Feingold's censure: Let's get this straight.

What Russ Feingold did today, whether it will pass or not, will help generate discussion again about Bush's breaking the law. Censure is not opposed to impeachment, as some people on here are trying to make it seem. While it is good to have dissenting opinions on here (and we wouldn't be Democrats without it) Feingold himself said that this censure would only be the first step in considering the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

I know that some people think that this is political posturing, and are questioning the motives of Russ, but I think that in the end, this is only creating divisiveness. If you look at who is supporting Russ, it is John Kerry. John and Russ are not divided, so why do we have to be?

Furthermore, I would like to stop this "censure inhibits the impeachment movement" nonsense dead in its tracks. Censure is the first step, and will always have a better chance of succeeding than a call for impeachment. But a censure certainly will not inhibit impeachment. Instead, it will help build the case for it. If you convict a criminal for one thing, even if it is less severe, it goes on their record. They start to get the "criminal" image, and therefore, it is easier for people to classify them as a criminal in the future. Censure would permanently tar Bush's image, and can be more easily defended as not being "over the top" like Republicans will surely say. It would, like Feingold says, be the first step toward impeachment.

There is a movement on this board to single Russ out and portray his actions as selfish, instead of portraying him working with his team, the Democrats. But this move to censure will only help the Democratic and progressive cause. It brings Bush's wiretapping crimes to the forefront of the national debate again, and introducing a move to censure Bush over them makes his crimes seem more legitimate, whether the censure succeeds or not. If the Democrats stick together on this one, even if censure fails, they can blame the Republican congress for protecting their corrupt leader. This is a position that many Republicans don't want to take given the upcoming congressional elections. This forces the Republicans to take the side of either the law, or the law breaker. Russ is beating the grass to startle the snakes. Forcing a vote on censure will force the Republicans to play their hands when it is obvious that the President's popularity is headed south, and that there is no strong argument to defend what Bush did. He is, in essence forcing Republicans into a corner where they either bail out, or go down with the ship. I think that as the president's popularity declines, people will begin to see this issue for the blatant violation of the law that it is. He is already trusted less on national security than Democrats right now.

The important thing is that we fight together on this one. There is no more reason to question Feingold's attempt at censure as there is to question Conyers' attempt at censure. It gets people talking about the subject, which can't be good for Bush.

Edit to add:
Furthermore, this is a wedge issue, and a good one for Democrats. Many Republicans and right-leaning libertarians are uncomfortable with giving Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wants. This is the part of the Republican party that is already upset with Bush over spending. It is the part of the Republican party that can be convinced to finally turn against Bush, IMHO. Censure is not out of order, even to these people.

but there is merit to the idea that he should have lined up support before he did this, and shouldn't have just dropped it on his colleagues while on television yesterday.

A lot of people want to see some kind of explosive, revolutionary fervrence from Congressional Democrats. That's not how they roll, not how they've ever rolled, not how Senators do things in either party. They're herd animals. Everything that happens in the Senate happens after deal-making, arm-twisting, and favor-trading. Everything.

Feingold doing this on his own shocked the herd. The thing didn't fizzle because the GOP slammed the door on it. It fizzled because Feingold didn't have a part of the Democratic herd with him to give him cover and to give the censure more force. He should have done so if this thing was going to be serious in any way.

thought that shaking up not only the Republian herd, but the Democratic one as well was something that needed to be done. God knows there has been a lot of (well-deserved) criticism of the Dems in Congress who do NOT stand up against Bush and the Republicans, and who do NOT stand up for the people they are supposed to represent (not to mention for the Constitution). Maybe he didn't do it in the way it's usually done, but he did do something, and I liked seeing that.

I have gotten in touch with my senator's offices (Murray and Cantwell), and told them that I want them to stand with Senator Feingold. I also told them I did not them to waffle and say, "Well, we'd rather wait until closer to the elections in November," or, even worse, "But we're the minority." To that second one, I say, yeah, so what's your point? Yes, you are the minority, but does that mean you can't or won't stand up, because what you propose will probably be defeated? Hell no! You stand up anyway. You show the people who sent you to Washington that you do represent them, and you do not roll over and let the Republicans just run you over at will.

