The only label necessary to describe the president's actions is "wrong."

People think the President should be censured? Imagine that.

Seems to me when 48% of people polled say that "idiot, incompetent and liar" are the words that come to mind when they think of the President, it means they're not very happy with him.

On Hardball last night, Christ Matthews looked like it was the first time in his life he had considered that not everybody thought of Dubbya as a "regular guy you'd want to have a beer with."

It appears a substantial portion of the public thinks Bush is an idiotic, incompetent liar they'd like to impeach. That floats my boat. Are we there yet, Mom?

Although a Congressional Censure has no practical effect, the bottom line is simply this: If the Democrats could have all come in supporting the resolution and assuming that the resolution was defeated on a party vote, it would have put Republicans on record as "not objecting to" the usurpation of rights to which the warrantless wiretaps amount. There is certainly a chance that the passsing the Censure Resolution could have given the Republicans an "out" claiming they censured the President so there's no further need for investigation, but that's a pretty weak argument, I believe.

It is unfortunate that the resolution didn't also contain language something along the lines of "Whereas the Congressional Majority does not deign to conduct a full and complete investigation of the President's actions..."

Of course the real tragedy is that Congress, through the manipulations of the Republican majority, continues to turn a blind eye to real issues (abuse of power, inadequate protection for our ports, Administration incomptence and lack of integrity, their own lobbying reform) and continues to consolidate power and punsish anyone that is not in their crowd.

>>Dale<<

even if a poll came out stating that 85 percent of the country agreed that they'd like to personally kick Bush in the shins for his illegal actions, his incompetence and his arrogance, the Democrats still won't take action. So what difference does it make that almost half the country would like to see Bush censured...it' not going to happen.

I called my two senators, Inouye and Akaka. And then for good measure, I called Senators Clinton and Obama. It only took a second and all I said was my name, where i was from and that I was asking the senator to support senator feingolds censure resolution. That's it. It was less than a minute of phone time. And that by itself, won't make much of a difference. But if we all do it, it might.

Seeing posts like this make me realize how tragically the founding fathers blew it on our representation and electorial systems. I can honestly imagine that the above poll being true, but a censure measure undermining the Democratic Party's attempt to retake Congress, simply by dent of having 50 state and 435 district elections, versus a national palimentary election. I can easily imagine the censure measure being a net positive for the majority of people and yet counterintuitively be a net negative in the majority of states (and districts). But that's been the theme of the past 5 years. The minority continuingly outhustling the majority through the tricks of an uneven playing field.

Reporter Kirkpatrick, who wrote the NYT story implying that the Right is rallying around Feingold's call for censure, is himself a right-leaning fellow who makes a career of spinning the Dems scared. Just see his Alito/Roberts coverage.

A close read of his recent article reveals a total lack of proof that a single person without "W" already burned into their chests is reacting negatively to Feingold's call. There isn't even proof that true believers are more energized or more likely to vote because of Feingold.

Of course that doesn't matter to the Democrats, who would stone their own mothers if a NYT article implied that would help them win over the popular crowd.

To see how Kirkpatrick is the other side of the Limbaugh/O'Reilly coin is to see how much the Right Wing dominates our media/press. The "liberal" Washington Post, for example, is stacked top to bottom with Kirkpatricks.

The O'Reillies throw red meat to the base, while the Kirkpatricks in the mainstream media spin the Democrats like a top.

And if you think I'm being too hard on the Dems - that they couldn't possibly be so easily manipulated by the Right - take a look at the names of current Democratic senators who supported censure against Clinton for lying about a blowjob - NOT ONE OF WHICH HAS SUPPORTED CENSURE OF BUSH (thanks to Kos):

Daniel Akaka

Max Baucus

Byron Dorgan

Dick Durbin

Dianne Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Jim Jeffords

Ted Kennedy

John Kerry

Herb Kohl

Mary Landrieu

Carl Levin

Joe Lieberman

Blanche Lincoln

Barbara Mikulski

Patty Murray

Jack Reed

Harry Reid

Jay Rockefeller

Chuck Schumer

Ron Wyden

So what's happened to the "liberal media"? If they truly had a pulse on all things liberal, then they sure missed the boat on the widespread interest in censure of Bush. The Times and the Post seemed downright surprised that anyone would want to censure Bush. On the contrary, they should be surprised if people DON'T want him censured. His deeds are inexcusable at best and criminal at worst.

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com