Will censure issue help or hurt us in November?

[Clarkie1]

I support Russ Feingold. I think he is very principled patriot. I also e-mailed both my senators asking them to support his censure resolution. I'm proud the Boxer is one of the co-signers. However, I think we need to be careful here. Our strategic objective at this point must be victory this November, and we should consider how raising this issue to a higher profile at the expense of other issues would affect races now underway for the House and Senate. While Bush's arrogant abuses of power anger me, my primary concern at this point is regaining the House and Senate for Democrats. I do not believe the majority of Americans support censure at this time. Perhaps what what would be more effective at this time is explaining to the voters our positions on the issues, and what we would do differently.

"Four in 10 (42 percent) of the adults in the general public say they would support Congressional censure of the president, while half (50 percent) say they would not. Censure wins majority support from Democrats (60 percent) and one in five Republicans (20 percent) say they’d support it. Yet if Democrats in Congress do decide to push for such a measure, they may run into trouble with that same public. By a margin of 53 percent to 33 percent, Americans feel the censure proposal was made as a partisan ploy, not for reasons of principle.

In today’s strongly polarized political climate, roughly one in four American adults (26 percent) say they think Congress should actually impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11894249/site/newsweek/

[tatertop]

1. I honestly think all that matters is a fair vote count

without that we will lose

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Will Diebold get a vote? If they do... it does not matter

[ruggerson]

3. Frankly, I'd rather win the House back and then impeach him

And since Feingold came out yesterday and said he felt that his censure motion was most likely INSTEAD of impeachment, I would rather wait and hit Bush with the big guns once we have control.

I don't see that censure accomplishes much of anything.

[Clarkie1]

5. I tend to agree with you.

First, we don't have the votes for censure at this time.

Second, we will be in a better position for any course of action after November.

Third, I think it more likely than not that making the censure issue high-profile between now and November runs the danger of allowing the MSM to define Democrats as more bitterly partisan than Republicans.

Of course, holding the "president" accountable for illegal activity is a patriotic duty of the Congress, however in the current political climate most voters see censure as more partisan than patriotic.

We will hold him accountable. But we need to do it on our terms and at the right time.

[ruggerson]

7. Exactly

Too many here would rather vent their anger than actually strategically plan a smart course of action that would result in our taking back the legislative branch.

[flpoljunkie]

10. What the Dems have done to win elections has worked so well, so far. Not!

[Clarkie1]

12. I agree with you. We need a more coherent message. n/t

[mtnsnake]

19. Same here

We've waited this long, we might as well wait a matter of months more and go for it all.

[radio4progressives]

28. Dems don't want to impeach.. that's why it's not going to happen

Conyers wants to impeach and a few others - but the DLC does not..

and what they say, goes. impeachment will not take place in 06/07/08/09.

well, by then it's sort of over isn't it?

[radio4progressives]

38. This is stupid. Feingold didn't just say "Instead of"

it was an option that could be 'instead of' - the reason Ruggerson, is because:

HE KNOWS THE DEMS WILL NOT IMPEACH AT ALL EVEN IF WE WIN IN 06!

Don't you GET IT YET???

Democrats are NOT GOING TO IMPEACH.

It's already been decided and not by Feingold. It was decided by the DLC and Nancy Pelosi made that crystal clear two weeks ago.

So stop with this bullshit please!

[NanceGreggs]

4. The point you are making is a valid one. But ...

The president broke the law. It's that simple. Sometimes you can't stand on the sidelines and weigh options as to what the consequences of doing the right thing are. You have to just DO what needs doing, and let the chips fall where they may.

If Bush had murdered someone, or raped a child, would it be prudent for everyone to stand around and consider what the political fallout would be, before confronting him with the crime?

IMHO, what he has done is more heinous than that; his actions (on the wiretapping issue, as well as others) have far-reaching consequences that threaten our very democracy. What he has done, again IMHO, is treasonous.

