(2) Tomorrow (Monday) afternoon, from 2:10 pm to 2:45 pm, Warren Olney's radio show To the Point is having a panel debate on the specific topic of Feingold's Censure Resolution and impeachment generally. I will be one of the guests, along with John Dean, National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, and Josh Marshall. There may be another guest -- a well-known Democrat who has expressed serious reservations about censure -- but he wasn't yet confirmed as of Friday afternoon. The show is broadcast on most NPR radio stations (a Station List can be found here (click on "Station List" in the left-hand margin)), and can also be heard with streaming online audio here.
There is only one reason this panel discussion (and similar discussions) are taking place again -- because Russ Feingold's Censure Resolution forced back into the news the incomparably important crisis that arises from the fact that we have a President who has claimed the power to break the law. And this happened just as Bush followers thought they had successfully made this whole scandal fade away. Anyone who wants to know what the purpose or value is of Feingold's resolution can start there for an answer.
(3) Josh recently authored a column in Roll Call arguing against the impeachment of George Bush on both substantive and political grounds. Josh says he wrote the column "[s]ince talk of impeachment is in the air" (it is?), and based on that rather precarious premise, Josh announces: "it seems incumbent on all vocal critics of the president to go on the record with their points of view on this momentous question."
I think the Feingold censure Resolution is quite plainly a much more prominent and controversial issue at the moment than impeachment, and Josh in his column doesn't say whether he favors that. Nor has Josh ever said on his blog whether he favors the Resolution. He wrote one post on the topic which began this way: "I think I'm with Kevin Drum on this whole Feingold censure thing." Josh then added: "So 'censure' him. Or don't censure him." So does Josh favor the Resolution or not? Who knows?
Josh does say rather unequivocally that Bush broke the law, and Josh recognizes that Bush claimed that "the law actually doesn't apply to him" (which Josh accurately describes as "being a very big deal"). And he does criticize Democrats for running away so publicly from the Resolution on the ground that it makes Democrats look bad. But it's impossible to tell (because he never says) whether Josh favors censure or not.
While not sharing his views on censure, Josh does step up to the plate to opine on what he apparently perceives to be the raging political controversy of impeachment and says this:
The clearest case for impeachment is one in which the president refuses to follow the law and accede to the Congress’s and the court’s oversight powers. The only solution to such a constitutional crisis would be for the Congress to remove the president from office for violating his oath and committing political high crimes.
But that’s just not the case at the moment because Congress has made little if any effort to rein him in. So impeaching him can’t make any sense because the Congress — in the constitutionally indolent hands of the Republican majority — has made no attempt to oversee the president by constitutional means.
This strikes me as both inaccurate and circular. The Founders recognized that if a President began violating the law, Congress would have no real way to stop him, because the President controls the forces which execute and enforce the law while Congress has no similar force which it controls. Thus, the tool which the Founders gave to Congress to "rein in" a law-breaking President is the tool of impeachment. That is how Congress reins in a President who insists on defying the law.
The premise of Josh's argument seems similar to the premise of the newly introduced Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 -- that when the President is caught breaking the law, the way Congress "reins him in" is by enacting another law to (again) limit what the President is doing, perhaps making clear that this time they really mean it. But Congress has already passed a law which limits the President's eavesdropping activities (FISA) and the President is violating that law because he believes, as Josh recognizes, that he has the power to do so. Passing another law is not the way that Congress reins in a President who has seized law-breaking powers. Censuring the President is obviously intended to have that effect, but the only other real remedy which Congress has under our Constitution to "rein in" a law-breaking President is impeachment.
This isn't to say that I think impeachment proceedings should begin, only that Josh's substantive argument against it -- that impeachment is inappropriate even though Bush is violating the law because Congress hasn't tried to "rein him in" -- strikes me as weak and illogical. Congress already reined in the President when it enacted FISA. Once Bush proclaims that he will not abide by legal restrictions on eavesdropping activities -- which, as Josh recognized, he has claimed -- then impeachment (or, more mildly or preliminarily, censure) is the tool which Congress possesses for reining in the law-breaking President.
(4) I posted yesterday on that truly vapid and evidence-free Eleanor Clift column, which claims that the Feingold Resolution is perceived as an act of "political extremism" which shows that Democrats "can’t be trusted with the keys to the country." Digby has even more analysis of that column which I recommend highly. This issue isn't important because Eleanor Clift per se is important. It's important because the arguments she is reciting are the ones which have become tacitly accepted by the conventional wisdom-producing pundit class, and those arguments -- especially when disseminated in unison by the supposedly "liberal" and "conservative" pundits --- do have great influence.
What does Josh think that Congress should do? Id love to know. And does he think impeachment would be warranted if Congress did try to rein Bush in and Bush still refused? Id love to know - maybe you can ask him.
ReplyDeleteRemember - Congress passed a law banning torture and Bush immediately said he didn't have to comply with it. Congress cant rein in a President who insists on breaking the law. Isn't that the whole point??
Bush's defenders respond to criticism over his reserving the right to torture and abuse prisoners by telling you how bad the terrorists are. But as Sen. McCain (among others) has said, it isn't about who the terrorists are, but who we are.
ReplyDeleteThe same can be said of the censure resolution. It's not (just) about how bad Bush is, but about who the Democrats are.
People I speak with want to see that the Democrats can stand together and stand up for something right, even if they lose.
Why did people cheer for Rocky Balboa? They cheered for the little guy with the heart to take on a big shot and fight the good fight, even knowing he was destined to lose.
That is what America needs to see from the Democratic party: heart. Instead we see most Dems in Washington scurrying for cover, worried that they'll be they smeared as too "extreme" by the right wing noise machine.
I've got news for them. They'll be smeared anyway. They might as well be smeared for taking a stand that inspires people to think they might have what it takes to lead the country out of the mess we're in.
Eric Alterman, in his Friday's column, pointed out his new Nation's column. While he did not specifically address Feingold's proposal, he did state "I did not include a discussion of the Feingold FISA fiasco, but it fits…."
ReplyDeleteMy reading of the column suggests he is in the Clift camp, as he refers to Murtha as diverting the discussion and possibly suggesting that Feingold is doing the same. Hopefully he will clarify.
Katherine:
ReplyDeleteWhy is investigation legally necessary? Bush has already stated that he is outside (above) the law, and has no intention of ceasing to violate it.
