Russ Feingold on Charlie Rose tonight, 11:30pmCT PBS. Wow.

[babylonsister]

It's too late now, but interesting. Said Boxer and Harkin were in his court, RE: Censure.
So has Senator Kerry not jumped on board for censure? I know you don't want
to hear that, but I'm wondering if he's dissing Kerry or is it because
no statement has been made.

[JI7]

1. i'm guessing it's not a priority

yeah, he supports it but not a priority. partly because Republicans control Congress, it doesn't have anything to do with actually changing what is happening, and he is focused on other issues he feels are more important at the time.

he also is more the type that wants to do things, investigations, get facts out there. not just vote on whether Bush did wrong especially knowing the Republicans will never support it.and then just leave it to that.

Kerry is the type that wants change, he will call on people to contact other Senators which i'm sure isn't making them love him too much when people do call them because of it.

so yeah, he will support it if it comes to a vote. but he has many other issues he wants to actively work on rather than this.

[ginnyinWI]

24. Well, we probably don't know the half

of everything that goes on behind the scenes. What I do know is that we can trust Kerry to do what's best for the country, whatever that may be. I'm not going to second guess it. I do believe Feingold also has the best interests of the country at heart, but don't know if he's as politically skilled. We shall see what happens; it might be a good thing.

[ProSense]

2. Did anyone notice Conyers got a little snippy at NYT for suggesting

he's calling for censure?

[babylonsister]

3. I remember reading Conyers' blog; he

reminded us that he started the censure meme rolling, and now Feingold is getting the attention.
I love Mr. Conyers, forever and always, and I will applaud whoever gets it done!

[Dr Ron]

4. Difference in method

I much prefer Conyers' actions of accumulating information and pushing for investigation.

[Mass]

5. As long as Kerry does not make a public statement for censure

why do you want Feingold to say he is supporting censure?

[babylonsister]

9. I thought Senator Kerry had been 'for' it .If so,

I wanted him to get the credit for it.

[Mass]

20. Kerry has not made a public statement on this issue.

"All" he has said is that he is for holding Bush accountable, but he has to read the bill and make sure it was the best solution. It said that on Monday and it was a perfectly responsible statement.

However, his office is answering that he is supporting censure, but it is clearly not something he wants to be a central part of. He is clearly more focused on showing how the government is incompetent and wrong in general.

I have no problem in Feingold not quoting him, as long as he did not say that all but Feingold, Harkin, and Boxer are cowering to * just because they dont rush to follow him.

I posted kennedy's speech lower in the thread. It is not exactly a speech where Kennedy is cowering.

[MH1]

6. Feingold didn't want to investigate DSM apparently

Just remind people of THAT when they bash Kerry for not jumping on board Feingold's censure motion.

AND - Kerry gave them more than a couple days notice!!

Co-signers on Kerry's DSM letter (all 9 of them - gee, which so-called spineful one is missing?): Sens. Tim Johnson, Jon Corzine, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, Thomas Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=1022

You know, I basically like Feingold for his positions. But the more I hear of this censure thing and him bashing the rest of the party if they don't fall in line behind him at the snap of a finger, the less I like him as a leader.

[Mass]

7. He is not a leader - A leader is somebody that people follow

Most of the people on DU were calling for impeachment or censure before he did and he has trouble getting his colleagues behind him.

Another point not to be dismissed. The Rassmussen poll shows that, while increasing his name recognition, he increased automatically his negatives to reach Hillary's numbers in the general population. In an time where most swing voters want to be reassured, this is not exactly a good sign. the blogosphere has been raving on the fact that it increased his favs among Dems, but frankly, his favorables are still around 50 % among them, so it is lower than these DINOS, appeasers Kerry and Clinton(:sarcasm:), probably lower than Lieberman as well, so he still has to work on that, and I would be interested to see the number among independants.

This said, there is no reason he is going to say Kerry is on board before Kerry says so publicly. It would even be wrong for him to say so.

[ProSense]

10. In the most recent statement,

Feingold offers more options, but makes the most serious charge:

Congress may also consider a range of actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.

The facts are simple: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the president has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2520100&mesg_id=2520100


Legislation? That's the same stuff he was pushing in his first statement:

hopefully the president would acknowledge it and say that he maybe went too far, and we would be able to move forward and stop worrying about this and get a pledge from the president that he's going to come within the law or make proposals to change the law to allow it.

How does this reconcile with his recent statement about spying on Americans? Changing the law will not allow Bush to spy on Americans. That is definitely an impeachable offense. And that's why the investigations should to continue.

[MH1]

11. I agree completely about him not saying Kerry is on board.

I brought up the DSM thing because it shows Feingold didn't support Kerry when he should have. That doesn't mean that Kerry shouldn't support Feingold on this, but I think it justifies a slower response by Kerry. Why should he automatically trust Feingold to get it right?

