Senator Feingold's views on impeachment: in his own words.

"But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong."

-Senator Russell Feingold, 3/16/06

Agree? Disagree? Discuss...

"...it may not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong."

Meaning if Bu$h gets impeached then Cheney takes over.

Plus, impeachment procedings come from the House. Even if he wanted to Feindold would not be able to start impeachment procedings.

I think that is what we have to keep saying everywhere, and even here on DU, to the people who are upset that Feingold isn't going for impeachment.

If Bush goes, CHENEY is in!

I don't think that would be a good thing at all, regardless of how good GW's impeachment would be.

Good catch.

to propose it? I don't get it.

right :eyes:

for accountability and that we are a nation of laws. It shows that Democrats have spine.

Isn't that what the majority of we DUers dream of? A Democrat who is willing to take a stand and force the issue to the forefront of the nation?

Right now, I think the primary thing that Feingold proposing impeachment would do is to equivalent to what you claim censure accomplishes...NOTHING.

Here's why...

1. The Democrats do not have a majority in either House of Congress.
2. The Republican leadership has a stranglehold on the House of Representatives, where impeachment proceedings MUST begin.

To get to a point that impeachment would be possible, both of those things need to change. And I honestly am not sure that they will IF the Republicans can go into this November's elections on a platform of the unified, crazy, super left wing Democratic Party.

Come to think of it, maybe Feingold proposed censure for that very reason. Between impeachment and status quo, censure is the middle road.

1. It is agreeable enough to keep liberal activists, like yours truly, engaged and energized.
2. It is enough to get middle of the road Americans thinking about the issues.
3. But yet, and possibly most importantly, it is not radical enough that moderate Republicans will automatically chalk it up to Bill O'Reilly's line of reasoning about evil liberals coming true. And maybe even get them thinking about it too.

Okay, I'm not a mind reader, I have no idea what Feingold's reasoning was. But maybe it will work out that way. I think simply having coverage of his censure resolution is accomplishing a lot. Have you seen the reports from Rasmussen and I think there may have been somewhere else, that Feingold's approval ratings among Democrats have shot from 14% to 52%?

Anyway, feel free to argue with me!:think::think: It's just my humble opinion.

that Bush should be thrown out on his ass?
What am I missing? I'm afraid I don't get it. More political bullshit I guess...
Also, if you're in a drummed-up "war" based on lies and deception, why should anybody wait for that lie-based war you created
your dumbass self before throwing you out?

by publicizing it as the "moderate" option.

Won't work, but a good shot.

and efforts to discredit Feingold over that statement.

We can't impeach until we get more in power again, and if the GOP house does impeach...we get Cheney.

Feingold is right. The impeachment fervor will drive the 90% of the Republicans away who otherwise might support our party.

We can't impeach unless we are in power, we can't get in power if they think we will impeach....so he offers censure.

I had a post here about how everytime someone speaks out...they get accused of making it about themselves, being a politician, or hurting the party. Take your pick.

Same thing done to Murtha, Dean, Hackett, Feingold...all the little tsks tsks...making it about themselves.

If you want to make change you have to speak out. You have get noticed to make a statement. I say good for Feingold and good for all of them who choose to do so.

:sarcasm:
Sorry, but one can hardly be more arrogant than that.

:eyes:

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!!

:patriot:

stance because it would allow a snake like McCain to usurp himself into the white house and an early lead. Still censure is no trade off for impeachment. So why bother. It would be better for Dems to hold their powder and deal with Bush after he is out of office if they don't want him impeached. Censure would only make people say, well he was already punished so why are they bothering him now? I've thought about this Fiengold thing for many days and have not been quick to judgment. But I've finally decided that it is symptomatic of the problems with the Dems. One thinks he has the one solution and before he can build a consensus with other Dems he strikes out on his own without any support. And the perception continues in the publics eye that we are dysfunctional. BECAUSE WE ARE.

The most prescient problem at this very moment is that many Dems are NOT supporting Feingold, for whatever petty reason (they are dysfunctional).

To waste time talking about whether he was right or wrong to go it alone only helps Bushler and the GOP. The Dems have held their powder to the point it is wet and moldy, like most of my city.

I'm fucking sick of disunity and petty squabbles. The end result has been the death of thousands of Americans.

Here in New Orleans, we do not have the luxury of waiting for the rest of America to get their shit together.

Feingold started the ball rolling, for whatever reason, and I am greatful.

:shrug:

STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT!!!

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!!

:patriot:

DU's loyalists from 04 are very good at eating up all our own candidates, possible candidates, and those who speak out.

:shrug:

The lynch mobs would be formed within seconds! There would be cries of No Mercy! Gimme their blood!!

just sayin'

I can't believe what rank hypocrites some folks are. And I *LIKE* Russ. But he's wrong on this one.

"But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road"

I think Russ might need to read that again. The constitution doesn't require censure- but it demands impeachment when a president commits high crimes and misdimeanors.

And we'll never get as far as passing the resolution to begin hearings while the Repubs own Congress. I also have serious doubts that the Dems will pursue impeachment hearings if they regain power. Too few in either party place their oath of office ahead of their political careers and personal profiteering as they should do.

Welcome, lanah.