Why didn't Feingold attempt to enlist other Senators with this?

[WildEyedLiberal]

Shaun at Upper Left makes some interesting points:

http://upper-left.blogspot.com/

I don't agree with every point made in this blog, but if Feingold was truly interested in ensuring that the censure actually PASSES, why wouldn't he have tried to enlist a broader coalition to sign onto it? Apparently, he did NOT inform anyone of his intent to introduce a censure until he revealed the plan on Stephanopholous. Why not get three or four fellow co-signers? Kerry has already signed on to support the censure - I am sure Kerry would have co-sponsored it if given the opportunity. I also think Boxer and Kennedy would be strong possibilities for a co-sponsor. Yet apparently Feingold did not consult his fellow liberals in the Senate, instead choosing to unveil his plan as a "lone wolf." What could possibly be gained from going it alone, by CHOICE rather than by circumstance? Why wouldn't Feingold want every strong liberal voice in the Senate alongside him in this endeavor if he truly wishes it to pass? Yes, they may support him - as Kerry has pledged to do - but why not introduce this as a DEMOCRATIC measure to censure, sponsored by a large block of the liberals in the Senate? Instead of a team venture, it's a one-man show - by Feingold's own choice.

I think the answer lies in the several dozen threads I've seen tonight placing Feingold on a golden pedestal. He's doing this alone by CHOICE, not by necessity, because it is a pure slab of red meat thrown to the ravening base, and he wants to claim sole credit for it. This is a feel-good measure to endear himself to the party base who he would like to vote for him in 2008. It likely won't pass, but that isn't the point. The point isn't results, it's positioning.

Feingold was on the judiciary committee and thus was uniquely poised to lead a filibuster of Alito. When it became apparent that he was not going to, Kerry took up the slack, enlisting Senators Kennedy and Durbin in the DEMOCRATIC effort to stop Alito. It took Feingold a while after Kerry's announcement to decide that he wanted to join the team effort.

A year ago, John Kerry - along with several other liberal senators - wrote a letter demanding an open investigation into the Downing Street Minutes. Feingold did not sign this letter. Why?

A real leader, folks, isn't the guy on the team who grabs the ball and takes a bunch of wild threes, hoping one of his Hail-Mary shots goes in so he and he alone can be the game-winning hero. A real leader is the guy who shoots when he has a clear shot, passes when he doesn't, and is aware that a victory is won by the TEAM, not the individual. Feingold would be wise to learn that lesson.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. For the same reason Jack Murtha didn't

Because there'd just be more hemming and hawing and sounds of spineless weasels coughing softly as they awkwardly slither away from Feingold and wait - oh, he's a dandy - for their Fearless Leader, Harry Reid, announce that a whole bunch of groups and committees need to be formed to examine the idea of censure.

Hooray for Feingold, who knows it's purely symbolic, but at least he's made the record.

[karynnj]

8. She's not talking Reid, but Kennedy, Boxer, Levin, Kerry etc

The point was he didn't even try to get a co-sponsor.

[htuttle]

2. I've been voting for Feingold since he nailed a list of promises to voters

...to his garage door in Middleton. I have NEVER seen him take legislative action purely for personal fame or to make himself a 'hero'.

He always has good, thoughtful reasons for what he does -- even on those few occasions I haven't agreed with him. This isn't one of those. I agree with him this time wholeheartedly.

[panader0]

3. I can't believe that Barak Obama didn't even mention it on MTP

yesterday. It was all over DU an hour earlier (or more)

[karynnj]

12. MTP plays at different times in different places

Obama may not have heard enough about it to want to bring it up. I assume he would like to actually read it before commenting.

[blm]

19. MTP tapes earlier. It's not a live show.

.

[Mass]

25. Because he did not know - Feingold kept it to himself

rawstory said that this afternoon, Feingold had still not sent a copy of his resolution to other dems.

[Trevelyan]

4. Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy et al voted for the Patriot Act without Feingold's

amendments to protect our civil liberties.

The only Senators to vote against the "Patriot" Enabling Act were Feingold, Leahy and retiring Independent Jeffords. That's why.

:freak: :dunce: :argh:

[spuddonna]

18. I was just about to post that, thanks!

I think he's as fed up as many of us are, waiting, waiting, waiting.... waiting for what?

All I can think of is that page from "Oh! The Places You'll Go!"

Stuck in that "waiting place... where everyone is just waiting"... Then Feingold does something, and everyone is all over him for DOING something! lol

Crazy stuff... someone who actually has the courage to uphold his oath of office gets blasted for taking action...

[Maraya1969]

77. I'm glad you said that. Not knowing much about the proper way to do

things in Washington I kept asking why doesn't someone just file the paperwork for an impeachment and worry about the specifics afterward.

If it makes the papers tomorrow that the Senate is actually talking about reprimanding the president then I think that is a good move.

[karynnj]

22. They already have a bill that Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry , Durbin and

others are sponsoring with amendments to fix the Patriot Act that they will push when there is enough support. There were only 2 possible outcomes on the Patriot act bill

1) They could hold enough people to continue the filibuster and keep extending the old one. This has 2 effects.
-it keeps the original PA in place
-it uses a lot of Senate time
They were at a stalemate and nothing more was going to be fixed.

2) They passed the bill out of conference - there are still changes they want made, but it's better than the original PA. They have submitted legislation to fix the new PA> So, to compare with 1) these are the effects of this PA:
-The conference bill is in effect
-There is legislation there to fix it, but there is likely no push because it couldn't pass now.

I actually think 2) is a better position in that many of the worst problems are fixed.

[karynnj]

5. WEL - Very insightful post

It sounded like Durbin was already working to use Feingold's action to see if they could get hearings. (Which are really more important - we still don't know what type of people's phones were monitored - they likely weren't terrorists, because it was easy to get those warrants.

With or without a censure, we know he broke the law - he said so. The question is who's calls did they want enough to break the law.

[EST]

6. How do you spell "Plbbbssplattblbbb?"

How about everybody back off with all the panicky sideswipes at Russ and give him a chance instead of hunting up all the wise asses with their half-baked analyses and two bit opinions.
A few calls ands letters of support to Feingold and all the others would go a long way toward making this a reality.
Furthermore, a big part of the censure motion is to focus the average idiot on the fact that booosh SHOULD be impeached, by all norms.

[Trevelyan]

7. Why didn't the Demorats support Rep. Murtha's Plan to begin Withdrawing

from Iraq??

Today, Russ Feingold Is the Leader of the Democratic Party http://mydd.com/story/2006/3/13/135511/053#8
by Matt Stoller, Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 03:35:48 PM EST

Russ Feingold made me proud today. Standing up for the integrity of the American system is what leadership means, and that's what we as Democrats are. At least for today, Russ Feingold is the leader of the Democratic Party. And just for today, want to see who isn't a leader of the party? A hint, the name rhymes with Bella Lugosi.

In contrast to Feingold's bold and powerful statement, Nancy Pelosi's caution last week cost us. Long story short, Rep. Louise Slaughter released a report on the cost of Republican corruption. Leader Pelosi helped her with press and stuck it up on the leader's web page. She then got spooked by Republicans whining about ethics charges and had it taken down. Pelosi, by selling out Louise Slaughter, has created a perverse incentive system that penalizes Democrats who speak out. And then there's also this kind of bullshit that the sad, weak, pathetic little cowards called the GOP put out and institutional media habitually swallows. From Roll Call:

Rep. Slaughter is defending herself on the blogs. But that's not enough, because this type of stubbornly bad leadership matters when it's in insidery publications like Roll Call. It scares staffers and members. It empowers middle manager Office Space-like toads within the party. It helps empower the middle-management sneering staffers who work for Jay Rockefeller, who then empower the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping.

