Something is not right with this censure story. It reads all wrong.

[TayTay]

The news stories that have Feingold calling out Dems and calling them names and questioning their resolve against Bush got out there awfully fast. Something is not right here. I think the media is playing a little too loose and fast with the truth on this.

Seriously, 'I smell a rat,' here. I think the Rethug politics of last resort, of divide and conquer are coming into effect here. This thing doesn't add up at all.

Anybody feel this as well?

[Mass]

1. As usual, unfortunately.

Feingold is getting from the media the same treatment other Democrats get when they question Bush.

Kerry got more or less the same treatment during the Alito filibuster (except that he knows better than to be negative on other democrats).

I agree with you totally. Actually, I really would like to see what Feingold said EXACTLY, because we all know that we can trust all the media say, of course :sarcasm:

This said, it is clear that many people have mixed feelings about that. A number of people who are as much, if not more, progressive than others have expressed their doubts about what this will accomplish and how it was managed.

[TayTay]

2. I agree, there was an opening there for the Rethugs to come in

And that the introduction of this censure resolution was less than great. (Ahm, way less than great.) The people in the WH can't govern and are totally inept and incompetent in their day jobs but they damn right and well know how to wage a negative campaign. They are being given an opening right now to twist what Feingold (and anyone supporting him) said into his being 'unpatriotic,' which is the usual Rethug dodge.

I think we have way more trolls than we used to on DU. It was far too easy to immiediately take this censure resolution and turn it against the Dems on the usual Rethug grounds. (Those grounds are the Dems are unpatriotic and don't support the troops and that the Dems are disorganized and are congentially unable to come together and work as a team.) Way too easy.

Who stands to gain by seizing this particular conversation and using it to change the national subject?

[ProSense]

4. Bingo!

I think we have way more trolls than we used to on DU.

From all sides.

[MH1]

5. I agree...I want to know what Russ really said.

If he actually accused other Dems of "cowering", that's just really dumb, IMO. What did JK say about the Dems who didn't support him on Alito? I'm sure he was very diplomatic about it.

And this just became a major reason that I would much prefer President Kerry over President Feingold. Of course I didn't know before that Feingold was like that.

What is just nuts is that DU is praising Feingold for dissing the rest of the party. I guess it's to be expected in that crowd, but it's really laughable when in the same breath they say "Dems need to be unified". How do you get unity without teamwork and mutual respect?

[TayTay]

6. I think the greater media forces are aligned against unity

and the atmosphere of this event is preventing consensus. I remember what Peter Daou wrote about Dems forming a triangle that unites the elected officials, the news media and the 'base' of the Democratic Party to form a potent and united front. The Rethugs are determined to undermine each phase of that unity. The best way to do that is to muddle the message, make each side fight the other and make sure the media reports on those dumb Democrats who can't come together no matter how bad the other guys screw up.

This is just more of the same. I am not going to condemn Sen. Feingold for this. Yes, I think he should have brought this up in the caucus, but it's not that big of a deal in the long run. (Censuring someone is just basically calling their actions into public view and saying that they were wrong to do them. Ahm, it's a slap on the wrist.) The media immediately let the Rethugs make this about supporting the troops. (Which is what the Rethugs always do.) The Rethugs need a victory real bad because of the recent Ports debacle and the incredibly shrinking poll numbers of the President. The media is letting the Rethugs frame Sen. Feingold's motion. They are doing this in exactly the way that Peter Daou showed.

Sad and pathetic. I am not going to play this game. I think the Pres should be called to count for willingly and knowlingly breaking the law. (That's principle for me.) I think the media should be asked exactly who is condemning Feingold and proclaiming that he is harming the Dems in some way. (This anonymous sourcing thing is getting out of hand. These cowards should get on the record and say what they mean to Sen. Feingold's face. This is another case of a Dem getting a knife in the back and the media sitting back and laughing about it and also proclaiming innocence when, in reality, they helped buy the knife.)

[emulatorloo]

12. Until I see or hear tape of Feingold saying this, I won't believe it

Maybe I am in denial, but like TayTay I smell a rat -- I think it was planted by the RNC.

[whometense]

13. I swear,

if I read one more comment/post/story about cowardly, frightened, ball-less, etc. dems, my head will explode.