The epithet hurled at the Democrats most often is weakness, spinelessness, failure to act when action is so obviously called for. How will they be perceived by their own party members, as well as the country at large, if they can't stand up to a man who has broken the law, and blatantly admitted to doing so?

It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to convince voters that the Democrats will be strong on national defence and will protect the country against all foes, if they are too timid to stand up to a single man who has arrogantly ADMITTED his wrongdoing.

While our elected Dems are waiting for the results of surveys, focus groups, discussion groups, meetings, etc., the law continues to be broken on a daily basis.

Sorry for saying so, but if the current crop of Democrats had been around in Revolutionary times, we'd all be sipping tea, eating scones, and singing "God Save The Queen" right now.

[ruggerson]

6. Your argument would make sense, Nance

except for the fact that Feingold himself apparently sees censure as an alternative to impeachment, not a first step.

So, as a stand alone slap on the wrist, I think it accomplishes nothing.

If the President broke the law (which I believe he did), he should be impeached. Nothing less. The constitution calls for it. It does not even mention censure.

[NanceGreggs]

8. He should be impeached, yes!

But censure does not foreclose that option, whether Feingold thinks the process should end with that or not.

He could be censured now on the wiretapping issue, and impeached later when the Dems are back in the majority, on the dozens of things he'll be doing between now and then. It's not like we're EVER going to run out of reasons to kick his butt out of office - he hands us NEW ones on a regular basis. And frighteningly enough, they seem to get MORE egregious each time ...

[ruggerson]

9. But, Feingold is the one proposing censure

and thus the press is listening to HIS reasoning.

And he has stated quite clearly that he wants the President to acknowledge that he did something wrong so we can "move on" from this episode.

I don't think the country should "move on" from a lawbreaking President.

We should smartly and strategically plan to retake the Congress and then start impeachment hearings.

Censure right now is pointless and useless and possibly harmful to our chances.

[NanceGreggs]

13. Maybe I'm totally missing your point ...

... but censure now does not foreclose impeachment later. As to what the 'press' is listening to right now, they'll be 'listening' to something else within the next twenty-four hour news cycle.

I agree that the country should not 'move on' from a law-breaking president. But that is EXACTLY what we'll be doing. If we walk away from this fight now, do you honestly believe the public will think, "Man, those Dems are smart. They're keeping their powder dry until they get a closer shot"?

No, it will just be perceived as another sign of weakness, IMHO.

And what if - dare I say it? -- we DON'T win back the majority in November? I can see Democrats across the country shaking their heads and saying, "Gee, we should have gone for censure when we had the chance. We might have looked like we actually had a spine."

Censure may be a 'slap on the wrist' in the face of what's been done here. But it's a slap that will be heard around the world. It will be a public humiliation of a president who is already against the ropes, and sends a clear message to him, his Administration, his Party, and the rest of the world that we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore.

I apologize for being such a pain-in-the-ass on this issue, but I am passed my point of patience with the Dems in office right now. I am tired of constantly being told that "this is not the right time". I've heard it too often, on too many issues. And by the time the Dems decide it's the "right moment" to do something, the moment is long past ...

[flpoljunkie]

11. Impeachment Clinton worked so well for the Republicans, right? Not!

[radio4progressives]

29. Excellent Nancy..

we have some members missing a few gray cells, it appears.

[Lorien]

36. Well put Nance, and I agree entirely. n/t

[Kahuna]

14. It's an unnecessary distraction that could hurt us. It seems that every

time we have bush on the ropes some grandstanding "maverick" has to do something to take the focus off of bush and put in on us (as a party). Censure is like putting a band aid on after open heart surgery. So why is he doing it? Really?

[radio4progressives]

30. it's such a distraction! we need bomb iran first, and then Korea and then

and then we need to bomb korea! oh! and don't foreget about that evil communist dictator Hugo Chavez! after we bomb all these countries, maybe we can think about something else.

oh wait, by then, we then become the "Former United States"

[sandnsea]

15. It depends how we use it

If we use it as a show of force, along with the Kennedy/Leahy resolution, to show Democrats will not rubber stamp this President, then it can be useful. If we let it get twisted into another round of Bush bashing by a far left crowd that hates Democrats too, then it will probably hurt. It really would be ridiculous to let go of the issues we're clearly in the lead on for ones where we don't have the pubic's support. So if we use it as one more example of the things we need a Democratic congress to investigate, it can be very useful.