Today, Nancy Pelosi is not any kind of Democrat I recognize. Democrats are strong and fight to defend the constitution. We fight for privacy, against corruption, and to help those who can't help themselves. We don't sell out those trying to do the right thing so that Republican weenies won't be mean to us. When the Republicans come out with the racist and cowardly FancyFord.com, the Democratic Party hits back with VeryFancyFrist.com. Now that's the Democratic Party.

:puke: :dunce: :hurts:

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. Well, Feingold and Kerry both had withdrawal plans before Murtha

Also, both of them had BETTER plans than Murtha. Why would either of them abandon their plans just to jump on the Murtha bandwagon? It's not Feingold or Kerry's fault that the media completely ignored them while fawning endlessly over Murtha (likely because he made a better story - "ooo, the crusty old Marine vet conservative Dem wants to withdraw from Iraq!" In comparison, Feingold and Kerry were boring).

[karynnj]

Because several others had plans that they believed

were better, either because they had a stronger diplomatic recommendation or a longer time frame under different circumstances, or (as for both Feingold and Kerry) they brought the soldiers home rather than redeploying to Kuwait.

There were a diversity of plans and hopefully Bush will steal good elements from one or more of them and create an exit plan.

Why don't you ask why all the Democrat's didn't get behind Kerry's plan or the Korb plan? Kerry's preceded Murtha's.

[blm]

91. Because Kerry submitted his withdrawal plan a month earlier. Did you not

know this?

[Horse with no Name]

9. Because he knows, as do we, the depth of corruption on both

sides of the aisle.
He is putting this ON THE RECORD that these spineless weasels refuse to censure the illegal activity of Bush.
And as far as the basketball analogy...you are correct.
The star isn't the one who hogs the ball and tries to be the game winning hero.
The star is the one that points to the ones on the bench and tells them "if I can do this you can too". It's not his fault if they refuse to get off the bench and try.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. He didn't give them an opportunity to try

As I stated above, Kerry is already on board with the censure. It is likely that, had Feingold approached him about cosponsoring such a measure last week, he would have signed on. It is also likely that Boxer and Kennedy, and probably Durbin, would have signed on as well. However, they were not ASKED to by Feingold. He did not tell anyone of his plan. He didn't pass them the ball, even when they were wide open - to continue the analogy.

[rfkrfk]

10. Russ couldn't find any

they were hiding under their desk.
most senators don't like controversies, or making decisions

three senators voted in the Terry Shiavo matter.

[European Socialist]

11. He knew somebody had to stand up to Dumya--and he didn't want anyone ..

trying to talk him out of it. When he looks back 20 years from now, at least he tried to make a difference.

[DanCa]

13. Delete Dupe

[DanCa]

14. Delete Dupe.

[DanCa]

15. Feingold could also have waitted to after the mid term elections.

When we had a better chance of passing the censure through. I mean did anyone really expect it to pass through a Repuke controlled congress. Something doesn't smell right here.

[wisteria]

38. Exactly, what was the rush? n/t

[Maraya1969]

79. I'm glad they made a start. I think a lot of us are so fed up with them

not doing anything against this evil "leader". At least he made a step even though it is a first step.

And who knows? Maybe Kerry and Pelosi were in on the deal and they all decided on a strategy that we can't see right now.

[Coexist]

136. maybe the "rush" was due to the R-legislation to make this okey-dokey

for the President to do this. It would be too late after that.

[jbnow]

42. I smell roses myself

because right the illegal acts were barely being talked about. Investigations were essentially over and laws being drawn up to let it go on with no consequences. If he had waited it would be too late.

This brings it back to the light.

[DanCa]

47. Good counter point :D

I just hate all this division on the left. That's why I would perfer a non senator as our 2008 nominee. I have no problems voting for Feingold mind you. I just think that a non senator has a better chance of unifying us. Have a good night and thanks for the interesting counter point.

[Marie26]

63. Go w/my paranoid theory here

After the midterms, we might even have a Dem. majority. If a censure motion was offered at that time, it'd probably have the support of a majority of Senators & could pass easily. The Dem majority leader (Reid) would be praised for passing it. There would be plenty of people to share the credit. Right now, there's only one - Feingold. He gets all of our love & praise because we are so happy someone stood up to the Repub. leadership. Combined w/his Patriot Act & Iraq War votes, Feingold now has 100% pure progressive credentials. Because liberal activists form a large percentage of primary voters, Feingold now has a huge leg up on other Senators running for President. Feingold's action doesn't smell right as a policy decision, but makes perfect sense as a political strategy.

[hang a left]

17. Maybe he can't trust the lines of communication.

Maybe he assumes everything is wired. Maybe he doesn't trust people.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. Good questions, and..

it sure looks like he's a loose cannon on this one, no matter what the presiding opinion on DU might be.

From what I can gather, the rest of the crew just didn't want this to get out so fast and wanted to drag it out with hearings and some good press. Feingold rushing it through trivialized it and made it a non-issue that's fading fast.

No way in hell is there any chance of getting a censure motion passed in a Republican Senate, so the more devious route has to be taken. It wasn't, and the censure issue is dead.

For those who asked why it didn't get much press time-- it's just not a story. Motion proposed and motion ignored. End of story.

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. Exactly

It has ZERO chance of passing, and no effort was made to actually make a solid case for it. Didn't Feingold also say something like censure was a better option than impeachment because it was less "radical"? It does seem as though the idea of censure/impeachment has been trivialized by this, reduced to a failed political stunt, and that's the real pity here.

When Conyers has been pushing an Impeachment probe patiently and through all the right channels for months now, I find it hard to get excited about Feingold's rash "censure" motion.

[WillyT]

24. Couldn't Be That They All Have Spines Of Gelatinous Goo, Could It ???

Just wondering...

:shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. That's an offensive cartoon.

I find the implication that girly men = women = cowards is insulting not only to gay men but to women.

Kerry is in that offensive cartoon. Why? He has ALREADY pledged to support the censure and filibusted Alito when no one else would. Why didn't Feingold ask those he KNEW would have joined with him to co-sponsor the censure motion? I guarantee Kerry and perhaps Kennedy, Boxer, and Durbin would have signed on.

[WillyT]

29. Sorry... Didn't Know You Were So Sensitive...

:shrug:

[FogerRox]

67. I dont find the cartoon offensive in the least

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. Hmm, profile = male

Why am I not surprised...

[FogerRox]

75. as if they didnt earn the castigation--

[WildEyedLiberal]

82. The castigation of being called "girly men"?

Are gays shameful? Are women?

And no, calling the senator who led the filibuster of Alito and exposed more government corruption in 35 years a "pussy" is not only sexist but incredibly stupid.

[FogerRox]

96. girly men in pink

[WildEyedLiberal]

99. Thanks for proving my point.

I love homophobia/sexism on a "progressive" message board... :eyes:

[FogerRox]

139. Male Dems in pink tutu's with great haircuts

[FogerRox]

143. sorry for being homophobic on your message board

[WillyT]

98. Um... The Only Poster Who's Used The Word 'Pussy' In This Thread Was You !

Until just now.

I believe I referred to the part of the human anatomy commonly called the 'spine'.

