Senator Russ Feingold moves to censure Bush over NSA wiretaps

[Merijeek]

@RTFirefly

Barbour?? Yer kidding. Before he ran for MS Gov in 2004, he was your quintessential inside-the-beltway lifer.

He’s not so different now.

Currently, he’s fighting a bill that will reduce grocery taxes and raise cigarette taxes…because there will be a net-loss to the state’s revenue.

So, lowering taxes is a good thing. Unless it hurts those you used to lobby for. Ya gotta love that GOP set of ethics!

Gummint for sale! Gummint for sale!

-Joe

[John_Mace]

@edwino

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everyone – right and left – on this thread, is overlooking the sheer beauty of this manuever. This is a political move for the ages. It doesn’t hurt that it also happens to be, IMHO, the right thing to do.

I don’t see how what you’re saying is substantially different from what I said. It’s a good tactic* for him wrt his quest for the prsidency, but it’s bad for the Democratic party overall. Lots of us have said that in this thread. I do think you are overstating the impact of this move, however. It’ll be long forgetten come November as long as it doesn’t come up for a vote.

*although one has to question how good a tactic it is to piss off the party leaders. Hel’ll need ot attract a lot of voters to make up for that.

[BrainGlutton]

I campaigned for Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa) when he was seeking the Dem presidential nomination in 1992.

And now I’m very glad I did. Harkin has become the first official co-sponsor of Feingold’s censure resolution. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/12561-1.html

[BobLibDem]

@edwino

3. I predict that sometime near/before midterm elections, the US will significantly draw down troop numbers in Iraq. It is almost inevitable given the current situation. This will be despite any stable situation emerging. It will be viewed as the “sensible” thing to do to cut our losses but of course they won’t use that language because it will evoke “cut-n-run.”

The natural instinct of the Dems will be to take the easy bait and attack the President and Repubs for “cut-n-run.” But wait! All of a sudden, HRC and the majority of the Congressional Dems will find themselves outflanked on the left side for Iraq by the Repubs. The Dems will be left holding the bag for continuing an unpopular war, LBJ-style. Oops! Now the Repubs neatly remove the albatross of Iraq and hang it on the Dems.

This leaves the Dems to choose a candidate, HRC or Biden, who is thoroughly outflanked on the war, or go with someone whose views have never wavered. Alas, Feingold.

You lost me. If the US pulls out of Iraq it will be seen as an admission of defeat and/or that we never should have been there in the first place. The only way that the Dems can be left holding the bag for continuing an unpopular war is to first of all get elected and second to continue this disaster. If they accomplish the first, I don’t see why they would do the second.

[BrainGlutton]

@BobLibDem

You lost me. If the US pulls out of Iraq it will be seen as an admission of defeat and/or that we never should have been there in the first place. The only way that the Dems can be left holding the bag for continuing an unpopular war is to first of all get elected and second to continue this disaster. If they accomplish the first, I don’t see why they would do the second.

But, up to now, few Dems in Congress have even expressed interest in pulling out.

[Thersites]

I predict that sometime near/before midterm elections, the US will significantly draw down troop numbers in Iraq. It is almost inevitable given the current situation. This will be despite any stable situation emerging. It will be viewed as the “sensible” thing to do to cut our losses but of course they won’t use that language because it will evoke “cut-n-run.”

Yep. They’re already doing it.

All along, Feingold has been playing to the Dean base (yes, and the Moveon.org folks).

Yep. But not pandering to it. (scroll to the bottom few paras if it’s too long).

But I don’t think Feingold will take the nomination away from Hillary as easily as you thing. Here’s why. .

[Apos]

I don’t think Feingold will be much of a factor at all. It will be Warner vs. Hillary, and Warner will win. While she has a lock on the Dem money, Warner is the perfect alternative… and he has LOTS of money of his own.

[John_Mace]

@Apos

I don’t think Feingold will be much of a factor at all. It will be Warner vs. Hillary, and Warner will win. While she has a lock on the Dem money, Warner is the perfect alternative… and he has LOTS of money of his own.

Did you read the NTY magazine piece on him? There’s some controversy about the picture they chose for the cover (it was awful), but it makes for an interesting read.

I’m still not sure Hill will run. If the Dems don’t win at least one House in Congress back, the Republicans would skewer her. They’d be after her more than they were after her husband. Now that’s what I call a vast right-wing conspiracy!

[Orbifold]

@John Mace

It’s a good tactic* for him wrt his quest for the prsidency, but it’s bad for the Democratic party overall.

Yep, it’s bad for the Democratic party to support something that a plurality of voters appear to support.

