Feingold calls for Presidential Censure.

[YASNY]

Honestly, if a person has a strong belief in an issue that he/she knows won't go anywhere... I am OK with a little grandstanding on their part.  Such a move only bothers me if it is counter to that person's real agenda, which then makes them dishonest.

 

And before anyone else says it, yes, I realize that "dishonest" is a relative term when referring to members of Congress.

 

To call for a censure of the POTUS is a bit more than 'a little granstanding'.

[NorthSideSox72]

To call for a censure of the POTUS is a bit more than 'a little granstanding'.

Notice I am not wearing any Feingold for Prez buttons. I am not saying he is some sort of martyr. But I think he makes a strong point, and one that maybe needed to be made.

 

I happen to agree with him IN THAT this President and his administration have done a lot of things that seem to chip away at our personal freedoms. This issue exemplifies that.

 

I personally would not have tried for the censure. Its too strident. And Bush is hanging himself anyway, so it serves little purpose.

[Rex Kickass]

The only person as of last night who publically spoke out against the censure in the Democratic party is actually Joe Lieberman. Reid said he wouldn't vote for it before he read it as of last night and has voiced no specific support or opposition to the censure as of last night.

 

I'll agree that there is some degree of grandstanding to this censure motion. I'll also agree that in Feingold's mind, he probably thinks it the right thing to do for the good of the country as well. Sometimes both motives play at the same time.

[YASNY]

I happen to agree with him IN THAT this President and his administration have done a lot of things that seem to chip away at our personal freedoms.  This issue exemplifies that.

 

I agree with this part of your post.

[YASNY]

The only person as of last night who publically spoke out against the censure in the Democratic party is actually Joe Lieberman. Reid said he wouldn't vote for it before he read it as of last night and has voiced no specific support or opposition to the censure as of last night.

 

I'll agree that there is some degree of grandstanding to this censure motion. I'll also agree that in Feingold's mind, he probably thinks it the right thing to do for the good of the country as well. Sometimes both motives play at the same time.

 

If I recall, Frists said that the Democrats objected to his call for a vote. Leiberman is probably the only one with the gonads to 'publically' speak out against the censure, which fits with his character.

[Rex Kickass]

Frist calls for a vote without debate.

[YASNY]

Frist calls for a vote without debate.

 

Feingold advocates censure. Frist calls his bluff.

[Rex Kickass]

So the Dems in General may not want a vote on this censure, but Feingold does.

 

"I look forward to a full hearing, debate and vote in committee on this important matter," Feingold said in a statement late Monday. "If the Committee fails to consider the resolution expeditiously, I will ask that there be a vote in the full Senate."

 

He'd just like the actual hearing and debate rather than an immediate vote.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1720883

[FlaSoxxJim]

So the Dems in General may not want a vote on this censure, but Feingold does.

He'd just like the actual hearing and debate rather than an immediate vote.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1720883

Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable – even Senatorial – approach.

[WCSox]

So the Dems in General may not want a vote on this censure, but Feingold does.

He'd just like the actual hearing and debate rather than an immediate vote.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1720883

 

Sure, because a long, drawn-out debate in the Senate will mean more negative media coverage of the Bush administration than a quick, losing vote on censure.

Edited March 14, 2006 by WCSox

[kapkomet]

Almost alone even among the GOP, Frist goes so far as to refer to the NSA wiretaps as “a very good lawful constitutional program.” When did Billl Frist become a Constitutional scholar? Circle the wagons and protect the administration and the GOP power base at all costs, that's the only thing Frist is an expert on.

 

He is completely lacking in moral fiber.  Unlike some of the GOP "moderates" who at least claimed they were going to support a Congressional investigation before they crumbled under pressure from others in the part and thinly veiled threats from the White House.  But that didn't mean that these Senators wouldn't have signed on to a censure resolution after a period of informed debate.

 

And that informed debate is precisely the thing that Frist wanted to preempt by calling for a vote prematurely.  Congress, particularly the Senate, is supposed to be a deliberative body that actually discusses the issues before bringing them to a vote.  Alas, much in the manner the twisted GOP-worded version of the "Murtha resolution" was brought to a vote prematurely, Frist yesterday was making damn sure nobody had any time to consider it before being asked to vote.

 

Who's the one pulling the political stunt again?

 

Yea, because "your side" is ALWAYS right. Just once, I'd like to see a real debate of these issues, so that REAL details come out. Truth of the matter is BOTH sides have things to hide, so neither party will do it.

Edited March 14, 2006 by kapkomet

[Rex Kickass]

You're goddamn right. But that's the point. How are we going to get to the bottom of this if one side doesn't want to look into it? How are we going to get to the bottom of this if the other side only cares about scoring political points?

 

How does it help Feingold if he introduces a censure motion and two people vote for it? It doesn't. You, I and the Senator from Wisconsin all know that. It might be that he actually gives a s*** about getting to the bottom of something. But because he's running for President, it has to be grandstanding.

 

My biggest frustration of this board is that because there are some people in our government who let us down, we automatically think the worst about all of them. And maybe some people deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

But because of a D or an R next to their name, a lot of people just won't pass that benefit along and its sad.