The entire congressional oversight function, not just the impeachment mechanism, has ceased to function as a check on the President, because the power balance between our two political parties has tipped in one direction beyond a critical point. In effect, the tripartite system of our constitution has already been suspended.
This has happened at a time when a President and the people around him are determined to exploit the slavish complicity of Congress to expand the authority of the President to the point that the checks and balances will never return.
Remember a couple of years ago when the NFL playoffs had the "Show me somethin'" ad campaign. It's as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteThe citizenry of this nation need the Democrats to show them somethin'. They need to see the stomach for a fight. They are not going to trust or respect Democrats until Democrats are able to bring an actual fight (saying that Rumsfeld should resign does not qualify).
There is nothing attractive or worthy in the "I told you so" approach of most Democrats - this is a prevailing sentiment. "Look at how those bad/stupid/corrupt men rob our house! Someday they will be judged. Too risky to try and get our possessions back though... LOOK! Can you believe they're STILL robbing us! We better start thinking about getting Susie and Tommy out of there..." Citizens just cannot respect this.
Why on earth wouldn't someone choose the devil they know at the ballot box if all Democrats can offer is a retelling of everything they already know (minus Fox viewers) about said devil.
The general situation for most citizens is that they are growing nervous with this trendline. Bush is not what he ever said he was and people just do not trust him anymore. And most can see that this 'granite-headed' man is incapable of making a change. So then they ask - how can we level or reverse this trend? Oh yeah, congress. The opposition party. People want to see that it is possible to at least tap the brakes to verify the brakes still work as we pick up speed racing down this very uncretain hill. That's why the censure resolution is appropriate. It's about the NSA scandal in a way, but moreso it's about testing a reasonable check on power. If you'll notice - none of the stuff levelled at Russ is sticking. If you listen to him speak for 3 minutes you know this isn't pure gaming. And even if it is some gaming, people are going to respect that some Dem is at least showing them somethin'.
Everyone, it seems, is trying to put the "I" word into Feingold's mouth. Notice that it was reporters who repeatedly asked him about it at this press conference. When he responded, even to knock it down, the nightly story on Fox was, "Now Feingold is talking about impeachment."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. Feingold pushed off the question of impeachment when asked about it and clearly isn't pursuing it now. That's why I don't understand why Josh wrote a column about impeachment and claimed that it was some sort of pressing controversy and that everyone had the obligation to state whether they favor impeachment or not.
Impeachment isn't the issue now. The censure resolution is. Investigations are. But not impeachment, for all sorts of reasons. I don't necessarily agree that talking about it plays into Bush's hands, but I think the focus ought to be on what can be done and what is actually on the table -- and to me, that means censure and further investigations.
We have been reduced to hoping that the power balance between Democrats and Republicans will be restored to some semblance of equivalency, so that the constitutional rule of law will be re-established in this country. Thus, we are having this discussion of Democrats striking a pose of resolve (“show me something”) so that the voters will support them. JaO is correct that the “I” word will rally some portion of the base.
ReplyDeleteIn effect, the principle of the rule of law is, as a practical matter, subordinate to the political process. I am very uncomfortable with this disordered arrangement. The political process is fine for addressing questions of policy alternatives. But, the rule of law should be above politics. The abuse of the impeachment process with Clinton is one result of this disorder; and the failure to impeach Bush is another result.
I conclude we must start looking for a new way to structure this constitutional power so that it will function independently of the political process—so that it will be a further backstop to the rule of law.
An avidly pro-Bush friend of mine indicates that the response to Feingold's censure resolution will be to compare Bush with the other censured President, Andrew Jackson. Jackson was widely regarded as a tyrant and "king" in his day, and certainly did work to create a more powerful Executive office. It is also true that he is generally ranked as one of the top 10-15 U.S. Presidents by historians.
ReplyDeleteAs this site says of Jackson:
He also carved out a stronger role for the presidency. Jackson replaced many government officials on partisan grounds, inaugurating the "spoils system." Catering to his core regional constituency of Southern planters and Western frontiersmen, he condemned antislavery agitation, favored cheaper public lands, and strong-armed Indian tribes into removing west of the Mississippi. In a confrontation between Georgia and the Cherokee Nation, Jackson backed state authority against tribal sovereignty and refused to protect Indians' treaty rights despite their recognition by the United States Supreme Court. Jackson wielded executive powers vigorously, defying Congress, vetoing more bills than all his predecessors combined, and frequently reshuffling his cabinet.
Strong-willed and sharp-tempered, a fierce patriot and rabid partisan, Jackson was always controversial, both as a general and as President. He personalized disputes and demonized opponents
Anyway, Bush = Jackson appears to be part of the playbook.
I think Marshall is concerned about the constitutional crisis that any impeachment effort might start. Since that's not even under discussion in a censure, Marshall still seems to see that a censure will undermine Bush's legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteThe premise to this argument is that public statements that attack the President's office make him a weaker leader. When troops are in the field, having a weak leader is supposed to be obciously mean that s/he can't lead those troops effectively.
I suggest that a more basic assumption accepted by Marshall is that the US govt is like a body. The President forms the head of this body. If you addle the head, the body will suffer.
It's very difficult dealing with this imagery of govt as body. The notion of a centralized authority exhibits strong socio-cultural assumptions, not to mention logical haziness.
I do not think that Feingold's censure attacks this image--but there's enough anxiety produced by it that it is seen as an attack on that image. Insiders of both camps--having bought into the image--therefore characterize censure as "irresponsible."
How could it not be irresponsible, this way of thinking goes, since it (seemingly) so blithely attacks common-sense, eg, that you don't undermine the head's legitimacy in times of danger? If you did that, then you'd have chaos.
Of course, such imagery enables room for lots of self-interest. That is, not only is censure an attack on the President's authority, it also threatens self-interest of those insiders who see themselves as head of their Parties.
Let me just say that I do not accept this imagery. Finding an alternative, however, within the confines of a system that sees that the everyday citizen signs over his responsibilities to representatives who carry out his/her will is difficult.
Of course, re-imagining how a modern representative govt might look calls for reflection and considerable care. Some will say that a crisis is not that time. I suggest that crisis is always the right time to begin looking at options, possibilities, and realities. Censure at least puts some of these questions on the table.
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteJackson's behavior may have been historically tolerated in the context of the imperial phase of this country. Clay was certainly correct to view it as reprehensible human conduct. And it is certainly an irrelevant anachronism with respect to our position as a mature democratic state in a crowded world.