I am beyond sick of this crap. It apparently has never occurred to any of these idiots that a senator might possibly have his own reasons other than fear for whatever actions he might take - or not take.

I don't know how people manage to live in the requisite state of paranoia. I know I can't do it.

What did JK say about the Dems who didn't support him on Alito? I'm sure he was very diplomatic about it.

Exactly. Because Kerry has:
a.) Integrity
b.) The best interests of the country at heart
c.) No interest in backstabbing colleagues.

I believe JK is a true believer in the Golden Rule. And sinned-against as he has been, he can't return the favor in kind. It's just against his personal moral code. How is that cowardly?

[karynnj]

8. I think your and Tay's points are well taken

This is happening very fast and is getting nastier than it should. Even looking at who gains and who loses explains little. I tried to figure out logical possibilities but rejected them all.

What doesn't make sense is why Feingold, who's been in the Senate for years, didn't talk to his fellow Senators, many of whom had said the warrantless spying was illegal. It may be that he has a strategist who thought he needed to differentiate himself from the other possibilities. That the Patriot act and the IWR already did this makes this hard to believe. Some mentioned that Feingold was frustrated with the way things are - but I assume every Democrat there is frustrated too. This action, if echoed again, could be Feingold's "Dean Scream". Could it be a desperate attempt to attract partisans who will donate money?

What we know is:
-He talked to no one before speaking on TV

-He made little effort to get the legislation to his peers (though now it's publicly available)even though some like Kerry had called for investiagations of some kind and had said they thought he broke the law.

-He wouldn't debate Spector - which seemed strange. Durbin picked up the pieces brilliantly, but looked mystified at the beginning. Feingold 's hurridly leaving the room, with Spector asking him to stay could hurt Feingold. He looked childish compared to Spector and Durbin. If he had another committment he should have said so. I never thought I'd say this - but it made him look weak - can you picture Kerry running from a debate?

I can't believe a leading Democrat would hand Fox News a sound bite attacking other Democrats. It's possible that he was asked leading questions - that triggered the response given.At this point all the outside factions moved quickly, but I don't think any were really suspicious:
-The RW attacked not just Feingold but anyone (Democrat) who had said anything negative about Bush on this. This was likely prepared before Feingold spoke and that was added as the centerpiece. This was typical of their hit pieces.

-The lefties annointed him quickly - as this was identical to their reaction to Boxer and Murtha, it's tyical.

- Left of Center media and blogs declared him the latest darling - but that has been true in reality for a long time. So, this wasn't hard to get out quickly.

-The MSM is just beginning to really cover it. That some cover it as to how it impacts 2008 is typical.

[ginnyinWI]

15. compared to Kerry's call for the Alito filibuster

it was done rather clumsily--I guess I can criticize my own senator a bit--I wish he had come forward with a coalition of Senators, not alone. I haven't been following this closely this week because I'm away from home visiting youngest daughter--but I think he could have done this better. He probably did it to bolster his "maverick" image--but the truth is that Kerry made his move with far more political skill. He was a leader, calling his fellow senators "to arms" rather than striking out alone.

[Dr Ron]

28. Differences with Kerry's call for the filibuster

There is the obvious similarity in which both Kerry and Feingold could come under attack for pursuing a fight which was bound to be voted down in which they might gain personally by increasing support among the party base.

There are also two major differences. Kerry was on record as saying he would lead a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Rowe v. Wade. Kerry was keeping his word here.

Another difference for Kerry was that it was then or never. He couldn't wait until after the midterm elections, when Democrats are likely to pick up seats, and attack Alito at that time. It had to be done before the confirmation battle if it was to ever be done. Feingold could have criticized Bush for breaking the law and urged hearings, but could have called for the actual censure vote after more groundwork was done for this. There was no need to do this now. It is also curious that it is the same week as his NY Times Magazine cover story, giving the appearance that his goal might have been more to dominate the news personally this week.

[sandnsea]

29. This video says "off camera"

That the comments were off-camera, so I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure. But the comment that bugged me more than that is the "get back to work" one because that would indicate he still thinks he can work with the Republicans in this Congress. I really dont know what to make of this with the way he appears to be handling the media on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187855,00.html

[Mass]

3. Something is not right here too - Why did these people co-sponsor

Clinton's censure and will not come out publicly concerning Bush's.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SE00044:@@@P

And yes, our two senators are in the list, I had forgotten that.

