Senate Democrats Never Miss An Opportunity To Miss An Opportunity
Published March 15, 2006
A friend who's one of the most politically active people I know just came by, looking so tired and disgusted that it was a wonder he could even speak. The disgust was for the Senate Democrats who have been acting like Sen. Russ Feingold has cooties for introducing a motion to censure the president over his grossly illegal domestic espionage program. The fatigue came from the knowledge that this little scenario has already been played out many times by the national party and will be played out many times more.
"If this is how I feel," he said, "how does it make other people feel?" Meaning: people without his level of commitment. They probably feel the way I do. Baffled, frustrated, and certain that whatever happens in the upcoming congressional races, the Democrats will interpret the results incorrectly.
If the Democrats gain seats, they will feel validated in their strategy of doing and saying nothing controversial or compelling while Bush's poll numbers are so low. They think that if they simply stand around and don't alienate anyone, the voters will come to them. If they lose, they will conclude it's because they weren't "centrist" enough and become even more bland and cautious. In either case, the outcome will be decided not by the actions of Democrats, but by Republicans, for good or for ill.
The field of action has been ceded to the GOP in the belief that the Republicans will do themselves in through their own incompetence and corruption. Maybe so, but the Republicans have demonstrated a marvelous knack for changing the terms of debate and pulling out narrow victories at the 11th hour. That's what happens when you take the initiative; you get to dictate the terms of the battle.
The great thing about Feingold's resolution . . . well, actually, there are several great things about Feingold's resolution.
First, it forces the Republicans to come out from under the flag they've been using for cover and demonstrate true Americanism. It says: Here is a runaway president abusing his power in a way that repulses most Americans. What do you think about it? What are you going to do about it? Are you patriots, or are you power-worshipping Bush cultists? Explain yourselves, and quickly.
- Senate Democrats Never Miss An Opportunity To Miss An Opportunity
- Published: March 15, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Culture: Society, Books: Politics and Affairs, Books: History, Politics: Law and Rights, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Steven Hart
- Steven Hart's BC Writer page
- Steven Hart's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I didn't vote for GWB. But I do have to point out that you are incorrect about anything illegal being done by Bush. If Bush was guilty of something then you could censure.
Just so you know Russ is also very anxious to eliminate the 1st amendment. He would like to limit all political speech. He should be censured.
Maurice, on what do you base your comment about limiting all political speech?
As for the NSA program, I am not convinced it's illegal, but I think the question should be asked and the matter should be investigated. The Senate compromise avoids investigation, and I think that's a tragedy. At the same time, I think Feingold's method of raising the question is flawed.
Maurice, you can censure someone whether or not they're guilty of anything. It's a purely symbolic move and all it would do is make the Democrats who did it look petty and weak, because it would have no real impact at all, plus since most of the American people have apparently managed to grasp the difference between what Bush did and actual illegal wiretaps - 78% supporting him on this one issue - it was politically pretty ill-advised to support a censure. Going after an unpopular president on the singlel issue he's actually supported on is pretty damned dumb.
Dave
The Senate compromise avoids investigation, and I think that's a tragedy.
Which Senate compromise is that?
How does it make me feel to see a committed leftist frustrated because his agenda isn't being advanced?
Puts a big ol' smile on my face. That's how!
how does it make me feel to read someone called "Arch Conservative" defend the Agenda of an Administration that has spent the bank and gone in hock to record amounts, violates the Law (FISA) to go on phishing expeditions against it's citizens, holds US citizens without due process for years and not only launches a pre-emptive war based on shitty info which was never properly vetted or confirmed , but now leads to a years long Nation building excercise?
i think the name should be Arch-NeoCon
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
Michael - The one from March 7, described here.
"the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against an investigation of the president's warrantless domestic spying program."
AC - Your name alone shows you'd like to see a "leftist frustrated because his agenda isn't being advanced" - and I for one couldn't care less about your hyper conservative views - but how do you feel about the NSA spying program?
Excuse me Gonzo but where in my previous post on this thread did i defend the current administration?
As for the NSA sypying program I am fine with it because I believe it's true untent was only to monitor people who for legitimate reasons were suspected of either being terrorists or having terrorists ties. I don't buy into the leftist propaganda that this program was created and used to montior the personal conversations of average Americans on a widespread and random basis.
Sounds like the Dems. have the same disease the Canadian Liberals had the last year or two when they were in govt. They lost to the new Conservative party 36% to 30% in January's election. I think Mr. Hart may be onto something with this article.
I am fine with it because I believe it's true untent was only to monitor people who for legitimate reasons were suspected of either being terrorists or having terrorists ties.
If the only people they were monitoring were people they had legitimate reasons to spy on, why didn't they get a warrant to do it?
Dave - I stand corrected.
As I understand it the vote was 1 to 99.
Michael, agreed--why intentionally craft the program to go around FISA? AC, that's the problem I have it--regardless of "leftist propaganda," whether or not there have been abuses, I value the 4th amendment and I value checks and balances. This administration has been on a 5 year power grab, blatantly admitted by Dick Cheney, as exemplified in this quote from the WSJ:
"decisions that were aimed at the time at trying to avoid a repeat of things like Vietnam or . . . Watergate...I thought they were misguided then, and have believed that given the world that we live in, that the president needs to have unimpaired executive authority."
They're going to continue claiming power until Congress grows a pair, and for that reason I respect Feingold's message, if not his method.
Maurice, I'm pretty sure they haven't voted on the Censure yet. Current estimates are that Feingold has at least 5 votes for it.
Dave
JP
When I said leftist propaganda I wasn't referring to the legality of the program. I was referring to the attributed intentions of the program. It seems as if a lot of people on the far left belive that the administration's intentions were to haphazardly spy on random American citizens with nno rhyme or reason. These people then point ot this as evidence that we are living in a police state. Some even compare Bush to Hitler.
I am sorry but I can take anyone who believes this tripe seriously and this is what I was referring to with that term. I believe the program was an earnest (although maybe bungled) attempt to ferret out the terrorissts. I am not aware of any widespread instances of innocent citizens being spied on.
As I understand it the administration did inform several members of congress while the program was going on. So if you want to blame Bush you must also blame them as they said nothing too. Also I believe legally they could have got a retroactive warrant. I think they should have as it just makes them look arrogant and like they think they're above the law. I'll give you that.
JP #3
http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/debate/MF_summary.htm
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/44994)
Though I agree the question of the NSA program's legality needs to be asked, I think Feingold goofed here. If Raw Story is correct, many Democrats didn't know about the motion until Sunday when it was announced on national TV. Failing to give his fellow Senators warning is a mistake someone like Karl Rove would never allow someone he manages to make, and it speaks to the idea that while Feingold's step is bold, he's also not a leader.