"The following Democrats 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

Of course the President here would be Bill Clinton.
This over at Kos

http://dailykos.com/

I am beyond disgusted.

They need to go.

As for being beyond disgusted, I'm right there with you.

I've said it before, Feingold will go down like Micheal Moore did (for his Oscar speech protesting the Iraq invasion). He was ahead of his time, now he's a hero. That's just exactly what will happen to Feingold. We have to make sure that it does.

where's Hillary?

and FOR impeachment process to continue.

Pretty amazing that this list is being spun the way it is.

blm, I'm with you on this! This ridiculousness has me pulling my hair out here...Watching what's been going on in these threads, it's easy to see how the right wing gets away with spreading their lies and distortions as if they were truth...Tell the people what they think they want to hear and they'll run with it...Facts don't matter. Context doesn't matter. ARGH!! Highly discouraging.

Doesn't make you popular, but facts don't hurt causes and goals, bad information and lies do.

about was the night that Michael Moore got on stage at the Oscars and flat out said that any war started with Iraq was WRONG. He was booed that night, he took shitloads of abuse from all directions for a long time. And he was the first that publically blasted bush** and documented all the illegal and immoral things he was doing, the lies he was telling. Remember Fahrenheit 911?

I said Moore is a hero to the American people, at least a lot of us, for his courage in speaking up early. And speaking up loudly.

Feingold will be remembered for being the first to really throw bush**s & Company's crimes back in their faces. For using the 'I' word on the floor of the senate. He will, like Cindy, join Michael Moore in the ranks of Americans who really qualify as heros for out time.

That might make for a nice flamey thread huh? :P

OY!

is being SPUN.

Get a clue what SPIN can do to subvert the truth. Clinton WANTED censure over an impeachment process.

Ignorance of actual context and the procedures DO NOT HELP.

are you saying that Clinton was behind it? Sorry but I don't understand. Is Liberaloasis doing the spinning? If that is the case you are right.

So, let's be clear about who was in support of what.

It's easy to take a list and make it look bad when you don't show the OTHER list which is votes FOR the impeachment process to continue.

I understand what you are saying (finally). And you are 100 percent right.

:blush:

that does nothing but alienate and divide Dems at a time when they need to find ground to unite on moves like censure, and blocking judicial nominees, etc....

It really makes it hard for Dem lawmakers when their own side attacks with false claims, too. They get enough of that in the corporate media.

The Dem party will get stronger when the leftleaning and objective media asserts itself over RW lies and spin. So far, most are too arrogant to see that they hurt their own cause.

To their credit, some of the original 38 co-sponsors, including John Kerry, said it was time to move on, and he voted accordingly to postpone indefinitely consideration of Feinstein's reintroduced censure resolution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/censure021399.htm

And so, only minutes after acquitting President Clinton on two articles of impeachment, the Senate voted yesterday to postpone indefinitely consideration of a strongly worded resolution that condemned Clinton for "shameful, reckless and indefensible" behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

<>Feinstein later yesterday reintroduced the censure resolution, which had 38 co-sponsors, including nine Republicans, making it part of the Senate record. She said she was undecided about making a second attempt to pass the resolution, but conceded that the impeachment trial had been "an enormously trying situation for everybody and people want to leave it, they want to close the door and leave it."

Even many of Feinstein's supporters echoed that sentiment, suggesting that there will be little incentive to resume the censure debate when the Senate returns from its Presidents' Day recess on Feb. 22.

"I don't want to go back into it," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "I think this is it. It's over. Let's move on."

Even I get the news from back then jumbled, since it really was an avalanche of Clinton hatred on steroids at that time.

... pointing that out. I'm sure the OP was operating under the best intentions, but yes that does in fact make the whole thing a horse of a different color.

My saying so might be against the rules? Regardless I think it's non-productive.

anybody on the first list, but not the second, is a coward. I have no problem with Senators on both lists since an openly, consciously, lying President, of any party, deserves to be censured.

proceedings to contnue against Clinton. Which proves how this list is being used out of context.

They censure their own to save face, yet won't do it to a criminal who has lied us into a war. Downright sickening.

I missed the party switch, apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords

dp

WHICH FEINGOLD VOTED FOR.

CENSURE WAS WHAT CLINTON WANTED OVER THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS TO CONTINUE.

Does context mean NOTHING to people?

Minus the snark, I'm very interested in what you are saying. As is in evidence in my above post. I wasn't aware of what you are saying and would like to know more if you are inclined to share.

I always expect DUers and the leftleaning blogs to be more informed, not less.