When the vote for Alito came up, I urged both Cantwell and Murray to vote against his confirmation, because at that point, neither of them had made it clear where they stood. From Murray's office, I got a personal response to my email; from Cantwell, I got a canned response, just as I do to every email I send. (And BTW, Murray voted against Alito; Cantwell voted for him).

So, since the censure thing came up today, I thought, well, I'm going to get on the phone and computer and let my Senators know what I wanted from them. If enough of us do that with our respective Senators, who knows how many of them we could get to stand with Feingold?

:hi:

She's really a Republican keeping a Dem from holding that seat. Might as well have Slade Gorton in that seat.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Well then, let's tell Kerry to get a CATTLE PROD and get them to endorse this motion to censure!!

I mean, how hard is this? The president broke the law, even Republcians admit this! Why should this be a vote that requires wrangling and dealing?

Because you're dealing with 44 Senators from a whole bunch of states, all of whom expect to be approached and asked to help on something like this. Something like this works best if it is a team effort, and putting a team together means picking up the phone.

Put it this way: what would have been better? Feingold doing this on his own, or Feingold standing up with Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, Reid and a few others at his back, each with prepared statements supporting the thing. I vote for curtain two, and putting something like that together would not have required a Herculean effort.

You want spontenaity out of Senators. It's a rare thing. Russ could have helped the thing with some phone calls. That's my only point.

all on his own, without the other Senators knowing he was going to stand up today and talk about bringing the motion for censure? My question is just that, a question. I do get the feeling that that's pretty much what he may have done, but I wondered if you had any further information on that.

He said that on "This Week." Apparently no one knew of his censure bill until he made it public on Sunday - not Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, or anyone.

heard anything about that. Was just wondering.

If he was russling up support beforehand, I haven't seen word of it.

I do think you made some good points about the advantages of getting some support beforehand, but again, as I and some others have said, maybe he wanted to shake everyone up, not as a dumb political move, but as a sincere way to get people seriously thinking about it. I have contacted my two Senators, and I know lots of other people have done the same. Perhaps if enough people innundate their offices demanding that they stand with Senator Feingold, they will "get it" and do just that.

that's totally cool. Maybe that shakeup will yield fruit the next time around.

All I know is, I'm tired of seeing the Dems roll over time and again. And as I've said before, yes, they are the minority, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't fight for what's right. What Feingold did may be unconventional, but as you said, maybe it will yield fruit next time.

That said, he's done it, and I can say I am glad to see someone taking action, and shaking the tree a bit... even if the planning was poor.

But I still like the idea of a cattle prod! :evilgrin:

**ZAP!** "Git along Lieberman!"

:rofl: :rofl:

Surely you do not believe Mr Feingold wrote this proposal Sunday morning 2 minutes before his appearance on the TV?

Stampedes run in one direction when spooked.

Exactly right, and that's what we saw today. Unfortunately, they ran in the wrong direction. A couple of days organizing the thing may well have kept some of the bulls in the herd from bolting.

and the rest of the herd not known about it?

The first the others heard it was on the Sunday blab session with Stephanapolous. These guys don't have snooping devices in each other's offices.

Staffers, aides, and pages co-mingle on a regular basis. Scholars and legal eagles are shared among the party, as well as with the think tanks.

I also do not believe this was thrown together in a few days.

that he didn't tell anyone else about it. Was he lying?

He said he was announcing it Sunday

Perhaps not wanting to throw fellow Dems under the bus, by not speaking for them?


Video

and Russ is well aware of it.


....Feingold doing this on his own shocked the herd.

Both herds needed to be shocked. Especially the Democratic one -- their complacency drives me nuts!

:toast:

:toast:

pretty much what your saying, and that's only the few of us who question the whole charade. Most everyone around here seems to think what he did was fine and the rest of the Senate was out of step.