Maybe you're just reading too much into it.

:shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

102. It's the obvious connotation of the cartoon, is it not?

"Pussy" was in quotes because really, what the fuck else is implied by dressing four adult men in pink ballerina outfits?

That cartoon isn't saying a goddamn thing about "spine" and you know it. It's questioning their masculinity, implying that said men are "girly" or "gay" or otherwise "feminine," and that that is obviously a grievous insult. Being "girly" and "gay" are obviously a coded way of saying that they are cowards. Do you really not get the sexism and homophobia inherent in that entire premise?

If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, guess what - it's a duck.

[WillyT]

104. And Sometimes... A Cigar, Is Just A Cigar...

:shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

108. So they were in pink tutus for the hell of it?

As opposed to, say, tuxedos? Or lederhosen? You're actually trying to tell me that the choice of a pink ballerina tutu was PURELY incidental and means NOTHING? So basically, it's a cartoon about four dudes in the White House lawn standing around? How is that funny? Unless...

... the fact that they're wearing pink tutus is the *entire crux of the joke.* :eyes:

Please, stop trying to pretend this isn't sexist, because you're failing miserably.

[WillyT]

112. Oh... It's Definitely Designed To Piss Off People...

works too.

:rofl::evilgrin::rofl:

And it's been around here since the 2002 election. Came from Bartcop, and all though many a loyal Dem has been upset by this Photo-shopped image, I believe you may just be the first to be offended for perceived gender issues.

Usually it's just a debate to who deserves to be in the photo, and who does not.

Either way...

:shrug:

[mirrera]

137. Definitely Sexist...give me a break!

I ask you what ballerina do you know has any kind of trouble with their spine...so the tutus must not be symbols for ballarinas. UH dresses...spine...dresses...why, could they be insinuating girls? But that would be about gender? Girls...spine...girls...spine...hmm. But they are boys in dresses? Gee at the risk of being sexist my self, you are dumb as a post if you don't get it.

[mitchtv]

85. gay male here -not offensive

Pink tutu Dems has no gay connotation to me. Girly straightmen is what I see.

[WildEyedLiberal]

87. Ah, so *girliness* is the insult we're going for

Strange, I never knew that being a woman was such a terrible, terrible thing... :eyes:

[FogerRox]

142. sorry for being a male

[Marie26]

69. See, I think Kerry did the same thing

Remember that Alito filibuster motion he tried w/almost no support? But it sure helped him to re-gain popularity w/the left-wing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

72. He TRIED to get every Dem to support the filibuster

He promised in 2003 that he would filibuster an anti-choice SCOTUS candidate. He held his end of the bargain. Kerry inspired and urged activists to call and fax their senators to get them on board. That it failed is not Kerry's fault but the fault of the gutless 19.

By contrast, Feingold is not going on a blitz to get every Democrat lined up on his censure bill, so the comparison doesn't hold up. In fact, I would not have made this OP if Feingold had demonstrated a willingness to build a Democratic coalition instead of trying to go this alone.

[Marie26]

101. I think it's mostly the same strategy

I agree w/you about Feingold, but you're not going to like me too much after this post. Everybody has agendas. I just read the whole thread & realized you are a huge Kerry fan. In this thread, you are attempting to contrast Kerry's brave fillibuster stance w/Feingold's weak censure motion. But I don't believe that's the truth. Both Kerry & Feingold are playing the same political game.

In order for a filibuster to truly be successful, the Dems. needed 40 votes to block the nomination. If you don't have 40 votes, there's no point bringing it to the floor. That's why Reid didn't try it after polling Democrats privately. But there's Kerry, making his brave, courageous stand for a filibuster on his own. Why? He's not a majority leader, who would normally be in charge of organizing such an effort. He couldn't organize the 40 votes needed. It was political grand-standing. He knew there wasn't enough votes to win, but he also knew the left-wing base was desparate for a filibuster. After his war votes, Kerry needed to re-establish his liberal creds. His filibuster effort did that. Sure, he TRIED to get votes, but he knew it wouldn't happen. That was sort of beside the point. The main point was positioning himself for 2008.

Feingold followed the same playbook - make a brave, useless stand that will activate the Democratic base. He also knew the censure motion was hopeless, but it did give him publicity & the undying love of the left wing. Feingold TRIED to get Dems. to vote on the floor, but the main point was improving his recognition & maverick standing. Same difference. Why is it that all these Senators making courageous stands are running for President? I'm half-expecting Obama to call for impeachment tomorrow. I feel like the liberal wing is being manipulated by candidates who are mostly interested in their own political futures.

[WildEyedLiberal]

103. He promised he would filibuster an anti-choice SCOTUS nominee

Would you have rather he broken his promise?

Reid is averse to taking risks and that should be obvious by now. There is no "final count" until the minute the senators stand on the floor and vote on cloture. The Democrats knew what was at stake with Alito, and thanks to Kerry's efforts, so did voters. That some Democrats chose to ignore the will of their constituents and vote for Alito is not a failing on Kerry's part but rather a failure of courage on the part of the 19.

[Marie26]

111. Let's put it this way:

If Kerry doesn't run for President again in 2008, I'll believe that was his real motive. But everything I've seen from Kerry shows the political strategy of a man who is carefully building support to become the next Democratic nominee.

Giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt, maybe he did do it because of a past campaign promise (though I don't believe that). Do you seriously believe he thought it had the votes to pass? I remember that Reid came out strongly w/wanting a filibuster, then backed down. It might be because he was spineless, or it might be because he couldn't corral the necessary votes. Based on how the filibuster vote went down, we now know there was nowhere near enough votes. Yet Kerry charges ahead after Reid gives up - he had to have known from Reid where the vote count stood. I can see taking a risk & bringing it to the floor if it was a few votes shy. But the fillbuster lost by 19 votes! There's absolutely no way that could've passed, & Kerry knew it. He did it for his own reasons; maybe that was honoring a past campaign promise, or maybe that was gaining support for a Presidential run. We can't know, but we can know that the fillibuster itself was a lost cause. Just like we know the censure motion was a lost cause.

[WildEyedLiberal]

114. You don't believe he promised not to filibuster?

Then you are provably wrong. You can doubt motive but you cannot doubt what he is on record as saying.

It is only the fault of the 19 who failed to vote for the filibuster that it did not pass. I fail to see why considering running for president should prevent you from following your conscience, especially as it pertains to keeping a promise you made three years prior.

[Marie26]

117. You know who else said that? Joe Lieberman

"I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties and on the laws protecting workers and the environment," Kerry said in remarks via satellite at a meeting of Democratic party officials in St. Paul, Minn.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, another candidate addressing the Democrats in Minnesota, said, "If I feel that President Bush nominated to the Supreme Court judges that aren't independent ... or have basically prejudged cases, I will join, or if necessary lead a filibuster against that nomination."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/20/national1340EDT0606.DTL

Both of these remarks were made in 2003, during the 2004 Presidential primaries, while the candidates were speaking in front of Minnesota party leaders. This position allowed both candidates to gain pro-choice endorsements for President. That's very far away now. I don't see this as a huge pledge he made to his constituents before he was elected to the Senate, instead, it was a campaign promise made during his run for President. Now, it's 2006, and Kerry cancels a trip to Switzerland to rush back & lead a fillibuster, while Lieberman votes against it. One difference is that Kerry is positioning to run for President again. Even his own statement says that he will fillibuster (vote against cloture), he did not promise to lead a fillibuster attempt. That was a political ploy, IMO.

