OK - WTF is THIS? "Feingold said that although impeachment might not be

[blm]

"good for the country," a censure resolution was a reasonable way to say...."

DAMN IT. Comments like that DO minimize the case for impeachment. I'll support Feingold on censure, but this SECOND diss of impeachment PUBLICALLY is just wrongheaded. He's sending out mixed messages on impeachment whether he realizes it or not.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=408006

Even Democrats leery of Feingold resolution
Proposal to censure Bush met with criticism, questions
By CRAIG GILBERT
[e-mail]
Posted: Mar. 13, 2006

Talking to journalists in the Senate Press Gallery, Feingold said Bush's decision to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial warrants is in the "strike zone" of what the framers of the Constitution saw as "high crimes and misdemeanors" and is "clearly more serious than anything President Clinton was accused of doing."

Feingold added: "It is reminiscent of what President Nixon was not only accused of doing but was basically removed from office for doing."
Feingold said that although impeachment might not be "good for the country," a censure resolution was a "reasonable" way to say, "Look, the guy broke the law, we have to say something about that . . . and let's get back to work."
>>>>>>

[burythehatchet]

1. I agree with your sentiment

But one way to look at this is the amount of work that has to be done to try and save this country and form of government. If the Dems do win back the congress, I would be very happy if every ounce of strength that the Dems have goes towards solving problems. Bush is a lame duck now anyway, and the Repub congress is the source of most problems. The line of presidential succession would preclude any major purges of the executive branch.

[DrGonzoLives]

2. How are you going to get the House to vote for it?

Hmmmm? Last I checked, even if every Democrat in the House voted to bring articles of impeachment to the floor, they'd still lose.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

8. That's rude, JC. Is there a hidden logic then in the Senate vote numbers?

So, only people who support censure are logical and those of us who support impeachment and censure are illogical?

[JohnnyCougar]

11. I'm talking about the logic of supporting censure

Censure has a far better chance of passing than does impeachment right now. And it is less extreme. Once we get a majority, I'm sure Senator Feingold will support impeachment. He already said that impeachment relevant, and that censure is just the first step.

[blm]

13. Censure has the same chance of passing now that impeachment has.

So where's the exclusivity on logic that belongs to censure?

I support both - but, I'm not gonna publically DUMP on censure in an effort to promote impeachment in the press.

[JohnnyCougar]

I doubt this is true.

Russ is just taking things one step at a time. Once a censure is issued, then impeachment looks like an even more plausible option.

[blm]

16. The GOP senate will NOT censure Bush. Censure is a good idea

but no more realistic than impeachment is in the House.

Doesn't mean either should stop trying, and NO ONE should be offering censure as an ALTERNATIVE to impeachment.

[JohnnyCougar]

18. I think that moderate Repubs can be convinced to support censure

but certainly not impeachmeht.

And certainly not if the Dems don't get behind censure themselves.

[blm]

23. Moderate Repubs SHOULD have voted against Alito, too.

.

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. That's a really unnecessary thing to say

I know you're passionate about Feingold and what he's doing, and I can respect that, but blm's question of his word choice re: impeachment is completely legitimate. You don't need to be so hostile to everyone who posts a hard question about this. It's a legitimate issue that should be debated freely, and you can surely argue persuasively to support your view without resorting to attacking people.

[blm]

4. No different than censure numbers in the Senate. And it shouldn't

stop the congresspeople who have been gathering evidence for impeachment to be able to produce a case for the historic record, no matter what.

[DrGonzoLives]

7. I'm not arguing against censure

I support it, in fact, but it seems that some people think that impeachment has to happen NOW NOW NOW. It's useless to even start that process until we can gain the House, since it will just die before it grows.

[blm]

9. same can be said for proposing censure now before we retake the Senate.

The point is that Russ didn't HAVE to diss impeachment TWICE to explain his censure resolution.

[DrGonzoLives]

14. He did it to make himself look pragmatic

Apparently that's a bad thing if your name isn't John Kerry.

[blm]

17. Then say it's to make himself look pragmatic, but it still has the same

effect to minimize impeachment, even if he DIDN'T realize what he's doing.

[RufusEarl]

5. Yes, and that works for me!

I believe it pretty good politics myself, do the censure then see were it goes. Hell i agree Bu$h should be in prison but it's a start, we have to remember the repughs hold the majority and if censures all we can get i say take it.

That being said i don't think your going to get 51 votes in the senate, the Dem's for some reason don't want a fight. I can't understand it, Bu$h is at an all time low in approval i think they should jump and hang on.

[blm]

29. They know they start with 44 votes on ANYTHING.

And some of those agree with Bush.

[jsamuel]

6. "It is reminiscent of what President Nixon was not only accused of doing b

"It is reminiscent of what President Nixon was not only accused of doing but was basically removed from office for doing."

Don't get all excited, he is validating the case for impeachment right now. He just isn't hoo-rah'ing it like you might want him to. Who is? Conyers and only 29 other HOUSE members.

