Just ONE question re: Feingold going to his fellow Senators first

Does anyone out there actually think that the Democratic Senators, the same ones who rolled over for Alito, rolled over for Roberts, rolled over for The Patriot Act and who won't even say "boo" without first running it through a DLC re-election filter were actually going to pull Feingold aside and say "heckuva job on this censure thing Feinie, we're with you 100%."

He didn't tell them because he KNEW what The Cowardly Lions would say.

Can't figure out for the life of me why some folks here seem to miss that.

Meanwhile, bombs are once again dropping on innocent civilians, and the MSM will trot out the White House approved PR bullshit line that we are "attacking the caravans that bring in suicide bombers." Lieberman will agree, Clinton will say something safe, and Biden will talk for 20 minutes and not say anything.

So, we have ONE voice in the Senate saying "alright, if you won't try and stop this bastard then I will."

We have the MAJORITY of Democratic voters favoring censure.

We have said voters having to call, fax, and email our Senators and implore them to (once again) try and find their spines.

We have The Fool On The Hill sitting with a 33% approval rating.

And we have Mark Dayton firing both barrels not at the sociopath, but at the Senator.

Thank you, Russ, for doing what needed to be done - the way it needed to be done.

What I do know is that Russ will come out of this smelling like a rose, while his competitors for the Presidential nominee in Congress are going to smell like . . . well something else. And I'm also pretty sure that this is what Fiengold wanted.

There's nothing wrong with that - politics is a rough sport.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

have tried to prevent him from doing it.....theres no way they would have supported him.

We only need one Brave/Man or woman to show the way...Feingold is the man of the hour!!!

That's not what happened on Alito. And Feingold had support for a filibuster of Patriot Act. He also knew that other senators were against NSA spying and were looking for a special prosecutor. So, where is the actual evidence to believe no other senator would support him or that he would have been prevented from doing it?

How dare he speak his mind without consulting his democratic Non-Leadership. What does he think he is, a Senator?

That's why he voted for Roberts. Why he voted against censure of Clinton and FOR impeachment process to proceed.

Feingold's calling card was that he's deeply principled about process.

Was HE not consulted with on Alito filibuster? Didn't a whole slew of Dems join his filibuster of Patriot Act to get the added changes?

the judiciary committee Dems, including Feingold, to go through the process, and when they decided against standing with Kennedy to lead on filibuster, Kerry talked to them first, saying if they wouldn't then he would have to.

That didn't happen too long ago. So, I believe you came to a conclusion that really has no basis in reality. Especially since Feingold built his reputation as being a principled keeper of process. He even voted AGAINST censure for Clinton to allow the process of impeachment to proceed, so why not respect process on this?

I'm for censure, but, why flip-flop on the principle of process? Isn't that what Repubs do?

considering one could say that Feingold "rolled over on Alito" by not leading the filibuster himself - as he is the Judiciary Committee member. My recollection is that he only reluctantly went along with it - after all he even voted FOR John Roberts.

Especially since Feingold was on the judiciary committee and was expected to lead the filibuster himself.

That's the problem with the way he proceeded. He didn't even tell any of them he was going to do this, then immediately set out attacking them before any of them even had a chance to see what he'd done.

On DSM inquiry?

Care to elaborate?

Or, are you defending his statement?

times mentioned?

Feingold knows damn well he isn't the only one who cares about NSA spying - others had called for special prosecutor or an investigation.

He would have had support, as he will still have support now, but why is his tactic being excused and used to attack other senators unfairly?

senator first because they are tutu=clad spacefillers who would have talked him out of it.

I ask if you said that about Russ when others CONSULTED him on filbuster, or his Roberts vote, or DSM inquiry, or Clinton impeachment and didn't get the answer you wanted?

Other senators do support NSA investigation and Feingold knows it, he could have discussed censure with them.

and Feingold is one of the ones that rolled over for Roberts, refused to lead the Alito filibuster, did not sign the letter on DSM ...

or the dems can oppose this motion. Then can oppose it due to: 1) W. is right. 2) motion will fail.

