Kudos to Durbin on his answer on censure . Read if you have not read yet

[Mass]

Excellent answer by Durbin about censure.

Bush should be held responsible if he violated the law, but the investigation should be held before.

Of course, a lot of people have been saying that censure is a question of principle.

But what of the main principle of our justice system: " innocent until proven guilty". This is based on this principle that Durbin (and probably other liberals) are not calling for censure, but for investigation. Of course, if Feingold had consulted with his colleagues, he could have made a common move with them, and a move that could have been co-sponsored by a huge number of Democrats (Lieberman excepted, of course).

And he succeeds in doing that without attacking Feingold, which is even better.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/ap_on_go_co/bush_censure;_ylt=AtLNBDC5dYEBPIsSp9EKuAeyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Durbin: Bush Censuring May Be Premature

51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A top Senate Democrat said Sunday that
President Bush should be held responsible if he violated the law in authorizing the domestic spy program.

But Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said it is too early to tell if either censure or impeachment of Bush would be appropriate.

"I can't rule anything out until the investigation is complete. I don't want to prejudge it," said Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "But if this president or any president violates the law, he has to be held accountable."
...

"It's valuable that Senator Feingold is moving us forward to finally be a catalyst to have the kind of hearings and the kind of deliberations as to what lies behind this warrantless wiretap situation," said Durbin, calling the overall inquiries so far by the Republican-controlled Senate inadequate.

"We have a responsibility to ask the hard questions, to find out what the nature of the program is and whether the president violated the law," Durbin said.

[ginnyinWI]

1. I like it

He did well. Although personally I think any investigation wouldn't need to be complicated--*'s already admitted to what he's doing, so it only remains to confirm that it's illegal--and some experts have already said that it is. I hope this gets done by this summer, before people decide which way they will vote in November.

[Mass]

2. What I find sad is that, if Feingold had proposed a resolution asking for

an independant investigation, he probably would have had a majority of Dems with him. At least, I hope he would, and if he had not, I would certainly have like to know who were the ones who did not sign and fight against their reelection.

Now we will never know.

[karynnj]

4. Did many Democrats back Kennedy and Leahy?

Also, I think many others did ask for investigation. Didn't Kerry ask for an independent investigator? It may well be that the calls for investigation were ignored, but censure caught the fancy of the press. Now, maybe his action will bring some additional attention.

Durbin's position is very reasonable and intelligent.

[Dr Ron]

9. Unfortunately the media prefers the more extreme story

While media bias is certainly a problem, much of our frustrations with the media stem not from left vs. right bias but other aspects of the media. They prefer the more dramatic story. Calling for impeachment or censure makes a better story than a thoughtful description of the problem and calling for an independent investigator.

Even when Kerry jokingly mentioned impeachment, this received more coverage than his more detailed discussion of the problems.

[ProSense]

3. Durbin did great, he stuck

it to the Repubs saying they have abdicated their responsibility. Here is a video

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/19.html#a7575

[globalvillage]

5. Thanks for posting this.

I saw Sen Durbin today, and thought he was great. Your point is very important. He stated a position and also credited Feingold for his effort.
I wish every Dem leader took the same approach as Durbin and Kerry.

Nicely done, Sen Durbin.

:applause:

[Dr Ron]

6. Good answer from Durbin

Feingold created a bit of a problem.

On the one hand, we certainly don't want to be opposed to him on the idea of censure.

On the other hand, calling for censure only helps fire up the GOP base--which is not something we need right now. One advantage we have had so far this year is that Democrats are far more fired up than Republicans.

Calling for censure will also turn off many moderates. One poll said a majority supporting censure, but subsequently two other polls came out with the opposite result.

Calling for investigations and holding Bush accountable is a reasonable position which Democrats can run on,without overly acting to bring out the far right as campaigning based upon impeachment or censure would.

After all, censure is basically a token measure which has no legal meaning. No reason to campaign based upon this, especially when it is likely to fail this year, when calling for investigations and holding Bush accountable will accomplish what needs to be done.

[Dr Ron]

7. Post at Democratic Daily

I entered a longer post based upon this and my comment above:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2346

[sandnsea]

8. Yes, a catalyst

For a full investigation to uncover exactly what this program did and the entire concept of the unitary executive. Precisely the way to move forward and the debate this country needs to have this year.

[TayTay]

10. This is really interesting stuff

If the Democratic Party wants to invite Sen. Feingold back into the pack and adopt his censure proposal, then this is how it would begin. The Party leaders, like Minority Whip Durbin would take the censure proposal and use it as a metaphor for the extreme frustration that Dems feel over not getting any accountability hearings at all in the Senate. Sen. Durbin did not express anything negative at all about Sen. Feingold resolution at all and wove it back into the Democratic narrative that we want enough info to get at the truth.

