raised and it is the duty of Congress to remind the Executive Brach that they are only one branch of the government. It is time for a public call of accountability. Please request in session from your fellow Senators the drafting of a summons to the President of the United States to answer allegations that have recently been brough to light. I am well aware that such an action will fail however I believe that this will help to demonstrate to the people of this nation where exactly the democratic party stands. Thank you for reading this."

I would like to see him stand up and speak out very loudly to get the Dems back in line. Yesterday on the Radio I heard them say it was to bad mostly Senators practice a certain amount of decorim in all public forums. I think the time has passed where they are entitled and required to stand up and speak very bluntly state what they think has happened. I think people are craving for someone of power to do this...

[Kurovski]

20. K&R

From the article:"euphemedia". I like that term.

A comment I made along these lines (violence in discourse) was once deleted from DU some years ago.

But then, we have a much better case for getting rhetorically tough these days, we're in way deeper trouble, and the case is more elegantly made in that article.

[Iblis]

21. Proud to be an Iowan

...for the first time in a while. :-D

[cascadiance]

29. Proud to have lived there too!

Harkin and Feingold are doing the midwest right!

[C_U_L8R]

22. The congress also needs to listen

we're hollaring our heads off here in the trenches.. we want some action.. and some friggin' backbone back in DC

[pat_k]

25. They'll be home nexrt week. Visit offices -- DIALOG is critical ! !

Calls and letters effectively show the breadth of support, but one way communication is limited. All too often, what we tell them just slides off their system of rationalization like water off a ducks back.

There is no sufficient substitute for in-person dialog, which allows you to directly contradict the many rationalizations and excuses given for inaction.

Your Senator may have a local office closer than you think. If you can't do it, do you know anyone who might/could be willing to set up a meeting?

Calling to get the name of the Senator's scheduler and faxing a written request is the best way to get in the door (sample letter). Call to follow up if you don't hear back. Keep pestering until they set a time for you to meet with the Senator or member of their staff.

It can be a daunting thing to do. Hooking up with others makes it easier, but don't go with lots of people, it is not conducive to dialog (three or four max). If you belong to or support a group that wants to see Bush Censured, talk to them about going as their local representative. Find out if your Senator has made any public statements and start there (both of mine have taken the "reserving judgment pending investigation" position).

Your task is to elicit their rationalizations for failing to co-sponsor Censure and challenge them. It is important to make the key points of your case in a back and forth dialog. It needs to be a two-way conversation. If you are doing all the talking, it is unlikely you are engaging in a way that influences. Typically, the standard rationalizations come up spontaneously, but if they don't, elicit them.

For a sample dialog and additional "ammo", check out this post: Couple Key Points

Citizen lobbyists can be incredibly effective. Interest groups spend millions on people doing this type of work. We can do it on our own behalf. A hundred citizen lobbyists can do more than 10 million bucks worth of "professional" lobbyist muscle.

[C_U_L8R]

27. Good advice !! Thanks pat_k !!

spread the word

[Deja Q]

26. Agreed. Dems are cowardly. Butthe repugs are doing just as little too.

:think:

There's more going on than everything we've been told or have otherwise conjectured.

[pat_k]

28. Secret torture; Secret surveillance w/o warrants; deceptively selective. .

. . . secret "declassification" to cover up the truth about their terroristic threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes . . . There can be no doubt that the Bush Syndicate has other illegal secret programs going.

Here's something to tell Republicans to get them in gear:

You can have President Hastert now or President Pelosi in 2007. Your choice.

And, for members of the Democratic caucus:

Every day your keep silent, you are aiding and abetting by giving Bush cover.

The criminal enterprises we know have been sanctioned under Bush's lunatic claim to unitary authoritarian power are intolerable, but the worst is undoubtedly yet to come. Do you really want to pay the political and moral price for being an accomplice after the fact?

[Senator]

31. In Response: Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness

Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness

February 27, 2006 | Issue 42•09

WASHINGTON, DC—In a press conference on the steps of the Capitol Monday, Congressional Democrats announced that, despite the scandals plaguing the Republican Party and widespread calls for change in Washington, their party will remain true to its hopeless direction.

"We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. "It will take some doing, but we're in this for the long and pointless haul."

full article

--