Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin – the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act in 2005 – has introduced a resolution to censure Bush for violating FISA in authorizing NSA to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance. So far, no other Senate Democrats are lining up behind him. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/13/opinion/lynch/main1397694.shtml
Is censure appropriate?
Why aren’t the Dems backing it? Should they?
What’s the standard for a censure? Is there one?
And what’d Andrew Jackson do to get his, anyway?
No. At least, it’s not mentioned in the Constitution, nor in the House or Senate rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure#Censure_in_the_United_States So I guess it’s just a matter of whipping up the votes.
He defunded the Second Bank of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Opposition_to_the_National_Bank
I think Feingold is one of the more honorable men in Congress, but one has to wonder WTF he’s doing. There is no way the Republicans are going to vote for this, and what if they call his bluff? Then he puts his own party members in a difficult spot. It would be one thing to censure Bush for Iraq or Katrina response, or even the DPW ports deal (all very unpopular), but not for the NSA wiretapping program (it gets at least 50/50 aproval among voters, probably more).
Is he feeling a need to emphasize that he is to the left of HRC? If that’s what he’s up to, fine. He won’t be the first Senator to posture thusly in the lead-up to a presidential race. I wouldn’t even hold it against it him.
What “bluff”? And how would the Pubs “call”?
The republican leadership could move that the censure bill be brought to the floor for a straight up or down vote. Given that no other democrats were willing to sign on to the bill, how many are going to vote for it? So the democratic senators have to decide whether to vote against the bill and therefore implicitly endorsing the president, or vote for it and look like unhinged Bush-bashers to their constituents.
Sorry, I thought that was obvious. By letting this go to a vote. Feingold probably wants Hillary on record as being “pro-Domestic Spying”. He’s hoping the Moveon.org crowd and other left-wing elements of the Democrtaic party will not back her, if they haven’t already decided not to.
Did you see yourself in that post? 
I don’t think Feingold really wants this to come to a vote. And he’s probably pissing off the Senate Democratic leadership. I heard Frist is actually contemplating forcing a vote on it. I think all he really wanted was for the press to ask Hillary whether or not she supported it, to get her on the record. But even if he didn’t get that, he could show this action as part of his bona fides to the left, and point out that he got no support from other Democrats, liek you-know-who (wink, wink).
BING BING BING BING BING!!! We have a winner!
Feingold appears to be a stand up guy in that he’s willing to take positions that may be unpopular in the wider world and damned to the consequences. Well and good.
But this has ‘presidential positioning’ written ALL over it. He’s thinking he can be the liberal in the democratic field in a couple of years and he wants to make moves to solidify that for the primaries.
Having met Sen. Feingold on a number of occasions in the last decade, I’d bet he’s doing this because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. He’s never been one to move in lockstep with his party, or to pay it much mind if he feels strongly about something.
Witness his lone vote against the Patriot Act (which many said would ensure his re-election defeat), his vote FOR confirming Ashcroft as Bush’s AG (he said the prez had the right to choose his own cabinet members), and his vote to prevent banning partial birth abortion (a very unpopular stance in our state, again before his re-election) because he objected to the lack of a clause for exceptions based on a grave danger to a woman’s health.
He’s also the poorest US senator (net worth $220 K in 2004, probably less nowsince he divorced after that), and refuses to accept pay raises during his term, accepting only the salary in effect the year he was elected.
He’s a maverick. And he’s the only politician I trust or will give money to.
(BTW, I expect I’ll have a former state politico residing in my place of employment soon…) 
My point is, you’d have to pretty politically unsophisticated to characterize Moveon.org as “left-wing.”
But there are plenty of ways to do this w/o pissing off, and potentially damaging, his fellow Democrats. This just looks too poltical to not have that be at least part of his motivation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! The one hole in that theory is one might ask: Does Feingold really have to take more action to differentiate himself from Hillary, et al? It’s not like no one notices already…
I think that’s it. Had it been a political move, he could have done it before the Republicans stopped any Senate investigation into the NSA program, but it wasn’t until the Republican Senators abdicated their Congressional responsibility that he took this action. It sounds more like a last ditch effort to hold the White House accountable for its illegal wiretapping rather than a political move. I support it wholeheartedly.
Are you calling me politically unsophisicated? Pistols at dawn, my friend!!
Moveon.org represents the left wing of the Democratic party. You don’t see that because you’re way to left of them. But you’re not part of a wing. Maybe you’re one little burr on the end of the furthest feather in a wing…
Believe me, there’s a lot of Dems to the left of Moveon. (Most of them are like myself, voting Dem only because it’s the leftest real game in town.)
But they don’t have any sway over the party. MoveOn.org does. Just because some whacko left-wing loons* vote democratic, doesn’t make them part of “the party”.
*no reference to you, of course.
As a hijack…anyone know if Feingold is considering a presidential run in 2008?
-Joe
I have to agree with John on this one. MoveOn isn’t far left but it definitely is on the left.
Exactly. As a left-winger myself, I wouldn’t even consider voting for Clinton over Feingold. I’d think most others on the left would feel the same way . . . and moreover, I’d think Feingold knows it.