The Democrats: Missing in Action

[CrisisPapers]

| Ernest Partridge |

Watching the Democrats, one would think that they never gave up believing in Santa Claus.

Like little kids in December, they seem to believe that just by being nice, Santa will deliver the gifts: election victories and control of the Congress.

The Republicans know better. They analyze, they scheme, they think things through, they act aggressively and ruthlessly, and thus they win.

Unfortunately, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And opportunities aplenty are coming their way which, for the most part, they simply ignore. For example, when one of their number, Senator Russ Feingold, speaks up with a loud and eloquent voice, he is told to shut up. Demanding censure of the outlaw President, he is told by his own party, is "not nice."

One begins to wonder if the Democratic Party really wants to win in November. If they keep on behaving as they have, and if conditions remain essentially as they are now, they won't win. The Republicans will have a lock on that election... provided conditions remain essentially as they are now.

Now the good news: it is virtually certain that conditions will not remain essentially as they are now. Beneath the placid surface of our body-politic, stresses are accumulating that could result in a seismic political rupture. (I've listed these "stresses" in my "Perception is Reality" and so will not repeat them here). More conspicuously: Bush, Cheney and their war are becoming ever-more unpopular, public trust in Bush's competence and his honesty is likewise eroding, the mainstream media is beginning to desert Bush and his administration as the media continues to lose its credibility with the public. Still more moderate Republicans, libertarians and evangelical Christians are abandoning Bushism. Following John Dean, Kevin Phillips, "Pete" Peterson and John Eisenhower in 2004, now its Bruce Bartlett, Francis Fukuyama, Larry Wilkerson, and Paul Pillar. Even Chris Matthews, who once compared Bush with Henry V and Winston Churchill, has had it with Bush's and Cheney's lies. To Don Imus, he said just last week:

"From the beginning everything about how they've got WMD's, they are a threat to us, they are going to bomb us with a nuclear weapon, this country is going to be an easy liberate, it's going to be a cake walk. As Cheney said as recently as ten months ago the insurgents are in their last throes. Everything that is said is not true... They don't want the whole truth out and that's the fact."

Whether or not the Democrats will wake up and seize the offensive in the upcoming election campaign remains to be seen. But of this we can be confident: the Democrats must venture forth and seize their victory. Santa will not bring it to them just for being passively "nice."

A Descent Into Despotism

Critics who use "the F-word" (fascism) to describe the Bush regime are denounced as "shrill" and "irresponsible." Are they? Consider this: when Bush signs bills from the Congress forbidding torture and warrantless surveillance, he issues "signing statements" which states that he is free to ignore these laws when, at his discretion, he chooses to do so. And now this: "Last month ... President Bush signed into law a bill that never passed the house." In effect, this demotes the Congress of the United States from a law-making to an "advisory" body. Add to that the fact that Bush and his party are "elected" with privately owned and operated, unverifiable "black box" voting machines and compilers, conveniently provided by GOP partisans. So it comes to this: rule by decree by a "leader" who has placed himself above the law and beyond recall by the voters. If this does not define a "dictatorship," I don't know what does.

Meanwhile, the Congress, the courts, the media, and public acquiesce in silence.

We've not fully descended to totalitarianism. Dissent, however muted, is still tolerated. (But don't you dare protest within sight or earshot of "Our Leader"). Those of us who continue to criticize the regime have not yet been charged with "thought-crime," and sent to "re-education camps." Not yet.

So the task before us is not to protect our democracy; it's too late for that. Our task is to restore our democracy, to re-institute the government we once had, "deriving just powers from the consent of the governed."

Election Fraud: "The Dragon at the Gate"

If the Democrats are to capture at least one house of Congress in November and if, as a result, the American people begin to take back their own country, the party must first of all slay the dragon at the gate: election fraud. For, as anyone who dares face and study the evidence must appreciate, because GOP partisans build the unauditable machines, write the secret software, and count 80% of the votes, "the people's will" at elections is essentially irrelevant. The election results are simply what the GOP wants them to be, as they were in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and as they will be again in 2006 – provided conditions remain essentially as they are now.

