From DailyKos: List of Democratic Senators supporting Censure!

[Beelzebud]

The following Democratic senators have come out for censuring the president:
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
Unfortunately, the president being censured was Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. Because, you know, these senators had their priorities straight.



You read that right. All of these son's of bitches voted to censure Bill Clinton. Now when we have a president that NEEDS to be held accountable, where are these people? I know there are a couple on that list supporting Feingold, but what about the rest of these bastards?

Opposition party MY ASS... This is pathetic...

[xultar]

1. IT WAS TO HEAD OFF IMPEACHMENT PEOPLE...DUPLICATE

What is wrong this has been posted 3 times today already.

[magellan]

6. So what you're implying is

...they care more about preserving the party than the rule of law?

[CarolNYC]

8. Are you saying

that you think President Clinton should have been impeached?

[xultar]

12. That is EXCATLY what they are saying. They don't get it and it is

kute but scary. I sort of feel bad for them but not really.

We need to hold off on Censure too cuz we aren't going to get any impeachment if we push the censure now. We need to win the house.

If Bush plays victim then we'll never win 2k6.

[magellan]

30. Censure and impeachment are separate remedies

One neither necessitates nor precludes the other. So your assertion that we aren't going to get any impeachment if we push censure now is hot air.

[magellan]

21. My opinion has changed over time on this question

In the day I supported Clinton unquestioningly and thought it was repulsive that the Repugs were making hay out of his personal life. I still think that.

However, I'm more attune to the concept of lying under oath and what it means. He lied stupidly, and that's why he was impeached. (However, I'm not sure it's really impeachment if only one house in Congress says it is.)

All of which has no bearing on the question of censure.

The argument was made that the Dems voted to censure Clinton to stave off impeachment hearings. If that's true, then taken together with their disinterest in censure of Bush** now because it might reflect badly on them, it's a pretty damning indictment of their character IMO. That'd be twice they've reacted to censure based on politics rather than the rule of law.

[chaumont58]

19. Rule of Law?

I'm for a court deciding chimpie is breaking the Constitution, not everyone deciding for himself. That is Bush's way, deciding what portion of any law he wants to follow. There have hundreds of legal scholars mostly on the side that chimpie is violating the Fourth Amendment, but not yet a court. The ACLU, and another organization has a suit now. IMO, if the Dems were to censure chimpie, not on a decision of a court, but based on their own opinion of the law, they are doing the same thing chimpie is doing.

An aside about Feingold's performance: he did not play very smart politics. Right now, repukes don't look bad, dems do. Feingold must have told the other Dem Senators what he was going to do. If that is true, he knew what response he was going to get. I don't think he cared. He's running for President, and he thinks he gets votes by his actions.

[magellan]

26. Um, censure is the legal domain of Congress

They have the ability and the right to exercise their Constitutional powers in this matter, and indeed were willing to censure Clinton to avoid impeachment hearings (which didn't work very well). So why aren't they willing to support a proposal of censure for Bush**? Because it's politics, not principle?

And if Feingold runs for President, this liberal Independent will definitely consider him for having the balls to do the right thing when so many others wouldn't!

[truth2power]

31. As will I. Feingold is the one with the cajones. The others

are spineless.

[magellan]

32. Small correction

Censure of the President is not a Constitutional power but "derives from the formal condemnation of either congressional body of their own members." (quoted from Wikipedia)

[AndyA]

7. Still, the point is

If they did it for Clinton, they should surely do it for Bush!

I realize the motivation may have been to protect Clinton, but they need to protect the AMERICAN PEOPLE now. For God's sake, Bush's numbers are in the toilet - this is NOT a risky proposition!!! They know the majority are behind them. What's the prob??? :shrug:

[havocmom]

9. Impeachment? Look at the numbers for now and give it up already!

This at least brings the issue of crimes against the nation up to a more mainstream level. This is can not be written off a 'a bunch of liberal radicals' and tin foil theories.

This is the beginning of efforts to get to the meat and potatoes.

::sigh:: We don't get impeachment without the numbers. We don't get the numbers without winning elections. To do that, we have to get a national discourse (among people who are not political news junkies like us) going about just how bad it is.

The neocons took over 2 decades to get their ducks in line for this takeover. We will not fix it by one quick vote to impeach. Especially when you look at the REALITY of the numbers in the House and Senate TODAY.

And we have had this impeach discussion way more than three times, so if there is a limit on discussions, does it apply to all discussions? Just sorta wonder why it's OK for some to beat a dead horse while criticizing others for trying to keep an injured one alive.

[xultar]

11. Buhwawawawawawawawa!

[mattclearing]

29. People spend more time at DKos than here, and don't know how

to search for dupes before posting.

The journals feature should put an end to the first bit soon, though.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Sadly that is not true

Dianne Feinstein introduced the resolution to censure President Clinton on February 12, 1999, which was *after* he had been *acquitted* in the impeachment trial.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/whats.next/

[TaleWgnDg]

43. Exactly, the call for a censure of Clinton was to impede an impeachment

of Clinton. This so-called comparison or analogy that's been raised by the OP is specious and completely uncalled for . . . indeed! BTW, hats off to those listed Senators who wanted to avoid, who tried to avoid, an impeachment of Clinton by requesting a censure of Clinton!