Kerry is a good man, & I know he does care about this country. But he feels like he has to put on the show to get the support that he needs to become President. Feingold is also a good man, but I think he feels the same political pressures to make a "splash" during an election year. I don't mean to sound anti-Kerry or Feingold. It's just the game all politicians end up playing. If they don't play the game, they lose.

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. So Kerry kept his promose, and Lieberman broke his.

That kind of proves my point, doesn't it? It certainly shows who was sincere about his promise and who was merely giving women lip service. I don't understand your nitpickiness. Lead a filibuster vs vote for a filibuster? I am quite sure he would have rather someone else led the filibuster, since he is not on the judiciary committee. However, when no one stepped up, he picked up the slack.

Your entire set of posts are based on one premise: that you are privy to and aware of Kerry's internal motives for his actions. Since you, obviously, cannot know his motives, this entire discussion is moot. However, I have spent a fair amount of time studying Kerry's life and actions, and I have met him, so I feel as though I am more qualified to judge his character than you - no offense. One thing that is true of John Kerry regardless of what position he takes or what he votes for is that he is sincere. Whatever he does, he does because he feels that it is the right thing to do.

[Marie26]

126. I don't doubt that

I have said, often, that I am not privy to Kerry's motives, & neither are you. All we can do is speculate. I do believe that he thought Alito was a danger & wanted his nomination to be defeated. My nit-pickiness, I guess, is on two points: You said that Kerry did this because he was bound by a campaign promise. But he only promised to fillibuster, not lead an effort. He could've voted against cloture from Switzerland. That doesn't explain his decision to fly back to DC to lead a fillibuster attack. Second, if fillibuster had a realistic chance of succeeding, I'd be cheering loud for Kerry's attempts. But since the fillibuster failure was a foregone conclusion, Kerry's actions in persuing it, w/no chance of success, looks more like a political action. That's all - but that's just my own interpretation. Guess we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point.

[blm]

130. Where YOU are wrong is that Kerry tried to get OTHERS to LEAD filibuster

FIRST and only when none would step forward did he step up EVEN THOUGH he was in Europe at that time. How did he plan for NO JUDICIARY MEMBER to stand up with Kennedy?

Either you CARE about facts or you form a storyline that you stick to because you WANT to.

[Marie26]

141. That's what you're doing - you just don't see it

What are you talking about? What I'm saying is that a fillibuster that couldn't even get the support of a single Judiciary member was doomed. Why did he fly from Europe to lead a doomed fillibuster? I don't have an agenda here; I don't know yet who I'd support for the Democratic nomination. I just think it's funny that people can't see the irony when they praise one politician's political gambit, while condemning the others. I think that people completely twist the facts & form a storyline based on on who's doing it, rather than what's being done. This thread sort of shows that, I think. If Feingold had tried a fillibuster, & Kerry a censure motion, I think many people would switch their opinions completely to favor "their guy."

[blm]

95. Except Kerry promised that filibuster in 2003.

And he didn't WANT to lead the Alito filibuster because he was scheduled in Europe for economic meetings for his Senate committee.

The judiciary committee members would not stand with Kennedy on a filibuster, so Kerry stepped in to save Kennedy the constant beating of leading it on his own.

It's a good idea to get the FACTS before you draw conclusions.

[Marie26]

113. See my post above. nt

[RethugAssKicker]

74. Oh Shit.. Thats funny as hell!

[mzmolly]

27. Excellent points all worth consideration.

Democrats have got to organize and leave their own political ambitions/egos out of the equation. I'm not saying Feingold had malicious reasons for not gathering support, but at the very least he kinda blew it.

[Just Me]

30. Because SOMEONE HAS TO BEEE THE PARTY PLATFORM!!!!

Murta takes care of soldiers. Feingold takes care of domestic spying. Byrd takes care of Constitutional guarantees. Kerry works the legal field. Conyers pushes truth and responsibility. Kucinich reveal corporatocracy. Boxer hits on deception. etc etc etc

Who knows. Maybe, they've convened, assigned spokespersons on particular issues, ensuring all bases are covered.

Ya' never know. }(

[WiseButAngrySara]

51. What is your name here? TreasonousBastard! And we all KNOW who

that refers to. I guess you and others prefer to name call correctly and sit back and do nothing. Feingold brought this matter to everyone's attention in a dramatic way, and he's at least doing something to stop this treasonous bastard, who should have been impeached long ago. If no one mentions the 'emperor with no clothes' HE REMAINS NAKED, unless someone is courageous enough to point out the obvious. This administration has gotten away with everything, and they are lying, and breaking the law, and subverting the constitution. Treason? Feingold did a great job. It's pathetic that there are few other Democrats pointing out the blatant nudity of emperor B*.

[creeksneakers2]

28. Great analysis

Only Feingold knows what his true motives were but I saw him mention with his censure announcement Sunday that it would create a great deal of buzz on the net. So, Feingold at least saw that upside for himself.

[Mass]

31. The problem is that Feingold opened himself to these questions

by going on alone rather than gathering some people around him. He admitted so to AP. rawstory reported that this afternoon, his colleagues still had not the text of the resolution, which made it difficult to endorse.

I am all for the resolution and all ready to believe that Feingold had good motives, but in this case, he was not very clever. He would have been better having some of his colleagues around him OR being able to say they did not want to follow. Right now, we have to give everybody the benefit of the doubt because he went alone.

[WildEyedLiberal]

32. Exactly

I see a lot of knee-jerk responses to this thread, all claiming that Feingold is doing this alone because "the other Dems are too cowardly to follow him." But this is a baseless, false claim, since as Feingold failed to attempt to enlist others in the effort, no one can say who would have joined him or who would have declined. I have a very strong suspicion he would have gotten at least two cosponsors, maybe more.

It would be easier to laud Feingold as the brave lone soldier if his isolation weren't self-imposed.

[incapsulated]

33. That's funny...

"He's doing this alone by CHOICE, not by necessity, because it is a pure slab of red meat thrown to the ravening base, and he wants to claim sole credit for it. This is a feel-good measure to endear himself to the party base who he would like to vote for him in 2008. It likely won't pass, but that isn't the point. The point isn't results, it's positioning."

That is exactly how I viewed Kerry's support for the "filibuster". Only after he knew it didn't have the votes to pass.

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. Perhaps you're being disingenuous?

Kerry did not pursue a filibuster alone, and only did so after it was patently obvious that no one else had the cojones to step up. Not being on the judiciary committee, it was not his place to start a filibuster of a judicial nominee - he stepped up when no one else wanted to.

Perhaps you should ask Feingold why he did not announce support for a filibuster a week prior to Kerry, then, since he WAS on the judiciary commitee.

Feingold dropped the ball by being a judiciary committeeman refusing to filibuster a judicial candidate, and you criticize Kerry for picking up the slack. That's... interesting.

[incapsulated]

46. I'll tell you what is interesting

By the time Kerry rushed in to "pick up the slack", the writing was on the wall, they didn't have the votes. I saw his maneuver as nothing more than a cynical political play for the base. Kerry the Hero.

But of course, Russ is nothing but a grandstanding phony, right? And Kerry has only pure intentions.

What's the matter, you can't stand someone else getting attention for one night? Have to drag him down all the while crowing about how "ballsy" Kerry is? Sad.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. Well, your motives are certainly transparent.