Accordingly, the restored integrity of the ballot is the sine qua non of the overthrow of the Republican autocracy in November.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, those "useful idiots," steadfastly refuse even to recognize that there is a problem with the voting machines and vote compilations.

Nevertheless, the electronic voting scam is beginning to unravel, thanks to the determined efforts of a few dedicated individuals, an uncensored internet, and ad hoc citizen organizations along with all too few maverick politicians (notably John Conyers and Russ Holt), and despite the determined indifference of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media.

More and more e-voting outrages, failures, and statistical impossibilities are coming to light, and even breaking through in the media (most recently in Ohio, Texas, Chicago, and California, and the public is beginning to take notice. This awareness accomplished some significant victories, notably in New Mexico and Maryland, where "black box voting" has been abolished by state law. If this trend continues, and if a few available albeit unused modes of verification are put in play, it is just possible that November's election with be sufficiently (if not totally) honest to put an opposition party in control of at least one, and possibly both, houses of Congress. Then a balance of powers will be restored and the investigations, with subpoena powers and threat of perjury and contempt of Congress in play, may begin to probe the corruption and abuses of power of the Bush regime.

So, once again, opportunity knocks at the door of the Democratic Party. But if the Party persists, with the cooperation of the corporate media, in ignoring this opportunity, then that Party is once again likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Three Roads Diverge...

How will all this play out? I wouldn't be so bold as to make a prediction. But we might speculate about some alternative futures, so that we might prepare ourselves accordingly.

Worst case – "The 'Z' Scenario"

Final descent into totalitarianism. In Costas Gravas' 1968 film, Z, a popular movement is on the verge of overthrowing an autocratic regime. Then the leader of the opposition is murdered, and the ruling junta immediately imposes martial law and dictatorship. Could that happen here? As opposition to the Bush regime grows, as evidence of corruption and election fraud becomes widely known, this could lead to a crackdown on dissent, and a roundup and imprisonment of dissenters. Another terrorist "Pearl Harbor" could be the catalyst. Or possibly a new "pre-emptive" war with Iran.

A step too far – Cf. Russia, August, 1991. Is there a limit to how much abuse "the establishment" (the military, Wall Street, the media, the CIA, the courts, the federal bureaucracy, even the churches), the Democratic Party, and the public at large will tolerate? Is there a point when these institutions turn around, dig in their heels, and say "no more?" These institutions, along with the public, have the means to bring down the Bushevik regime. There are historical precedents:

When in Russia, the Communist Party attempted "the 'Z' scenario," the people and the military would have none of it. The people resisted, the Army refused to fire on the citizens, and the coup failed, and that was the end of the seventy years of Communist rule and the Soviet Union.

And when the extent of Richard Nixon's villainy was exposed by the media, the courts required him to surrender his evidence, and at last his Republican Party deserted him.

The CIA has been demeaned by the Bushista excuse that the Bush Administration was "misled by bad intelligence." Furthermore, the Administration exposed a CIA case officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, in an act of political retaliation, at the cost of compromising a vitally important counter-terrorism operation and possibly the lives of several agents. A top-down revolt at Langley is highly unlikely, given the fact that the top offices have been given to Bush loyalists. But that is not necessary. "Further down," intelligence strategically leaked, and blackmail strategically applied, could have devastating consequences for Bush, Inc.

As for Wall Street (the financial establishment), how much longer can they fail to appreciate that by supporting Bushenomics, they are scuttling the ship they are riding on – that they will not escape the coming Bush economic catastrophe?

Then there's the military. What if Bush attempts to launch an attack on Iran in a desperate attempt to salvage a GOP win in November, and thus prevent those Democratic Congressional subpoenas and investigations? Will the military, having been ordered to fight and die in a meaningless and dishonorable war in Iraq, finally refuse?

I imagine the following scene in the Oval Office, as Bush orders the strike:

"Mr. President," says the General, "our boys will go if they can follow you into Iran. So put on your flyboy suit, climb into the cockpit, and do your wild-blue-yonder thing, just like that President-Dude in 'Independence Day."

