Feingold Rebuked

by **Gouda** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:20 am

<a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Democrats_slash_Feingold_move_on_censure_0314.html ">Raw Story on raw politics</a>. Now, seems to me if Feingold really had conviction on this, he'd break from the Democrats and spearhead a 3rd party. Too 'difficult', I know. This democracy problem, it is just so darn difficult. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Democrats slash Feingold move on censure, as Feingold says party 'cowering'  03/14/2006 @ 3:32 pm Filed by John Byrne While mainstream media outlets have pounced on the fact that Democrats blocked an effort by one of their own to censure President Bush over his warrantless wiretapping program, RAW STORY has found that Senate Democratic offices are fuming. The proposal to censure the President was introduced on a Sunday talk show by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). Though all say they believe the program warrants "more investigation," several Senate aides rebuked Feingold for proposing censure. They say that his move had the potential to derail Democratic efforts to strengthen the party's image on homeland security issues, noting that a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue. Bush has defended the program, calling it a "terrorist surveillance" program, and has used aides to defend its legality. Strikingly, some of the criticism came from liberal Senate offices. One longtime Senate aide was particularly scathing. “Feingold’s grandstanding screwed the pooch and played into Bill Frist’s hands," the aide said. "Thank God Dems punted this down the field. Frist was going to force Democrats to vote on a resolution Feingold had kept a big secret and he would’ve split the caucus on an issue that needed time to get the whole caucus to support. Russ Feingold had only one persons’ interests in mind with his Sunday bombshell, and those were his own. He practically handed a victory to a Bush White House that desperately needs a win.” Feingold, defending his censure plan today on Fox News, said: “I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide…too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues…[Democrats shouldn’t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you’re helping the terrorists.” Feingold’s office declined to comment. Three senior Senate Democratic aides said they hadn't heard of Feingold's plan until it was proposed Sunday. One said he'd heard that Feingold was going to introduce the measure late last week. "This thing came up quick without a lot of time for other offices and other senators to look at the resolution and decide how they wanted to proceed," an aide said. Some aides were more supportive. One staffer said that the climate for censure was unclear, and that despite others' griping about the timing and approach, Democrats were still open to the idea. “I don’t think people are unwilling" to support it, one Democratic Senate aide said. "I don’t think people are 100 percent yes. If you look at the comments of Senator Reid and other senators' comments, you can see that other people want further investigations. Nobody’s said no on censure except Joe Lieberman as far as I know.” One aide said that some senators felt the move went "too far." “I just think you know there’s was a concern among a number members of the caucus that this was going a little too far," the staffer remarked. "The majority of the American people agree with what the president’s doing. A lot of people outside the beltway see this as a tool that’s keeping Americans safe."  The aide added that some members have concerns that backing censure would hurt Democrats’ image on national security. “There were concerns that this would backfire on the Democrats just as they were beginning to get the upper hand or at least beefing up the playing field on homeland security credentials,” the aide added. “The Dubai deal, the war in Iraq, the president’s numbers heading south. Democrats have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot when the good things work and we’ve been known to do some things that end up hurting us rather than helping us.” Several aides said their offices were stressing “more investigations” as an alternative to censure. One aide said public hearings would be better in bringing Americans around to the idea that Bush had done something wrong.  “Democrats had decided that public hearings were needed on the wiretapping to educate the public before considering a censure,” one staffer quipped. “Hearings would’ve forced Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration. Everyone knew that was the gameplan. Feingold just wanted to hog the spotlight. If he were interested in holding George Bush accountable he would’ve made his pitch in the Democratic caucus behind closed doors.”<hr></blockquote>

by **Qutb** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:47 am

"The majority of the American people agree with what the president’s doing" A fucking DEMOCRAT said that? At 34% approval rating? The two-party system is a joke. Oh, and Feingold rules.

by **NewKid** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:58 am

Some of your patriotic supporters of "the program described by the president." <a href="http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_patriotboy_archive.html#114203882795632513" target="top">patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_03_05_patriotboy_archive.html#114203882795632513</a> <a href="http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_02_26_patriotboy_archive.html#114137277373104809" target="top">patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_02_26_patriotboy_archive.html#114137277373104809</a> <a href="http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_02_26_patriotboy_archive.html#114102371706868329" target="top">patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_02_26_patriotboy_archive.html#114102371706868329</a> <a href="http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_03_12_patriotboy_archive.html#114232167036336980" target="top">patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_03_12_patriotboy_archive.html#114232167036336980</a>

by **Gouda** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:07 am

should've titled the thread: "Feingold Censured"

by **sunny** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:37 pm

Robert Parry weighs in on the immolation of Feingold.: <a href="http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/031406.html">www.consortiumnews.com/2006/031406.html</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:48 pm

resolution Feingold had kept a big secret What's this about? Was it really a secret, and if so, how did they find out?

