Author |
Message |
   
kendalbill
Citizen Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 152 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 8:22 pm: |
|
OK, I'll toss the red meat into the pit this time: Feingold said he is intending to introduce a measure to censure Bush over the NSA/FISA issue. What do you think the outcome of this measure will be? Will Democrats like Hillary back away to prove their moderation? Will it cause any Republicans at all to speak out and side with Feingold? I'm not sure it is the right thing to do at this time, but I'm damn sure its not right to sweep the whole thing under the rug. And the issue needs to be decided, even if it becomes a major constitutional matter. At least this will keep the issue alive a little longer-- and maybe some centrist Republicans can join in raising the issue. |
   
Concerned07040
Citizen Username: Concerned07040
Post Number: 90 Registered: 7-2004
| Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Hooray for one brave senator named Russ Feingold. I applaud him for putting his job on the line to stand up to the bullies of the Bush administration. concerned07040 |
   
cjc
Citizen Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5324 Registered: 8-2003
| Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 9:02 pm: |
|
How is his job on the line given what state he represents? It's not like he's doing this while representing Texas. This issue hasn't been swept under the rug. There will be more information and briefings and oversight than there was in the past. And the spying on suspected calls by terrorists into the US will continue, because to oppose that is a political loser. If we can't trust Arabs with our ports, what makes you believe with that sort of thinking that opposing a program that monitors a suspected terrorist is a winning political position. You have to call it "domestic eavesdropping" to get people against it. Mention a suspect is involved and the public breaks for the program. And given the way the UAE port deal went, I'd wager you don't even have to make one of the parties a suspect outside of the US. Just say it's an Arab and people would be for it. |
   
Nohero
Supporter Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5182 Registered: 10-1999

| Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 9:05 pm: |
|
How about - Have a hearing on the issue? Let the public hear the testimony on the legal issues, and let Congress have information about exactly who was spied on in this program. |
   
Paul Surovell
Supporter Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 591 Registered: 2-2003
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 2:00 am: |
|
President Bush blatantly and knowingly violated the law by authorizing wiretaps on Americans without warrants. His excuse that some wiretaps must be installed immediately has been exposed by former FBI Director William Sessions and others as having no merit since the FISA Act allows immediate wiretaps if a warrant is applied for within 72 hours. The President deserves to be censured and Senator Feingold should be commended.
|
   
Innisowen
Citizen Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1659 Registered: 3-2004
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:34 am: |
|
Why not move to censure the violation? If the body votes in favor, GWB will be censured. If members vote against it, it will not happen. It's a good exercise in freedom and democracy in action, and isn't that what GWB is all about? |
   
Brokeback Straw
Supporter Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6944 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
Just the beginning of an attempt by the Dems to eventually try and get Bush impeached. Won't work because nothing the Dems do today ever works. However, I guess you have to give them credit for at least attempting to look tough, as opposed to lost and pointless. |
   
kendalbill
Citizen Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 153 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
Straw-- I agree with you for once. Impeachment is a non-starter politically, but its nice to see a democratt - or any politician- state what they believe and tell us what he wants to do. Theres no gray area for Feingold. And cjc, if it has not been swept under the rug, lets call it "incremental, reluctant, negotiated, extra-constitutional disclosure". I don't believe the "deal" worked out does anything but put a better band aid on the issue in an attempt to make the thing go away. |
   
tom
Citizen Username: Tom
Post Number: 4512 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
Two points: one, if evidence is gotten through eavesdropping it would be nice if it were admissable in court. Do we want suspects cut loose because the wiretap didn't have a ridiculously easy to get warrant? Two: How is this new bill justifying it after the fact supposed to be legal? Doesn't the Constitution forbid ex post facto laws? |
   
cjc
Citizen Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5327 Registered: 8-2003
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 12:31 pm: |
|
tom -- court admissability would be nice, but I'd take the ability to foil terror attempts within the US over a court victory any day. |
   
tom
Citizen Username: Tom
Post Number: 4513 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
since the warrants are so easy to get, even after the fact, why not have both? |
   
dave23
Citizen Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1468 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
cjc, At what price (keeping in mind you are still more likely to be killed by lightening than you are to be killed by a terrorist)? |
   