Me, I just think his timing really stinks on this one. He knew he wasn't going to get a censure vote, but he didn't even get a debate or a few good swings at the Republicans. I can't help thinking that everyone else knew the timing was wrong and just couldn't get aboard. Being a minority, it's the kind of thing you have to build up to, and not just shoot your whole wad at the outset.

He still has a whole week's worth of debate, does he not?

I'm not a Senate rule expert, but I'm pretty sure he as a certain ammount of time to debate this.

Or that it would have a better chance of succeeding had Russ gathered up support for this. Taking people (and the public) by surprise kind of makes it a bigger issue, IMHO. And I could see the cautious Democtatic leadership being timid on this issue if Russ consulted them beforehand.

I don't think it has a chance of passing either way, but it will serve to generate a bunch of noise about an issue that was silenced after the Dubai ports deal.

I just don't understand other Democrats' reluctance to be more aggressive on this. 51-53% of the public is for impeachment if Bush is guilty of breaking the law. And even more would be for censure, logically. I don't think that getting behind a censure of Bush would alienate anyone except for the 35% lunatic fringe that still supports Bush, anyway. And 35% won't be enough to win many House districts or senate seats. Democrats standing up and saying "enough" even though it may be a losing battle would be a good move that makes them look strong.

By tomorrow, the Democrats will have had two days to decide whether they are behind this or not. I know that is not a long time in the political world. I think more support of this can be built as the week moves on. If we keep calling our reps, it may just happen. The entire blogosphere is on fire because of this. Thousands of people from Kos were calling their representatives. Thousands more were from DU. Russ did a good job arguing his points on TV today. I wouldn't call it dead just yet. No one has come out against it, aside from Lieberman and Bingaman. Everyone else is undecided (except for maybe Ben Nelson, but we won't get his support anyway).

"...whether they are behind this or not." Hell, I was behind it before Kerry was for it. ;)

Are Democrats so weak and brow beaten that they need to be coordinated, lobbied and cajoled into supporting what is clearly an appropriate response to BushCo's attack on the rule of law? Should they not be able to make a simple decision on matters like this without having to be herded like cats? Guys like my GOP-lite Senator Evan Bayh only seem capable of responding after weeks of focus groups and polling and calculating their personal political benefit. Usually their response is a day late and dollar short. What would have been the result of a Feingold attempt to unify the Dems prior to his announcement? The multitude of egos and personalities of Dems in the Senate hoping to be the next candidate would probably have made that a waste of time. As with the Patriot Act vote, Feingold shows himself to be a man of courage and conviction.

As a political move, this secures Feingold position to the left of Hillary before guys like Edwards and others can establish themselves in that position.

So Feingold said to himself fuck them. This thing has to be done even if it falls flat on the floor - So now he's on the Record, and so are they.
(or will be, either against Censure or for Censure)

They will not wake up until the masses tell them to. When will that happen? Not today or tomorrow, because all elected officials don't give a shit what you or I think. Corporations rule this country.

The DLC runs the democratic party and any dissension will not be tolerated. Who cares if the pResident has broken the law, corporate America rules the law of the land.

Contact our Senators and Representatives, and give 'em hell every damned day. If we don't, I think we will be as complicent in rolling over s they are. And I'm do damned angry that I'm not going to shut up. I think a lot of other people are the same -- they are going to speak out.

I've got McCain, Kyl and Kolbe 'speaking' for me. In all the letters and emails I've sent them, I've had ONE reply.

Damn, I don't want to sound negative, but when they don't even acknowledge that you have written to them, it just seems kind of futile.

I can understand you feeling that your efforts are futile (hell, with DINO Cantwell, I feel contacting her is futile, but I do it anyway). I hope you will keep writing them, though. Even if they don't respond, you still have a right to make your voice be heard.

:headbang:

Some days tho, I think, "What the hell am I doing?"

I know what I tell them isn't going to change how they think their constituents feel, but then something in the back of my mind says, "Maybe they do listen". I kind of doubt it tho.