by **sunny** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:09 pm

I guess Howard Dean doesn't agree with the spineless wing of the Dem Party. From an e-mail today, under the subject line "Russ Feingold is a traitor.": _______________________ Dear Sonya, That's what Republicans want you to think. They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability. On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism. But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists". Send a message to Senator Allard: shame on him for questioning the patriotism of another Senator. Sign this petition and it will be delivered to Allard: <a href="http://www.democrats.org/stopattackingruss">www.democrats.org/stopattackingruss</a> Agree or disagree with Russ Feingold's censure resolution, it is completely out of bounds to suggest that anyone demanding accountability is siding with terrorists. It is simply un-American to question the patriotism and loyalty of a Senator who wants the Congress to live up to its responsibility. We've heard this cowardly nonsense from Republican leaders before. They attacked decorated Veteran and Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha for getting real on Iraq. They attacked Democratic Leader Harry Reid for shutting down the Senate to demand answers about manipulated pre-war intelligence. They have ended the careers of generals who questioned Bush Administration talking points, and they even attack their own when respectable Republicans speak out on the disaster this administration has created in Iraq and its failure to close the gaps in our security here at home. And time and again, the Republican controlled congress has consistently failed to conduct real oversight of the Administration, choosing instead to protect the Administration. But polls show that nearly 70% of Americans reject this president and the Republican Congress that has failed to hold him accountable. And together we will hold Republicans accountable at the ballot box this year. That's why the Democratic Party is putting the infrastructure on the ground now to fight in all 50 states. People everywhere are saying "enough is enough" -- and we will be ready to organize and fight everywhere with your help. Please contribute whatever you can to make it happen: <a href="http://www.democrats.org/accountability">www.democrats.org/accountability</a> The sick behavior of desperate Republicans will only stop when we fight back, and 2006 is the time to do it. Thank you, Governor Howard Dean, M.D. (emphasis mine)

by **snowlion2** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:56 pm

Posted yesterday elsewhere. Anyone for a Dean/Clooney ticket? George Clooney, from his post on yesterday's Huffingtonpost: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it. Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's a dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11. This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we're all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out. That's one of the things that drew me to making a film about Murrow. When you hear Murrow say, "We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty" and "We can't defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home," it's like he's commenting on today's headlines. The fear of being criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic." Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits. I am a liberal. Fire away. <hr></blockquote>

by **NewKid** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:28 am

This is pretty funny. <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/15.html#a7534" target="top">www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/15.html#a7534</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:53 pm

From Senator Tom Harkin: We have a President who likes to break things. He has broken the federal budget, running up $3 trillion in new debt. He has broken the Geneva Conventions, giving the green light to torture. He has repeatedly broken promises – and broken faith – with the American people. And now, worst of all, he has broken the law. In brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. And, despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop. Let’s be clear: No American – and that must include the President – is above the law. And if we fail to hold Bush to account, then he will be confirmed in his conviction that he can pick and choose among the laws he wants to obey. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy. So it is time for Congress to stand up and say enough! That’s why, this week, Senator Russ Feingold proposed a resolution to censure George W. Bush for breaking the FISA law. And that’s why I fully support this resolution of censure. Nothing is more important to me than the security of our country. Of course, we need to be listening to the terrorists’ conversations. And sometimes there is not time to get a warrant. That’s why the FISA law allows the President, when necessary, to wiretap first, and obtain a warrant afterward. But that’s not acceptable to this above-the-law President. He rejects the idea that he should have to obtain a warrant before or after wiretapping. We have an out-of-control President whose arrogant and, now, illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It’s time to rein him in. And a fine place to start is by passing this resolution of censure. I hope that Senator Feingold’s measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.