"But you know I can't do that! I'll crash and burn!"

"The thought has crossed our minds."

The "step too far" may have desirable consequences, most significantly a restoration of our democracy. But it could be cruel and bloody, and the "winners," the CIA or the military, just might not share our loyalty to democratic ideals. We could end up trading one autocracy for another. Just consider what followed the Russian counter-revolution of 1991.

Best case – A Velvet Revolution, November, 2006

This is the outcome that we should work toward. Due to constant pressure from law suits, the progressive Internet, citizen organizations, and the demands of ordinary citizens, the Democratic Party finally wakes up and actively demands action on voting fraud. The issue becomes too big for the mainstream media to ignore. While e-voting is not banished all at once, it is barred from enough key races that the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress. The e-voting fraud is finally exposed and then, following Congressional investigation, exposure and legislation, all unverifiable voting methods are outlawed.

Public repudiation of the mainstream media becomes so widespread that the media conglomerates face the choice: responsible journalism or bankruptcy. Congressional investigation exposes the political corruption of the mass media. In 2008, a Democratic administration initiates anti-trust action against the media conglomerates which are then broken up, and the FCC institutes and enforces regulations against market concentration.

The new Congress cuts funding for military operations and for base construction in Iraq. Chairman Henry Waxman of the Government Reform Committee convenes hearings on corruption in government contracts in Iraq and military procurement. These are followed by criminal indictments and convictions of numerous members of the Bush/Cheney Administration.

The House of Representatives votes bills of Impeachment against both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Conviction by the Senate fails when the Republican Minority votes in a block. However, the political power of the Bush Administration is effectively ended. In the 2008 election, the Republicans in Congress pay a heavy price for their support of Bush and Cheney.

In 2009, the new Democratic president repudiates the doctrine of pre-emptive war and the precepts of "The Project of the New American Century." He then takes active steps to repair international alliances, and to restore the reputation of the United States in the World community.

And what about the Democratic Party?

I began this essay with a condemnation of the Party, and yet end with the hope that the same Party will act aggressively to regain power, and responsibly as they apply that power. How is it possible for the same Party to be impotent and irresponsible now, and aggressive and responsible in the near future?

Answer: it must not be the same party.

Today, many life-long Democrats are justifiably disgusted with their Party. I am one of them. The Party today is "Republican Lite," staffed with comfortable DC regulars, many of whom are accomplices (if only through their passivity) to the corruption in Washington.

This disillusionment with the Party has led many progressives to leave and join the Green Party, and other minor parties. One result was the loss of Florida in 2000 and the "selection" of George W. Bush.

So this is my advice to the disaffected Democrats: don't abandon the Party, take it over. This is what the Religious Right did to the Republicans. Had they instead formed a minor party, they would have been insignificant, and the United States would now be a very different, and much better, country. On the other hand, a major party that is "taken over" by its grass roots, will have an organizational structure, an institutional memory, and financial resources – essential assets that are hopelessly out of reach of minor parties.

If you hate what the Democratic Party has become, I'm with you. Together we can make it a party that we can be proud of and support with enthusiasm. And also, a party that can win – as it must.

-- EP

[Dr.Phool]

1. You've just said a whole lot of what I've been thinking.

I see my state party undermining good, electable candidates, in favor of "establishment" picks. Local parties that are supposed to be neutral before primaries throwing clandestine support to the insider pick, even though they're lousy candidates, and pretty much unelectable.

I've been pulling my hair out watching the ineptitude, as they keep trying things that have failed for 20 years. Isn't that the definition of insanity? To keep trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

[KoKo]

2. Excellent article....nothing to disagree with there...but

we don't have enough time to take back a party that doesn't want to be taken back before the mid-terms.

Working locally it's been as hard to wake up our own Dems to the dangers...forgetting the Republicans. Our Democrats have had since 1994 to make changes. But, look at what they did during the Clinton years. They allowed their own two term President to be brought up for Impeachment after allowing a Right Wing Repug Media to THRIVE during those years. And, in 1996 the Clinton Signed Telecommunications act sealed our fate. This was done with Dem participation.