What kind of moral blindness causes a person to look at the egregious rapacity of Jackson and see its equivalence in Bush as a positive thing?
I'd love to see Bush fans push the Jackson analogy -- he was a terrible president for the economy and we didn't really recover from the damage he did there until the creation of the federal reserve years later.
ReplyDeleteKnock 'em dead tomorrow Glenn. I'm glad you're out there fighting the good fight. I just got finished reading Ezra Klein's blog with post after post of hand-wringing about Feingold's measure and I can't for the life of me figure out what they're so upset about. We need more people standing up against the president's power grab.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks censuring Bush plays into Republican hands is learning the wrong lesson from the Clinton years. The censure resolution doesn't risk provoking a constitutional crisis, we're already in a constitutional crisis. The president has declared he's not bound by the law. If congress fails to act we will no longer have a system of checks and balances.
I think Josh is writing about impeachment because he started thinking about it before Feingold's censure proposal and the article (in The Hill, by the way, not Roll Call) is simply the result of that. So that's just a timing thing.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to this panel. I think censure is absolutely the right way to go. Getting the administration to admit what they did was illegal is, in my view the only alternative to impeachment.
Think Progress has published a Zbigniew Brzezinski speech. In it, Brzezinski makes a percetive point: Bush has exploited the crisis after 911 for political purposes. Falsely and dishonestly selling himself as a "wartime" President, he hopes to reap the benefits of this to advance social and cultural agendas unrelated to the threat posed by terrorism:
ReplyDelete"Neither President Truman nor Eisenhower – Democrat and Republican – ever spoke of America being a “nation at war” during the Korean War. Neither President Johnson nor Nixon ever spoke of America being a “nation at war” during the Vietnam War. Yes we have a serious challenge from the potential threat of terrorism and we have to wage an unrelenting struggle against it. But to describe America repeatedly as a nation at war – implicitly of course with a commander and chief in charge – is to contribute to a view of the world by America that stimulates fear and isolates us from others. Other nations have suffered more from terrorism than America. None of them has embraced that definition of reality."
Reichstag Burning said, "I conclude we must start looking for a new way to structure this constitutional power so that it will function independently of the political process—so that it will be a further backstop to the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteClearly, the training received by military commanders and high officials of the justice system is not adequate. Surely, following clearly illegal orders in cases of rendition and torture should, but apparently doesn't put them in legal jeopardy vis a vis the Nuremberg precedent, as interpreted by the Geneva Convention, and the constitutional dictum that international treaties are the supreme rule of law.
During the 2004 elections, I was dismayed to hear an unattributed claim from one of the mainstream media outlets, that something like 80% of U.S. military personnel voted Repugnican. Frankly, I find this much more frightening than the antics of GWBullsh. You can't have a police state without the cooperation of the police, or martial law without the cooperation of the marshalls.
A comment on one of your previous posts alluded to having the head of the Secret Service arrest GWB. Another suggested that Alberto Gonzales was also in legal jeopardy, as well as members of congress who are undoubtably in dereliction of their sworn duty of oversight. (BTW, I believe the Secret Service is part of the Treasury Department) Hell, if you charged every high official with perjury related to their oath of office, their would be no-one left to govern the country, and that of course includes most of the Democrats.
Personally, I support the idea of impeaching Bush and his whole crew. I think the charges should include murder, maybe dozens of counts, because many people have died under torture in the Bush-authorized rendition programs. Maybe that's what it will take to get the American public to take notice of what is really happening in their beloved country.
Lots of countries have open fields and amber waves of grain. They do not make the country unique. The constitution does. Worshipping the flag or the Pledge of Allegiance are not patriotic acts, if they do not result in the defense of the nations founding document. The constitution is the envy of the free world. It deserves our support.
Glenn states that the radio show tomorrow is at 2:10. The schedule says it is at 12:00. Are these times EST? Will that show be on the radio in NYC at 12 on 89.9 FM?
ReplyDeleteIf anyone knows which station and what time I can listen to the show (EST)in NYC, could they let me know? Thx.
Oh, great. That means the Secret Service is under the direction of John Snow, the guy implicated in the Dubai Ports deal. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.
ReplyDeleteBruce Wayne writes: What kind of moral blindness causes a person to look at the egregious rapacity of Jackson and see its equivalence in Bush as a positive thing?
ReplyDeleteMy friend who is promoting this latest pro-Bush strategy, also is given to likening Bush to Lincoln as a defense of Bush's violating laws and civil liberties. Basically, he likes his presidents princely, and seeks to prove that Bush is among the best by showing how highly ranked Lincoln and Jackson are now, notwithstanding how bitterly they were despised in their own time.
My friend -- a devout worshipper of Powerline and NRO -- is actually arguing that Bush's abysmal approval ratings, and all the talk about his acting like a king, demonstrate that history will place Bush 43 in the pantheon of Greatest Presidents, along with Washington and Jefferson.
I've seent that argument a few other places, and expect to see it more.
They elide right over the nasty aspects of Jackson, note merely how hated he was in his time, and go straight to all those historians who put him in the top 10-15. So it will be for their prince, they declare.
Short version: This country is in a bloody mess. The path back is not going to be short or easy.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we have to restore a competitive political scene--Democrats take control of the house or senate, at least.
Second, shut off the river of money flowing through DC--Publicly funding elections, strict controls on lobbyists.
Third, create a constitutionally independent investigative agency with power to subpoena testimony and records, submit articles of impeachment to the senate, if the house doesn't do it, bring ethics actions against congresscritters and senators, if their congressional branch doesn't do it, and referee the use of secrecy and protect NSA whistleblowers.
A long path, to be sure. But if we understand that it is vitally necessary to take these steps, and stay focused, it can be done. Look what the neocons have done with 35 years of consistent, focused effort.
Speaking of McCain's torture position, as undercover blue does, Feingold (or someone) ought to introduce a censure resolution rejecting the notion that Bush can nullify those provisions with his signing statement.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate is on record 90-9 in favor of McCain's position. I'd like to know why the other 89 don't feel the need to stand up for the legislative prerogative.
If Josh Marshall's theory makes a lick of sense, all the conditions for impeachment over torture are ready and waiting. So censure should be regarded as the most conservative move imaginable from this point.
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteChoose your friends carefully.
Warning: Olney is among the worst about "Earth Flat: Opinions Differ" framing of debates. There is no right-winger too looney to be treated as an equal to the guest on the left, and no matter how unequivocally you take apart the opposing argument, he will end the segment figuratively shaking his head and commenting about how very, very confusing it all is and how can we ever find our way through all this partisan wrangling.