Bravo! I wonder if this is how this is going to play out. It will be fascinating over the next week to see if other leading Dems start to sign on to this within the parameters that Sen. Durbin used. I wonder if Sen. Feingold wants this or if he wants to continue to own this as a stand-alone issue or if he is willing to open it up to becoming another vehicle to use to demand hearings.

I just love Sen. Sweetie (Durbin.) He makes me smile everytime I see him. Illinois should be very, very proud of their Sr. Senator.

[Mass]

11. Excellent report of Durbin's interview here.

I did not know this site, but they do an excellent job. (I may be partial because of the reference to Kerry's Iraq plan, but...)

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20060319punditpap.html

...
I thought Senator Durbin did okay on Iraq, better than usual for most Democrats. He barreled ahead on a critique of the absurdity of what General Casey had been trying to sell, that we are on our way to winning in Iraq, that significant numbers of Iraqi troops are ready to take over for our guys, and on and on, with Chris Wallace constantly trying to interrupt to complain that criticizing Bush policies isn't a plan.

It would have been nice if Durbin had thought to make the argument that Democrats have continually put forward specific plans that have been ignored and/or attacked by the Bush administration, and why not tick off Kerry's Iraq plan, articulated in his presidential campaign - to reassure all Iraqis that we do not intend to stay, for instance, by stopping all work on permanent bases there, going again to NATO and the UN to get help on the ground from other nations, including those with Muslim soldiers, opening up negotiations with the Sunnis…well that was then, this is now.

...
What Durbin did this Sunday, the rest of the Democrats should have been prepared to do all of last week. Shame on them for not realizing it, since it seemed so effortless and so real when Durbin went right to the bedrock value Democrats are defending, which is nothing less than our constitution.

In a way, Wallace, set it up for Durbin, by being such a predictable shit, which is to say, Wallace expected a predictable answer, one that conformed with what has been the SCLM's narrative all week about the Democrats, that they were literally running from Feingold in terror; when Durbin expressed no terror, and instead, repeated the mantra that makes sense of Feingold's censure move - i.e., there is a law in place that governs wiretaps, no one was adequately briefed on the NSA program's disavowal of that law, this is a matter of constitutional governance, which means that the Senate Intelligence Committee has failed to do it's constitutional duty, which has led to Democratic frustration, the driving force behind Feingold's desire for Censure - Wallace was just plain flummoxed.

...

[jillan]

12. What I wouldn't give

to have Durbin take over
for Harry as party leader in the Senate.

Durbin is a sweetie. And has an excellent way of expressing himself.
He would be a much more effective leader.

Just my 2 cents...

[karynnj]

13. Wasn't Durbin who Kerry wanted as Minority leader?

I agree that he really seems great. When Durbin was forced to apologize one of the Chicago papers said he was someone Kerry wanted as VP, but they were concerned with 2 Catholics on the ticket. (No one cared when Clinton and Gore were Southern Baptists)

[TayTay]

14. I think you're right Karynnj

I think Sen. Kerry did consider him for the VP slot, but the popular choice was to go with the ticket-balancing John Edwards. I like John Edwards and I think he is a powerful voice for the poor. However, I still think he is a lightweight when it comes to foreign policy. (I really wish he hadn't run for President last time but had tried for another term in the Senate. I thought he needed more seasoning.)

I love Sen. Durbin. Who knows, maybe next time. (Unless the choice is his Jr. Colleague from Illinois.)

[jillan]

15. hmmmm - I didn't know that.

Makes me feel great tho to know that Kerry and I are on the same page:P

[ProSense]

16. look at this

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=28881

[JI7]

17. yeah, the Durbin consideration came out during the actual vp discussion

before he announced. i remember reading it. Durbin was more of someone he would pick if it was entirely based on what he wanted and without any consideration of "balancing". the 2 liberals thing was another "problem" also.

but i also read that if Kerry had become President he would have had enough influence that he could get Durbin to end up Senate Leader even though Reid was "ahead in the line".

i wonder if this has anything to do with Reid's not liking Kerry too much.

also , Kerry picked Durbin along with Stephanie Tubb Jones to be in charge of DNC when it came specificlaly to his campaign.

[ProSense]

18. Leahy supports censure,

but says investigations should come first:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=707281&mesg_id=707281

[Mass]

19. So, they will play that one by one.

Sometimes, you may wonder.

[ProSense]

20. Frankly, I think

this is one of two things:

an ill-timed move by Feingold because all the Senators that have come out in support of it are qualifying it with the need for investigations to continue, or

an agreed upon strategy because all the Senators that have come out in support of it are qualifying it with the need for investigations to continue.


The first scenario means this was totally unnecessary, especially since none of the other Senators agree with a censure before an investigation and Feingold initially framed it as the end all. Without any support from the enough Senators, this doesn't even achieve the objective of sending a message. The second scenario at least means that some will come out and demand investigations as the debate continues. And issuing public statement isn't required. In fact, no statements, no vote keeps the debate going.