And btw, what practical goal does censure of Bush lead to anyway? Bush's poll numbers were diving anyway. I think now would have been the time to keep drawing attention to all the bad legislative things he and the republican Congress are doing, and maybe even stop or slow down some of those things. But Feingold changed the subject just at the time we could have been drawing blood on the deficit! And the deficit is something that has a practical impact. Sigh.

[JohnKleeb]

12. From what Ive read about censure its only technical

It happened to Andrew Jackson by the Whigs after Jackson's war on the second bank of the US, and in the short run it didnt hurt Jackson's party since Martin Van Buren was elected in 1837 though economic troubles led to the election of William Henry Harrison four years later. I hope if we do censure Bush that we don't rule out impeachment as an opition.

[karynnj]

18. I agree

Buah's numbers have been in free fall over the last month. It's too early to see if the censure move has had any impact. It will be hard to see the impact because the numbers might have continued to decline. Unless it works in the wrong direction.

Also, what's wrong with Kerry staying silent on censure, continuing to say Bush broke the law, and having his office say he'll vote for it. Feingold very clearly wanted to be out there on his own. He didn't tell anyone and then 2 days later he complained that no one followed. I think what is lost on many people is that he did this in a very busy Budget week. It sounds to me like he got exactly the response he wants.

I agree also that the idea that they continued tax cuts when the deficit is massively out of control would have been a far better issue to be raising this week. Pointing out that the Republicans are frauds when they talk of fiscal responsibity could hit them in another key area. (Port security having hurt them already)

[karynnj]

22. Great points

The other thing is that this can play out many ways, most of which will be unsatisfactory to DU.

Most likely: It can go into committee and either lead to investigations or just die.

Scariest: Bush could put out a statement that meets Feingold's request - It would likely have paragraph after paragraph about the danger, admit he overstepped in the goal of protecting America and that there is already legislation to keep them within the law. (with the cheerleading media saying this negates the need for Censure)

Scariest 2: Frist calls it up for a vote and it loses overwhelmingly - with Democrats voting against it too.

If a censure motion passes, they will be ecstatic for a while, but will then want more action.

[ProSense]

8. And despite

the facts, which Feingold himself stated:

But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road. And anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=689528&mesg_id=689528



There are still thread's like this:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2519358&mesg_id=2519358


These people are no better than the RW asshole who twist shit to smear people.

[MH1]

13. I really think some of these folks are deluded about what Feingold

is really up to.

But if you try to point these things out no one wants to hear it.

[ProSense]

14. Except for posting his

statements, everything else will appear to be bashing. Hell, even posting his statements are being perceived as bashing.

[MH1]

15. The irony...

Folks want to see "spine" in their congresscritters but don't dare question something once the majority at DU has decided on the approved narrative.

[ProSense]

17. Kennedy

sent out an e-mail a weeks (I received it on Feb. 23) about unauthorized spying. Now they are targeting him. Never mind the fact that this blows the bogus argument that no one was talking about Bush breaking the law completely out of the water.

[Mass]

19. KENNEDY ON ROLE OF CONGRESS TO CHALLENGE EXECUTIVE POWE

A comprehensive speech on the issue.

From the speech, it seems to me that Kennedy thinks that the censure by itself is so unimportant (compared to all the rest) that we should not spend a lot of time on it. Tell me what you think after having read the speech, please.

http://www.senatedemocrats.net/node/663

KENNEDY ON ROLE OF CONGRESS TO CHALLENGE EXECUTIVE POWER

(and, BTW, I agree with all you and MH1 have said before).

[ProSense]

21. I just posted

Kennedy's resolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=693664&mesg_id=693906

[karynnj]

16. self delete

[Dr Ron]

23. Agree, this lowered my opinion

Ultimately I'll pick candidates primarily on positions, so this may or may not matter.

It is also early to rank candidates as some issues may change by 2008 and we need to hear a lot more from some (especially those who have been Governors).

That said, Feingold had been my number two choice, subject to change. Not I'm not as sure. Energizing the GOP base is not exactly what we needed this month.

[ProSense]

25. Wyden's

statement doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. In fact, it implies that the move was premature:

Wyden Statement
on the Feingold Censure Resolution

March 16, 2006

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) released the following statement today regarding the Feingold Censure Resolution:

Senator Russ Feingold recently introduced a resolution of censure of President Bush in response to allegations of illegal government surveillance on American citizens without a warrant. I understand the frustration that led Senator Feingold to introduce this resolution and support his right to do so without becoming the target of personal attacks questioning his patriotism and loyalty to his country.

Congress has a responsibility to thoroughly investigate the President's warrantless surveillance program and to ensure that our government is fighting terrorism in the most effective way possible while protecting the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans. It is Congress’ obligation -- irrespective of party politics -- to determine whether or not the President broke the law, and to hold him accountable if he did. As with the proposed censure and impeachment of President Bill Clinton, this process should include a thorough investigation of all of the relevant facts, full congressional hearings, and a meaningful opportunity for the President to explain and defend his actions prior to any votes regarding the President's possible censure.

Posted in GD-P:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2521098&mesg_id=2521098