[TayTay]

9. Clinton did do a morally wrong thing. Censure was appropriate

It would have more succinctly expressed the mood of the nation: Tell the man he did wrong, then let him get back to business. His offense was not worth the time, effort and expense it cost the nation. A censure resolution was appropriate back then.

BTW, For what it's worth, Sen. Kerry was wrong about the aftermath of the whole Clinton impeachment and trial. I think he knows that now. You can't negotiate with these Rethugs. They are relentless and utterly ruthless and without principle. I think our Senator has learned from those days and from the last Prez race.

MASSACHUSETTS SENATORS GLAD IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS ALMOST OVER
Sinocast 02-12-1999


WASHINGTON Feb. 11 (States) -- It's almost over and Massachusetts two Democratic senators couldn't be anymore relieved. The Senate will vote today on two articles of impeachment ending a President Clinton's five-week impeachment trial that Sen. John F. Kerry described as "mentally draining." "I think people are ready to vote," Kerry said. "I think people are very much forward to getting this behind them." The outcome is all but clear, Clinton will remain in office as the two-thirds majority vote required to convict him will not be reached. Four Republicans senators, three from New England, Olympia Snowe of Maine,John Chafee of Rhode Island, James Jeffords of Vermont, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania have said they will vote to acquit the president. "The outcome is very clear that the Senate will not accept the articles of impeachment," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy predicted. "They will be rejected." Kennedy said the charges should have never been brought against the president and history will note that. He also chastised House Republicans for driving the case and said the only winner to emerge from the trial is the Constitution. "I think what we have seen now is that Republicans were aiming at President Clinton and they hit the Constitution and the Constitution won," Kennedy said. "It has been about the attempt of the House of Representatives Republicans to embarrass and humiliate the president of the United States." Kerry said he would advise Clinton not to actively target Republican senators who are up for election in 2000, a story that was first in Thursday's New York Times. "I think it would be very ill advised for the president to ... engage in that kind of rhetoric and activity," Kerry said. Despite the mostly partisan line vote that is expected to take place today, Kerry said he doesn't think there will be any lingering animosity between Senate Republicans and Democrats. "I think in many ways the Senate has been brought together," Kerry said. "I would underscore the mood and atmosphere and deliberations themselves have not been partisan." Kerry also said that if the Senate is unable to agree on a censure motion condemning Clinton's behavior then they "shouldn't squabble about it" and instead move on to legislative issues. By Mark D. Preston -0- Copyright States News Service, all rights reserved

[Mass]

10. I agree - I think he has learned by now.

I had forgotten they both supported censure at the time.

[Mass]

16. Well, kos has this list on and making hay of it.

What's new? Bashing Democrats is better than attacking GOPers, we all know that.

[wisteria]

7. Well, I have one thing to say, if you don't want something spun

completely wrong, don't air your dirty laundry on a network such as Fox News. Surely, Fiengold is smart enough a man to know what Fox News is and who they support.
I just hope this all goes away now and never gets out of commitee. At least until after November 06.

[whometense]

11. Rachel Maddow said this morning

that Fox pounded this story all day long yesterday. If that's so, then the logical assumption would be that someone was feeding them their daily talking points. And we know where those come from.

If Feingold really was slamming other dems off the record (btw, what exactly does "off the record" mean nowadays?) and within the earshot of Fox News reporters, then that would make him a prime idiot. I don't believe Feingold is any kind of idiot - he's a very bright man.

I have no idea what really happened here, but I smell a GIANT rat.

[TayTay]

14. Anybody get the Wall St. Journal

Sons of bitches reveal their real agenda on Feingold and the censure motion. They fear that the Dems will make gains by trading on the sleaze image of this Admin and Rethugs in general.

Read it and get mad. This is why they are getting their media attacks dogs to go after Feingold. http://online.wsj.com/ad/cigna/

The Impeachment Agenda
Russ Feingold reveals what many Democrats really want.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Republicans are denouncing Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to "censure" President Bush for his warrantless wiretaps on al Qaeda, but we'd like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor. He's had the courage to put on the table what Democrats are all but certain to do if they win either the House or Senate in November.