[librechik]

48. no--impeachment was DONE and over

when Feinstein introduced the censure. She was just sucking up to her Republican overseers. Apparently.

[understandinglife]

2. "Opposition party MY ASS... This is pathetic..." Yep.

Be The Bu$h Opposition - 24/7

[blm]

4. It was the alternative to further impeachment proceedings which a NO vote

was FOR. This is pure SPIN and a blatant LIE in my book.

You, of all DU posters, should be aware of the facts - you know the importance of accuracy. The leftleaning blogs furthering this should be ashamed of their spin.

Censure and Move ON ring a bell? This is how MoveOn.org started.

[understandinglife]

14. Clinton deserved to be censured - he lied. That is the basis of ...

... my comments regarding the fact that any Democratic Senator who does not support Feingold's censure resolution is explicitly, indelibly complicit in the crimes of Bush -- crimes vastly beyond Clinton's lie.


Be The Bu$h Opposition - 24/7

[blm]

20. Not the point - point is this list is being USED out of context to further

discord as if they WANTED Clinton censured, when it was actually a remedy to block further impeachment proceedings.

You know that list is being used falsely by these blogs and by posters who aren't aware of the context.

[jsamuel]

44. censuring does not block impeachment, what are you talking about?

[Nye Bevan]

38. Actually it wasn't. Impeachment was over and he had already been aquitted

when Dianne Feinstein introduced the censure resolution.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/whats.next/

[kysrsoze]

56. self-delete

[Earth_First]

3. Personally, censure was in order by definition of censure, in my opinion..

but as was previously stated, this was to prevent impeachment.

[CarolNYC]

5. Yep....

this vote was to censure RATHER THAN IMPEACH...

Please see this thread is GD-P:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2514961#2515065

The left seems just as adept at spinning the facts as the right does sometimes....sometimes they even spin the same facts! Oi!

[xultar]

10. DEM on DEM violence. You gotta love it.

[Jim Warren]

13. How very sad.

You can't imagine how sad this makes me. (hadn't seen this until today, just now)

There really is only one party in this country, TMP, The money Party.

[TayTay]

15. Yeah, and I had no problem with the censure of Clinton at the time

He did do a morally indefensible thing and the censure resolution was appropriate. And these Sens were trying to head off the trial in the Senate.

Apples and oranges here. I want my Sens to vote with Senator Feingold and have called them and asked them to do so. However, I am beginning to think I should just forget the whole thing. What is the point is idiotic side arguments like this are brought into the debate. This plays into the hands of Rethugs who are afraid to face this issue head-on and deal with the fact that their belived Fearless Leader broke the law and instead makes it read like cheap political revenge.

This is not helping. It gives the Rethugs ammunition to dismiss the whole censure resolution as cheap revenge. Nice going.

[Beelzebud]

17. Apples and Oranges indeed. Do you think Clinton deserved it more than *?

"It gives the Rethugs ammunition to dismiss the whole censure resolution as cheap revenge. Nice going."

I'm not on national TV, so settle down. I also don't give a flying FUCK what the republicans think about anything.

This is THE problem with the democrats: "OH NO! WHAT WILL THE REPUBLICANS THINK???"

[TayTay]

22. I think it is a disgrace to bring Clinton into this.

At all. He had nothing whatsoever to do with that lying arsehole in the current White House who, with knowledge aforethought, broke the law.

The current sitting President of the United States of America broke the fucking law. Not Bill Clinton, not the Democrats, not the media. George W. Friggin Bush did it and he assembled a team of world-class liars and legal weasels to help him do this rape of the Constitution.

It has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. I will not be side-tracked from what the real issue is here. And I sure as shit am not going to give ammunition to my enemies to make my argument sound weaker, less well defined and a case of 'sour grapes.'

Dragging Clinton into this in any way, shape or form is wrong. It will backfire.

[Beelzebud]

23. Then what does it take to get these cowards in our party to DO SOMETHING?

Your line here is basically "Bush constantly breaks the law, but we shouldn't do anything about it because that might look like sour-grapes."

Am I reading that right, or what?

[TayTay]

25. Bullshit

I said not to bring Clinton into it.

I also said that Bush broke the law and Feingold's amendment stands on it's own. I also said I had called my Senators and asked them to vote with Russ Feingold.

I do NOT want Clinton dragged into it. It waters down the point and gives the Rethugs ammunition to paint this as a 'revenge action' for what happened to Bill.

What part of that is unclear?

[xultar]

18. 3pointer from the corner for TayTay Boom shaka laka laka

[Just Me]

16. Gawd,...that is truly disturbing.

:yoiks:

[Supersedeas]

27. Yes, it is.

[blm]

24. Beel...can you put up the OTHER list that was FOR IMPEACHMENT process

to continue? Or do you prefer to use the censure list out of context the way kos and others are?