That's right; Feingold. What a crock of shit. Cowardly lions? Typical DU at its worst hyperbole. One week a politician is a hero, the next a knave. And it never stops. And some people never learn. So Kennedy, Leahy, Reed and others are Cowardly? Absurd.

Feingold didn't have to ask permission. He did owe his fellow Senators the courtesy of informing them that he was about to drop a bomb. Particularly if he actually wanted their support. He could have told them he was determined to do it and that he'd rather do it with 44 co-sponsors, but that he was determined to do it nonetheless. He screwed up by blurting it out on a Sunday morning talking head show.

Dayton was dead wrong to go public with his criticism, but that doesn't make Feingold either right or effective. At the very least, he should have informed his fellow dem Senators.

As they deserved.

I can't remember a single post where you've elaborated beyond a throw away one liner. It makes what you say pretty meaningless.

Trusting politicians to do the right and ethical things that should be required of them means that we, the citizenry, must hold their tender feet to the fire when they don't. It's called democracy. Which requires the participation of the citizenry to make it work. Leaving it up to the "leaders" is not democracy, it's apathy.

We aren't supposed to give them a nod and a wink when they play politics and look after their own ambitions rather than the republic. As was most evident in several votes of acquiescence on a number of issues when senators and congressmen payed more attention to the polls than even the need to save lives.

You seem to think that the system will work if we merely vote in enough acceptable Democrats and then leave it to them to decide whats good for us and the rest of the world.

Your trust in politicians is touching but a tad naive.

paying attention to the needs, because it skirted process and changed the storyline from the crime that needs investigation to the "gossip" about how it came about.

And look how many are perpetuating the gossip and the spin instead of wanting to push forward and get the CRIME debated openly.

And Russ doesn't help the citizenry when THREE times he publically dismisses impeachment as a remedy because we're at war. He can sell people on censure WITHOUT dismissing impeachment.

.

Dropping the hyperbole card.

In case you've missed it, there is a fairly large core of folks here who don't swing from stem to stern, but rather try and hold the elected Reps to a certain level of well, Democratic behavior. If you'd like to search about a bit, I'm sure you'll find them, and I'll bet you'll find their positions quite constant.

I, for one, used to hold very moderate and conventional positions on the Senate and the Senators. Perhaps if we once again resemble an opposition party (in ideas, not in number of members) I will be able to do so again. Until then, however, i think it best that I do not sit front and center in the status quo cheer-leading section, but instead aspire to a more progressive side of the aisle.

Feingold appeals to me more at this time then do folks like Biden and Clinton, who are indeed part of The Cowardly Lion club that I speak of. One makes judgments predicated on the whole, so of course your cherry-picking of Kennedy et al is a bit of a red herring.

Unless, of course, you'd like me to see your Kennedy with a Ben Nelson, and raise you a Lieberman and a Cantwell.

I'd fold that hand if I were you. :)

He is gambling that the American people, particularly Democrats, are going to be more enthusiastic about the idea of holding Bush accountable than the professional Dems in DC. What he has done with this one bold move is (1) given a clear rallying point for all Americans who are fed up with Bush's criminality and (2) stepped right out to the front of all of the would be Presidential candidates.
By this time in 2008, his proposal will have proved the power of a well timed good idea. Dems will be falling all over themselves in support, but, too late. Where were they when the resolution needed them? Only Feingold and a large number of clear thinking Americans were there initially.

Russ is smarter and bolder than the rest of the Democratic senators. Having said that, I still believe that a Gore/Feingold ticket would be dynamite. Gore would provide the maturity and experience. Feingold would add intellect and courage. Both would have an extraordinary level of personal integrity, something America is desperate to find in their leaders.

It's time to bombard our senators with missives demanding that they do the right thing.

Mark Dayton got one from me this morning telling him to censure Bush.

Last I heard it was 70% of Dems and 23% of Repubs favoring censure.

How can you NOT censure this guy? What does it take to stop Bush from getting his way over every stinking little thing?