kendalbill
Citizen Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 154 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |
|
cjc: I agree that foiling a terrorist plot is the most important thing, and sorry dave23, but at the price of eavesdropping if necessary. But what Bush did was to make the determination that the executive branch did not have to comply with any existing law because they were the executive branch. There was no terrorist plot they were chasing down and no bomb about to go off. They had ample time to review the issue with the proper parties. This is not about being soft on terrorists and I'm not sure its even about civil liberties. I think its about the supreme power of the executive branch to interpret when and if it has to comply with law after 9/11. And whether you agree with that concept or not, I think it need to be discussed, don't you? |
   
Stuart0628
Citizen Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 230 Registered: 2-2003
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Censuring and Moving On was tried once last century, but a certain faction would have none of it. Would Hillary back away to prove her moderation? Censure IS moderation. |
   
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3108 Registered: 9-2001

| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Remember, Feingold is thinking about running for President as a maverick, not-business-as-usual candidate. He also really is that type of guy, and not a typical politician. It will be interesting to see if ANY Dems have the guts to back him--my bet is not many will. Might get more Republican support than Democrat (such as his buddy McCain). This has got to have Hillary doing some heavy polling and war-room meetings on how to respond (or not respond). |
   
dave23
Citizen Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1469 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
There's no way McCain will support this. He's got his nose firmly entrenched in Bush's behind. |
   
kendalbill
Citizen Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 155 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
I don't see Hillary doing anything on this unless everyone else has jumped in first. And as for other Dems, it really depends on what image they wish to project. Most don't want to appear "leftist" and will hang back. McCain is not going near it at this point- if he ever would. I am curious about some of the liberatarian Republicans. If Bob Barr was still in the House, would he support it? How about commentators- Buchanan or Will? I have to hand it to Feingold. Sure it fits with the niche he has carved out for himself, but I don't think he is seen as a "bomb thrower" in the Senate. Good for him to bring this up. |
   
Southerner
Citizen Username: Southerner
Post Number: 822 Registered: 2-2004
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Kendall, I agree with you. This issue isn't about terrorists per se. It is Bush's way of picking a fight with the Congress via Executive Power. You must give Bush some political credit on this one. He could have picked this same fight on a much less newsworthy issue and got rebuffed soundly by the courts. In this case, he picked such a political fireball that he even has Congress cow towing. I do give Feingold credit. I expect a true to heart blue state liberal democrat to do as he is doing. At least the Dems now have a sense of the uphill battle they are waging on many fronts when even the most fervent die hard dems are keeping silent. Bush picked the correctt topic in which to pick this executive v. legislative v. judicial battle. It looks like Bush is getting his way and future President's will benefit. |
   
Paul Surovell
Supporter Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 592 Registered: 2-2003
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Regarding John McCain, here's Paul Krugman's take in today's Times:
Quote:March 13, 2006 The Right's Man By PAUL KRUGMAN It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be. Mr. McCain's reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us." But now — at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger — Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes. When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain's aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard. Would Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, have found some pretext for invading Iraq? We'll never know. But Mr. McCain still thinks the war was a good idea, and he rejects any attempt to extricate ourselves from the quagmire. "If success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006," he wrote last year, "then we must increase our numbers there." He didn't explain where the overstretched U.S. military is supposed to find these troops. When it comes to social issues, Mr. McCain, who once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance," met with Mr. Falwell late last year. Perhaps as a result, he is now taking positions friendly to the religious right. Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law. The spokesperson went on to say that the senator would have taken "the appropriate steps under state law" to ensure that cases of rape and incest were excluded. But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest. The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member. What about Mr. McCain's reputation as a maverick? This comes from the fact that every now and then he seems to declare his independence from the Bush administration, as he did in pushing through his anti-torture bill. But a funny thing happened on the way to Guantánamo. President Bush, when signing the bill, appended a statement that in effect said that he was free to disregard the law whenever he chose. Mr. McCain protested, but there are apparently no hard feelings: at the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference he effusively praised Mr. Bush. And I'm sorry to say that this is typical of Mr. McCain. Every once in a while he makes headlines by apparently defying Mr. Bush, but he always returns to the fold, even if the abuses he railed against continue unabated. So here's what you need to know about John McCain. He isn't a straight talker. His flip-flopping on tax cuts, his call to send troops we don't have to Iraq and his endorsement of the South Dakota anti-abortion legislation even while claiming that he would find a way around that legislation's central provision show that he's a politician as slippery and evasive as, well, George W. Bush. He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party. And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line. It's worth recalling that during the 2000 election campaign George W. Bush was widely portrayed by the news media both as a moderate and as a straight-shooter. As Mr. Bush has said, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
|
   