Tell me again, please. If you are angered that the filibuster didn't succeed, why don't you ask Feingold why he, as a judiciary committeeman, failed to start one a week before Kerry did, right after it was clear that Alito was going to be evasive in his testimony?

You can't and won't answer that, will you?

Feingold failed to filibuster, and Kerry picked up the slack. You have no real comment for that, so you resort to making a personal attack about me. When you have to resort to attacking me, it's pretty obvious to everyone that you've lost the debate, can't answer my simple question, and are merely interested in disrupting. Thanks for playing.

[incapsulated]

61. What?

You are the one who is changing the topic, here. This isn't an argument about the filibuster, it is a statement about the irony of this OP. Kerry is of pure intentions, but Russ is a phony who is grandstanding.

I disagree. Not only do I disagree, but I view Kerry's actions as little more than a ploy for support over an issue that he knew was a lost cause, so all the attention would be on himself, without the consequences of successfully filibustering Alito. It was the definition of throwing red meat to play to the base with an eye toward 2008.

This OP is a rather transparent attempt to slime Feingold while pimping Kerry, something I have little patience for.

[WildEyedLiberal]

64. Kerry promised in 2003 he would filibuster an anti-choice SCOTUS nominee

Would you rather he had broken his promise?

I have little patience for those who apply a gaping double standard to the actions of different senators and expect not to be called on it. Were you opposed to a filibuster? No? Then why wouldn't you be concerned that Feingold had no interest in starting one? If you wanted Alito stopped, why would you criticize the one man who DID try to stop him?

Feingold's censure would not have earned this OP from me had he SIMPLY built a coalition and made this a team effort, instead of a one-man show. That's the part you're apparently failing to grasp.

[incapsulated]

70. I didn't hear one word

About Kerry filibustering Alito until the votes were already counted. This isn't about 2003, it's about what he did then.

No, he wasn't on the judiciary committee, but that has never stopped anyone else from raising an issue. He isn't just any Senator, he was the Dem nominee, people would have paid attention if he brought it up.

In fact, if ANY of the Democrats were SERIOUS about a filibuster, they would have had a plan in place long before the vote. It was all bullshit, on everyone's part. I don't give a flip what Feingold did or did not do then. They have all disappointed me one time or another. But this sudden attack on Russ while crowing about your hero is so transparent, your "concern" about the censure is hard to believe.

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. The votes aren't counted until they are cast.

Nice red herring. Nothing is set in stone until the day they stand on the senate floor and vote yay or nay for cloture. Had Feingold or Reid - the party leader - been interested in stopping Alito, action would have been taken sooner. That the Democratic senate caucus had no interest in stopping Alito suddenly becomes Kerry's fault is interesting, to say the least. You are making no sense.

Your personal attacks are getting tiring, as it is apparent you are only in this thread to criticize me, rather than respond to any legitimate questions or raise any legitimate issues.

[incapsulated]

81. Did I say it was Kerry's fault?

No. Only that it was bullshit, in my opinion. The same bullshit that YOU accused Feingold of in your OP.

Have it your way. Kerry the Pure against the stupid and politically corrupt grandstanders, like Feingold.

I respond when someone responds to me. Which you did. If you want me to ignore you, you've got it.

:hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

83. Sounds good

I find I can only have discussions with people who do not have ulterior motives.

:hi:

[blm]

56. Actually Kerry didn't WANT to lead filibuster and begged other senators

to join Kennedy, since he was scheduled at economic meetings in Europe and a speech in Ireland.

But, no other senator would do it, so Kerry did as he promised he would do in 2003. Or did you forget that part?

[usregimechange]

34. Who would have supported it? Patriot act yes voters?

[blm]

39. Maybe the same senators who asked Feingold to lead the Alito filibuster.

They understand what it's like to stick your neck out. On MANY issues for MANY years.

[EFerrari]

35. And, when did he stop beating his wife?

What a load of cr@p.

Russ did show leadership today. And the whiners need to ask themselves why whining is more producitive than leading.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. What does your non sequitor have to do with anything?

Do you dispute that a team effort is generally better than a one-man show?

[wisteria]

36. Isn't it obvious, Feingold wasn't willing to go and ask them for team

support, what was the hurry? Bush isn't going anywhere. IMO, this was all about Feingold an no one else. He may very well be right, but he discredits himself and his maneuver by not gaining support before taking it to the media and the floor of the Senate. Chaney had a right to sneer today, he's nailed the motive behind the action. It's a shame this will be perceived as nothing more than a personal political move on Feingold's part. Does Russ need some attention?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. They still have a chance to "enlist". Let's see if they do.

[Cocoa]

43. the censure can't be partisan

this is about the law, and the republicans SHOULD be equally concerned with Bush's breaking the law as the dems.

If this is perceived as partisan, it be meaningless. If the censure is a "Democratic" measure, then the republicans have a built-in excuse not to support it.

But the censure resolution came from a senator who has a track record protecting civil liberties that is entirely independent of his poltitical party, and who has a track record of holding presidents accountable to the law, with his being the only senator who voted to have the Lewinsky matter considered by the Senate. Which he mentioned this morning on CNN.

[WildEyedLiberal]

44. The only way to have a nonpartisan censure...

... would be to have a moderate Republican - hell, even Jim Jeffords - sign on.

I do not forsee that happening, so either way, this will be spun as a liberal/Democratic move to exploit Bush's weakness. Yes, holding Bush accountable to the law SHOULD be nonpartisan, but this crop of Republicans has never met a law they won't break.

I don't think this will be perceived any differently whether it's Feingold alone or a collective Democratic effort.

[Cocoa]

49. conservative Republicans should, and could, sign on.

The heart of my disagreement with your post is where you assume as a given that no republicans will join Russ. I think Russ is depending on some republicans to join him, and I think it could happen.

Russ is not a partisan hack, his whole persona is exactly the opposite. I heard Laura Ingraham's treatment of him this morning, and she was trying to paint him that way, as a tool of the DNC who is trying just to take out Bush, and it's completely unconvincing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

54. I truly and sincerely hope you are right

I have yet to see any evidence that any Republican in the senate is anything but a party lackey through and through. Vote after vote, we hope that some of the saner ones - Snowe, Chaffee, Hagel, even that dirty whore McCain - will open their eyes and side with America against the neofascists. Time and again we are disappointed.

I'd love to see a Feingold-Hagel censure motion. But I think the chances of that happening are worse than a snowball's in hell. I admire your optimism, though; wish I could share it.

[Marie26]

45. Here's a cynical idea

Maybe Feingold didn't want other Democratic Senators on board. This way, it looks like Feingold, bravely standing alone to offer this censure. This makes him wildly popular among the Democratic base. Come primary season, people remember this & it helps to solidify Feingold's reputation as a "hard-hitting, independant" leader. If the bill is co-sponsored by other Dems., Feingold loses that advantage & allows other primary contenders (like Obama & Kerry) to share credit for offering the resolution. They already have name-recognition; this is Feingold's chance to increase his own by offering the resolution alone.

He didn't tell other Senators about it because he really doesn't want them to vote for it. The less Dems. that vote for it, the more courageous Feingold looks, & the more he stands out from the pack. Building a broad coalition would allow the Democratic party to take credit for the censure resolution, but Feingold wants the credit to go to him. He knows how angry the Dem. base is, & how spineless the Dem leadership is. By offering this resolution alone, & getting very few other votes, he becomes the only politician that retains creditability w/the angry Dem. base. They will love him, & cross those that didn't support this resolution (Obama) off their Presidential list. Feingold is now perfectly positioned to take advantage of this upswelling of support during the primary election.