Does that make sense to you? Some days it does and some it doesn't. :shrug:

Some days it's hard to go on (in terms of politics), but there is something in me that just cannot give up. And I'm glad that you haven't either. :thumbsup:

I moved here from CA almost 5 years ago and still get homesick for Boxer.

Boxer is so great!

to know.

I don't, but I will keep writing to them.

called for.

...Feingold doing this on his own shocked the herd. The thing didn't fizzle because the GOP slammed the door on it. It fizzled because Feingold didn't have a part of the Democratic herd with him to give him cover and to give the censure more force. He should have done so if this thing was going to be serious in any way.

his colleague would have drop him like a lead, do we even know whether he consulted them first before going public...no, so we just have to wait and see.

didn't stick around after introducing the resolution. GOPers will spin this as "cut & run" (if they haven't already)

I don't agree with calling the resolution "DOA" because there was no IMMEDIATE VOTE. One of the reasons for the resolution is to generate debate and discussion. An immediate vote would have precluded any of that - just like the immediate vote in the House regarding Murtha's call for an exit plan stopped any debate about situation in Iraq.

Dems were determined to attached Dubai legislation to any bill coming before congress - they should do the same with the censure until it has a full debate. (I can hope can't I :sigh:)

People here are COMPLAINING about Russ??
WHICH people? And what are their true intentions here?

Russ did this, simply because he believes it is the right thing to do. They don't call him Maverick for no reason. Whether or not other dems stand with him doesn't matter to him. He'll do what he believes in his heart is the right thing to do.

Sometimes this place makes me :banghead:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

:toast:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x652373 here

You can read it for yourself and judge my logic.

Basically I made the same point that Will Pitt made in the post above yours: that Feingold should have made an attempt to garner a coalition of Dems together to unite on this issue, rather than going it alone.

It is a legitimate question.

going out. Russ knows these Senators and probably thought it was not worth the effort.


.....Basically I made the same point that Will Pitt made in the post above yours: that Feingold should have made an attempt to garner a coalition of Dems together to unite on this issue, rather than going it alone.

Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, and Durbin, and perhaps Harkin and Lautenberg would likely have signed on. Kerry has already expressed support for the censure, so it is not far-fetched to assume that he along with Boxer, Kennedy, and Durbin would have co-sponsored the bill.

That's good news if it's true. Harkin isn't exatly very liberal. If we can get support from him, we should be able to get it from the majority of Democrats.

Maybe I'm confusing him with Vilsack. :shrug:

I've seen Kerry mentioned, Boxer is still unknown, I'm guessing that Feinstein sure the hell won't - she's profiting too much from the war, needs her mansions maintained ya know, so i'm not counting on her, but i've called her office and staffer said they were inundated with calls to stand witha Feingold .. so, who knows?

Maybe he got tired of hearing people like Harry Reid saying we need to play it safe. Maybe he's sick to death of the calls and letters he's getting from us Wisconsin folks, begging him to do something, anything, to stand up to the thugs in power.

I have NEVER seen Russ use something like this as an opportunity for personal gain or advantage. His sincerity has won support here in Wisconsin, not only from Dems, but from Repugs, Independents, and Greens as well. People here respect him, because we've gotten to know and trust him.

FYI, he said himself on This Week that he had yet to submit the text of the bill to the rest of the senate. Apparently no one knew of the censure until he announced it on Stephanopholous' show. I only wonder why he didn't ask some of his peers to cosponsor the bill, and thus increase the number of voices talking up the censure.

admiration for him. You are fortunate to have him as your Senator, Rev.

The only reason I'd hate to see him elected as president would be in losing him in the Senate. He's right up there, with Gaylord Nelson and Bill Proxmire as one of WI's finest.

seems to mostly 'play it safe"

:hi: :thumbsup:

And I don't mean to get into an argument over who is better, Russ or Kerry. We all know where we both stand on that. I like both of them a lot, I just like Russ better. I am from Wisconsin, I have known him longer, and I know he is probably one of the most honest Senators in the Senate. Kerry is up there, as well, IMHO. People got behind Kerry when he led the Alito filibuster charge. It should be the same for Russ.