ReplyDeleteUnfair Glen. I think Josh's purpose was to say without real oversight, it would be difficult for the Congress to impeach the president. This is a good point too. If Congress suddenly got up tomorrow and said we're going to impeach the president, a lot of Americans would probably be surprised, if not outright against it. However, if Congress said "we're going to have a thorough investigation of these spying matters," then did a thorough investigation and uncovered law breaking acts that a good portion of Congress just could not worm around, then the case for impeachment becomes 1) stronger and 2) publicly digestible. It's a political process that is rife with difficulties if Congress doesn't lay the groundwork first.
ReplyDeleteFair, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteJosh knows how to write the same words the previous commenter did. But he didn't do it.
Instead, he gave us reasoning you correctly identify as circular.
Maybe he was having an off day, and maybe he confused himself in an effort to dress up a lame argument as somehow politically sophisticated. But whatever the reason for being off form, he put it down on paper, and you're right to call it what it is.
For those who still can't see the forest for the trees, there's this from the NYTimes review of K. Phillips' new book. Much of what Phillips writes about fills out the previous comments I made about the uber-ruler.
ReplyDeleteThe socio-cultural underpinnings for the cult of Bush is informed by this rising religio-political group of professional revolutionaries. I have covered their rise at my own blog, as well as my class in Religion After 911:
"On the far right is a still obscure but, Phillips says, rapidly growing group of "Christian Reconstructionists" who believe in a "Taliban-like" reversal of women's rights, who describe the separation of church and state as a "myth" and who call openly for a theocratic government shaped by Christian doctrine. A much larger group of Protestants, perhaps as many as a third of the population, claims to believe in the supposed biblical prophecies of an imminent "rapture" — the return of Jesus to the world and the elevation of believers to heaven.
Prophetic Christians, Phillips writes, often shape their view of politics and the world around signs that charlatan biblical scholars have identified as predictors of the apocalypse — among them a war in Iraq, the Jewish settlement of the whole of biblical Israel, even the rise of terrorism. [Phillips] convincingly demonstrates that the Bush administration has calculatedly reached out to such believers and encouraged them to see the president's policies as a response to premillennialist thought. He also suggests that the president and other members of his administration may actually believe these things themselves, that religious belief is the basis of policy, not just a tactic for selling it to the public."
What is going on? The Dems are still caught in the cult of the expert. Given their propensity for the big picture, ethical stance, the Right does not need to wait for experts to weigh in. They already the answers provided by the big picture system they buy into. Murtha wants the experts--the judiciary committee, the intelligence committee--to tell him that all's okay. The Dems are seeing their modernist pretensions torn to shreds by a systematic, authoritarian ideology that can give programmatic answers.
ReplyDeleteThe Cynic Librarian is correct that the Xian Reconstructionists literally want to effect an American Taliban. Twenty years ago they were an extreme fringe -- that has changed. They are now heavily interwoven and connected with the "mainstream" religious base of the contemporary GOP, and they are truly frightening. To quote from a Mother Jones article exploring how pervasive they now are in the GOP:
ReplyDeleteThe Old Testament—with its 600 or so Mosaic laws—is the inflexible guide for the society DeMar and other Reconstructionists envision. Government posts would be reserved for the righteous, as long as they are male. There would be thousands of executions a year, with stoning a preferred method because it would turn the deaths into “community projects,” as movement theologian North has noted. Sinners in line for the death penalty would include women who commit adultery or lie about their virginity, blasphemers, witches, children who strike their parents, and gay men (lesbians, however, would be spared because no specific reference to them can be found in the Books of Moses). DeMar told me that among Reconstructionists he is considered something of a liberal, because he’d execute gays only if they were caught indulging in sodomy. “I’m happy to just drive them back into the closet,” he said.
Murtha is also a cross-aisle PATRIOT Act II supporter.
ReplyDeleteBut it sounds to me like the "cult of the expert" description is about right.
What I find interesting is that the Dems have not tried to make some inroads into the "belief" communities with these issues of executive overreach and NSA spying. There are certainly some main elements of agreement there.
ReplyDeleteTake, for instance, the issue of exectuive power. There is much historical evidence to support the view that it was the Protestant rebellion that gave birth to representative government. That is, Protestans opposed the notion that one man could act much in the way that God does. That's what kings did. Protestants, on the other hand, noted that no one person should have that kind of absolute power except God, recalling the Jewish notion that God alone is supreme.
Another key issue that's of import to faith communities--especially the dispensationalists (those who believe in the Rapture)--is the idea that Satan's man on earth, the Beast 666, will use modern computer technology to consolidate his power on earth. This is why many religious conservatives oppose RFIDs. It doesn't seem too far a stretch to think of NSA wiretapping as another instance of the kind of satanic technology that the religionists oppose.
The problem is, of course, that any self-respecting Liberal wouldn't even touch this stuff with a ten-foot pole. No doubt, the Reps are aware of how "profane and unclean" the Libs consider subjects with a religious connotation.
I am sort of mystified by the high historical rankings for Jackson -- it all appears to revolve around his handling of the nullification crisis. Significant in its day of course but a pretty arcane link for the Bushies to hang their hat on given all of Jackson's other baggage.
ReplyDeleteAnd it would be like a gift from God if the Bushies tried to compare Lincoln to Gdub (the sublime to the ridiculous). Fodder for a million pundits and bloggers and late-night comedians.
jao is precisely correct. Moreover, I think most of those who want visible others to come out for impeachment are people who realize that the climate is not right for any talk of impeachment or impeachment itself at this point. It's a trap designed to fight the "weaker" enemy and thus win.
ReplyDeleteClearly, anyone urging impeachment or asking another whether he is in favor of impeachment at this time is indulging in a tactical error, if the goal is to have the government be held accountable.
The whole beauty of the Feingold motion is that while proposing something which itself may not pass on a vote and has no legal consequences even if it does, the talk about censure itself is what could lead to a wider and wider discussion of all the troubling issues surrounding this Administration.
Since congressional action and/or judicial review at this moment in time appear to be headed nowhere, the question of what to do about a President who broke the law can only be handled by some tactic which brings focus on all the tangential issues in a way that the public can understand.
I personally am not that upset that the President broke the law. If he parked in front of a hydrant and was allowed to pay no ticket, I am not going to lose sleep.