The 2000 Elections was stolen in Florida with the brother of the Candidate in charge. The Supreme Court then intervened and sealed our fate. Jeffords switched parties and gave us a Majority of One in the Senate but Daschle threw it away allowing Bush to have every appointment he wanted.

On and on it goes. And, fighting our own Democrats along with the Repugs is so overwhelming on the local level...that I can tell you many of us are completely disgusted, loosing faith and hope.

Here in NC a small group of dedicated people managed to get one of the toughest Voter Verified Paper Ballot Bills in the Country through the House and Senate. We have a Democratic governor and the Democrats control both the State House and Senate. Those who worked on getting the DRE Machines out and oversight and random audits of our elections, in...were dogged every step of the way by Party insiders who didn't give a damn. If it wasn't for one dedicated Dem State Senator we couldn't have gotten that bill through. And, Diebold hired a former Dem House Rep to LOBBY AGAINST the reformers! The Governor did nothing..but discourage efforts. THIS is what our Democratic Party has become. And, it's turned off people seeing this who put their heart and souls into working for the ABB Candidate Kerry...who did nothing to help us and his Vice President who was our State Senator who left us in the dust and has never spoken out here in the state about Election Fraud.

I'm thoroughly disgusted...and I find it difficult to talk up our Party and I'm a Precinct Delegate after being a Precinct Vice-Chair during Selection '04. We have activists here who can't even get Dems to come to meetings to organize their Precincts. Calling and walking the streets doesn't work. Our Dems are afraid they will lose business if they acknowlege they are Dems because our Party is really DINO and the Repugs and Christian Fundies run everything. Better to pretend you are a Repug and lie low...they seem to think.

Howard Dean sees this and has given money to grassroots and indeed we are better organized. But, we can't get new blood in and our tiny group is flagging...the ones who are needed to get the VOTE OUT... We need fresh troops and the only way to energize people is to have our DEMS IN DC START SPEAKING OUT WITH ONE VOICE!!! The Dem on the Street in NC doesn't know who John Conyers, Henry Waxman and Russ Feingold are. It's time the Liebermans and the Lazy ones got off their butts and start standing up for Principle...because we just aren't going to be able to get our Dems out to vote. That's my fear.... If no one shows up we aren't going anywere..

[EST]

3. Well said (again)

The actual result will probably fall somewhere in the middle. Even assuming a change in governing line ups, the republican "we are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility" will join up with the vichy democrats (all is forgiven, don't rock the boat, no point in prosecuting the criminal ring leaders-it will destroy the country) and the slide into fascism will continue, albeit at a slower, less public, pace.
The refusal to recognize the problem of vote fraud and the unwillingness to join "shrill" democrats in condemning the process and demanding investigations and indictments has put an indelible stamp on nearly all so-called leaders. On the remote chance my vote can be counted accurately, I can assure these empty suits they will NOT have my support, even if they decide to pull their Johnny-come-lately act and rejoin the action.

At the risk of heaping hot coals on my head, when something as fundamentally critical as GOP controlled voting is ignored by the Kerrys and Clintons of the country, their high profile has a smothering effect on other leaders, effectively muzzling them because they will get no attention or publicity.

I am and will continue to do what I can to bring about an ethical sea change in this party, driven by the fear of too little, too late.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[glitch]

5. You're an admin here now? COOL, and Welcome!

Brilliant article, as usual.

[EarlG]

6. I should clarify

Ernest Partridge and Bernard Weiner aren't Admins at DU, but the "CrisisPapers" posts currently have an Admin icon next to them because I'm publishing their articles here (in conjunction with the Crisis Papers) - the account is set to Admin status because we've moved the Crisis Papers articles into Journal format and I needed to perform some testing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Gerardo]

8. The Democrats haven't fielded a candidate since

Jimmy Carter. Clinton was never accepted as a "real" democrat by his own party. That means that Carter was the last Dem president, almost thirty years ago. I have all but given up on the current crop of Dems. They are not only afraid of their own shadows, they take people like Feingold aside and tell him he should be afraid of his too, or else.