[WCSox]

How does it help Feingold if he introduces a censure motion and two people vote for it? It doesn't.

 

You're right. In fact, an overwhelming loss in the censure motion would do the Dems more harm than good. That's why the majority of Dems don't want to actually vote on it. But they're more than happy to engage in a debate that will generate significant media coverage that portrays the Bush administration negatively.

 

This is a political stunt, not an actual attempt to censure the President.

[Balta1701]

You're right.  In fact, an overwhelming loss in the censure motion would do the Dems more harm than good. That's why the majority of Dems don't want to actually vote on it.  But they're more than happy to engage in a debate that will generate significant media coverage that portrays the Bush administration negatively. 

 

This is a political stunt, not an actual attempt to censure the President.

Not necessarily. Politically, Bush is in a horrible spot right now. Even calling for the censure motion on this issue and having it brought to a vote forces people to keep pointing out in the media how the White House has strong-armed the Republicans into preventing any sort of investigation of this matter, whether by the Congress or by any independent source. The same reason that the Dems might benefit from it coming up at all might bring benefit if it goes down...press coverage.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're right.  In fact, an overwhelming loss in the censure motion would do the Dems more harm than good.  That's why the majority of Dems don't want to actually vote on it.  But they're more than happy to engage in a debate that will generate significant media coverage that portrays the Bush administration negatively. 

 

This is a political stunt, not an actual attempt to censure the President.

I think this is one of those situations where, as Rex alluded to, good and bad motivations lead to the same positive end. I think this subject needs debate and attention, so regardless of Feingold's intentions, I think it ends up being positive.

 

I personally would not have chosen a censure attempt to do so, as I said earlier. But I am glad the issue is still out there, where it can be discussed (one hopes).

[WCSox]

Not necessarily.  Politically, Bush is in a horrible spot right now.  

 

Yes, but they can have a long, drawn-out debate on the issue (which will generate A LOT of press coverage) without having to suffer an embarrassing defeat when the motion is crushed. It's the best of both worlds.

 

Even calling for the censure motion on this issue and having it brought to a vote forces people to keep pointing out in the media how the White House has strong-armed the Republicans into preventing any sort of investigation of this matter, whether by the Congress or by any independent source.

 

If that's true, it draws negative attention to and puts blame on a lame-duck administration, rather than the Republicans. The Dems shouldn't be worried about Bush and Cheney right now. They need to worry about how they're going to defeat the Republicans in '08.

Edited March 14, 2006 by WCSox

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yes, but they can have a long, drawn-out debate on the issue (which will generate A LOT of press coverage) without having to suffer an embarrassing defeat when the motion is crushed.  It's the best of both worlds.

If that's true, it draws negative attention to and puts blame on a lame-duck administration, rather than the Republicans.  The Dems shouldn't be worried about Bush and Cheney right now.  They need to worry about how they're going to defeat the Republicans in '08.

Need to take back one of the houses in '06 first.

[NorthSideSox72]

Need to take back one of the houses in '06 first.

I am starting to think the Dems will indeed do that in November. I have only looked over some of the races, and seen the general numbers... but the Dems will definitely pick up seats, and I would guess the House and the Senate will both end up very near even-up.

[mr_genius]

So the Dems in General may not want a vote on this censure, but Feingold does.

He'd just like the actual hearing and debate rather than an immediate vote.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1720883

 

 

meh, the debate will just be worthless grandstanding

 

not neccesary

[WCSox]

Need to take back one of the houses in '06 first.

 

They're in a good position to do that. What would help them even more would be to get away from the negative rhetoric/attacks, show the American public a plan, and explain why it would work better than the GOP's. And, for Chrissake, get rid of that bomb-throwing loon Howard Dean.

[EvilMonkey]

On Lou Dobbs tonight on CNN, he referred to Feingold as a 'moderate'. Must be some powerfull stuff they are smokin' in the newsroom there.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes, but they can have a long, drawn-out debate on the issue (which will generate A LOT of press coverage) without having to suffer an embarrassing defeat when the motion is crushed.  It's the best of both worlds.

If that's true, it draws negative attention to and puts blame on a lame-duck administration, rather than the Republicans.  The Dems shouldn't be worried about Bush and Cheney right now.  They need to worry about how they're going to defeat the Republicans in '08.

 

I would hope that the Dems and GOP would be worrying about how to govern the country correctly.

[kapkomet]

I would hope that the Dems and GOP would be worrying about how to govern the country correctly.

You know the saying - you can hope (wish) in one hand and crap in the other, and you know what you'll get for that.

 

They don't care. They just want to either keep ® or gain power (D). Nothing else matters to these assmunches, and that's the problem with this country('s government).

[WCSox]

I would hope that the Dems and GOP would be worrying about how to govern the country correctly.

 

Unfortunately, they're only worried about staying in power. That's why nothing ever gets done on Capitol Hill.

[Balta1701]

So, the American Research Group polled on this issue, and found Americans actually favoring Censure for Bush on this issue by a narrow margin within the 95% confidence Interval margin of error. Interestingly, in polling just independents, more independents support impeachment of this president than support censure.