Sadly, I have to agree with Mr. Moto on this, although I think this reflects more on the sad state of the Democratic Party then on Senator Feingold.
I recently learned that there are 19 sitting Democratic Senators who co-sponsored Senator Feinstein’s resolution to censure Bill Clinton. Not the resolution that was proposed to head off impeachment, the resolution that was proposed after impeachment was already off the table. Nineteen, and that’s just counting the ones that are still in the Senate today.
This is the modern Democratic party, folks: more willing to censure Bill Clinton over a blowjob then they are to censure George Bush for what polls suggest a majority of Americans think was illegal wiretapping.
I’m going to make a prediction: a Republican will be President in 2009, because the Democrats couldn’t win the election if George Bush went on national TV tomorrow and held up a 7-11.
Exactly. The only way to hold Bush accountable is for the Democrats to win more seats in Congress in November. I don’t see how this action helps that. In fact, it probably makes it hard for them to do so since it is very divisive inside that very party.
I’m not suggesting that Feingold must supress his own views “for the good of the party”, but he can express those views in plenty of other ways without doing damage to the party. He’s more or less playing into the hands of the Republicans on this one.
Well, at the very least Feingold could have gotten the minority leadership behind the measure. Barring that, he could have lined up cosponsors ahead of time. He did neither, which suggests either incompetence or rhetorical intemperance to me.
I think Feingold is wonderful. It’s nice to see someone stand up for principle, particularly for an issue that has no legs at all with the people. A censure would indeed be appropriate, but that isn’t coming. But at least this gets someone on record as having been in vocal opposition to Bush’s illegal policies.
If this gets to a vote, great. It would force Hillary to vote against it and expose her as the Vichy Dem that she is.
Somebody has to drag this party into taking a stand on something, or they’ll probably wind up losing anyway. I mean, if Bush admits to breaking the law routinely over a 4-year period, and the Dems can’t stand up and be in favor of officially admonishing him over it…fuckin’ hopeless, that’s what they are.
Feingold was right to talk about them “cowering.” Why should anyone vote for this group of craven cowards? I can see the commercials now: “Vote for the scaredycats who are afraid of their own shadows - they’re still better than the Republicans, who are bad for reasons we’re too scared to name.”
No, that would be the rest of the Dems who are doing that.
When Feingold runs in 2008, maybe he’ll take Murtha as his running mate. Be good to see two Dems with actual cojones on the same ticket.
Not to overplay this censure thing (because it isn’t that big a deal), but I hope you find solace in that when the Dems remain the minority party after November.
I hope Feingold does run. Or rather, that he continues to run. And if he gets the Dem nomination (highly unlikely as that may be), a Feingold/Murtha ticket pitched against McCain/Rice or McCain/Barbour would be a real election for a change!!
I’ve never understood how Bush can be both an idiot and a mastermind; a simpleton and a man capible of Machiavellian schemes, but maybe that is just me. Rice does her job well, but she isn’t exactly a ‘yes’ woman, and with a PhD to her credit, i’m not sure she is Bush’s Protege
I’d break it down like this: he’s not dumb, and when he cares about something, he can actually be pretty smart. He cares about tax cuts; he cares about political dominance; he doesn’t care about nitty-gritty policy stuff.
I’d say Rove is still the real mastermind of Bush’s and the GOP’s political success from 2000 to the present, but Bush isn’t exactly a sock in that respect; he’s good and ke knows what he’s doing.
We’ve tried the minimal-confrontation approach in 2002 and 2004, and it worked so well. When the other party periodically accuses those in my party of anything up to and including being in bed with the terrorists, it’s time to try something new: to not be afraid to accuse them of the things they’ve actually done.
Barbour?? Yer kidding. Before he ran for MS Gov in 2004, he was your quintessential inside-the-beltway lifer.
This is by no means assured. As a matter of fact, I rather think that the House is in play. “Speaker Pelosi” has a nice ring to it. And if Bush and Cheney were to meet untimely demises…
That she isn’t a yes woman, or that she is good at her job? She has been quoted a number of times as disagreeing with a policy, or suggesting a different one, then she will still do what is required of her as Sec of State. “Good at her job” of course is an opinion, but it is a commonly held one (from my personal expirence; and if we can extrapilate polling data and her ‘run’ against Mrs. Clinton)
I guess it wouldn’t if you take the opinion that Bush isn’t stupid. If you think he is a simpleton then it would go to the ‘she is too smart for that’ arguement. I would see her more as a Protoge of Rove (politically) and Powell (professionally), not of Bush who seems to depend on her, more than direct her.