Reply #26: That's all it ever was: [View All]

[ProSense]

a gesture. I have no problem with that. But a gesture needed to be coordinated to show strength and unity, not be framed as the end all and then masked as significantly punitive. Unity? Instead of accepting that some Senators will support the measure that is purely a gesture, the goal became demeaning Democrats who have worked long and hard to uphold Democratic values: Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy, not one was spared. The disingenuous part of it is that last week they were screaming (again, because Clooney blogged at Huffington) about the Democrats who voted for the IWR, but Harkin is now a champion. I hope it's still clear that he has always been a champion after this issue goes away.

There is so much disinformation being spread, how can we ensure that our voices are heard over the noise? It's intentional, these people are not stupid. They know censure was offered as alternative to impeachment for Clinton. They know that the current censure proposal is symbolic, and by that I don't mean censure (which would require all Democrats and some Republicans to vote for it), I mean the attempted censure. Getting Republicans on record as having voted against this will have little meaning if the investigations don't go forward. Screaming for Senators to issue public statements in support of this, when it's being framed as an alternative to impeachment (regardless of whether impeachment moves forward) is ridiculous. They can vote for censure at minimum without committing to the intent that this is the end all---that it's bad for the country to remove Bush during a time of war.

Was it necessary that every Senator issue a public statement in support of the DSM letter? No, they just needed to sign it.