Letters to the Editor
-
How to motivate Bush's base
The reason conservatives are giddy about Feingold's proposal is that they think it will bring out the dispirited Bush base, and save the GOP from electoral ruin this November. I certainly don't know what motivates his voters, but I'm inclined to believe the conservatives know them. Their idea is to portray Bush as under attack by liberal extremists and to rally Bush's troops to save their man from censure or impeachment. If Bush isn't under threat of censure and impeachment, the theory goes, conservatives may stay home and let energized liberals and progressives take over Congress.
If Feingold succeeds, we'll find out if the conservatives are right, won't we?
-
Feingold
For some reason people seem to forget we have a right to say what's on our mind. Washington has become so cynical the members of both parties see hidden motives in every move a politician makes. They suspect in others the things for which they are guilty. I think Senator Feingold honestly believes the President deserves censure. I agree with him. His action required courage and not cleverness. We place more emphasis on math and reading in our schools than history and government so what we've gotten is an ill educated electorate who is completely unaware of just how dangerous these illegal wire taps are to our freedom.
-
Republican press release "worse than watergate" is a good thing
If the republicans are putting the issue of the illegal wiretaps/terrorist surveillance program in the same headline as Watergate, doesn't that the issue has been "framed" in the pro-censure position's favor? It would follow that no matter what the anti-censure resolution position is, momentum is already in favor of censure. Isn't that how it works? (assuming you believe the "framing" philosophy)
-
Framing
I agree with the previous poster about "framing". I also noticed that more people are calling it the GOP's "Terrorist Surveilance Program" instead of the Dem's "Domestic Spying Program".... so there's mixed momentum.
-
Feingold's call to censure
Time will tell, of course. I believe Karl Rove has had a lot of success attacking an opponents' strength but the fact that there isn't a consensus in the Democratic leadership on this troubles me. It makes Democrats look like they don't have their act together. Frankly, calling for censure, even with ample grounds, when there is no way in hell there will be enough votes is a head-scratcher.
-
The Feingold gambit
I think it would be interesting to track the monetary donations to Feingold's campaign and to his Progressive Patriot's Fund. I have sent each $100 since his introduction of the censure resolution. I have sent my spineless senators nothing. Money talks.
Kathy Pistono
-
Feingold is right
Michael Scherer poses the question, Who is right, purely in political terms. The reason Feingold is right is that his motion is supported by a great deal of clear evidence, much of it out of Bush's own mouth, that he has been hijacking the Constitution on several fronts and therefore grossly violating his Constitutional oath.
In short, Feingold is right because he is factually and legally correct. In that case, the question is not whether he is self-aggrandizing or politically stupid, but why many more Senators are not joining him.
Indeed, there is a good case to be made that he's a wimp for not going all the way to an impeachment resolution. At least he agreed with the blogger that Bush's conduct is worse than Nixon's, which it certainly is, and that implies that impeachment is clearly within range of the known facts.
The amazing thing to me is that Democratic voters are way ahead of their "leaders" in all this. It's not just the bloggers and zealots who are supporting impeachment, it's a solid majority of the whole party, and close to a majority of the entire electorate. Democracy is once again dragging its representatives along by the scruff of their necks. It doesn't say a lot for the representatives.
Douglas L. Wilson
Naples, Florida
-
Framing
It seems to me that the Democratic leadership is in a permanent, hopeless state of disunity. In fact, I recently resigned my position as an elected member of our democratic town committee for this reason. However, it seems to me that the framing issue, mentioned in posts above, is still within our control. Once again, the Republican echo chamber is trying to make this a debate over terrorism rather than illegal wiretapping. It is up to us to try to keep the spotlight on the latter.
-
Republicans are bluffing
If this really were a killer issue for republicans, they would have shown up in full force at the censure hearing. If this were really a killer issue, then they'd be running their impeachment ad nationwide, instead of on the RNC website. Instead they've done everything they can to tamp down this story. Glenn's right, Feingold's right and so is Pachacutec over at http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/01/rover-goes-all-in/.
This is a desperate bluff to try to scare democrats off pursuing this and to shape the narrative as a political gambit rather than a principled stand in support of the constitution in opposition to a president who is breaking the law. This issue is not going away, as Glenn and his guest posters have noted. There are too many tendrils involved. There are already multiple court cases working their way through the system. Actually prosecuting anybody, rather than putting them in jail without charge, is going to raise this issue in every case, because evidence illegally obtained cannot be used, and taints other evidence that may have been obtained via the illegally obtained evidence.
Whether Feingold is acting on principle or cynically using American principles to advance his presidential ambitions is irrelevant. For him to successfully simulate acting on principle, he has to effectively act on principle. It's important to note that calling his motivations into question is a distraction, a concession to the republican trope that there are no substantive issues. This is an essential weapon in the republican arsenal. If campaigns are about issues, they lose. If they are about character, they can win. So their goal, as here, is to say that this is partisan, political gambit of no substance, which is all about advancing Feingold's political position. And then they'll smear Feingold.
Finally, every single senator, of both parties, knows full well that the president has broken the law. They each know full well that their role is to provide oversight. They're on record wrt the Clinton impeachment over a much more trivial issue. The people who are engaging in unseemly political maneuvering are those who are not fulfilling their constitutional responsibility--rather than those who are honoring it.