[blm]

14. That's odd, since Carter was even more conservative than Clinton as a

candidate. He even hosted an event for Lt. Calley to distance himself from Vietnam war protestors.

Many people make the mistake of believing that Jimmy Carter post-presidency was the same man who ran for president. Both Gore and Kerry, especially Kerry, were far more liberal candidates than Carter.

[JudyM]

18. Welcome to DU, Gerardo!

:hi:

[glitch]

9. Oh well, a du crisispapers journal is cool too. Thanks for clarifying. nt

[kimpossible]

7. Don't leave - take over!

Well said, and a point that I've tried to make to more than a few fed-up activists over the past few months. Keep pushing it!

[yurbud]

10. kick and rec--but I only counted two ways?

[The Wizard]

16. The Zeitgeist

Here's something I wrote on Sunday and posted on a message board and a local blog. I also posted it in another forum regarding gay marriage. It must be in the air.
The Rove (Goebbels/Machiavelli) strategy to divide people is the
reason behind banning people from coming together. The questions are:
Why is it the government's policy to intrude into personal business?
Who decided to make this an issue? Who benefits by dividing Americans
over the trivial?
The enemy must be identified, vilified and crushed. We must
demonstrate to all Americans that liberty's foes appeal to our worst
fears and lowest instincts. We're stronger united than we are divided.
Under the leadership of anti-Americans living standards for the vast
majority have fallen. It's the wealthy cynical bigots who benefit from
our division. The common ground that benefits most Americans needs to
be shouted from the roof tops. Let's work on that common ground. With
the media in the pocket of our foes, a grass roots effort might be the
only recourse. It means getting out in the street and knocking on
doors in every state, county and precinct. It means getting out in the
street and letting the leadership know that a united majority will
overcome fascism. Fascism without the brown shirts and jack boots is
still fascism. The enemies of liberty and democracy must be painted
with that brush because they are the ones who hate us for our
freedoms. Our enemies are well disciplined at staying on message and
keeping it simple, be it truthful or not. If anyone's marriage is
threatened by what goes on in other people's private lives, then that
marriage has deeply rooted problems unrelated to the propaganda.
Here's a message. The Republican party leadership exploits people's
worst fears and lowest instincts rooted in cynical bigotry designed to
weaken the will of the majority for the benefit of their wealthy
backers. Hatred is not a family value, and fanning the flames of
hatred is anti-American. Secret government and state run media are
what caused the Soviet Union's demise. We are better than that. Can
anyone cite one good thing the current political leadership has done
to benefit most Americans? They can only extinguish the flame of the
Enlightenment if we let them. If the Age of Reason falls prey to
creeping darkness it will be because we didn't fight hard enough for
the ideals ingrained in us as Americans.

PS: The Democratic leadership leaves much to be desired. In fact, the term Democratic leadership borders on oxymoron, excepting Howard Dean and a handful of others. When the Democratic Party finds the common ground we can all support and understand, the voters will follow. Keep it simple and hammer it like a flat head nail.
PPS: Dick Cheney is the Anti-Christ.
:kick:

[ProSense]

11. I don't agree.

This is spin to make the Democrats look bad.

Unfortunately, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And opportunities aplenty are coming their way which, for the most part, they simply ignore. For example, when one of their number, Senator Russ Feingold, speaks up with a loud and eloquent voice, he is told to shut up. Demanding censure of the outlaw President, he is told by his own party, is "not nice."

Censure an outlaw President? It's a resolution asking for a potential war criminal (even though the most we can expect is impeachment) to say he was wrong, apologize and move on. It's a symbolic gesture because Republicans will not vote for it and without Republican support, the censure fails---Bush is not censured.

Also, abandoning Bush? Welcome to fu_king reality. What took them so long? The Democrats were never WITH Bush. Even some whose votes sided with Bush's interests (bankruptcy bill, Roberts confirmation, etc.) were never WITH bush.