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. That's rather what I'm thinking

I just didn't want to come out and say it in my OP... thought I'd just pose the question and see if other people saw what I saw.

Your take is pretty much the same one I have. The more Dems sign on = the less "unique" and "brave" Feingold is.

[Marie26]

58. It hurts me to say that

because I really admire Feingold. But any way I look at this, it only makes sense as a political move.

[jillan]

48. I can only wish that the true dems

Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, (Leahy, Schumer, Dorgan ????)
would unify and work together as a team. On this issue, and on everything.

You know that little group they formed regarding the nuclear option?
Well I'd like to see them form a similar group. Maybe even join the ranks with
some dems from the House.

These are the dems that are willing to stand up and fight.
They don't play to the center. There is strength in numbers.

I am proud of Russ for what he is doing, but it
would have been more effective with team support.

[JohnnyCougar]

50. This is one of the most ridiculous posts I have seen on here in a while.

Feingold goes out on a limb and proposes this, and all you can do is criticize. Just plain ridiculous. All the Dems found out about this yesterday, and the movement to censure is not very long at all. It would have taken them all of five minutes to read it and either support it, or not support it. I'm very glad that Kerry says he is supporting it. I think that's great of him. But instead of criticizing Feingold, you should be asking why Kerry didn't come up with this idea first. Who cares if it passes. At least it is bringing the crimes of George W. Bush into the public debate, and emphasizing the seriousness of his attitude that he is above the law.

Some of you Kerry freaks are so biased, and it is so obvious. This is like the third post like this I have seen today, and it seems to me that it is a reflection of your jealousy that Feingold has the balls to do stuff like this, and Kerry doesn't. The truth is, Russ is out there taking a leadership role, and if Kerry wants to follow him, that is more than fine. But Russ is a smart, non-pandering politician who has a long record of standing up for our rights. Not that Kerry doesn't. But lately, Russ has been on the right side of issues, such as opposing the Partiot Act and opposing the IWR. This gives him immense credibility, a credibility that Kerry has failed to convey lately. So don't carp, complain, and try and undercut Russ when he does something right. If Kerry were to do this, he would have my full support. We work as a team. And Kerry is doing just that by saying he will support Feingold's attempt to censure Bush. Everyone else is free to join on and send a message that this is the right move.

Furthermore, you mischaracterize Feingold's argument by saying that impeachment is "radical". Russ has stated many times, including in his floor speech, that impeachment is the final goal, and this move to censure is just a start. But you're not fooling anyone. Your motives are extremely transparent.

[blm]

59. Actually, censure is supposed to be the result of an investigation in the

senate that finds guilt.

Hard to come up with a REMEDY of censure when there is no investigation first. Feingold winged it on this one and Kerry supports his attempt - what more could people want? Kerry's giving Feingold support on something he's trying.

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. Why am I not surprised that you resort to a personal attack?

"Kerry freaks"? Did I call you a "Feingold freak"? No? Did I insult Feingold supporters? No? Then spare me the personal attack garbage.

Wow... three posts asking legitimate questions about Feingold? I am quite sure those three posts have gotten quickly lost amidst the five dozen or so starry-eyed "Feingold is my HERO!!!1" posts, so fear not.

Your second paragraph is rather inconsistent. You attempt to claim that Kerry doesn't have the courage to do something like this, yet then back down and admit that he has done courageous things in the past year as well. Ahem... FILIBUSTERING ALITO comes to mind. That's something a certain Democrat on the judiciary committee COULD HAVE done, but chose not to. Sure, Kerry COULD have proposed a censure all on his own, failed to consult any other Democrats about it, and put it before a Senate with 55 Republicans so that it will likely fail in committee, but he didn't, and I can't say I'm disappointed. There's a taking a brave stand, and then there's sheer futility. Censuring a president without consulting the rest of your caucus is poor strategy, and reduces the act of censure to a partisan gimmick, which is a pity, because if ever a president deserved to be censured for this, it's Bush.

Here's a small list of things that Kerry has done to "maintain" credibility. http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm I understand your attempt to minimize Kerry's accomplishments is mostly rooted in 2008 posturing, but that doesn't excuse ignorance of facts.

You have accused me of the same thing - 2008 posturing. What you failed to understand from my OP is that I am not criticizing Feingold for censuring Bush. What I *am* criticizing is the way he's chosen to go about this - keeping it a secret to himself, not releasing the bill to his fellow Senators, and making ZERO effort to enlist a coalition on this. Had he done those things, I would not have made this post. Like it or not, those are legitimate questions - why is Feingold insisting on going this alone? There was no need to keep this a hush-hush secret from the rest of the liberal Democratic caucus.

[JohnnyCougar]

66. You can call me a "Feingold freak"

See if I care. I'm proud to say that I support him, and I have since he wasn't even a blip on the radar. And for your information, Feingold did vote to filibuster Alito. You say that this censure is an effort in pure futility, yet you don't see the Alito filibuster as pure futility. Alito was about taking a stand, and so is this move to censure.

This censure move will not pass now nor would it have if Russ had "consulted other Dems" about it beforehand, but it's not about passing it. It's about taking a stand, which Russ has proven that he is more than willing to do in the last five years (and which Kerry has many times failed). I'm not posturing, I'm just noticing your eagerness to attack another Democrat when he has done something right, simply because he is stealing the thunder from other Democrats.

My advice to some of you is: lead, follow, or get out of the way. Clearly, Kerry has chosen to follow, which is fine. The rest of the Dems should get out of the way if they don't want to support this. They have already had more than enough time to look this over and decide if they want to support it or not.

[WildEyedLiberal]

80. Questioning Feingold's strategy in this is not "attacking" him

I think Feingold has opened himself up to these questions by not choosing to enlist any support. A Senate censure is typically the result of an investigation that concludes severe wrongdoing. Should there be a formal investigation into NSA spying? Absolutely. I don't understand what can be gained from a censure that surely will not pass. Alito could have been stopped if all 44 Democrats had held together and voted no on cloture. However, a censure requires a majority, and the idea of 44 Democrats (along with Jim Jeffords) and 6 Republicans voting to censure Bush is completely out of the realm of possibility. That Feingold is undertaking such a quixotic measure on his own is going to lead some to question whether he's just doing it for the brownie points. If you want to persuasively argue that he is not, please feel free, minus the personal insults - those tend to hurt your case more than help it.

My questions about Feingold have nothing to do with his "stealing the thunder," and that you would say something like that makes me wonder what YOU think his ultimate goal is. Stealing the thunder implies that he is doing this for the recognition he will get from party activists, and that I am jealous because my favorite Democrat isn't getting said thunder. If that's how you choose to look at it, I can't stop you, but my opinion stands that I think something as grave as a censure should be a coalition effort.

[EFerrari]

84. Maybe something as glaringly obvious as a high crime

should engender support for Feingold, not bullshit from those less well endowed.

This Senate couldn't find itself, if it wanted to. Investigate Bush?

:rofl:

[WildEyedLiberal]

86. So why didn't Feingold get a coalition, then?

He surely would have had some supporters.

[EFerrari]

90. How many calls have you made tonight?

And, I don't mean that in a pissy way.

We need to lead. We need to give them a reason to put up with discomfort.

And we need to do it now.

[WildEyedLiberal]

92. I shall call Durbin and Obama tomorrow.

Durbin I do not think we have to worry about. Obama, not so much. I will call them both to register my support.