I just find it unproductive not to get behind Russ when he offers up something to the national debate that is seriously lacking: an attempt to punish the President for breaking the law. I don't think Russ' attempt should or will take away from others attempts like Conyers, for example. I think anytime someone brings up punishing the President for breaking the law, it will work for all of us. The bill is out there now, and if Kerry offers to co-sponsor it, I doubt Russ would be against that. Kerry's support is very important in this, and so is everyone else's. The move to censure is up for debate tomorrow, so we will see if this actually does get any support or not.

I would never denigrate Feingold's value to the Democratic party. He is a valuable and strong liberal voice and I appreciate him very much.

I'm certainly behind him in this endeavor, and I hope it succeeds. I plan to call Durbin and Obama tomorrow and urge them to support him. I'd love to see a big debate and see the Repubs forced to defend Bush's lawbreaking. Hopefully this will bring the attention to the issue that the media has so far been loath to grant it.

The more voices we have speaking out, the better.

:toast:

:toast:

Kerry as well!

BTW, I posted in the baseball forum, in case all this political talk gets too ponderous. :D

I'll have to check that...

Pitt is right.

but if the rest of the Democrats can't back him up on this, how can anyone seriously think they would even try for an impeachment? For God's sake, don't want them to say what they think sounds good, how about some fucking action.

Right on!

This was a clear, no brainer decision.

Do you support censure or do you support secret, warrantless spying on Americans in their homes?

For the Senate Democrats to fail so miserably to make the right choice has left me in despair. If they can't find enough backbone to stand up and make the right decision on something so easy, why in the HELL would I spend any time supporting them?

I don't have to vote Democrat. I can't think of a single reason why I would right now.

Here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x654351

I don't understand.

why putting Conyers in the Chairman's seat is an important thing and a worthy goal?

No Democrat will be in any chairman's seat if they continue to be GOP-lite.

The voters the Democrats are missing aren't in the center. They are not voting. There are millions and millions of people would don't vote because they see no difference between the two parties. Russ Feingold gave Dems the opportunity to show there is a difference.

But apparently, he was wrong. There is no difference. Democrats voted for the fake war. Democrats voted for the Hatriot Act and now Democrats failed to make a peep about Bush's criminal spying. If I wanted more Republicans, I could vote Republican.

I am seriously pissed off.

Conyers is not GOP-lite. Voting for Democrats in '06 empowers him. He will be worth his weight in gold as chairman. Screw the rest of them, the ones you can't stand. This fight is for Conyers and that chairmanship, as far as I am concerned. The chaff will be threshed in due course if Conyers gets a gavel.

Don't mistake me. I think the country needs Conyers. And Feingold.

But running away from Feingold's resolution illustrated for the entire nation that the GOP talking points about the Dems having no backbone must be correct. If it took any Senator more than 1 minute to make up their mind about this censure resolution, they have a serious problem. I can't understand the "go slow" "let's all talk for another 6 months" horsesh*t. I done with it. I don't need to support the DLC type right wing Democrats to lose. I can support a third party that shares my values and lose. Unless and until the Democrats energize the non-voters, they don't stand a chance. The Republicans understand that their base gets them elected. The moderates in the center can break to either side, but their hard right base has given them their majority.

The Democrats can go left or they can go down. I don't give a damn which tonight.

Damn, I'm mad.

I don't know why anyone would be afraid of him, for sure. But some of the criticisms of him have always struck me as coming out of fear.

And that can scare people. Not just politicians, but many people. It pisses me off, though I have also been guilty of not speaking out when I should have, and of being uncomfortable when another has spoken out. However, I have learned to speak out more and more, and I LIKE it!

were started by folks with a potential 08 candidate avatar. :eyes:

Interesting.

:toast:

my options open for 2008, I am so disappointed in this (not intending to say it's only Kerry supporters who are questioning Feingold's integrity).