Since that link is clearly not a permanent one, let me quote the result:

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?
3/15/06 Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 46% 44% 10%
Voters 48% 43% 9%
Republicans (33%) 29% 57% 14%
Democrats (37%) 70% 26% 4%
Independents (30%) 42% 47% 11%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide March 13-15, 2006. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.

*although one has to question how good a tactic it is to piss off the party leaders. Hel’ll need ot attract a lot of voters to make up for that.

How’s 48% grab you? Is that “a lot”?

[Mr.Moto]

Not enough to push this thing through.

Look at the independent numbers. Ram this through and you’ll piss half of them off. Piss half of them off and you can kiss electoral victory goodbye.

It can’t possibly win, it is wrong to pursue in the first place, and it will cost the party politically. It loses three times over.

[BrainGlutton]

@Mr. Moto

Not It can’t possibly win, it is wrong to pursue in the first place, and it will cost the party politically. It loses three times over.

Why is it “wrong to pursue in the first place”? Bush certainly deserves to be censured over this. At the very least.

[Orbifold]

@Mr. Moto

Not enough to push this thing through.

Look at the independent numbers. Ram this through and you’ll piss half of them off. Piss half of them off and you can kiss electoral victory goodbye.

You know, Mr. Moto, there’s this line near the top of the poll results which tells you the percentages for Democrats, Republicans, and independents combined. Right near the very top. And despite your vehement proclamations of fact, I can still read that line and see that 48% of all voters combined seem to support this idea.

In short, the numbers as stated don’t seem to agree with your off-the-cuff electoral math.

It can’t possibly win, it is wrong to pursue in the first place, and it will cost the party politically. It loses three times over.

I strongly disagree on the last two. There’s a chance to actually lead here, if the Democratic party can just assemble the collective guts to do it.

[Merijeek]

@BrainGlutton

Why is it “wrong to pursue in the first place”? Bush certainly deserves to be censured over this. At the very least.

Moto ONLY wants what’s best for the country. As such, he has a true concern in giving the Democrats good advice and putting them back in the driver’s seat.

How could you possibly think otherwise?

-Joe

[John_Mace]

@Orbifold

Yep, it’s bad for the Democratic party to support something that a plurality of voters appear to support.

Since that link is clearly not a permanent one, let me quote the result:

How’s 48% grab you? Is that “a lot”?

It doesn’t grab me at all. The error is +/- 3%, so it’s pretty much a wash. And word the poll question slightly differenlty and you’ll get different results. What if it said (my changes added in underline):

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States who have contacted al Qaeda supsects without obtaining court orders?

[Hamlet]

@Mr. Moto

It can’t possibly win, it is wrong to pursue in the first place, and it will cost the party politically. It loses three times over.

I can possibly see how it may be problematic as a political issue, because of the unconcern of the American people, but could you expound on why it is wrong to pursue it?

[Gadarene]

What if it said (my changes added in underline):

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States who have contacted al Qaeda supsects without obtaining court orders?

If that’s what it said, it’d be making an unsupported assertion.

What if it said:

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders and while molesting small children?

[Squink]

@Merijeek

Moto ONLY wants what’s best for the country.

You spelled ‘party’ wrong.

[John_Mace]

@Gadarene

If that’s what it said, it’d be making an unsupported assertion.

Why unsupported?

I didn’t even add the part about those susepcts being overseas.

What if it said:

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders and while molesting small children?

Depends on who is doing the molesting. Bush or the wiretapee or the Senate. It’s hard to tell from that sentence.

[Thersites]

Look, the Democratic message should be simple:

“I’m all for spying on terrorists, but if you’re going to spy on Americans, you have to abide by the law. We can be both safe and free.”

“You’re weak on terrorism!” “Actually, I’m all for spying on terrorists, but if you’re going to spy on Americans, you have to abide by the law. We can be both safe and free.”

“Democrats don’t have a plan to defend America!” “Well, actually, we think a good plan includes spying on terrorists. Of course, if that involves spying on Americans, then we would abide by the law at the same time. We can be both safe and free.”

“But BE AFRAID!!” “No.”

Even without a clear Democratic message, 48% support censure. Can you imagine how high the number would go if we got on-message?

[John_Mace]

As I said earlier, there are many ways to play this poll game:

  ABC News/Washington Post  Poll. March 2-5, 2006. N=1,000 adults
 nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.
"As you may know, the National Security Agency has been investigating
 people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone
 calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other 
countries, without first getting court approval to do so. Would you consider this 
wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mails without court approval as an acceptable 
or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?"

						

.
                           Acceptable        Unaccep-
                                               table                  Unsure 		
                            %                   %                       % 		
3/2-5/06                   54                   46                       -