[Neil Lisst]

16. Censure will be irrelevant in November

I would also caution against the thinking that says we either do or do not take an action because of "how it will play in November."

The people who will decide the elections in November don't know who Russ Feingold is, and don't know what Censure is. They're watching NCAA basketball and worrying about the price of gasoline right now.

[TayTay]

17. I agree with that.

I don't think it will have legs into November. Plus there is almost no chance that it will ever get to a vote, either in Committee or on the floor of the Senate.

This is, for all intents and purposes, and intra-Democratic fight now.

[Clarkie1]

21. I agree with you, but with one caveat.

If censure/impeachment talk is mostly what "Joe Public" hears about the Democrats between now and November, it does not give Joe Public much of a kick in the ass to get off the couch and head to the ballot box. Joe Public wants to hear what Democrats will do to make his life better, and the life of his family better, not how much Democrats are salivating over the prospect of beating up more on Bush.

Bush is a lame duck already. Do we need to keep shooting a dead horse?

[Neil Lisst]

22. I think we want to keep tying Bush as an albatross around their necks

metaphorically speaking

I agree that we win in November on issues, however.

[Radical Activist]

18. I find it amazing

that 42% of the public already supports censure before any concerted effort by Democrats to push for it. A coordinated media push could easily bring the number over 50%.

Additionally, it allows every candidate in a district where Bush is unpopular (almost everywhere) to hold the Republican incumbent accountable for being a Bush-lackey. We need a way to harness Bush's gutter ball poll numbers to our advantage and this is it.

[Clarkie1]

20. "A coordinated media push"

by the MSM on this is already well underway. And they are not casting it in a light favorable to us.

I agree with you on the need to educate the voters, but will take a lot of $$$ for us to counter a very well coordinated MSM on this.

To me, it's a question of priorities. While am glad the issue has been raised, I do not believe it should be our focus between now and November. Our focus should be putting forth a coordinated plan for what Democrats plan to do when we regain the majority...beyond impeaching Bush. Right now, the MSM is pushing the idea that impeachmennt is the only plan Democrats have if they win in November.

[PBass]

23. Censure resolution most definitely HELPS.

It doesn't matter how it plays out (and it could play out in a million different ways).

Just bringing up censure gets people talking about how Bush broke the law with his domestic spying. Bush admitted he broke the law, and said he was going to keep doing it.

As far as impeachment goes, it may or may not happen (I'm guessing it won't) and it may of may not be 'good for the country'. But it's not up to Russ Feingold to decide that, on his own. Remember, this is not about him... it's about doing the right thing and following the rule of law!

IF impeachment is appropriate then impeachment should be carried out. IF censure is appropriate then censure should be carried out (not in that order) ;-)

In the meantime, lets keep talking about Bush's illegal domestic spying program, and lets keep all options on the table.

[Clarkie1]

24. I agree wholeheartedly with that, with one caveat.

This must not become the primary issue discussed among Democrats and by media pundits between now and November. The media will twist this to make it look like Democrats care more about tearing down Bush than building America back up...in fact, the MSM already is doing just that.

[Lorien]

26. I view "coordinated media push" to mean that all Dems on talk shows, radio

etc. get on message with this-and NOT wait for the MSM to frame the issue on their own. The repugs know how to do this (and ,of course,, they have more talking heads than we do), but our party has yet to unify enough to really take advantage of this tactic. It also would depend on us; writing letters to the editor, calling talk radio, etc. I think that we can and should do both-develop a coordinated plan AND keep the heat on BushCo while their numbers are low. It takes less $$ than it does organization.