There's enough love to go around and there is NO REASON to pit good dems against each other.

actually, he is already doing that in a sort of semi-nuanced way, in part. But anybody with a half a brain knows damn well, that if some kind of action isn't taken right asap, to at least (at the very minimum) speak out and challenge what the hell is going on in Washington while most of Congress runs around pointing at smoke and mirrors the other way, while a small cabal quickly drafts legislation to give BushCo cover on laws that he's already violated - the people are watching this and wondering why the fuck isn't anybody trying to stop this...

rant rant rant rant rant... sorry...

I like what you said here: "the people are watching this and wondering why the fuck isn't anybody trying nto stop this..." And I am certain that "the people" doesn't mean just Dems, but a fair number of Republians (I'm talking regular citizens here, not gov't folks) who don't cotton to the idea of having their person lives invaded.

Again, rant on! :thumbsup:

I still believe Feingold should have gathered a coalition together and led a joint effort on this. The whole business seems rushed and hastily thrown together, IMO.

I agree with the censure in principle. I only worry that it is being too hurriedly thrown together - I'd rather see a more effective, multipronged approach than a "last stand" of a lone senator.

this whole think seems to be taking waaay too long for me.

peace

strong for what he believes in.

.....I know that some people think that this is political posturing, and are questioning the motives of Russ, but I think that in the end, this is only creating divisiveness. If you look at who is supporting Russ, it is John Kerry. John and Russ are not divided, so why do we have to be?

hammer meet nail! :toast:

And why did he leave as soon as his speech was done?

Possibly because he felt he had said all that needed to be said. :shrug:

?x=380&y=248&sig=.kTNeyqG1PEe.Sk9HHPzhA--

Today Russ was clear and grounded in the law and in common sense.

Let's see if we can do as well.

:)

But, he may have hurt his cause by not staying. Didn't look right to just leave like that.

today, calls their Dem Senators (if they have any) and insist that they support him in this effort.

Right after Russ was done speaking, I called both Dick Durbin and Barack Obama offices here in Chicago and made it very clear to the staffer in each office how I felt.

You don't have to call their offices in DC, call locally and send an e-mail to their websites to follow up.

Remind them that we are a country of laws, not men...

stand. They need to know.

I made it very clear where I stand on it, and that I expected them to stand with Feingold.

I hope he gets support. I hope this can serve as a first step toward impeachment.

:kick:

TIME TO KICK ASS!!!

:kick:

:bounce: kick ass
:bounce: kick ass
:bounce: kick ass

;)

:D

But damn! I'm gonna havta make an exception for this enlistee.

At 19 he is the perfect age to go fight on the frontlines in Iraq.

given the way they %$#!*&% THINK!

:scared:

Maybe he did call upon the pink tu-tu Dems and they ran and hid under their mother's shirt. Maybe this Senator doesn't need 'authorization' from any other Senator because he happens to know what the Constitution says about this matter. Maybe the other Senators don't have the guts to stand up for what is right.

The Patriot Act directly violates the Constitution - this guy voted no. Illegally spying on Americans violates the Constitution - and, if must, stand alone to defend what is right.

I, as an American, respect his courage.

At least he has the guts to stand up and that does not require the permission of other Senators.

simple as that.

No matter what it takes, JUST DO IT.

how they (* regime) get you, shock everyone and JUST DO IT .
Whats done is done. Mr Feingold has figured out how the * regime operates.

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

"This week, I will introduce a resolution in the Senate to censure the President. The reasons for censure are clear: the President authorized a program that illegally wiretaps American citizens, on American soil, without a court order; he also actively mislead the public and Congress on the existence and legality of the program.

Congress can no longer stand by and allow such disregard of the Constitution, the rule of law, and two branches of government to continue. Censure is an appropriate first step in demanding accountability from a President who disregards the rights and freedoms on which our country was founded.

Sign the Resolution

Every American wants to fight terrorism and fight those who wish to do our country harm. We all stand together in that fight. Every American wants the government to be able to wiretap terrorists, and we can under current law! However, this President, or any President for that matter, cannot decide which laws they will obey or cherry-pick which articles of the Constitution they will uphold - and this President continues to do just that. He must be held accountable.