Plus, this allows us some time to win in 2006 and have enough votes to actually impeach in the house.

[chicofaraby]

10. Impeachment IS bad for the country.

He didn't say don't impeach. He said it's bad. He's right. It's a shame Bush turned out to be a criminal. Now the USA has a bad situation on our hands.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Bingo. It's bad, and it's Bush** who's putting us through it.

Ask your Senators the question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2512789&mesg_id=2512789

NGU.

[Sequoia]

15. I guess IMPEACHMENT is only for Presidents who have sex

[bpilgrim]

20. he is ECHOING what his colleagues are telling him

and he simply wanted to do SOMETHING but they won't even back censure.

it's a damn shame

peace

[blm]

22. No doubt....and there are smarter ways to get a movement going.

Some Dems just need to get together a bit more and appearances be damned - and I mean appearances to the left and the right.

[bpilgrim]

24. they have had 5 years under the WORST admin in history and they got JACK

our leaders are PATHETIC.

peace

[blm]

Truth is they'd be in better shape if we could expose GOPcontrol of

media - or wrest control of even 20% of the media.

[blm]

26. Truth is they'd be in better shape if we could expose GOPcontrol of

media - or wrest control of even 20% of the media.

[sandnsea]

21. Let's get back to work???

Wow, now that sounds like a whitewash to me. Slap his wrists and move on. If the purpose of this censure wasn't to open a full investigation, then I don't know what good it is at all.

[bpilgrim]

25. no one wants to work with him

damn shame, ain't it

peace

[blm]

27. Well, he shouldn't dump on those who WOULD GLADLY work with him, either.

Those are few and far between - I've seen it for a few decades already.

[sandnsea]

28. He wants to get back to work with Republicans

"The President has the right to his own cabinet and policies", that's Russ Feingold. Put together a piece of crap campaign finance package with McCain, when the Wellstone-Kerry legislation was sitting right there; that's Russ Feingold. Maverick or idiot??

And I liked Russ Feingold, he was my second choice for President in 2008. But after Roberts and this censure business, I don't know. Maybe there's a reason he's been divorced twice.

[mtnsnake]

30. If that's what his crusade is all about, then screw him and it, too

"Feingold said that although impeachment might not be "good for the country," a censure resolution was a "reasonable" way to say, "Look, the guy broke the law, we have to say something about that . . . and let's get back to work."

Just the idea that he had the fucking audacity to say "impeachment might not be good for the country" is alarming enough to make me wanna puke. :puke:

I don't think there's a Democrat in the country who wants to hear something like that. Crhist, and here we are only months away from possibly taking back the House and impeaching the fucker, only to hear that maybe it wouldn't be a good idea? :puke:

[LSK]

31. impeachment at this point would go down in flames

Impeachment talk should be for a year from now IFFFFF we win back Congress. A failed impeachment doesnt do anything. I dont think you can have 2 impeachment trials(not sure on this). A failed censure effort means that Dems are sending a message that they want to hold the President accountable.

[blm]

32. My point is he can call for censure WITHOUT dissing impeachment.

Some of us have been pushing impeachment since the Conyers hearings on Iraq last year.

[LSK]

33. quite frankly, Id rather he just didnt mention impeachment at this point

I'd love impeachment, but I'd want it to stick. It has no chance in hell right now. In a year from now, its a whole different ballgame (IF we win in Nov).

[blm]

34. That's what I'm saying - he doesn't have to diss impeachment to make a

case for censure.

[Renew Deal]

35. You're missing the point.

He can't get impeachment without investigation and the pukes are trying to shitcan the investigation. Feingold has done more to bring impeachment to the forefront than anyone so far.

[Solly Mack]

36. OK. This is a huge ass chapper that I could rant all day about

To allow a President - or any member of government - to get away with breaking laws and betraying the country under the bullshit excuse that it's not "good for the country" is beneath contempt.

In reality, that's one of America's biggest problems - that politicians have been allowed to get away with anything and everything because of the bullshit myth (LIE) that to impeach/jail a President - or any member of government - would somehow cause the world to go dark.

America's ONLY chance at this point is to impeach Bush & remove him from office - to try the entire regime for war crimes and crimes against America - and to imprison them for life.

Otherwise, the lies win. America, once again, allows the corrupt to walk free and one day in the future Americans will once again be asking themselves, "How did we come to this?"

Well, you know how.

I want impeachment brought to front and center - because I know he must be impeached to have a chance of trying him for his crimes.

I do not want any talk that in any way gives Bush and his suporters an "out" - and saying "not good for the country" is a bullshit talking point the GOP can and will embrace.

Let the GOP make that talking point - don't make it for them. Then you can ask the GOP "If impeachment isn't good for the country, then why did the GOP impeach Clinton?" and when they are forced to say they are wrong - tell them, "Impeaching for a blow job is wrong - but impeaching for breaking the law and violating the Constitution is not wrong"