| Author |
Message |
    
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:06 pm: | 
|
Once again the WSJ offers a nugget of truth among all the BS...
The Impeachment Agenda
Russ Feingold reveals what many Democrats really want.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Republicans are denouncing Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to "censure" President Bush for his warrantless wiretaps on al Qaeda, but we'd like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor. He's had the courage to put on the table what Democrats are all but certain to do if they win either the House or Senate in November.
In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. Whether such an inevitable attempt succeeds would depend on Mr. Bush's approval rating, and especially on whether Democrats could use their subpoena power as committee chairs to conjure up something they could flog to a receptive media as an "impeachable" offense. But everyone should understand that censure and impeachment are important--and so far the only--parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress.
And not just the loony left either, though it's getting harder to distinguish them from the mainstream variety. Mr. Feingold is hardly some Internet crank. He's a third-term Senator from a swing state who has all but announced his intention to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. He was the first major Democrat to call for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, and half his party was soon demanding the same.
As a legal matter, Mr. Feingold's censure proposal is preposterous. The National Security Agency wiretaps were disclosed to Congressional leaders, including Democrats, from the start. The lead FISA court judges were also informed, and the Attorney General and Justice lawyers have monitored the wiretaps all along. Despite a media drumbeat about "illegal domestic eavesdropping," Mr. Bush's spirited defense of the program since news of it leaked has swung public opinion in support.
But as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they're living in some new dictatorship. Liberal journals solemnly debate impeachment, and political-action groups have formed to promote it. One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.
When the fever gets this hot in supposedly mainstream forums, Mr. Feingold is right to conclude that the facts behind any censure or impeachment motion won't really matter. All that will count is the politics, which means it will come down to a question of votes in Congress. And several leading Democrats have already raised the "impeachment" card.
California Senator Barbara Boxer loudly wrote four legal scholars late last year asking if the NSA wiretaps were impeachable. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced a resolution calling for the creation of a "select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."
In other words, everything that Mr. Bush has been accused of during the last five years, no matter how Orwellian or thoroughly refuted, will be trotted out again and used as impeachment fodder. And lest you think this could never happen, Judiciary is the House committee through which any formal impeachment resolution would be introduced and proceed. As the country heads toward 2008 and a Democratic nomination fight, John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton would be hard-pressed to avoid going along with Mr. Feingold, Al Gore, and others feeding the bile of the censure/impeach brigades.
Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold's public service in floating his "censure" gambit now. He's doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.
Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let's have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what's really at stake.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5188
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
What? Some in Congress believe that there should be checks and balances?
Heaven forfend! |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 922
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Impeachment is a most definite possibility should the dems win the majority of the house or senate. That much of the OPINION piece is true.
All the rest is pure make believe fantasy of the authors invention. Calling Bush a wartime president is hilarious, as if that means anything.
The last paragraph is such utter nonsense.
|
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 135
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
The dems should stop harping about the NSA/FISA issue. After all, it has "saved thousands of American lives" per Cheney. Never mind that the guy who supervises the program has testified it has provided little, if any, helpful info. Cheney wouldn't lie about something like that. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 828
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 6:40 pm: |
|
dave23,
Guiliani would easily win and get their support.
And Feingold won't go any where nationally. I know you New Jersey folks are tired of the New York shadow but this latest attempt is weak. Corzine has a better shot than Feingold and he doesn't have a shot. When will you guys face it - it's Hillary. You might as well get behind her now and begin the push. Let the Repubs fight it out while Hillary raises the cash. That is a recipe for Democratic victory. However, it seems that the Dems want to duke it out as well. When all is said and done, the Republicans will have more money and that means more electoral votes (especially with Diebold on board). |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3333
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 8:05 pm: |
|
Southerner: Why shouldn't Hillary and Feingold duke it out? |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5957
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 8:21 pm: |
|
southerner...if Hilary and Feingold duke it out doesn't that, in theory, improve the Repubs odds of keeping the white house? I mean its all gravy if the Dems are divided and not behind one powerful candidate. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 158
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 8:51 pm: |
|
The politics of it: I don't buy the Hillary is Inevitable line one little bit. In fact, I think that balloon is being pumped up by Republicans as much as anyone.
The Democrats have many flaws and many flawed candidates, but they are also a big tent. Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, even John Edwards and Joe Biden-- there are many viable candidates with good ideas.
And as for censure-- all I hear about in the press is how foolhardy it all is. Republicans are quick to point to Feingold's lack of support. And on this board, it seems we are always only one posting from Hillary.
But Bush's approvals are dropping, his incompetence is becoming more apparent and today they launch a trial balloon that they might consider inviting some grown ups to the White House to get things back on track. Hey Republicans: I'm not sure Hillary is the issue.
The only mistake I see Feingold making with his resolution is introducing it now. I have a feeling that waiting a few weeks might make all the difference- Bush is only getting more vulnerable. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 999
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:09 pm: |
|
DO you support censure or criminal activity?
Fookin pussy assed DEMS are scared to jump on Bush when hes down, they suck. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5348
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:26 pm: |
|
You Dems are going to get sucked into a strategy that is a replay of what Republicans did in 1998. Clinton was reeling with Monica and the lustre of his welfare reform (twice vetoed, and only agreed to going into 1996 to save his reelection bid with less than 50% of the vote -- again) had worn off. China was buying ports and files were missing from Los Alamos. The Chinese funny-money in his campaign was in the news but Reno put the kibosh on that after two search parties were sent out by the DoJ saying there were grounds for an investigation. How many took the Fifth and how many fled the country? No big deal -- the economy was doing fine. This was an actual defense offered by many to me in Clinton's defense. Dems should have been dead meat in 1998.