[Clarkie1]

32. I think the core difficulty is agreeing on our priorities.

What issues are most important for Democrats at this time to organize around and push?

Is censure one of them? I think we organize best if there are fewer issues we are repeating over and over, and it's also a more effective way to communicate our message. The Republcans are expert at that.

[Lorien]

34. The issue isn't censure itself-it's BushCo's contempt of the law

and contempt for the very concepts this country was founded on. That fact deserves to be kept at the front in public consciousness; we must let America know that WE believe in the rights of American citizens and THEY do not.

[Clarkie1]

40. I agree with that. n/t

[Minnesota Libra]

25. It can only help with those who hate Bush nt

[radio4progressives]

31. yeah.. those fringe lefties hate bush, but bush is so popular

and it will hurt us because we love bush and domestic spying and, i kind of think it's just fine for Rove to continue listening in on Democratic party staffers, campaign managers, strategists - and the candidates themselves! yeah that's the ticket!

just what Nixon did to Mcgovern! yeah! that's the ticket!

happy days are here again, dah dah da du dah da da dah...

happy days are here again!

[radio4progressives]

27. Wrong Question.. It should be Will Spinelessness Hurt or Help Dems in 06?

[Clarkie1]

33. To me, it's a question of priorities.

I support Feingold speaking out, and I'm glad he did.

At the same time, I want to take time to consider what issues we want voters to remember Democrats stand for when they go in the voting booth in November. Do we want voters to think they are voting for a Party whose #1 issue is censure, health care, Iraq???

Ideally, we could do it all at once, but I don't think that is realistic.

[Lorien]

35. If a party can't multitask, it can't run the country

as has been amply demonstrated by BushCo time and time again. The people know this and are desperate for true competence;leaders who can deal with many critical issues at once. Focusing on one issue and one issue alone won't cut it. I'm most concerned about the environment, the guy across the street is most concerned about healthcare, my neighbor is most concerned about the economy, my best friend is most concerned about the war. Our party needs a clear, concise message on EVERY issue. Sure, you can find a wedge issue or two to push-but if you don't seem to share the same concerns of your voters they simply won't go to the polls.

[radio4progressives]

37. False Dichotomy

This is the problem with all of the professional pundits - always presenting false choices and straw man arguments.

It's really not that hard - here's a suggestion..

When's the last time you watched the movie Bullworth? Yeah, i know it's seems old - i mean it was created in 1997 and released in 1998.

I'm dead serious, make a point of renting the film again, and really sitting down watching it.

i just came home from a visit with a friend's for dinner, political talk and we watched this rental - i've seen it probably three or four times over the course of the past several years - but i never actually listened to this thing - it was political comedy, right?

yeah but guess what? that film is every bit as current as it was then, but the difference is it was ahead of it's time.

Watch this film, listen to Bullworth's television interview rant - and listen to every single word - again twice if you have to.

it's a polemic as appropriate in this discussion as in any other regarding the state of affairs in our economic system - as it is with our political system.

You want people to go to the polls thinking about "Issues" or another ABB mandate? the answer should be neither.

it isn't that complicated. but people sure are making it so. all this hand wringing, and sweating over what Feingold did as if there was terribly wrong with what he's trying to communicate, what's he trying to get other Democrats to SEEEEEE..

if only they'd open their goddam eyes and ears - if only they shut the doors on the corporate pimps that they owe for their office. Republicans aren't the only ones with tin ears - they all are.

Do you really want to understand what this is about?

Please rent Bullworth - there is a very important message in that film every Democrat in office needs to be chained to their sofas and be made to sit and watch and listen to every word.

Personally I'd like to copy the audio of a couple of rants and send to every single Democrat in Washington and drop it in every mail box in the country - it was a prescient film, and is every bit as pertinent to today's political world as it ever was.

[Clarkie1]

39. O.K., I'll add that to my netflix list.

I don't think it's a question of being timid or not timid, speaking out or not speaking out.

It's a question of where we put the majority of our energies...attacking Bush or promoting our own progressive agenda.