sbenois
Supporter Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14702 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
McCain gets my vote if he runs. So does Rudy. |
   
Brokeback Straw
Supporter Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6948 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 8:26 pm: |
|
I plan on supporting McCain in 08. |
   
kendalbill
Citizen Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 156 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Thanks for comments Southerner. See, we can find common ground sometimes. I do question whether Bush picked this fight. Remember, he fought tooth and nail to surpress the story. In fact, don't I remember the Times sitting on the story for about a year? I think the history books will show that Bush's reframing and strengthening of Executive Power will be the most lasting mark of his presidency- more than Iraq. The Supreme Court seems ready willing and able to play along, particularly Alito. And until the censure resolution, I don't think anyone has really challenged Bush on any of it. I doubt the resolution will go anywhere, but we really are heading to a Constitutional crisis one way or another. And Paul, I'm not at all surprised by McCain right now. When he took the hit in SC in 2000, I started to see him in a different light. Much as I admire his personal story, he just isn't the moderate politician he is billed to be. Nor is he a moderate personality- he can often divide a debate. What he does, though, is represnt a certain type that voters rally around. he plays the soft spoken straight shooter. He is a hero- really. And on some issues in the past, he has taken a courageous stand against his party. But he is a politician first and foremost and right now running center gets him nowhere.
|
   
Southerner
Citizen Username: Southerner
Post Number: 824 Registered: 2-2004
| Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:13 pm: |
|
Kendall, I'll agree. Bush didn't necessarily want a fight. He just wanted the end result. So, I'm sure he wanted this swept away. But he also knew if it came out (like it did) that once the usual suspects screamed about "civil rights" that the rest of the crowd wouldn't budge in light of the stance they would have to take and the election year. It's a win, win for him either way. And he is in no worse shape. The left hates him and the right likes him. |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10928 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 4:31 am: |
|
Back to the original subject, if I may. A lot of the talking heads on cable news last night view Feingold's censure measure as just staking out territory to the left of Hillary for the 2008 primary campaign. It doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of passing. |
   
tulip
Citizen Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3321 Registered: 3-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 6:47 am: |
|
You all better watch out for Feingold. You are going to hear big time from him. He's got a fire in his belly you haven't seen before in national politics. He has a brain to match, which would be a novelty in modern politics. And that's my prediction, southerner. |
   
Duncan
Supporter Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5934 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
Southerner I think you are giving Bush wayyyy to much intellectual credit on this one. |
   
kendalbill
Citizen Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 157 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 9:35 am: |
|
Duncan, I tend to agree with you, but the whole thing brings up another issue with Bush. I think we have seen over and over again that he just doesn't plan or even think the way you'd expect. It seems he takes broad ideas/concepts and then lets the system go where it may. As long as it within parameters he has in his mind, he's OK. He probably developed the style at Harvard B School, and it may even work as long as 1) he can surround himself with top notch subordinates 2) the goals are clearly defined and 3) there is a consequence for screwing up. Yeah, this whole issue does fit in to a plan to take power back from the Legislative branch- but I don't think Bush picked the issue or the fight.
|
   
cjc
Citizen Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5328 Registered: 8-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
|
McCain is a conservative? What conservative wanted limits on political speech, was against pro-growth tax cuts with some Teddy Roosevelt progressive-based class warfare included, and wants an amnesty program for illegal immigrants? For these reasons conservatives won't go for McCain in a primary, and will only vote for McCain if faced with someone like Hillary as an opponent in a general election. Krugman should stick to writing about what liberals are and want.
|
   
dave23
Citizen Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1471 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:24 am: |
|
I had a small amount of respect for him, but that's gone now that he's kissing up to those that smeared him in 2000. That said, it would be fun to watch a race where McCain ran as an Independent. |
   