The real issue is that the reason the President broke the law is because his administration has laid out a position that a President CANNOT break a law
in "wartime" since he has the inherent power to do anything he wants. As it is clear that this "war" will last forever, their position becomes that a President can always do whatever he wants and there is no check on what he does. I think such a restructuring of the Constitution and the system of checks and balances which is central to our form of government would be fatal.
I am especially incensed that this position has been laid out to facilitate our government, now and forever, under the direction of the President, in creating a dictatorial Orwellian climate in which the fundamental liberities which have always been protected by the Constitution are no longer secure.
When Jane Harmon recently posted a blog on Daily Kos where she invited comments, a good many of the commenters wrote that they were afraid to even post comments critical of the Administration because they feared they would be put on an "enemies" list or audited by the IRS.
I consider their concerns to be valid ones considering everything that has been happening lately and that is the climate in which we now find ourselves. I remember no other Administration with that same climate.
Another reason I want to see this whole thing blown open and this lawlessness stopped is because there is something else weighing very heavily on my heart and mind that I think will be a consequence of a victory in this particular fight to hold the President, and those who support his lawlessness, accountable.
That "something" is that I have been more and more uneasy about the concept of a government invading another country under false pretenses, occupying it, and then declaring that all those who resist that immoral occupation are "insurgents" and instructing our soldiers to kill them.
When the Revolutionary forces in this country resisted foreign rule and broke free, we viewed and view them as heroes.
When ordinary citizens in a foreign country who may be doing exactly what our founders did are open game and 100,000 of them have been killed, under our direction, I can't sleep nights.
Not everyone has perfect knowledge. There are people in this country who Paul Craig Roberts thinks are essentially "brain dead". Should we shoot them all?
Iraqi civilians have much less education and exposure to information than the ordinary American. They may not grasp broad global concepts. Perhaps they merely resist foreign occupation.
Their lives are important to me in a "for whom the bell tolls" sense.
I am unhappy having to "support" troops who are murdering civilians. I support them as individuals and as Americans (those who do not engage in abuse or torture) but I can't support their activities unless I were to know exactly what those activities are, and if any individual who simply wants to live in a country which is not occupied by a foreign country is an "insurgent", I have great trouble with that concept.
Today Bush said we had "liberated" Iraq. From whom? From Saddam? He's no longer there. Why are we?
I understand our troops must follow orders and do what our President has ordered them to do. They have no other option. That is a tragedy which is often true in war.
But having lost faith in our President and having come to believe he is either insane or immoral or both, I cringe at the notion that he has the authority to order moral citizens from our country to kill moral citizens in another country as part of some grand, secret, global, deranged, neocon, military/industrial scheme that the citizens in neither country know anything about.
That is another reason why anything lawful that can be done to stop an immoral President who as CIC gives orders that force our soldiers to wreak havoc upon citizens of a foreign nation, killing 100,000 of them in the process, and who protects the right to do that by stripping away the Constitutional rights of citizens at home is to me not only a good thing, but an essential thing. A censure motion meets that lawful test.
I am not a terrorist. I abhor the initiation of force against any human or animal. I would never support any other person who seeks to initiate force against another.
If the government wants to monitor any communication of mine or search any of my property, I want them to get a warrant to do so signed by an impartial magistrate.
I was fortunate enough to be born in a country where I am guaranteed that protection by the Constitution. John Yoo and Albert Gonzales and Viet Dinh were not. I do not want laws passed which are in conflict with the Constitution.
I agree with Sandra Day O'Conner that it is crucial that one resist the beginnings of dictatorship. The censure motion is a step in that direction.
Josh displayed the same hand-wringing during the lead-up to the Iraq war. He couldn't quite figure out which way to jump, so he wandered off into irrelevency. It is maddening, really. I've long since given up on Drum, but I keep reading Marshall, I guess, because he is clearly bright and I hope his spine will catch up with his brain. It is the same hope I hold out for our Democratic brothers and sisters.
ReplyDeleteDiscussing "impeachment" plays into Bush's hands. It is a political strawman, created by GOP operatives to rally their base.
ReplyDeleteEveryone, it seems, is trying to put the "I" word into Feingold's mouth. Notice that it was reporters who repeatedly asked him about it at this press conference. When he responded, even to knock it down, the nightly story on Fox was, "Now Feingold is talking about impeachment."
The only smart response -- on a radio panel, in the blogosphere, or wherever -- is to get it off the table, change the subject or shut up. I hope Glenn and his comrades will not engage down in those weeds, but they may not have learned any lessons about politics lately.
jao is just so damn smart. I am heartened that there are people bright enough to instantly see through these tactics and Rovian schemes.
I hope Glenn reads this post by jao. Fortunately Glenn is brilliant as well as being tactically sophisticated, and no doubt already knows this. But I am copying it and emailing it to him anyway, as I feel it is so critically important to stay away from the "I" word with a 25 foot pole.
OH! I hadn't read any comments beyond jao's when I wrote my last comment.
ReplyDeleteGlenn responded to jao already, and agrees with him completely!
I am just so glad that Glenn is the spokesman for my views. Anyone else, I'd be biting my fingernails when the person was on the radio.
But I always know Glenn will come through.
And I am so glad jao is on this blog.
I'm happy.
I just hope that Glenn realizes that playing the spin and manipulation game is a ded-end. People want authentic voices now, not some pre-packaged pablum. I suggest that it's down in the weeds where the fight needs to go because too many people simply have not thought through the basics and it's in the weeds that the basics get rooted out and clarified.
ReplyDeleteFrom MSNBC
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON - A top Senate Democrat said Sunday that President Bush should be held responsible if he violated the law in authorizing the domestic spy program.
But Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said it is too early to tell if either censure or impeachment of Bush would be appropriate. “I can’t rule anything out until the investigation is complete. I don’t want to prejudge it,” said Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat. “But if this president or any president violates the law, he has to be held accountable.”
What say we all call Durbin's office tomorrow to remind him that Bush has acyually already admitted that he violated the law. It's already on my To Do list.
nuf said:
ReplyDeleteWhew. Glad you pointed that out.
I have been alarmed that I am the only person I know or about whom I have read who supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq who also considers Murtha a horror show.
His adulation by the left because of a single position he has rightly taken is, to me, just another instance of how stupid people can be, both on the right and on the left. Murtha worshippers remind up of the wingbat Bush cultists.
Murtha is Bush. He just differs on one point. He is a man who has never uttered a single other position with which I agree. He is an authoritarian extraodinaire, and a fifth rate intellect.