In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. Whether such an inevitable attempt succeeds would depend on Mr. Bush's approval rating, and especially on whether Democrats could use their subpoena power as committee chairs to conjure up something they could flog to a receptive media as an "impeachable" offense. But everyone should understand that censure and impeachment are important--and so far the only--parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress.

More: http://online.wsj.com/ad/cigna/

[wisteria]

17. I think this explains more why the Dem's didn't want too much to be

revealed about their strategy based on a positive 06 election outcome. Everyone is a bit nervous right now. A lot rides on 06. I still stand by my opinion that Senator Feingold should have waited out the 06 election process before calling for censure.

[MH1]

18. That last line...

But everyone should understand that censure and impeachment are important--and so far the only--parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress.

:grr: :banghead: :grr:

We'd better not let the rabid wrong get away with characterizing "the Dem's agenda" that way.

:argh:

[TayTay]

19. This is the game.

Now contrast that with this article written back in the fall of 1998 by Bush's cousin, John Ellis in the Boston Globe. Note how the Rethugs feel over the Clinton impeachment and how they treated both their base and their office holders. Sigh!

REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER ACCEPT A DEAL FOR CLINTON
Boston Globe, Third, Sec. Op-Ed Page, p A1909-26-1998
By Globe Staff John Ellis

Here are four things the House of Representatives will never do. It will never agree to Senator John Kerry’s proposal that President Clinton testify before the Judiciary Committee in exchange for an expedited vote on impeachment. It will never agree to Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe’s suggestion that Clinton be reprimanded and the criminal case against him deferred until 2001. It will never agree to an ersatz plea-bargain arrangement. And it will never agree to censure.

Clinton will be impeached by the House. You can go to the bank on that. Thursday, House Judiciary chairman Henry Hyde said his committee would vote on a resolution of inquiry on Oct. 5 or 6. When that is approved, as surely it will be, the full House will vote on opening a formal impeachment inquiry.

The scope of that inquiry, according to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, will include the Starr report, the 1996 campaign finance scandals, and any and all matters currently under investigation by the Office of the Independent Counsel.

It is the opinion of the House Republican leadership that the perjury case against Clinton submitted by Starr is open and shut. The case for obstruction of justice and abuse of power is viewed as only slightly less convincing. But that’s not why the GOP-controlled House will inevitably vote to impeach the president. They will do so because Republican primary voters and caucus attenders—their core constituents—are insistent that Clinton be removed from office. The GOP electorate has not felt this strongly about an issue since Roe v. Wade on the issue of abortion, and this time everyone feels the same way. The impeachment of Clinton is a litmus-test issue. Republican legislators who get on the “wrong” side of it, as Senators Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott have in recent weeks by proffering a deal on censure, find themselves besieged by enraged constituents and angry partisans from across the country. The phone lines in their offices jam. The fax lines burn up. Their e-mail posts escalate in number and fairly teem with hostility. The political dynamics driving this issue are straightforward. The Republican Party is divided into three parts. The dominant wing of the party is composed of cultural conservatives whose principal issue is the country’s moral decline. Cultural conservatives represent 55 to 60 percent of the primary voters and caucus-attenders in Republican elections. They are religious, patriotic, and hyper-active in local and state politics. The second part of the GOP is made up of traditional Republicans.

They constitute roughly a third of the primary voters and caucus-attenders and rally to a less populist message. They believe in an internationalist foreign policy, a pro-business economic policy, and a more moderate stance on social issues. Above all, they believe in America’s mission and preeminence in the global community.

The third part of the GOP is made up of economic libertarians. This group was represented by Steve Forbes in the 1996 presidential primaries and comprises less than 10 percent of the total GOP voter base. What makes them important is that they are well-funded and egg-headed. Their daily bulletin board is The Wall Street Journal editorial page. They man the posts at the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and a hundred other foundations and periodicals. Small in number, their voice is broadcast across hundreds of megaphones.

