Russ Feingold Proposes Censure of Bush on Illegal Spying

georgeob1 wrote:

If this is true then why are the Democrat pols running from Feingold on this matter?

1) It is true 2) Dems are not running away from this issue. (except for two or three DINOs) What the the more gutless among them are doing is waiting to see how this plays out. Some fear a Clinton-like backlash, others merely think that it is best to just let Bush continue to hang himslef with his own rope. They are also afraid of being accused of being soft on national security.

What is clear at this point, contrary to what the clueless right-wing would be pundits here have been saying, is that Feingold will come out of this "smelling like a rose." I can tell you, being an activist, that the censure has nearly unanimous support among the progressive base.

PS I wrote this earlier but forgot to hit reply.

0 Replies

The Dems are soft on national security. They prove it by not backing censure and impeachment against the greatest threat to national security, Bushie. His negligence before 911 was criminal and proof that he cant hack national security. He lied us into war which has been bloody and put the world in a much more dangerous position. His failures with Katrina point to how badly prepared we are to handle catastrophes. Now the GOP has defeated a measure in the House that would have funded increased inspections of cargo coming into the country. Bushie is who threatens America and the world most. And the failure of Dems to point out the obvious shows how weak they are on national security.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
If this is true then why are the Democrat pols running from Feingold on this matter?

1) It is true 2) Dems are not running away from this issue. (except for two or three DINOs) What the the more gutless among them are doing is waiting to see how this plays out. Some fear a Clinton-like backlash, others merely think that it is best to just let Bush continue to hang himslef with his own rope. They are also afraid of being accused of being soft on national security.

If your #1 and #2 are true, then the grreat majority of elected Democrat senators and congressmen are "gutless". It appears to me that the Feingold initiative has already "played itself out". It is a dead letter.

Quote:

What is clear at this point, contrary to what the clueless right-wing would be pundits here have been saying, is that Feingold will come out of this "smelling like a rose." I can tell you, being an activist, that the censure has nearly unanimous support among the progressive base.

OK, but the "progressive base" is unable to elect any serious national candidate, Feingold may well be their hero, but he and they are and will remain an insignificant component of the national political scene,

0 Replies

The Dems aren't soft on National Security, they're inimical to it; they simply do not recognize and acknowledge the necessities thrust on us by Islamofacism. Throwing more money at an inadequately structured program, as they wished to do with port security, is simply stupid. Increasing taxes, both individual and corporate, as they wish to do, would be the surest way to stifle, even cripple, our burgeoning economy, reversing the strides made over the past half-decade and ensuring an exploding deficit. Their obstructionism of both Social Security and of Healthcare Reform is a direct assault on our future.

Fortunately, despite dissatisfaction with The President and with Government overall, The Electorate is not quite so dumb as the current Democratic Leadership and the shrill, shortsighted, appeasement-minded, tax-and-spend radical activists who perceive themselves to be the Party's base and the leftist 5th Column of Mainstream Media suppose it is. As long as the likes of Feingold, Boxer, Pelosi, Reid, Jackson-Lee, Stabenow, Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Murtha, and Gore head up the Democrat's march, their Party is squarely enroute to nowhere, and making great progress in the journey.

0 Replies

timberlandko, when the Dem leadership supports their constituants call for impeachment they will become national security experts. As for Islamofacism a look at the connections of the Bushies to our enemies proves how dangerous the Bushies are to national and international security. They armed and funded Saddam, bin Laden, Abu Sayef who we fight in the Phillipiners and the war lords we fight in Afghanistan. Generations of Bushies have armed the enemy and gotten wealthy off the blowback. If we never face up to that history the practice will grab future generations. Unfortunately by not facing up the Dems prove themselves complicit in that kind of betrayal.

0 Replies

Those who swallow that tripe precisely are the source of the Dems current woes.

0 Replies

Timber, excuse me?

Quote:

reversing the strides made over the past half-decade and ensuring an exploding deficit.