Sign the Resolution

I will continue to push my colleagues to stand up to a President who plays fast and loose with the facts, our freedoms, and our nation's trust. Please sign my resolution to help send the message that we can't afford to let the President be cavalier with our rights.

Sincerely,

Russ Feingold

Russ Feingold
United States Senator
Honorary Chair, Progressive Patriots Fund"

:thumbsup:

<Invalid petition requested>

..I do question the Democrats who won't support him.

Senator Feingold Has Just Joined Me Calling for Censure

On ABC's This week with George Stephanopolous, Senator Russell Feingold has just joined my call for censure of the President. Many of you remember that I introduced a resolution, House Resolution 637, last December to censure the President at the same time I introduced House Resolution 635 to investigate the President's Administration for possible impeachable offenses. The Senator announced on the show that he planned to introduce his bill at the beginning of the week.

As you know, the Senate tends to move much more slowly on issues such as these. While Senator Feingold has not come to the same position as I have - calling for a special committee to investigate impeachable offenses - he didn't rule it out. And when asked, he didn't rule out pressing for impeachment. It is a good sign that there are others catching up with us in the call for accountability for this White House. While some are impatient for immediate action, we need to understand that pursuing this in a measured fashion will give us the best chance of success. The emergence of Senator Feingold in taking this stand is a broad and positive step toward our ultimate goal.

Link:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000400.htm

.... PIECE OF BUSHIT, CORPORATIST, IMPERIALIST, WAR CRIMINAL.

CLEAR.

PERIOD.


Peace.

:kick:

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!! SUPPORT CENSURE!!!

:kick:

:hi: Feingold did what we've been waiting and waiting for someone to do and I don't get what people are complaining about. I suspect some are very invested in certain candidates for '08 and if those candidates won't give him credit for it, neither will they. Anyway, good to see ya and hope you are well!

... unless they are experiencing some sort of negative reality inversion. :eyes:

:kick:

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!!

:kick:

it's perfect.

What's wrong? Do Dems with REAL convictions confuse you?

Count me as one of the unimpressed.

J

I'm confused.

I'm pissed, my friend. Boiling pissed.

I'm done with anyone daring to call themself a Democrat who isn't on the front-line with Feingold, Conyers, Slaughter, Gore, .... calling these neoconster traitors exactly what they are.

I was just givin' you a friendly poke. :)

:toast: x 2 and I'm buying whenever we finally meet, Will Pitt!

:toast:

This question was simple. Do you support censure or do you support secret warrantless spying on Americans?

If it takes more than1 minute to answer, you get kicked to the curb.

For the Senate Democrats to walk away is unacceptable behavior.

understandinglife just fine!

Much appreciated!!

fed up with the crap that is going on with this committee the last few weeks. and decided he had no other method to get the attention of the Committee.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm

No investigation needed
By Pat Roberts
Posted 3/9/2006 9:21 PM

Through a criminal leak of highly classified information, the public, and our enemy, learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to intercept international communications of people believed to be linked to al-Qaeda. Many in Congress and the media rushed to judgment, decrying the program as illegal and unconstitutional, demanding congressional investigations.

As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I - along with Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. - have been briefed on the details of this program since 2003. I believe this terrorist surveillance capability is legal and constitutional.

The courts have long recognized that the president has the authority under the Constitution to conduct "warrantless" surveillance for the purposes of collecting foreign intelligence.

While Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to establish procedures for foreign intelligence surveillance, this law did not, indeed cannot, extinguish the president's constitutional powers. FISA provides one way for him to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance, but not the only way.
...


More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060310/cm_usatoday/n...

....Until this week, leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees exercised oversight of the program. I recognize the benefit, however, of expanding that role. That's why I began discussing expansion of the committee's role with the White House several weeks ago.

The agreement we reached balances the executive branch's responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods with Congress' responsibility to oversee intelligence programs.