Here's some stuff still outstanding to fight for (sign the DSM letter):

11/01/2005

Statement by John Kerry on Closed-Door Senate Session and Senate Failures to Investigate Pre-War Intelligence

“For a year and a half, the Republican leadership in Congress has refused again and again to complete Phase II of their investigation into pre-war intelligence failures. All the requests I and other Senators have made of the Intelligence Committee for more information have been pushed aside. The Republican leadership has been complicit in a political cover-up of the decisions that led to war. Nothing could be more serious or more deserving of full public disclosure. The families of our troops deserve the truth, as does every American. Now that one of the chief architects of the war in Iraq has been indicted for related crimes, it is more important than ever to know how intelligence was presented to the Congress.

“The country and the Congress were misled into war. It is deeply troubling that the Republicans in Washington are so afraid to share the truth with the American people. Clearly it will require an independent, outside investigation to get to the bottom of this.”


Click here for Kerry's June 2005 letter to the Intelligence Committee on Phase II of the investigation into pre-war intelligence.


http://www.kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/pdf/SSCI_Letter_Downing_Street.pdf">Click here for Chairman Roberts' response.

Kerry on campaign finance reform (fight for Kerry's version of clean money reform, or at least fight for McCain-Feingold, which McCain is violating at every turn and trying to destroy):

I realize that a lot of my colleagues aren’t ready to embrace public funding as a way to finance our campaigns. But it is, in my opinion, the best constitutional means to the important end of limiting campaign spending and the contributions that go with it. Ultimately, I would support a system that provides full public funding for political candidates. I will continue to support Clean Money as the ultimate way to truly and completely purge our system of the negative influence of corporate money. I would also support a partial public funding system as a way to wean candidates from their reliance on hard money and get them used to campaigning under generous spending limits. I offered an amendment to McCain/Feingold that would have provided sweeping reform in the form of a partial public funding system, but I recognize that we are a long way away from enacting such a program. Nevertheless I will continue to support and work for that type of reform as a way to end the cycle of unlimited money being raised and spent on our elections.

Mr. President, this bill is a way to break free from the status quo. However, as with any reform measure, there are always going to be possibilities for abuse. The fact that some people will try to skirt the law is not a reason for us to fail to take this incremental movement towards repairing the system. But, it does mean we must ensure that this the first, rather than the last, step for fundamental reform. I have supported campaign finance reform for eighteen years and I believe that even legislation that takes only a small step forward is necessary to begin to restore the dwindling faith the average American has in our political system. We can’t go on leaving our citizens with the impression that the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. I believe this bill reduces the power of the checkbook and I will therefore support it.

Get rid of this kook:

Kerry Renews Call for Rumsfeld to Resign
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: August 25, 2004

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Wednesday renewed his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign and urged President Bush to appoint an independent investigation to provide reforms after a report faulted all levels of the military for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

"It's not just the little person at the bottom who ought to pay the price of responsibility," Kerry said at a Philadelphia union hall. "The buck doesn't stop at the Pentagon."

A report released Tuesday by an independent panel led by former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger concluded that senior U.S. military leaders in Iraq and the Pentagon can be faulted for inattention to prisoner abuses, but it did not recommend that Rumsfeld stop down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/politics/campaign/25wire-kerry.html?ex=1251172800&en=a666cbaba8cbe651&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Other stuff: Kerry also voted against Gale Norton's confirmation and with good reason.

From the Office of Senator Kerry

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO BUSH ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO EXERT POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON KLAMATH BASIN DECISION

Decision comes in response to request by Senator John Kerry

Friday, September 5, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to a request by Senator John Kerry that it investigate whether the Bush Administration exerted political influence over its management of the Klamath River Basin, the Inspector General of the Department of Interior has announced that it has launched an investigation into the matter.

“The Bush Administration has acted as if federal agencies like the Interior Department are a division of the Republican National Committee and at their disposal to give out political favors. The Klamath decision was but one more example of politics dictating policy in the Bush Administration,” said Kerry. “The Klamath decision should have been based on law and science and not a political operative’s agenda, polls, and campaign priorities.”

