Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Blowing in the Censure Wind

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal. FROST: By definition. NIXON: Exactly. Exactly

With that Presidential Infallibility premise firmly
embraced by the independent Republican mavericks, we are presented with the
Terrorist Surveillance Act. This is what it does:

It expressly empowers the President, in Section 2(a),
to “authorize a program of electronic surveillance without a court order
for periods of up to 45 days.” The President can simply renew the program
every 45 days by certifying that renewal of the program is appropriate (Section
4(b)(2)). Contrary to initial press reports and to this morning's article
in The Washington Post, the newly created Intelligence Subcommittee (at least
as I read the bill – see below) has no power to approve or reject any warrantless
eavesdropping programs. Its only purpose is to be briefed periodically on
the eavesdropping activities undertaken as part of the program.

In sum, the bill authorizes and makes legal precisely
the illegal conduct in which the Administration has been continuously engaging
since September or October of 2001. The Administration claims that it reviews
its warrantless eavesdropping every 45 days, so that's precisely what the
bill authorizes. Or, as Richard Nixon says: “when the president does
it that means that it is not illegal.”

The
new Nixon Law is introduced
— Glenn Greenwald

Meanwhile, Russ Feingold is twisting in the censure breeze.

E.J. Dionne asks an important question today: Can
Democrats Play This Game?

The answer so far is a blood curdling NO.

For me, it's about accountability, period. Over at TMV,
Joe Gandelman offers an instructive dialogue in which I'm included, while providing the BullMoose
for evidence that it's counter productive to bring up censure when the president
and the Republicans are killing themselves slowly. Why step on the port deal
debacle with a censure resolution? BullMoose is incorrect, but he goes horribly
wrong in his efforts to lump the “left” all together.

There are two groups that wish to advance the Feingold
censure resolution – the right and the left. The left loathes President Bush
and they view him as an illegitimate lawbreaker who must be removed from office.
Censure today, impeachment tomorrow. – BullMoose

This is what it's come to? You're either jockeying for position regardless
of principle, or you hate Bush so much you want him impeached. Holding the president
accountable for breaking the law just isn't the point, right? Wrong. Censure
is a measure that holds the president accountable, without doing what BullMoose
and all the other bellyachers are claiming those of us supporting Feingold want
to do, which is to over-reach and rescue a beleaguered president, to paraphrase
BM.

Censure still leaves Bush and the rubber stamp Republicans hanging. Chris
Bowers offers an analysis of the latest
censure polls.

As I said before, I'm not interested in impeachment at all, not one whit. What
I am interested in is ACCOUNTABILITY, along with real proof that the Democrats
can stand up and make a fight, regardless of what it looks like. If you're reading
the comments in blogs across the Democratic and progressive blogosphere, you will get
a sense of real disappointment at Senate Democrats, along with a deep bemoaning of the
lack of support for Feingold. There is condemnation from blog communities because
Democrats won't make the fight. This Paul Hackett video, compliments of C&L, gets the point across
perfectly.

Josh Marshall's post on the subject speaks for me, but make sure you read the whole thing.

… … But I think the bigger problem for Dems is
not the things they do but the very public hand-wringing and navel-gazing
about how people might react to the things they do.

That doesn't look good. And it doesn't look good because
it really isn't good.

President Bush really does deserve to be held accountable
for breaking the law and then even more for claiming after the fact that the
law actually doesn't apply to him. In constitutional terms, that bogus claim
is a very big deal. So 'censure' him. Or don't censure him. But most of all
don't get all bent out of shape or whiny about whether it might make some
Bush supporter unhappy or might prompt some scold on the WaPo oped page to
say tut-tut. …

Josh
Marshall

Dionne's
point is laser focused on the political gulf between activists and the
politicians who have the power, whether they deserve it or not.

But Democrats, unlike Republicans, have
yet to develop a healthy relationship between activists willing to test and
expand the conventional limits on political debate and the politicians who
have to calculate what works in creating an electoral majority.

For two decades, Republicans have used their idealists,
their ideologues and their loudmouths to push the boundaries of discussion
to the right. In the best of all worlds, Feingold's strong stand would redefine
what's “moderate” and make clear that those challenging the legality
of the wiretapping are neither extreme nor soft on terrorism.

The activists speak from the heart. Politicians today only speak from self-interest,
looking forward as far as they can see, which is the next election. You can't
reconcile the two, you simply can't, because Democrats keep losing and fear
of more losses fuels their timidity. The irony is that this is why Democrats
keep losing. They keep worrying about what they look like when they're delivering
their lines, instead of just delivering their lines because they mean them.

It's authenticity, baby. Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Take your lumps
if you're wrong, but stand up for something. It doesn't even matter if the words
are calculated if the political actor can deliver them with heart. Bungling encouraged, as it offers a note of faux authenticity, mixed with he's one of us for good measure. Bush and the rubber stamp Republicans have done it for years. It's sad, but
oh, so true.

Censure is right because George W. Bush broke the law. If we lose on it, we
lose, but we go down making the fight. That's what Americans want to see from
Democrats. They want to see us make a fight for something that illustrates on
what ground we stand. In lieu of that, we will not only lose elections, but
rightly never win back the privilege to lead.

No tags for this post.