All three parts of the Republican Party want Clinton out. The cultural conservatives view Clinton as the Antichrist. His removal from office is, for them, a moral issue. Traditional Republicans view Clinton as a cheese-ball, diminishing America in the eyes of the world. That begets instability, the antithesis of traditional Republican orthodoxy. Economic libertarians dislike Clinton because they think he’s corrupt. If he is driven out of office on sex, lies, and videotape, so be it. Any excuse will do. In recent years, there have been political debates where cultural conservatives stood in direct opposition to traditional Republicans and economic libertarians. The Mexican bailout was such an issue. Trade with China was another. Clinton was able to get Republican votes on both because the three moving parts of the Republican coalition were not in synch.

The problem for Clinton now is that the three moving parts are all working together toward his impeachment. Breathless reports in national newsmagazines and newspapers notwithstanding, no “wise men” can undo this dynamic. Bob Dole and Howard Baker cannot broker a deal in the Senate. They hold no brief from any of the constituencies. So the next time you see a story in the paper about a deal on censure, feel free to move right along. It will not happen in the House of Representatives, ever.

[karynnj]

20. Ellis is far more articulate than his cousin

This really is a nice analysis of the Republicans in this. It's amazing how inflexible the Republicans were on this.

[MH1]

21. But all the moving parts of the "Dem coalition" (is there such a thing?)

are not in sync here, are they? Plus, the republicans owned the House when Clinton was impeached.

[TayTay]

22. Yup. But those bastards are relentless

and they don't care what anyone says, they want what they want and they act to get it.

[MH1]

23. Speaking of bogus memes...

check out JK's new email, that I posted on wisteria's ANWR thread.

He's going after the "Dems have no plans, no ideas, no alternatives" meme. That needs to get some play. (but it won't because everyone on the big blogs is too busy talking about Feingold and censure. Sigh.)

[TayTay]

24. Did you see the tax story on the NYTimes web site

By David Cay Johnston. Calling Sen. Kerry, Senate Finance Comm guy. Read this! Holy SAhit! Read this and ask the utility companies why they are collecting taxes from customers and not forwarding them to the government, but using them to cover losses in other areas of their businesses.

Holy Shit. Sen. Kerry, please ask those friggin morons on the FinComm to hold a damn hearing, please. People are getting screwed royally on this. I thank you sir.

[Blaukraut]

25. and this is legal???

They should at least call it what it is; a loss recovery fee, instead of the misleading euphemism - taxes. And they thought that privatization of utilities would benefit the consumer - don't make me laugh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/business/15utility.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[MH1]

26. Just looked at it

Stuff like this makes me :grr:

:argh:

Customers paid Xcel Energy, a big utility in 10 Midwest and Western states, at least $723 million to cover taxes from 2002 to 2004. But the money did not go to the government; in fact, the company received cash refunds of $351.4 million.

A spokesman, Ed Legge, said the refunds resulted from a failed energy trading business. "Utility customers did not bear the risk of that business, and they should not benefit either," he said.

ummm...but the energy company didn't bear the risk either, the TAXPAYER evidently did, a**holes!

Like I said,

:argh:

[ProSense]

27. Spying issue in context

Democrats are makin' one huge miscalculation in staying away from Feingold's motion for censure. They are being played by the Republicans, who are scared shitless that they'll be forced to go on record, with a vote, that they support the illegal activities of the White House.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

Sorry. On this issue, the Republicans don't give a shit. They are actually trying to write a law to make Bush's activities legal, effective retroactively.

A lot of people have said the Republicans are running scared. I agree. But the difference here is the issue (not resonating with the public enough yet) and the timing (preceded an investigation) and the way it was done (without support). Republicans would vote party line on this and not miss a step. I happen to believe this was a very serious infraction, but not all Americans are paying attention to this. The media still has many of them believing it's about spying on potential terrorists.

The Republicans are running scared on issues that the public fully understand, including the port deal, budget, Medicare and Iraq. There ultimate goal is to stay in power.

If censure comes to a vote, the Democrats should support it. There is nothing to lose. It will send a message that the Democrats are united in their belief that Bush broke the law.



Switching gears:

Then again, I'm not so sure that they aren't scared because in a way I see the Repubs desperately trying to rewrite the law as a sign they need to do something quick to protect Bush and circumvent an investigation.


A step further:

If an investigation into illegal spying finds that Bush violated the law, I believe the public will come around to impeachment. Investigations into his other illegal actions would clinch it.