Personally, I would rather live in a country with Bush as President than with Murtha (Dr. Strangelove) as President.
I consider the developing Murtha cult, and this big push to get Democratic veterans elected as a very scary new threat.
They are the last people who would object to this restructuring of the Constitution that is going on presently. They would love to see the Military elevated to a God like status and then giving them Nixonian Executive powers would be one big mushroom cloud in the making.
Everytime I have seen one of these increasingly ubiquitous "Feingold/Murtha", or "Murtha/Feingold" tickets being put applauded on various blogs, I have wanted to scream.
My opinion of Feingold is high enough that I expect he can identify the Murtha myth from the reality.
But if he had any doubts, Murtha's cowardly dismissal of this censure measure should put those to rest.
Well, I wouldn't celebrate just yet. I have more to say.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, that our very way of life is under attack. Our Constitution is being suspended, under a perpetual "state of war." Everything we hold dear is on the verge of destruction, under the boot of dictatorship.
So I'm thinking we should do something non-binding about it, then have a latte. Whaddya say?
God damn, I'm sophisticated.
It occurs to me that the failure of Congress to hold Bush accountable for breaking the law is symptomatic of a far larger problem. Blame the Dems does not cut it. We should blame both Democrats and Republicans with equal ferocity and the Republican leadership particularly.
ReplyDeleteFor many years now, no matter the party in power, Congress has engaged in a strategy that can only be called: Over-delegation and we have let them get away with it. 9/11 failures, appoint a commission to study it and make recommendations; declare war, nah, simply authorize the use of force IF certain conditions are met (which they were not); etc.
Congress has either fallen into the habit or has always done three things when faced with an "accountability" moment: 1) Delegate responsibility to some executive agency; 2) Call for the appointment of a commission to study it to death; or 3) Blame the problem on ordinary Americans and their families. As a body, Congress takes responsibility for nothing other than the purse as it affects their own campaign coffers.
The exception in this one, brief moment, is Feingold. He's not surprised at the lack of support from his fellow Dems or the Republicans elected to represent their districts but neither is he cynical about it.
Congress for many years has built a protective wall to avoid its responsibilities and to assist in the maintanance of that wall, Congress has courted both the conservative press and the so-called liberal media. Josh Marshall is simply an example of that kind of insider protectorate the permeates the DC media. Eleanor Cliff, Joe Klein, etc. are products of that same system.
So long as I'm opining, I'll throw out the other factors that keep the current system in place:
ReplyDelete1. The religious right is a powerful force. What we see with the evangelicals is good people who are fervently devoted to their religious beliefs. Nevertheless, for every policy they espouse, when you hear them on the issue, you realize that they have no global perspective on the issue. They hate the ACLU for example because they see themselves as victims of religous intolerance. They are led to belief that by their own religious leaders who also have no global perspective. Darfur, real religious and ethnic persecution are unknown to them. Everything is viewed through the prism of America. The American media actively excludes the broadcast of issues from a global perspective.
2) DC is a club for insiders. Glenn will never be part of that club. Neither will any of us. Clinton and Dean were/are actively despised because they were outsiders. Gore, same thing. The Cliffs, Marshalls, etc. adhere to the talking points of the DLC because those folks are insiders. Even Alterman is an insider worthy of invitation on the cocktail circuit and valued for his contrarian views.
From Juan Cole: The New York Times reveals that Rumsfeld's torture team, Task Force 6-26, was so notorious that even the CIA wanted nothing to do with it! Current Attorney General Albert Gonzales helped authorize this torture.
ReplyDeleteCan we spread this one note all over the internet? This stuff drives me nuts.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leaving Iraq now would be the same as handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a column published on Sunday, as retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton called Rumsfeld incompetent and urged him to resign.......
ReplyDelete"In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq," Eaton said....
Eaton, who was in charge of training Iraqi military forces from 2003 to 2004, said President George W. Bush should replace Rumsfeld with someone like Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, who could "repair fissures that have arisen both between parties and between uniformed men and the Pentagon big shots."
This is where we are. People seem to care only about replacing the one who operates the guillotine so that guillotining can proceed more efficiently.
I heard an electrifying speech by Harry Belafonte today about which I will write more tomorrow.
He talked about what happens when people come to accept the values of their oppressors, and why it is important to "take to the streets", metaphorically, to defend one's own basic values. Young people today are more likely to do a deal with the devil and accept their oppressor's values than the youth of previous generations.
Reports of the anti-war rally today pointed out that young protestors were sparse and mostly older Americans showed up to protest.
With age comes wisdom. How can that wisdom be transferred to the youth of America in time to save it?
Finally, one report states that people commented there were more police out than protesters. Apparently, that observer failed to note the connection.
eyes wide noted: Reports of the anti-war rally today pointed out that young protestors were sparse and mostly older Americans showed up to protest.
ReplyDeleteMy son says his friends don't think demonstrations do anything. They are very dispirited. The ruling ethos seems to be video games, movies, and having "fun." It is this apathy, perhaps, that the neocons and religious right see and want to counter with an ethos of warrior citizens.
mo, yes I will do my part to spread that on the Internet. It makes me "nuts" too, and that's an understatement.
ReplyDeleteI hope the day will come when Gonzales is tried as a war criminal. He is utterly ruthless, and horrifyingly cruel. His actions mock everything this country has always stood for.
Washington is of course a club. It's also part of a global club. "Fraternity" is the word which best describes this world unto itself.
But that's another story, a story nobody would ever believe, which is why the "fraternity" members, from one generation to another, from one century to the next, can continue on their way basically unexposed, and essentially unchallenged.
So I'm thinking we should do something non-binding about it, then have a latte. Whaddya say?
ReplyDeleteI say fine! As long as the latte is then followed up by something "binding."
Which it would be.
Impeachment.
ReplyDeleteStrange moments in the outer limits/twilight zone of our current political economy.
Blowjobs earning an impeachment jokes aside...
If we don't somehow figure out a way to rebuke and restrain this president now or soon the consequences of his current power will create consequences of unimaginable proportions.
jao, I watched the video and thank you for the link.
ReplyDeleteYou write:
Mine is that Wallace was a little overenthusiastic in pushing the "impeachment" strawman, and Durbin was a little too afraid to say the President broke the law.