A July 30, 2003, Wall Street Journal article detailed the involvement of White House political strategist Karl Rove in the dispute over water management issues in the Klamath River Basin, which stretches from Southern Oregon to the Northern coast of California. Rove apparently began his efforts with a presentation to Interior Department officials connecting regulatory actions – including the Klamath issue – to Republican prospects in the coming elections. Based on these reports, it appears that Rove sought to influence Department of Interior decision-making processes by injecting political considerations into what should have been questions of science and law.

In a letter to Kerry, the Office of Inspector General stated that it will investigate:

1. What would be the normal regulatory process in a matter such as this, assuming that this was an Administrative Procedures Act-governed regulatory matter.

2. What actually did happen in the administrative process in the Klamath Basin matter.

3. How the Klamath Basin matter deviated from the norm (if at all) with special attention being paid to:

a. The science b. Any suppressed information c. Any evidence of political interference

“The agreement by the Interior Department’s Inspector General to investigate this matter to see if political pressure from the White House intimidated staff and influenced policy is a positive development and the appropriate first step. I anxiously await their decision,” Kerry concluded.

-- 30 --

Bush crony Gail Norton resigned, possibly related to Abramoff.


There are numerous examples of the same from Kerry (Alito filibuster, etc.), and a lot of other Democrats (many in the house like Louis Slaughter) have done excellent work.


So, I don't agree.

[lonestarnot]

12. I do agree.

They are not doing bad work, they are just diluted or something. I haven't figured it out yet.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. bear in mind

Partridge sincerely believes that anyone who has the courage to look at the evidence realizes that the "election results are simply what the GOP wants them to be." That (and the fact that the Dems don't talk as if they agree with him) would tend to color his judgment on a lot of other stuff.

Of course, I don't agree with him, on that or lots of other stuff. But he certainly is a spirited writer.

[blm]

13. For balance - Russ Feingold said it's NOT NICE to IMPEACH Bush in wartime.

And it's darn few Dem senators who spoke against censure, while many more welcomed censure debate to force NSA documents to be turned over for investigation.

Funny how the media AND left bloggers manage to miss those crucial points in their haste to use censure as another divisive issue that really isn't.

Feingold said on Ed Schultz right after he spoke of censure that he was PLEASED it was in committee to extend debate and investigation. It was the GOPs who wanted quick vote to eliminate debate and block further investigation. Odd that so many left bloggers and media sided with the GOPs in wanting senators to declare right away.

There are also those of us who, though FOR censure, say Feingold's version of censure is mild and that he is wrong to SELL it to the press as an alternative to impeachment that has been gathering strength in congress and just as the American people are waking up to Bush's criminality. But, then, many seem to post before they actually COMPREHEND what's been said.


"... and hopefully the president
would acknowledge it and say that he maybe went too far, and we would
be able to move forward and stop worrying about this and get a pledge
from the president that he's going to come within the law or make
proposals to change the law to allow it."



Senator Russ Feingold Holds a News Conference
On His Resolution To Censure President Bush

March 16, 2006
TRANSCRIPT

NEWS CONFERENCE

U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)
WASHINGTON, D.C.

SPEAKER: U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)


Snip...

QUESTION: Senator, this resolution, if it were passed, would
have no legal effect.

FEINGOLD: No.

QUESTION: So the only thing that would affect the NSA program,
if it's illegal, is to cut off the funding? You don't support that,
do you?

FEINGOLD: Well, there are several things that could affect the
program. First of all, one would hope, if this passes, that the
president would acknowledge what Congress has said and would bring the
program within FISA, which is what he should do.

Another approach, of course, is the legal system, is hoping that
we could get some kind of a court order and a response in the legal
system ordering the president to come within the law.

So I don't think that necessarily the idea of cutting off funding
-- even cutting off funding, how are you going to enforce that? If
the president has inherent power, he'll just shift some money around.
He'll just keep doing it. I mean, that's the problem with this
doctrine. If the president isn't going to acknowledge that a law we
passed, such as FISA, binds him, why should the cutting off of funding
affect him?

QUESTION: Senator, for those who are your critics who would
liken this or they talk about your central resolution in the same
breath that they talk about impeachment, and just say this is nothing
but one step ahead of impeachment. How do you counter that,
especially when they're using it as a weapon before the midterms to
say: The Democrats get in power, you're going to see impeachment.