Instead, Republicans sat back and said "we're not Clinton" which is an eerie echo of "vote for change." They didn't offer any ideas and Democrats are making the argument that they don't need a policy on any issue that's in the top 3 voter concerns today (war in Iraq, terror and the economy).
You may pick up some seats, but you won't get a majority in Congress with that. Republicans in 1998 didn't make any headway, setting the stage for Lott and his stupid cheerleader hair to be dumped at the first opportunity (the Helms Comment Apology Tour). True, they didn't lose the majority, but still they blew a great opportunity because they didn't offer any concrete policy differences other than to say "Clinton sucks."
You can't beat something with nothing. Gray Davis is the exception, but CA was in such an s-hole at the time and the US as a whole isn't even close to that.
You'll have to do better than that. Maybe complaining loudly works within your seething network, but it won't sell well enough in the general public to resume any power.
You can't even agree on what to do in Iraq, the biggest issue out there. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Dems suck, except for Russ. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 829
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:04 pm: |
|
tulip,
It's simple. It comes down to money. If the Dems picked their guy or gal now, they could spend the next 2 years raising money to use against the Repubs. If Hillary and Feingold or whoever have to throw money at each other then that means less to throw against the terrible Repubs. Believe me, I wish my boys would settle on someone, whether McCain or Rudy, and nail it down so the money can be used against the Dems. I'm just looking at historical precedent that shows the Repubs are able to raise more money. And money is the most important ingredient. Not the only ingredient, but a huge one. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:10 pm: |
|
heard of a PAC. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1758
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 6:59 am: |
|
Southerner: No one is throwing any money around now for the presidential election, dem or rep. For goodness sake, Hillary hasn't even gotten her Senate campaign off the ground. It's all just jockeying for position, and Give 'Em Hell Russ is scoring some big points.
The Repubs are screwed because they won't know exactly how far and fast to run away from Bush.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 831
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 8:01 am: |
|
Okay we're screwed. I'm so scared of the big bad Dems. You guys love putting talk ahead of action. Let's see you win something first. Then again, I realize your party lives and dies by polls. Forget elections, it's the polls stupid. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 394
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 8:24 am: |
|
Quote:You [Dems] can't even agree on what to do in Iraq, the biggest issue out there.
Well, Cjc, it seems to me that the American people are fully aware of that fact and still think the Dems could do a better job. Check out the news story, below: 57% of the public say the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and 60% say the war is going badly. With those numbers, it’s more than Dems speaking.
The Democrats are disarray -- no doubt about it. What I don’t understand is why Republicans are still making excuses for Bush.
****************************
WASHINGTON (CNN) March 14 -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.
Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation. Fifty-seven percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent.
The poll found Bush's fortunes are tied to Iraq, where more than 2,300 U.S. troops have been killed. Two-thirds of those surveyed told pollsters that history will remember Bush most for the March 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the battle against a persistent insurgency that followed the Hussein regime's collapse.
****************************
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 8:59 am: |
|
It's a pretty safe bet that if Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House in 2007, there will be an impeachment vote. But impeachment does not mean constitutional crisis, the founders intended it as a check on the abuse of power.
This former writer for National Review sees the handwriting on the wall:
More and more Republicans are edging away from their president, and more and more conservatives — even at National Review — are asking why Bush was ever mistaken for a conservative. Another conservative, Bruce Bartlett, has written a book calling Bush an “impostor” and “pretend conservative” on several grounds, quite apart from the Iraq war. The polls suggest that for most Americans, Bush’s impeachment would be something less than a trauma.
As Lapham says, impeachment isn’t a punishment; it’s a constitutional “remedy” for the wayward use of power. In the words of John Dean, best known for his testimony against Richard Nixon in the Watergate days, “Bush is the first president to admit to an impeachable offense.” Namely, his directive to the National Security Agency to snoop on suspected terrorists without warrants, “a felony,” Lapham notes, “under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine).” That’s a little more serious than perjury about Monica Lewinsky.
Conservatives are going to have to repudiate Bush loudly, en masse, and soon — unless they want conservative to become a synonym for psychotic, criminal, and lousy at arithmetic.
Source:http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060228.shtml
Cheers |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5353
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 9:01 am: |
|
bottomline -- that's true. But it's only good until a candidate has to speak about what he advocates or would do on Iraq. Then you get that finding that Dems don't have a better idea or plan either.
Which goes back to my point that you can't win something with nothing positioned alongside anger.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1759
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 9:34 am: |
|
Southerner: First of all, your post comes across as needlessly juvenile. Why is that? And B, I didn't say anything about the Dems. I was extolling Feingold for his courage.
But you're the one who always claims to be in on the game that's being played. Well, have a look at the cards GOP candidates are being dealt right now. Outside of like 2-3 people who post on MOL, nobody likes Bush, or at least thinks he's doing a good job and that America is on the right track. His poll numbers are ridiculously bad (I know, no one here regards poll numbers, but I would suspect candidates for high offices do). The choice now is how far to distance themselves from Bush while still attempting to be seen as a team player. It's a tricky line to walk. McCain, I think, is choosing the wrong path.
Either way, I don't think it'll matter who the Dems put up. There's going to be huge backlash against Repubs because Bush effed up the country so badly.
|
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 159
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 9:36 am: |
|
cjc: I agree that the dems need something other than opposition to govern with, but politically opposition might be enough to take back the House and Senate.
And its more than a little disingenuous to ask the Democrats for a better plan for Iraq when Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war for three years.
To me it gets back to the only issue that matters: competence. Not policy issues, not intent, not who is a nice guy. Who can competently run the government.
Back to censure- for all of you Bush defenders: IF the wiretaps were found to be unconstitutional and IF the President still carried through with the program based on his interpration of his wartime powers, do you think that Congress should censure? And shouldn't we find out what the constitutional standing of the program is? Would it matter to Bush anyway? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page