Feingold Censure is Good for Democrats
14 March 2006 11:24 am by Taylor Marsh
Feingold Censure is Good for Democrats
If Donna Brazile
is on board, there's nothing left to say.
From RollCall
(sub. req.)…
The progressive blogosphere is on fire right now. Web
loggers are pumped up about the effort by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to censure
President Bush for breaking the law on domestic surveillance and taking matters
into his own hands….The message from the left-leaning blogosphere is clear:
Democrats should understand the real issue. The point is not censure or impeachment;
it is Congress’ lack of oversight and its failure to hold anyone accountable
for major mistakes or missteps. And especially, it’s about clearly misleading
the American public.(snip)
While the Feingold resolution is not going anywhere
given the full Republican control of Washington, D.C., a change in leadership
in the fall would make this a ripe item for conversation and action in 2007
and beyond. … …Oversight is a fundamental responsibility of Congress,
which until the Republicans took over was a coequal branch of government.
It’s long past time for the Republican Congress — and in particular
the House and Senate Intelligence committees — to stop protecting the
administration and start doing more to protect the American people.The 2006 political campaign season, which is under
way across America, will truly come down to a test of wills. If my party’s
leaders, whom I admire and respect, cannot figure out three things this electoral
season that the GOP will use as wedge issues to distract and divide —
Iraq, the war on terror and national security, and cultural issues like abortion
and same-sex marriage — then my party finally will have earned its minority
status.
ReddHedd talks about this today, on firedoglakes'
new digs.
If that's not enough, I offer the comments on The Moderate Voice, after Jeremy
Dibbell tried to tell the TMV community Feingold's censure motion was wrong
for now. They let him have it. Joe Gandelman offers something else.
In 1964 Republican Barry Goldwater's doomed Presidential
campaign was summed up by the phrase “I'd Rather Be Right Than President.”
(He got his wish). In 1972, the George McGovern wing of the Democratic party
proved it could take over the party's machinery but couldn't present its case
in a way that didn't backfire and give Richard Nixon a whopping re-election
victory. (McGovern was proven correct). Perhaps, in political terms, the difference
is between lecturing and convincing and winning-over. Joe
Gandelman
My blog friend Joe brings up good questions, but I would answer them by saying
we're in a much different time, post 9/11, post Iraq-missing WMD-Katrina-Dubai debacles.
That's why, across the spectrum, Republicans and Democrats want someone, anyone
to stand up to our president.
The Republicans have started a campaign, aided by the lazy press and the likes
of Joe Lieberman, who's been
censured by his own, to try to convince people that they're right and that
the censure motion is wrong.
The only “danger” to Democrats is not standing strong against Bush.
We must push back, start the dialogue. Let them know we're coming and not going
to use the tactics of the pre-2000 Democratic Party. That's the mistake Republicans
are making today. They think we're still the Democratic Party of the day before
blogs were born. Wake up and sense the revolution, baby.
And one more thing, does anyone actually believe Senator Russ Feingold thought
he'd get his censure motion through Bush's rubber stamp Republican controlled Senate?
Feingold offered his censure resolution because he was ready to lead a fight
that's long been needed. He knows that progressives are behind him and he was
willing to stand up and lead the battle against Bush's
imperial presidency, outcome be damned, because he knows the fight is righteous,
honorable and in the best interest of America.
…We're already hearing people saying that somehow
this censure resolution sends a terrible signal to the terrorists who want
to do us harm. I'll tell you what's a terrible signal. That we're so meek
in response to this terrorist threat that we're going to let the president
of the United States break the law of this nation and not do anything about
it. Now that's a victory for the terrorists.If we won't even stand up for our system of government
because everybody has to be afraid to mention that this president broke the
law. Passing a resolution to censure the president is a way to hold the president
accountable. The resolution of censure is a time honored means for the Congress
to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of
the executive branch's conduct. It is different than passing a law to make
clear certain conduct is impermissible or cut off funding for certain activities.
He should be censured.The Founders anticipated abuses of executive power
by creating a balance of powers of the Constitution. Supporting and defending
the Constitution, as we have taken an oath to do, requires us to preserve
that balance and to have the will to act. We must meet a serious transgression
by the president with a serious response. We must work as The Founders urged
in Federalist 51 to control the abuses of government. Mr. President, the Constitution
looks to the Congress to balance power. The American people look to us to
take action, to speak out with one clear voice against wrong doing by the
president of the United States. To conclude, in our system of government no
one, not even the president, is above the law. …
Republicans are floating the “Democrats lose” meme because they have
nowhere else to go. It's their only argument. They have no ideas. Worse yet,
they have no coherent defense of the president, because they all know what George
W. Bush did was wrong, that he broke the law.
Democrats, however, led by Russ Feingold, are leading a charge forward, with
Americans knowing all about President Bush's list of incompetence, which they see played out every day. Don't look now,
but Democrats have already won.