Squeaky Wheel
Citizen Username: Squeaky_wheel
Post Number: 43 Registered: 9-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 8:19 pm: |
|
MoveOn.org Petition: "President Bush Must be Censured for Breaking the Law" __________________________________________________ President Bush should be censured for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping American citizens. When the president misleads the public and the Congress and willfully and repeatedly breaks the law, there need to be some consequences --that's how the law works for everybody else. Censuring the president is a reasonable first step in condemning his actions. ___________________________________________________ Below is the link to the online petition: http://political.moveon.org/censure?id=7035-2030508-i3KaEzcYDQIR5Kp5k7Qrbw&t=2 |
   
Southerner
Citizen Username: Southerner
Post Number: 827 Registered: 2-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 8:24 pm: |
|
You libs really don't get it. You think somehow McCain will blow the Republican loyalty asunder and send the party scurrying in different directions. The Republicans don't do this. We will support whoever our nominee is because we understand if we don't that a Democrat may win. It's very simple. It is the Democratic party that takes their ball and goes home if their particular nominee doesn't get the nod. Look at the Deaniacs. Once he tanked, they abandoned Kerry and helped Bush get another term. Look at the votes that went to Nader that may have helped Gore. Us conservatives may have our favorites, Frist, McCain, Allen, Giuliani, but in the end we will vote for whoever is on the ballot. Duncan, I know I'm giving Bush way to much credit, but I enjoy the game. Here is a guy most of you claim to be on the level of a chimp intellectually, yet he keeps on steam rolling the left. It really is quite comical. |
   
Duncan
Supporter Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5943 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 8:42 pm: |
|
see the sad thing southerner is this...he is steamrolling the whole fecking country. To our severe detriment. |
   
Madden 11
Citizen Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 853 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Look at the Deaniacs. Once he tanked, they abandoned Kerry and helped Bush get another term. Proof of that, please. |
   
Brokeback Straw
Supporter Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6951 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:26 am: |
|
Nice job by Feingold.. Even the Dems think he's a moron. libs. |
   
dave23
Citizen Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1485 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:54 am: |
|
Reps will support whoever the nominee is, but getting the nomination could get ugly. Right now, the extreme right holds sway and they hate McCain. That's why he's busy kissing Bush's . And you can't tell me that hardcore prolifers and gun nuts would march to the polls to pull the lever for Giuliani. A lot would stay home. |
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 919 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
I support Feingold and his censure of the president. There is no reason to allow our rights to be diminished and there is no reason for the president to disobey the law. Its ridiculous that our congress has abdicated their oversight responsibility in favor of party politics and the push for power. Feingold has guts and courage and is principled. |
   
Robert Livingston
Citizen Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1747 Registered: 7-2004

| Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:16 am: |
|
You got that right, Hoops. Not to mention making sure the president's illegal activities stays on the front page. |
   
cjc
Citizen Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5340 Registered: 8-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
|
dave23 -- republicans will support whoever the nominee is? Tell that to Bush "Read My Lips" 41. Not true. Say McCain is the nominee and his opponent is not Hillary. If the Democrats can put up a passable candidate, conservatives will stay home or not vote for president. And I'll be one of many. |
   
Robert Livingston
Citizen Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1751 Registered: 7-2004

| Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:18 pm: |
|
I think we're seeing the birth of a frontrunner...keep your eye on this guy... "I'm amazed at Democrats ... cowering with this president's numbers so low," Feingold said. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/15/D8GC0DC01.html |
   
bettyd
Citizen Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 134 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Say what you want about Feingold, but he doesn't take the poitically expedient route, like most politicians. I believe he was one of the few Senate Dems to vote against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War resolution. If Kerry had taken such stands back when they counted, he still would have lost in 04 but he'd be the guy to beat in 08. If anything, maybe Feingold can start giving the democrats back their collective spine, which I believe is one of his motivations. |