When the house was proceeding with impeachment, the senate was offering a censure of Clinton as a compromise measure to stop impeachment from going further.

Those voting FOR that censure were trying to block impeachment and removal of the president.

Feingold voted FOR the continuation of the impeachment process when he voted AGAINST the censure of Clinton.

I appreciate the heads up. Thanks

of the impeachment process in the beginning of his speech Monday - to show that it was priniple not partisanship.

I would not say those who voted for the Clinton Censure were wrong - they felt that Clinton was wrong, but that it wasn't a bigger enough thing to impeach him.

I guess :shrug:

Seriously, that's way clever! Welcome to DU! :hi:

You know as well as I that there are those people who will look for any reason to indict Dems. In the long run, it is they who are destroying the image of the Democratic party.

Remember the Flip/Flopper Kerry remark started on our side.

:hi:

Unless there are dozens of replys...Ostriches in Donkey suits.

"MoveOn was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard."

Intelligent people wanted censure instead of impeachment.

I made the same point below. Thanks for the clear head.

impeachment . . . (not apologizing for them) . . . as an alternative to impeachment . . .

response from far down the list at Kos.

"Can we just have a little perspective here?

The reason all these Democrats came out for censuring Clinton was that they were trying to head off the Republicans' attempt at impeachment. The idea was to acknowledge Clinton's wrongdoing, but then move on. There were also many Republicans who were interested in this approach, and IIRC, Clinton himself made it known that he wouldn't fight censure. Of course what ended up happening was that Tom DeLay insisted on impeachment, over the objections of many in his party, and the Republicans paid a price at the polls that year.

By contrast, the Feingold measure comes at a time when the Democrats have got little traction on the domestic wiretapping issue. This has been a story for a few months now, and despite the almost unanimous opinion of legal experts that the program is illegal, and the steady stream of Dems denouncing the program, the GOP has successfully framed the issue as one of you are either for or against catching the bad guys. I think the only thing to conclude is that national security is one of those issues where fear trumps reason. Democrats need to adapt to that. What this tells most Democrats is that censure will not do anything for them politically. And that's leaving aside the obvious fact that it would never pass.

So the comparison between 1998 and now is a silly one. In 1998, Democrats were in the minority and were doing what they could to defend a Democratic president. In 2006, Democrats are also in the minority but trying to prosecute a Republican president. The political dynamic could not be different.

As much as we would like to see politicians vote their convictions, and as much as a censure motion would scratch the itch to see Bush humiliated, the fact is Democrats would be better off crafting a message that brings new ideas to the issue of national security. If fear is going to trump reason on that issue, as a matter of politics, Democrats need to address the fear."

.

"As much as we would like to see politicians vote their convictions, and as much as a censure motion would scratch the itch to see Bush humiliated, the fact is Democrats would be better off crafting a message that brings new ideas to the issue of national security. If fear is going to trump reason on that issue, as a matter of politics, Democrats need to address the fear."

Senators take an oath of office which they must uphold whether they have convictions or not, whether they want to humiliate Junior or not. If they violate that oath, they are not only compicit with Junior's criminality, they are then guilty of their own.

In addition, Junior is the biggest threat to our national security. He failed on 9/11, he failed in Iraq, he fail in Afghanistan and he failed on the Gulf Coast. THAT needs to be addressed.

Go ahead and craft your message. Somewhere along the way, please also do your job.

Seems to me that facts should matter. Any blogger spreading discord based on spinning this list is not helping.

has re taught me a lesson to be a little more critical with my thinking regardless of what blog I might be reading.

I would suggest that you post a new thread on what you THOUGHT when you read the list and what you know now. It may be beneficial to the next person eyeballing the list out of context.

against Bill Clinton for the blow job. I didn't agree with it then, and still don't.




Guess censure will have to do now though, since "impeachment" is considered radical! :shrug:

I just called Senator Boxer's office and heard that she just released a statement about an hour ago.

Those Democrats were for censure INSTEAD OF AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

Feingold, not on that last, voted to hold an impeachment trial.

Why don't you - or Kos - provide THAT key detail?

And besides, I thought Kos was Harry Reid's whore. Now he's backing Feingold over Reid, possibly because he knows his little Dittoheads would revolt on him if he didn't. What a mewling, unprincipled whore he is.

EDIT: Sorry, Puglover, just read your mea culpa. My apologies as you have already acknowledged this. If it's too late to edit the OP, you might consider making a new one so people don't, like me, click this and post without reading all the responses. Sorry!

The Opening Post was erroneously researched, and therefore this thread has played itself into unecessary flamebait.

Thank you all for your understanding.