by **sunny** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:22 pm

<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0315-26.htm">www.commondreams.org/views06/0315-26.htm</a> Published on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 by The Nation A Peculiar Politician by William Greider Senator Russ Feingold is an embarrassment to the US Senate, which makes him an authentic hero of the Republic. The Wisconsin senator gets up and says out loud what half of the country is thinking and talks about every day. This President broke the law and lied about it; he trashed the Constitution and hides himself in the flag. Feingold asks: Shouldn't the Senate say something about this, at least express our disapproval? He introduces a resolution of censure and calls for debate. Well, that tore it in the august chamber of lawmakers. Democrats scurried away like scared rats. And Republicans chortled at the thought. You want to censure our warrior President, the guy who defends us every day against terrorist attacks? Let's have a vote right now, the Republican leader demanded. Yuk, yuk. The joke is obvious to everyone in the Washington club--politics trumps principle, especially when it is about something as esoteric as the Constitution. It's a nonstory, the club agrees, not a constitutional crisis. The Washington Post runs an obligatory account on page 8, quoting Mr. Anonymous Democrat Strategist on the unwisdom of Feingold's gesture. The New York Times story on page 24 quotes the esteemed constitutional authority Dick Cheney. The House Repubican leader (who replaced the corrupt House leader who resigned) denounces Feingold's resolution as "political grandstanding of the very worst kind." Like the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton for fellatio in the White House? Go away, Feingold, let us get back to the people's business. The real story--naturally overlooked by cynical editors--is that an honest truth-teller is loose in the fun house and disturbing the clowns. Man bites dog, senator defends Constitution. Feingold has a reputation for such quaint deviations--a naïf who voted against the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. On principle! How naïve is that? He talks like he might run for President, yet he seems tone-deaf to the artful resonances of power politics--the cutesy games insiders play and the press cherishes. Hey, what is this Constitution thing anyway? The senator is peculiar in this era of decaying democracy. There was a time, believe it or not, when his type was a familiar presence in the Senate. I think of Sam Ervin of North Carolina, a conservative Democrat on most matters but always a lion on the Constitution. Ervin is remembered for his heroic role in the investigation of Watergate. Old-timers remember that before Watergate, Senator Sam led courageous hearings on the illegal spying on civilians by the Army and FBI (Democratic scandals predating Nixon). When liberalism was in flower, the Senate always included a good mix of such maverick voices. They were party loyalists but departed on principle in ways that sometimes kept the majority honest. Voted against the President's war in Vietnam and never let up. Ernest Gruening of Alaska, Wayne Morse of Oregon, Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee. Phil Hart of Michigan was his own one-man reform party. George McGovern of South Dakota was another. We might ask why the Republican Party has not produced a similar collection of independent thinkers. We might mourn the fact that pursuing a career in the Senate no longer seems compatible with stubborn self-directed character. The media, instead of kissing off Feingold as a dumb politician, might do a little honest reporting on the substance of what he is saying. For the moment, however, let us celebrate the man. The club will try to shove him in a closet and forget his little unpleasantness ever happened. I hope they fail and other Dems are properly embarrassed. Amid scandals in high places, Senator Feingold is fresh air. The country should rise up and sing.

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:54 am

...compares the Dems who are weasling out on censuring Bush to the list of Dems who were willing to censure Clinton: <a href="http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/031206.htm#031506">www.liberaloasis.com/arch...htm#031506</a> Here’s the list of Dem and Independent Senators who backed censure for Clinton (S. Res. 44 in the 106th Congress) and have yet to back censure for Bush: Daniel Akaka Max Baucus Byron Dorgan Dick Durbin Dianne Feinstein Daniel Inouye Jim Jeffords Ted Kennedy John Kerry* Herb Kohl Mary Landrieu Carl Levin Joe Lieberman Blanche Lincoln Barbara Mikulski Patty Murray Jack Reed Harry Reid Jay Rockefeller Chuck Schumer Ron Wyden

by **Gouda** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:34 am

Well, well, well. Mister Kerry.

by **Gouda** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:54 am

Democrat senators who voted to cut off debate on Alito's confirmation (voted against Feingold's filibuster) and then voted against Alito's confirmation the next day: - Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman, Byrd, Cantwell, Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson, Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar Democrats who voted to cut-off debate and voted for his confirmation: - Robert Byrd, Tim Johnson, Bill Nelson, Kent Conrad No difference. *** Voting 96 - 3 in favor of ending another Feingold filibuster against the Patriot Act renewal, Senators Democrat and Republican teamed up to endorse the Patriot Act which went on to become law. Three Senators opposed and tried to stop it: - Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin - Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia - Independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont Diane Feinstein remarked: "Compromise and consensus require concessions and flexibility. It is the responsibility of the Congress to 'provide for the common defense,' and I believe we live up to that duty in this bill." (thanks to my brother for gathering this info) Dump them ALL.

by **Gouda** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:56 am

“But for now, for liberals, it's all about the 2008 elections. There weren't even any 2004 elections and when 2008 rolls around, there ain't gonna be no 2008 elections. Just the ritual illusion of one. Liberals still have not figured that out. They woke up after the train was gone and now stand at the wrong station waiting for the next one, which will never arrive. They continue to "work within the system." They are going to beat a system rigged against them, and this is how they plan to do it: by getting out all those untapped liberal voters who are supposed to be out there waiting to make a difference! Wow! I hope they are right, I really do. Because what I see here in the heartland is a helluva lot more angry conservatives left to be registered. Scads of 'em." -- Joe Bageant "The hardest thing for garden variety American liberals to grasp is what a truly politicized and hateful place much of America has become---one long mean ditch ruled by feral dogs where the standards of civility no longer apply. The second hardest thing for liberals is to admit that they are comfortably insulated in the middle class and are not going to take any risks in the battle for America's soul not as long as they are still living on a good street, sending their kids to Montessori and getting their slice of the American quiche. Call it the politics of the comfort zone." -- Joe Baegent

Feingold Rebuked

Feingold Rebuked

Re: Fucking incredible

Re: Fucking incredible

Re: Fucking incredible

Re: Fucking incredible

Re: Fucking incredible

Re: Fucking incredible

Re: Fucking incredible

Re: Fucking incredible

Re: Fucking incredible

A Peculiar Politician

Re: LiberalOasis...

Re: LiberalOasis...

Re: LiberalOasis...

Re: LiberalOasis...

Who is online