Agreed and agreed. It is important to call Repub senators as well, because there is no reason that NSA spying on Americans and lawbreaking should be a partisan issue.

[EFerrari]

123. Great. Thanks. We need to push ahead,

And we need to let our leadership know where we're going so they can lead. :)

[JohnnyCougar]

106. He is getting recognition from Democratic party activists.

And rightly so. Because he is sending a message that he won't stand idly by and wait for attention to be diverted by the Republicans from Bush breaking the law. He went on the talk shows to back up his position. And what this does is get Bush's illegal activities back in the national debate.

Who needs an investigation to censure when President Bush has openly admitted to breaking the law? Is an investigation even necessary? I'd say go right for censure.

[WildEyedLiberal]

110. And if it fails?

Don't you think a failed censure will severely weaken a case for future impeachment? I don't agree with the "let's keep our powder dry" argument, but in this case, it makes absolutely no sense to rush a vote to censure when you KNOW for a fact you don't have the votes. Once it's voted on, and shot down, the issue will be swept under the rug, the NSA spying controversy will go away, and the case for impeachment will be blocked by Republicans who insist that the issue has already been voted on, and that the Senate decided at that point that there was not enough concern to convict the president of wrongdoing.

When is the right time to censure? Damned if I know. It could even be done now, with careful planning and an all-out media blitz. But remember, Gingerich waited until he had a solid Repub majority in the House before he started bringing articles of impeachment against Clinton. He knew he wouldn't be able to do jack in a Democratic congress... hence "Contract for America." Until we get a Democratic House and Senate, censure is just another pipe dream. I'd rather wait ten months and pass a censure of the bastard, followed by articles of impeachment, than have the entire issue defeated overwhelmingly in a day and ignored thenceforth.

I'd like to be wrong, and we'll have to see how this turns out... but shooting our wad early isn't going to pay off, in my opinion.

[JohnnyCougar]

115. I don't think that it is necessarily true.

If censure fails, impeachment will fail anyway. But censure has a better chance of succeeding than impeachment ever will. So in a way, censure right now is better than impeachment, especially if you think that censure can lead to impeachment (which it can).

[WildEyedLiberal]

122. I hope you're right!

:hi:

[gulliver]

53. One is better than ten and better than thirty.

Ten Democratic Senators means nothing. Thirty means a partisan attack. One means a single, brave guy saying what needs to be said.

One is the best.

[spuddonna]

57. Obviously Russ Feingold is a Spy!

:sarcasm:
I see it all now! His whole career has been a ruse so no one would suspect he was going to pull the censure vote to torpedo the Dems come November!!!

His evil plan for world domination has now come to fruition as all the clueless voters will remember Feingold only in his bold move to restore Constitutional oversight! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Take that Kerry! Eat that, Biden and Hillary!

Seriously, though... is it not remotely possible that Feingold just got pissed off after talking to people trying to gather support, and said "Fuck it, I'm doing it this weekend!" No one has ever done that before at work? Tried to get a consensus and finally just said, 'the hell with it' and did it anyway?

Just wondering...

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. Well, since Feingold admitted he hadn't talked to anyone about the censure

That evidently is not the way it happened.

Again, if Feingold HAD approached others about this, and been denied, he would be going it alone based on circumstance and not choice, and I would laud his courage. But he did not ask, consult, or inform other Democrats of his decision to attempt a censure, thus depriving them of the choice to sign on or pass.

So no, it's not possible, because Feingold by his own admission did not "talk to people trying to gather support." If he had, this OP would not have been made.

[spuddonna]

118. Ok, so he decided to do it on his own, according to these blogs...

... who have some insider source. :eyes:

So he did it alone. You know what? I don't care!

It seems to me that a lot of the worry here is concentrated on the idea that he did this alone - he didn't share the spotlight with fellow Democrats. They're worried about his 'positioning' and his spotlight grabbing for the 2008 election.

Again, don't really care! Position away! If the Democratic Senators were smart they would grab all the air time they can tonight/tomorrow/right up to the vote and use 'Feingold's spotlight' for themselves as they bash the Republicans and Bush administration for the lies and illegality of the wiretapping. They'd stand up and say "I stand firmly behind Feingold and support this!" just like Kerry is doing...

Here's a Senator who has TAKEN ACTION. I'm starving for action! When are the rest of our Senators going to TAKE ACTION?

In November? Can we wait that long? Can our democracy wait that long?

[WildEyedLiberal]

125. No, actually, according to him

He said on This Week that he had not submitted the bill to the other Senators yet.

I still think the censure would be stronger if it were built on a coalition effort rather than undertaken by one senator.

[spuddonna]

129. I think sometimes a lone person can raise a lantern in the dark...

... when 100 are busy planning a lighthouse.

In other words, sometimes a lone voice crying out can aid or start a bigger movement.

I have no idea if this is one of those times (I hope it is!) but I begrudge no individual senator from standing up and speaking his mind, or introducing a piece of legislature that they feel compelled to on behalf of the American people or to protect our Constitution.

That said, I also agree that a coalition tends to produce more effective results... :)

[harpo]

65. when you are the only one that gets it...you do what you have to

[madfloridian]

68. This quote at the link about labeling him "out of touch"....

"...Feingold will undoubtedly be labeled as a rabid partisan by the GOP, someone "extreme" and "out-of-touch." And if history is any guide, this characterization will be reinforced by Feingold's Democratic colleagues who will immediately try to distance themselves from his proposal in order to be seen as "reasonable."

This quote bothers me a lot. Unfortunately this is true...our own Democrats do tend to label those who speak truth too clearly as being out of touch.

I think it took courage for Feingold to do this, but I do doubt he will get much support. Unfortunately.

Could it be he knew they would tell him not to do it?

[dolo amber]

76. So?

So what if it is "positioning"? I fail to see how Russ Feingold positioning himself to be a candidate in '08 is ANYTHING other than fucking STELLAR.

Christ what is it with this place? :eyes:

[nolabels]

105. I don't think it's as much about positioning as is that is just how he is.

This Russ guy wears his convictions on his sleeve. Not saying there was not positioning involved but it probably just felt natural for him to do it that way. He is one of the few

[bvar22]

78. If, as you say, Feingold is only "positioning"....

...Then I REALLY like the "position" he is taking.

*He STOOD UP.

* He presented the case (Bush*broke the law), simply, logically, and unambiguously.

*His statements are now a matter of Congressional Record.

*He recommended the appropriate legal action.

*Millions of Americans heard a Senator calling for Rule of Law.

The ball is now in the other Democratic Senators' court. They are either
FOR Rule of Law and support Feingold,
or they are not.

Whats the prob?:shrug:

I want 99 more just like him.

[EFerrari]

88. Exactly. n/t

[FogerRox]

138. Right ON

sfexpat2000 said

Exactly. n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

89. Here we go. The Democratic LYNCHING of Feingold.

Oh, I see...it's Feingold's fault now for wanting to upload our Constitution. He had to ask permission to do what's right. Right?

Whatever...this is such bullshit.

J

[WildEyedLiberal]

93. What?

Lynching?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

94. No, it's not gonna happen. Russ was great. Now, WE

need to do OUR job.

Sure, people will get nervous. Who wouldn't, with these freaks in the White House.

But, we can do better than that. Let's do better than that.

Let's back the man up.

[Marie26]

107. Whew!

I can't imagine what this place is like during primary season!