The OTHER list, that includes Feingold, wanted the impeachment process to continue and voted NO on censure.

Should that fact matter?

[IndyOp]

34. Feingold wanted the Clinton impeachment process continued?

I am not sure I understand. I thought Feingold wanted neither censure nor impeachment of Clinton. Feingold could not vote on impeachment - that is done in the house.

Why would he have wanted the impeachment process to continue? So the whole process would be drug out longer and Rethugs exposed for wasting precious time and energy? So he would be impeached and then only a loony handful would dare to vote to convict him?

[Kber]

28. And here I was scanning the list for my senators

Guess I'm glad the are NOT on the list.

[OzarkDem]

33. Call the ones still in office

and tell them they'd better support censure of Bush.

[ProSense]

35. Feingold wanted Clinton impeached and is asking Bush to apologize

Have a listen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2516651&mesg_id=2516651


From the audio:

...we'd have to thing long and hard about the politics of actually removing the president from office over this matter.


This is a moderate approach, this is one that just says let's spread it on historical record that this guy did the wrong thing, and maybe he'll apologize if we pass something like this.

[lenegal]

39. What, Not Dirtbag Nelson from Florida?

Senator Jim Nelson is not on the list. He is running for senate this year against GODZILLA KATHERINE HARRIS, who's campaign can be compared to roadkill. Karma is a bitch, Harris. Everything that can go wrong is. She is as popular as the Bird Flu.

But Nelson, to be safe, is not considering censure in this backward red state.

Some have compared the metropolitan areas like Tampa to "Dukes of Hazzard Country"

And what is Florida's zip code? E I E I O

[LynneSin]

36. Woohoo - No Carper or Biden on this list

of course no Carper or Biden on the Censure list for Bush either

:cry:

[cain_7777]

40. BJ more offensive than Treason

Obviously a little sexual activity is a lot worse than lying to the American public, and getting a few thousand of us killed.

[Phlem]

41. Re: Patty Murray

I wish I could've copied the body of the message but I did write Patty Murray (she represents my area) and ripped her a new one.
I pretty much told her that I found her name on a list of senators here at Democratic Underground (gave her the website) and that she censured Bill Clinton and what was she doing not censuring *. I told her she was being hypocritical (trying to be polite) but that I could think of a lot of other words as well and that if she doesn't censure * she's toast. I told her this wasn't about her, her political positioning, her allies, whatever. This is about the people who voted for her. I recommended she wander over to DU and read for a day to educate herself on the pulse of the people. I also told her I would post my letter to her on Democratic Underground. Sorry I messed up on copying the body as it had a lot more flavor than what I just wrote here.

Doing what I can

Phlem

[jasmeel]

42. I just called Kohl's office and asked what Kohl is actively

DOING to deal with Bush's illegal spying. I understand that they think its too early for censure but I haven't heard of anything actually being DONE. I told her to have him let me know EXACTLY what Kohl is doing regarding the spying issue. I guess I'll get a letter.

[Mrspeeker]

45. calling boxer

cant believe she would not support censure, she is truly off the beaten path of an opposition party

[julialnyc]

46. LIEBERMAN????? WOW

Now where are the rest?

[jsamuel]

50. read the op again

it is for Bill Clinton

[julialnyc]

55. ahhh. my bad

Thanks for the correction!

[ThoughtCriminal]

47. Jeffords was GOP then, an Independent now

Just to keep the list accurate.

[mdmc]

49. and won't be there next year

VIVA BERNIE!

[depakid]

51. and how many congressional elections has the party won

since that time?

'spose there's a connection?

[Kurovski]

52. Well THAT was a real kick in the gut...

Here I thought it was breaking news. :-(

Dang

[IowaGuy]

53. I understand why everybody here wants us Dems to stand..

on some principle, go for the show of making a basically meaningless vote for our entertainment (political theatre - nothing more). I agree with the sentiment and the facts..but I for one am glad there are a number of Dems who are holding there fire.

The idiot boy king is hanging himself, dragging his own party down - his own party is turning on him.

In the end, what's really important in politics is doing what is possible. It is not possible at this immediate point to get a censure paseed, nor is it possible to impeach him, the votes aren't there....yet. To push that at this time will only give a rallying point for the freeptards...as it is, we can now just sit back and watch them shoot at each other....they have never been weaker, but we are not strong enough yet to overcome...but we will, we will.

Wait till you see the whites of their eyes, people. If we work quietly, hard and diligently now for 06, then we have an excellent chance for for doing what we want - it will be possible, and not just a show.

[Der Blaue Engel]

54. I see...so now we're going to jump in the Wayback Machine

just like the pathetic Repukes and say, "See? See??? They did it back then, so everything that happens now depends on what happened back then and, oh, by the way, the world is still flat!"

:puke:

Why don't we just call Clinton a son of a bitch, too and blame all of this on him?

I nominate this for most disgusting thread of the day.

[Roxy66]

57. Where is Barbara Boxer?