Perhaps you haven't noticed how the debt has exploded in the last half decade, far more than the decade previous to this. In fact, your party, the party of fiscal discipline, just raised the debt limit again. To 9 trillion dollars. And you have the gall to accuse the Dems of being the party that will bring around exploding defecits?

Where's your balanced budget amendments? Hmm?

Where's your 'Pay-as-you-go' regulations? Your Republicans have shot that down time and time again over the last 5 years.

It's a lie that Republicanism represents the party of fiscal sanity. Trickle-down theory has never, ever been shown to have worked in real life; but it has been shown to raise our defecits, debts, reduce tax revenue, and harm the middle class. All of these things, and more, have happened in the last 5 years.

I will write a more comprehensive post today on Democratic party beliefs and strategy, and how I think Republicans manipulate the Framing on the issues in order to make it seem as if the Dems don't have a position at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

reagan, bush and bush jr. have presided over the largest deficits in history.

reagan alone tripled a deficit that had not doubled since the time of washington. at least with him, we got something out of it; bankrupting and collapsing the ussr via the arms race.

i'll take tax and spend over borrow and spend any day...

0 Replies

The truth is the Democrat's affection for balanced budgets came only as an afterthought as their situation was bouyed up by the stockmarket bubble of the late 1990s. Certainly since the New Deal of FDR deficity spending had been the hallmark of successive Democrat administrations. The culmination of this was the econoimic stagnation that became manifest during the administration of the hapless Jimmy Carter.

The current Republican strategy is to limit government by limiting its revenues (taxes) it takes in. I do fault Bush for not resisting discretionary spending more than he has, however the fact remains that the prior budget surplus and the current deficit have far more to do with the economic cycle than with tax cuts. We did get a very soft landing from the collapsing tech bubble of the '90s and the recession that was already underway when Clinton left office. Our economy is growing at a good pace and that will likely take care of the deficit. Our public debt as a % of GDP is less than that of most developed nations,

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The current Republican strategy is to limit government by limiting its revenues (taxes) it takes in.

that's what they say, george. but it's not what they're doing. they are simply borrowing the money.

and one of the top 3 lenders (and i believe #2 behind japan) is the communist republic of china.

how is either one of these things a good thing for america?

they just raised the debt ceiling. did you know that ? none of the congress people are willing to dump their pork, including, and conspicuously, the republicans.

and bush has not once vetoed a spending item. ever. and in fact the only thing.. the only thing he has threatened to veto is the congress' threat to block dpw.

unreal....

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
If this is true then why are the Democrat pols running from Feingold on this matter?

1) It is true 2) Dems are not running away from this issue. (except for two or three DINOs) What the the more gutless among them are doing is waiting to see how this plays out. Some fear a Clinton-like backlash, others merely think that it is best to just let Bush continue to hang himslef with his own rope. They are also afraid of being accused of being soft on national security.

What is clear at this point, contrary to what the clueless right-wing would be pundits here have been saying, is that Feingold will come out of this "smelling like a rose." I can tell you, being an activist, that the censure has nearly unanimous support among the progressive base.

PS I wrote this earlier but forgot to hit reply.

You're dillusional.!

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14117085.htm

"WASHINGTON - President Bush's approval ratings have hit a new low, the war in Iraq has more skeptics than at any other point during its three-year run and voters have begun questioning the Republicans' credentials on national security.
So as political fortunes appear to be rising for Democrats, it might seem that a motion to censure Bush for his domestic spying program would be an ideal way to galvanize the Democratic Party and throw Republicans on the defensive eight months before the midterm elections.
Yet Democrats are hurriedly distancing themselves from a call by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to censure Bush for allegedly breaking the law regarding domestic surveillance. As Feingold has tried to build support for what would be the first formal rebuke of a president since the 19th century, Democrats intent on seizing control of Congress seem to wish the proposal would simply go away.
"It's not impeachment, but it's not something you apply lightly," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. "And whether we want to start applying censure motions or impeachment when there are questions about a president's authority in national security is something that you have to be judicious about."
Four days after Feingold announced the resolution on the Senate floor, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa was the lone Democrat to lend his name to the proposal. In a news conference Thursday, Feingold conceded: "You know, many in my caucus don't want to talk about this.