My committee voted to form a seven-member subcommittee, which has now been briefed on the program. The subcommittee will provide enhanced oversight and will help ensure that any legislation related to the program is based on fact, not speculation.

Those who condemn the formation of the subcommittee want an election-year investigation with the accompanying partisan rancor. An investigation might serve a political purpose, but the subcommittee serves a national security purpose.

It's the constitutional duty of the executive branch to make the tough decisions necessary to win wars. That's not the case for the legislative branch, which has the luxury of criticizing actions with the benefit of hindsight. When it comes to national security, we should fight the enemy, not each other.

"Russ is beating the grass to startle the snakes. Forcing a vote on censure will force the Republicans to play their hands when it is obvious that the President's popularity is headed south, and that there is no strong argument to defend what Bush did. He is, in essence forcing Republicans into a corner where they either bail out, or go down with the ship. I think that as the president's popularity declines, people will begin to see this issue for the blatant violation of the law that it is."

:kick: and R!

without oversight and here's one man standing up...finally, a Democrat is STANDING UP and Democrats who've been loyally waiting for the party to wake up are complaining about it. Certainly I've complained enough so it's their right but I don't understand why this is objectionable. Is it because this is 'political'? Well, wtf isn't? Admit it, certain dems waiting a couple days before deciding they were outraged by the port deal...what was that, a stutter? These are politicians, everything they do is political!

I agree, this is a good issue for democrats, one that seperates even them completely from the republicans' reaction to wiretapping and that's something we need. So much temporizing and racing toward the middle has gone on that both parties may just end up sounding alike except when they criticize each other's mothers during the campaign.

.....Furthermore, I would like to stop this "censure inhibits the impeachment movement" nonsense dead in its tracks.

.....Senator Feingold Has Just Joined Me Calling for Censure

On ABC's This week with George Stephanopolous, Senator Russell Feingold has just joined my call for censure of the President. Many of you remember that I introduced a resolution, House Resolution 637, last December to censure the President at the same time I introduced House Resolution 635 to investigate the President's Administration for possible impeachable offenses. The Senator announced on the show that he planned to introduce his bill at the beginning of the week.

As you know, the Senate tends to move much more slowly on issues such as these. While Senator Feingold has not come to the same position as I have - calling for a special committee to investigate impeachable offenses - he didn't rule it out. And when asked, he didn't rule out pressing for impeachment. It is a good sign that there are others catching up with us in the call for accountability for this White House. While some are impatient for immediate action, we need to understand that pursuing this in a measured fashion will give us the best chance of success. The emergence of Senator Feingold in taking this stand is a broad and positive step toward our ultimate goal.

Link:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000400.htm

Edit to add:
Furthermore, this is a wedge issue, and a good one for Democrats. Many Republicans and right-leaning libertarians are uncomfortable with giving Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wants. This is the part of the Republican party that is already upset with Bush over spending. It is the part of the Republican party that can be convinced to finally turn against Bush, IMHO. Censure is not out of order, even to these people.

The Republicans are attempting to intimidate the Democrats on this issue. They are acting like supporting censure would be some extreme vote that no Democrat dare to endorse. It is the other way around, though. I dare the Republicans to let Bush off the hook for this. See how well that plays in the 2006 elections. All of 65% of the country doesn't approve of the guy. Let's see them protect Bush. I dare them.

to action.

It's time to lay down your cards, Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Do you support censure or do you support warrentless secret police?

Decide now.

Time for both sides to stand up to Bush andhis illegal activities!

because there are so damned few of them . . .

And I do applaude Feingold.

censure resolution. I won't give permalinks to the individual pieces because there are several of them and I am in the act of leaving for bed. Here's the blog site;

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

This is a thorough analysis showing why the censure is a moderate, wise move right now. It also shows McClellan's lying about it and the media allowing it. But WE can't allow that. We need to get the truth about this out there.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Cheney was doing that anyway! Who honestly believes his BS? The 18% that approve of Cheney?

Bush needs to be put on a leash!