FEINGOLD: Clearly, I chose to pursue censure rather than
impeachment, certainly at this point, because I believe at this point
it's a way to help us positively resolve this issue.

In other words, without getting the country in the middle of a
huge problem, like we had with the attempted Clinton impeachment, we
have a passing of a resolution of censure, and hopefully the president
would acknowledge it and say that he maybe went too far, and we would
be able to move forward and stop worrying about this and get a pledge
from the president that he's going to come within the law or make
proposals to change the law to allow it.

I think this actually is in the area of an impeachable offense.
I think it is right in the strike zone of what the founding fathers
thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.

But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong.

But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road. And anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.


Snip...


QUESTION: Do you see any chance whatsoever that your resolution
would be passed by this Republican Senate?

FEINGOLD: I'd be pretty surprised. But this president,
presumably, will be president for several years. And it is very
possible that others will later on control the Congress. And this is
something that could be examined at different points.

If the president changes course and indicates that he understands
that this was not lawful and that he should not have done it, then it
becomes less important.

But if he continues to assert not only this but other extreme
executive power doctrines, it will continue to be important to push
back and to ask the president to return to the law.

[BeFree]

15. Good Stuff

Its our party if we decide to make it our party. We need to crash it. We need to infiltrate it and wrest control of the party from the hacks and dinos sitting at the head table.

We do it, first, by getting rid of the Private and Secret vote counting systems. We do that by proclaiming that the election was stolen with the knowledge that we can't be proven wrong. It is the duty of government to be able to prove they were rightfully elected: They can't prove they were rightfully elected, therefore, we can rightfully claim that the election was stolen! We have that right; we need to exercise that right.

Only when we get our votes under control will we get control of the government. There is no other way. Our votes establish the government (rather, they used too). Our vote is the only leverage we have on the government and our votes have been stolen!

Go ahead and argue with me.... I dare you. You can't prove the elections are on the up and up. Therefore, you simply must conclude the government has no right to tell us a damn thing!

The election was stolen!

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. K&R! the Crisis Papers is the highlight of my DU week! n/t

[Trevelyan]

20. Where is the grassroots support for Russ Feingold after standing alone

against this monstrous machine. There is too much on Helen Thomas. She is a great journalist and deserved the flowers but with Feingold's historic and lonely stand to protect our basic legal rights today, his name and photo should be all over the DU front page. If dems don't stand up, this lack of support when a public servant in office does the right thing against these nazis, we ignore them??

Please go to Russ Feingold's excellent article on the front page of Smirking Chimp and add your comment and thanks. There are only 27 comments since this morning and please sign up at Russ For President even if you haven't decided and read the excellent material on Russ stand for Censure alone and leave a comment there thanking him.

Sen. Russell Feingold: 'Myth vs. Reality on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program: A fact check on a presidential crime'
Posted on Friday, March 31 @ 10:15:19 EST

Sen. Russell Feingold

Myth: Congress needs to hold hearings on the NSA wiretapping program before a measure like censure is discussed.

Fact: The Senate Judiciary Committee has held multiple hearings on the issue despite the refusal of the administration to cooperate. Further hearings and investigation are necessary but those hearings will not change the fact that the President broke the law...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=25490&mode=&order=0&thold=0

http://socalfeingold.blogspot.com/2006/03/dear-senate-dems-are-you-listening.html

If you are feeling upset about the Democratic Senate's utter betrayal of the American people and their responsibilities as Senators today and for the past 5 years, imagine how Russ must feel, esp. when not only his "colleagues" in the Senate not fit to kiss his shoe went into hiding but the fact that DUers are also missing in action. If you can't get out into the streets to protest, at least send an email thanking Russ and add a comment or two on one of these sites to show your public support for someone who did put his body against the machine to try to stop this nazi insanity.

[gizmo1979]

21. Time for out with the old in with the new.

Time for the old guard to step aside and let the new edgier dems take control.They have never adjusted to being the minority party they still go about business as if they were large and in charge.