On this one point, I differ slightly with your analysis. I thought Wallace was more than a "little overenthusiastic". He was obviously and flagrantly and infuriatingly trying to get Durbin (and Feingold) tainted with the "impeachment" brush, in service to RoveCo, who have assessed, and I think correctly, that at this time leading the public to think that the first thing that will happen if the Democrats capture one of the houses is that they will move to impeach our "Commander in Chief" during "wartime" will hurt Democratic chances in November.
Maybe by November if enough stuff hits the fan and sticks, that won't be still true, but it appears to me to be an accurate assessment of the majority of Americans' current position.
Wallace's naked goal was to push Democrats to suggest they support impeachment, and to use that to frighten centrists and disgruntled Republicans.
As far as that goes, the case for impeachment has already been made on the blogosphere. It has not reached the public. Most friends of mine have no idea the President has committed an impeachable offense. As a matter of fact, most constitutional scholors who have addressed themselves to this issue have concluded the President broke the law, but not that he has committed an impeachable offense.
My own unsophisticated view is that the sanctioning of torture, dispensing of habeas corpus, illegal detainment and the lying to the country to make a false case for war are more impeachable offenses than violating the FISA laws. I could be wrong.
As for Durbin, while there was one point in the interview where I wished he had said "The President himself has admitted he broke the law", I think that his failure to come right out and say that, given the rest of his words, was okay, and maybe even understandable, if not admirable, as a bow to political realities.
Other than that, I was enormously impressed with Durbin, thought he was in complete control of the facts, and was quite articulate in framing the issues.
As I do not think that the censure itself is such a big deal, but rather talk about the censure is what will lead, if anything will, to open, authentic investigations into what is going on, I think he advanced that probability admirably.
Who can fault him for focusing on proper Congressional and Senate investigations? Those hearings would not only expose the full range of programs in which the government is now involved, but would demonstrate to the public how the President broke the law.
We would all like to see that happen but it hasn't. In saying that he understood why Feingold was so frustrated, he drove home that point.
I give him an A. He may just be able to get more press time and bring the facts to the public more effectively if he stays somewhat on the fence about the censure motion and explains what motivated Feingold to call out for that censure.
Unlike Murtha, who simply pooh poohs the censure motion and focuses solely on Iraq.
jao, I do not ever "flatter" people, which, to me, has a pejorative connotation.
ReplyDeleteI do think certain people like Glenn, you and hypatia are unusually brilliant (as well as others on these threads) and I just happen to be that odd type of person, I guess, who experiences actual joy when I read words written by people who are brilliant, insightful, correct in their conclusions, as well as being highly articulate and eloquent.
As for your last sentence on that early post, I see now why you might characterize it as didactic, but when I read it, I just assumed that it was more an expression of hope on your part that Glenn would use the right tactics tomorrow since so much is riding on whether the issues can be laid out effectively in time, without getting sidetracked or hoodwinked at this time of crisis.
I figured you knew how exceptional Glenn is because you read his posts.
Glenn is someone I do not perceive as partisan so it would seem reasonable to me that Glenn, involved as he is in high level intellectual warfare, might not always have the time to pay attention to gutter politics, but he may well be watching those out of the corner of his no doubt overworked eye :)
Anyone still expecting Specter to follow through and deliver the goods might want to read this:
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with the comments of Jennifer Stockman, on behalf of the Republican Majority for Choice, criticizing U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum ("S. Dakota abortion law is an assault," March 8).
While Sen. Santorum and I disagree on issues, I believe that he has done an excellent job for Pennsylvania and ought to be reelected. Without his support, I would not have won the 2004 Republican primary. Sen. Santorum's reelection is my top priority in 2006.
The organization which identifies itself as the Republican Majority for Choice ought not to be actively seeking to defeat Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate.
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter
Washington, D.C.
Frat boy. Don't expect anything.
Also, Redd Hedd from firedoglake will be on C-Span tomorrow morning at 7:45. Here's hoping she gets to talk about the censure motion.
Eyes Wide Open says: "Iraqi civilians have much less education and exposure to information than the ordinary American."
ReplyDeleteOh really? My impression has been that many Iraqis are well educated. Were, anyway. Many of those people are now being murdered or emigrating. They've been using the internet for years. And does the "ordinary American" expose him/herself to so much information?
I'll give Josh a pass on this one.
ReplyDeleteFirst his anti-impeachment article did, if I remember correctly come BEFORE the Feingold impeachment resolution. There WAS a bit more talk about impeachment and it always seemed a bit out-there to me. The political difference between this and Watergate, was that the Republicans control Congress compltetely now. In Watergate the Democrats did.
Impeachment will be laughed off the stage. We'll never have the votes.
Censure is different because it's an unofficial measure that has no consequences (a trial for removal from office) other than making clear that the president stands on shaky ground and he should watch himself. It likely won't pass either, but the stakes are lower. Feingold intended it that way. He could have introduced an impeachment resolution and didn't.
The reaction of the timid Dems to Feingold indicates panic. They seem to be completely missing the point that censure is not impeachment. That reaction is indefensible, but the reaction to impeachment, which has been pushed aside as you indicate, by censure was legitimate.
Actually, so is Marshall's point that Congress hasn't tried to rein Bush in. Congressmen have, but Congress, a body with its current Republican leadership, has not.
But all this misses the point. Censure is the right move here, politically speaking.All Democrats should support it. Impeachment, while justified, is not. Impeachment is a serious game that we don't have the cards to play.
Frist Ad for Money: Feingold Wrong on Censure
ReplyDeletenmb asks, "And does the "ordinary American" expose him/herself to so much information? Perhaps the question should be more focused on the disinformation to which all Americans are constantly exposed.
ReplyDeleteI live in Canada, and the difference between what you see on CBC or BBC news compared to FOX or CNN is startling. With all Bush and his crowd are doing to harm U.S. freedoms, the larger threat to democracy is imposed by propaganda. Thomas Jefferson put his trust in an informed electorate.
Do you still have one?
Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitible.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Josh is one of the "comfortable" dem crowd that accepts much of the economic policies of the right and the DINO crowd because he is isolated from personally living with them.
ReplyDeleteThe chimpy administration is conducting a WAR ON CHILDREN AND FAMILYS and one of their tools is to bancrupt the county with an obscene war that steals BILLIONS AND BILLIONS from the federal treasury.
Most of the blogosphere, even the "so called liberal" crowd accepts this. Instead, we talk about "competence" and "democracy" - all the while taking our eyes off the larger injustices and crimes.