[bpilgrim]

97. the bigger question is why won't his colleagues SUPPORT Him/Us?

why won't kerry spear head BBV reform?

so many questions so little time...

peace

[wisteria]

119. Because the way he presents it right now, it could be used against

us in the elections this year. Remember, the Republicans are running on national security and keeping America safe. Many voters still believe Bush is only spying on terrorists. Questioning the President on his "Terrorist Surveillance Program" now could make us look weak and hell bent against Bush at the cost of our national security. Chaney's smirk today says it all.

[JohnnyCougar]

128. I think that is just Republican hype.

According to Rassmussen, Democrats are now trusted more than Republicans regarding national security. Republicans are just trying to intimidate Democrats from challenging them.

[Rainscents]

100. Who care what Feingold didn't do.

Feingold stood up today put it on the records, Bush broke the law and he is NOT going to take it no more! Now, it's up to other dems either join him or not... Maybe Feingold had enough with fake dems in Senate and do this all on his own! More power to Feingold!

[mmonk]

109. I don't know what to think anymore.

I gave to Friends of Kerry for some of his actions lately. I consider if people DO oppose the president and ACT accordingly, I donate. I do it this way because I know the person just acted. But on the whole, the party is weak and they get ridiculed by people who want them to act for their lack of backbone and vilified by republicans on the air when and if they act. I do wish there wasn't so very much cowardice about how the media will spin it and more character in most of them that they would stand up. You're either with the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances or you're against them.

[jane_pippin]

116. Why don't you write to Russ and ask him those questions?

Chances are he'll respond. It might take a while, but you'll probably get a letter from him.

Your questions are valid and I don't have the answers but as a life-long Wisconsin resident let me give you my perspective on all of this.

First of all, Russ is absolutely not the kind of guy to grandstand simply for the sake of positioning himself. He just isn't. That isn't to say he's not aware of the benefits such a stand might bring him but I can't imagine he would introduce something as serious as censure just to score political points. And, I don't think it's a bad thing that those political points would be scored either. I just don't, in my heart of hearts, think that that could possibly be Russ' primary motive in this. It's not his style.

Second, I believe he takes his responsibility as a Senator seriously. I suggested you write to Russ not to be a smart ass, but because every single time I write him he, (or more accurately, I assume, his office staff) writes back. I emailed him one line thanking him for his Patriot Act vote and I got a two page letter from his office explaining why he felt the way he did about the legislation. I've had the chance to meet him a few times and ask him questions and guess what? He listens. In only a few minutes he was able to explain his reasoning behind something I disagreed with and I came away with a new understanding of and respect for his reasoning. He's someone I trust even when I don't agree with him 100%.

Russ is known to be cautious and reasoned. Not one to enter into things wildly. I also get the feeling that his cautiousness has sometimes been what could be characterized as a fault by some of us liberals. Maybe he didn't build a coalition before going to the floor because he didn't want to be talked out of it before it began. Maybe he was just fed up and knowing what he knows about the NSA program couldn't sit there politely any more while our rights our stripped further away. I don't know. Ask him. I do know he has more often than not defended our rights passionately because defending our rights is the right thing to do. Because it's his job and he knows it. The point, I think, is more than positioning or results. It's about principle and standing up for us. It's about going on record and holding this administration accountable. I think bringing it up at all is in the end a victory for all of us regardless of what our party affiliation is. Maybe it was a mistake not to secure some support ahead of time. I don't know. I don't claim to be as politically savvy as a lot of people on this board. But I know what it's been like having Russ as my Senator and I believe he's been a great Senator and a leader in protecting our civil liberties.

I didn't mean to turn this into a long Russ love-fest. It's been amazing and invigorating to see people from across the country get to know a man we in Wisconsin have been lucky to know for years. But it's also been a little frustrating because where we've gotten to see him develop and get to know him over time it seems like only in the past few years he's become a blip on the national radar and only very recently a prominent (ish) figure. I hope he gets support from other Senators, and I hope my sleepy ramblings were a little bit helpful in showing how, (at least one), Wisconsin resident sees it. He's only human, but he's a good man and today he made me proud.

Alright. I'm havin' a beer and going to bed. Sorry for the long post. Goodnight.

[WildEyedLiberal]

124. Thanks for your informative post

I really appreciate your unique and personal perspective on Feingold. I know how you feel about him, because it's the same way I feel about John Kerry. I am not his constituent, but I have met him, and I felt much like you did when you met Russ - I felt appreciated, valued, and listened to. He really cares about the "common man." It is good to know that Feingold inspires such loyalty and trust in his constituents as well.

My only fear is that the censure has been poorly planned and will be a disaster as a result of the poor planning. I hope I am wrong, though. Thanks again for your post.

[jane_pippin]

132. It's a valid thing to worry about but

at the same time I think the larger disaster would have been to do nothing at all. Obviously I'm not a mind reader, but my best guess is that those concerns were taken into account and for whatever reason Russ felt he should still go forward with it. Maybe he felt there was enough public support behind him to make up for it. It could be anything. I'm just glad he did it at all and that there are so many people willing to back him up. (That's not to say people can't ask questions about it at the same time though).

Thanks for your response--I agree with you about Kerry, too. They seem to have a lot of similar qualities and I'm glad we've got both of them working for us.

[FrenchieCat]

120. Censure for Bush is being discussed in the media and on the Internet

and it wasn't before Sunday. So in my mind, I don't see it as anything but a good thing! So what if Feingold was also calculating his political fortunes at the same time?.....he is a politician after all...doh!

I don't see anything wrong with it....

Fillibusting Alito came and went....there was no public discussion that followed that might make a difference down the road. The Alito guy is sitting up there on our Supreme Court.

At least Bush is on notice, cause censure is now on the table.

I for one, I'm very glad of that.

Thank you Senator Feingold for doing the job that you were elected to do! force the executive's feet to the fire for a bit of "check and balance".

[yurbud]

127. A possible Democratic strategy here (not that I necessarily agree with it)

This has now happened so many times where a "lone wolf" goes out on a limb with the rest of the Dems keeping silent that it looks like a strategy--one guy lobs a grenade of truth, sees what happens, then jumps back in the trench. After a while a different guy (or gal) does it again, and so on. If the same person gets up every time, the other side will start to pay pretty close attention to him and cap him one after he pulls the pin and before he throws it.

I and most others here would prefer to see all Democrats standing shoulder to shoulder, locking arms and saying, "this far and no farther," but they might think that if they all stand together and the Republican Noise Machine and/or Karl's dirty tricks will inflict at least some casualties (maybe a lot)and there will be no one left to fight. So they do hit and run, like Chinese water torture. And gradually, the public gets it.

I don't know if that interpretation is correct, or even more plausible than the alternative, but it beats the hell out of thinking the Dems are half cowards, half corrupt, and all suffering from ADD.

[mattclearing]

131. I see the writer's point, but I will give Feingold this.

He deserves sole credit for this in the primaries, and I say let him stake his claim.

No co-sponsor would have gotten this thing passed, and he is likely the only member of the Senate willing to go to the mat for it, even if others would have signed on after the fact.

He deserves the credit for being right on the issue.

[savemefromdumbya]

133. probably 08 hopefuls dumped him?

[Mass]

134. No, he said he did not try.

[savemefromdumbya]

135. Gulp

[FogerRox]

140. Well Russ has put the ball squarely in the DEms court

Gee what will they do- punt?

[FogerRox]

144. DO you support censure? or criminal activity