0 Replies

ha ha ha ha ha Feingold's resolution is going nowhere? Too funny, that is why there are ten pages here and it is virtually the only thing people are talking about on progressive talk. And you call ME dillusional. [sic] You will see how dillusional [sic] in November.

You right-wing dittoheads are living in the past. Wake up and smell the coffee. The worm has turned.

0 Replies

What truly is delusional is the perception among themselves that the far-left activist "Progressive" wing of the Democratic Party has the ear of The Electorate, represents rank-and-file mainstream Democrats, or wields any substantive influence beyond their own howling mob. Only they take themselves seriously, and boy, do they take themselves seriously.

Which is all cool by me. I look forward to them keeping on doing as they have been doing; their track record speaks for itself.

Meanwhile, back to the swell of support for Feingold's Folly, Pelosi takes a stand

Whoodathunk ol' Russ woulda been the one to unite both Parties within themselves, and bring them together on an issue?

0 Replies

by Jane Hamsher

03.17.2006
No Surprise: Poll Shows Feingold's Popularity Soaring

The response of the Senate Democrats to the Feingold censure resolution aptly demonstrates how thoroughly disconnected they are from the strong feelings in the netroots community about the illegal NSA wireteps. They seem to have no concept of stepping into a leadership position and channeling that emotion into positive action. So let me speak in a language that even the dullest, the most remedial, most thick-witted Democratic consultant can understand.

According to a new Rassmussen poll:
"Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/no-surprise-poll-shows-_b_17477.html

0 Replies

Rasmussen without the Huf'n'puff spin tells a somewhat different story:

Quote:

38% Favor Censure of President Bush

March 17, 2006--Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe President Bush should be censured for approving the NSA wiretapping program. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 45% are opposed to the proposal advocated by Senator Russell Feingold.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who believes it is important to censure or impeach the President. Forty-two percent (42%) are less likely to vote for such a candidate.

When we initially asked if people had a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of Feingold, his name recognition was very low--15% favorable and 23% unfavorable. After asking questions about censure and informing respondents that Feingold was the advocate, his numbers jumped to 32% favorable and 41% unfavorable.

Advocating censure does offer a boost for Feingold within the Democratic Party. Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable.

The flip side is that Republicans have an overwhelming negative opinion of the maverick Senator--9% favorable and 74% unfavorable.

Censure is favored by 39% of men and 37% of women. Men are more likely to oppose the formal reprimand.

0 Replies

"a plurality of Americans favor a censure for Bush and 42 percent of respondents believe that Bush should be impeached for the NSA spying," http://mediamatters.org/items/200603170016

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

ha ha ha ha ha Feingold's resolution is going nowhere? Too funny, that is why there are ten pages here and it is virtually the only thing people are talking about on progressive talk. And you call ME dillusional. [sic] You will see how dillusional [sic] in November.

You right-wing dittoheads are living in the past. Wake up and smell the coffee. The worm has turned.

OK by me. Keep talking it up in your small and isolated circle.

0 Replies

blueflame, only the ARG poll indicates a plurality of support. Of course, this isn't the first or only time ARG has been at odds with the pack; ARG's track record offers a perspective on that.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
ha ha ha ha ha Feingold's resolution is going nowhere? Too funny, that is why there are ten pages here and it is virtually the only thing people are talking about on progressive talk. And you call ME dillusional. [sic] You will see how dillusional [sic] in November.

You right-wing dittoheads are living in the past. Wake up and smell the coffee. The worm has turned.

OK by me. Keep talking it up in your small and isolated circle.

You Bush apologists are the small and isolated circle. Guess what? Time changes everything. Crow while you can. You will be eating crow in November, my in denial little man.

0 Replies

As I said, Feingold is going to come out smelling like a rose and both polls bear that out. Momentum is building for censure as we speak.

0 Replies

Russ Feingold Proposes Censure of Bush on Illegal Spying

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know