Bigger issues than democracy you may ask? YES!!!!!! The repugs know that their economic policies CANNOT SUSTAIN THE SUPPORT OF AMERICANS FOR LONG -- NOT EVEN AMONG THE KOOL-AIDERS.
Therefore, they have become bold and brazen in their attitudes and theft of democracy -- they need to totally shut it down while they can, but the issues are all economic, that is whats driving the policy.
They have succeeded in demonizing the "L" word so that even the blogopshere will not talk about the economic issues that were the backbone of 19th and 20th century American politics.
Sure, josh does some good things, especially the Social Security Bamboozle stuff -- but don't kid yourself. NONE OF THE SUPERBLOGS ARE WILLING TO DISCUSS ECONOMIC ISSUES
Atrios will actually ban commenters for doing so. It is not allowed on most of the "so-called-liberal" blogs -- and atrios proclaims himself to be a "super-economist"
LOL - either a hot-headed moron (could be) or just a control freak that likes attention (don't know)!
To save our democracy, we need to allow people to talk about economic issues so that their is actually a reason for people to participate in the process -- that is how a democracy was suppose to work.
Who would have guessed, was the sham impeachment of clinton a way to drag the country through a terrible experience so the military industrial complex could put the smirking chimpy could be installed in the monkey palace (2 stolen elections) and defy international treaties, laws, congress, the constitution, and the democratic process with a "free pass"
ReplyDeleteFunny how now some want to talk about the "I" word as being excessive...
Open Post to Dewine, Graham, Nagel and Snowe;
ReplyDeleteI would address you as Senator’s but now that you are culpable to the crime of wiretapping by not holding Bush to the FISA law I hope to see you in jail with Bush and company as soon as possible.
I come from Nixon's old congressional district and as God is my Fruhrer believe that:
We are in a state of constitutional crisis. For Rumsfeld to lobby on intelligence reform and now have military acts off the books means that the "linchpin" of the constitution, the taxing and spending powers of
Congress, of raising standing armies, has now been violated. My Congressman David Dreier now has no way to effect my Liberty nor my Republic.
Our constitution was specifically designed to avoid this combination of the President's office with the Defense Department; that the King shall not have his own standing army to send willy-nilly to wherever he
thinks he has the pleasure too. That is why I can never believe the neo-cons or Alitos et al., claims to absolute presidential power as Commander-and-Chief even during war. The claim of inherent power of the president has already been settled under Nixon's attempt during the so-called Vietnam War. As Nixon’s assistant attorney general Rehnquist made the argument of inherent power to wiretap the White Panther Party without a warrant – during a war. This power, which was claimed to be held, under the President’s Oath of Office, was rejected by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision against suspending all or parts of the Constitution. Because this was Rehnquist’s argument as assistant attorney general he had to recuse himself from his very first decision after being appointed to the Supreme Court and rightly so. And guess what? America was still standing in the morning after this and Nixon's resignation avoiding his impeachment. This is in spite of a average of 6 bombings a day, 86 killed policemen, and a record 33,604 thousand injuries between the fall of 1969 and spring of 1970 by our own citizens protesting over the illegal invasion of Cambodia.
Unfortunately, Rehnquist conveniently ignores this when he reviews his history of the power of the President during war. He brings up WWI and WWII in this review. But, for some reason, he completely skips how his “inherent” argument on presidential power was slapped down by the Supreme Court during the undeclared, illegal and immoral so-called Vietnam War. This is bald face intellectual dishonesty, if not outright historical revisionism, that completely belies the important decision on the necessity of War - not to mention the young lives thrown willy-nilly into harm's way. And so much for a responsible versus an irresponsible debate Mr.Bush. That is why I completely reject the neo-con's medieval thesis that constitutional government is too weak to survive in a difficult world and that we should defer to a sole sovereign power since 9/11. We have become weaker since taking on this post 9/11 repeat of Rehnquist's "in terrorem" position. (I would like to read his memo on the subject of presidential power and the invasion of Cambodia but alas that memo has disappeared, nowhere to be found on the Internet. The persuasive force of his ideas no longer count I can only suppose). I only fear that our new Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito will take what was a tragedy we survived and turn a repeated claim of 18th century inherent power into a farce that destroys the sheet anchor of our Republic - our precious Constitution – along with the Bill of Rights.
Censure is indeed warranted. Nixon would have approved!
I am Citizen Michael John Keenan
As anon implied above, the "punishment" the GOP endured for a borderline groundless impeachment has been two Presidential election victories and control of both houses since 2002. For the life of me I can't see why the Dem's want to avoid such "castigation". I realize that the Dem's must contend with, among other things, quaint vestigial notions about fairness and the burden of empirical reality, a few too many Vichy colleagues and totally uncoordinated "hardball" political tactics, but come on!
ReplyDeleteWhen have the GOP and their vocal, loyal supporters been afraid of sounding shrill even once in the last 14 years? Their success is built on it! Even bart keeps up this lovely tradition by claiming terrorists want to "violently destroy the government". That's not even physically possible, let alone true. Shrillness has become the figurative squeaky wheel that gets the greese, and boy-oh-boy is that GOP machine greesed.
I would not be surprised in the least if some or most of the political consultants that have neutered the Dem's are in fact on the GOP payroll. It seems unbelievable such thoroughly pathetic non-confrontational acquiescense to GOP framed (un)reality is being advised in good faith.
The Dem's have to internalize the fact that their shrillness now is not and ought not be for political gain, but for defense of the Constitution. Because when it comes to the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights, I really don't think there is such a thing as being too shrill in its defense. One does not ignore the plaintive, shrieking wails of an abandoned infant because of it being too shrill. The Constitution of the United States of America is just as defenseless as such an infant, only more so due to it being totally mute.
I was referring to the anon before the apparently not anonymous citizen Michael John Keenan.
ReplyDeleteWho would have guessed, was the sham impeachment of clinton a way to drag the country through a terrible experience so the military industrial complex could put the smirking chimpy could be installed in the monkey palace (2 stolen elections) and defy international treaties, laws, congress, the constitution, and the democratic process with a "free pass"
ReplyDeleteI would have.
And did.
The Democrats must be forced to oppose Bush with baby-steps, like the Feingold measure. If they can't even stand up for that, how can we expect them to stand for impeachment? Apparently, the muscles in their legs have atrophied too far for them to stand on their own, so we must give them some help. Prop 'em up and point to the Feingold measure and tell them what we want!
ReplyDelete