What does it say about the democrats in the House and Senate that probably all of them, ALL of them, to a man and woman, know that both Bush and Cheney should be impeached, and if there were any justice, tried, convicted, and removed from office, then tried in criminal court.

How many of them, in their hearts, know this to be true? I'd say, every last bleepin' one of them. But they do not act on their truest beliefs, because it'll be "bad politically." Bad for their careers.

What does that say about these people, every one, who put their careers, their personal gain, their personal status, ahead of the interests of the nation?

What does it say that they violate their own inner truth every day? They all know what should be done. They just won't vote to do it. Because they're cowards. Most people voted them into office to do what's right. Apparently, they can't, even when they KNOW what's right.

Think about it.

Whatever. The Dems are all about toothless paper tigers that do not mean shit.

You better hide under your desks Democrats, your base is *this close* to exploding all over your asses.

Why aren't you running for President?

I don't know why Harry Reid doesn't want to waste the Senate's time with a symbolic gesture, since they are failing to make any gesture at all. Don't they have the votes for this? Don't they want to win at least one vote for something? You have to start somewhere. Sheesh.

Censure would be a waste of time, only slightly less so than nonbinding resolutions. Impeachment? Regardless of whether it's right or not (I'm all for it personally), it's politically impossible without several more seats changing colors.

Besides, I'm not sure that more than a quarter or so of Americans really know what censure is anyway.

Isn't this the same Harry Reid who pulled an all nighter as a symbolic gesture in order to 'raise awareness'? Wouldn't a censure motion, or the formal discussion of impeachment hearings for that matter, basically be the same thing?

If Congress does not take a firm position to sanction the illegal acts of Bush & Cheney, then we might as well forget about the constitution and the separation of powers because we are marching down the road to a future dictatorship.

Whether it is a censure motion or impeachment, this must be supported by every Democrat. With 46% in favor of impeaching Bush and 54% in favor of impeaching Cheney; it is time for Congress to act.

In effect Bush and Cheney have acted as though the executive branch has absolute power.

A major part of the problem is that the Republican controlled "main stream media" would rather cover Paris Hilton than substantive issues.

I would encourage every one to phone their Senators and Representative to support the censure motions at a minimun. If there career comes before supporting the Constitution, then maybe it is time for them to find another occupation.

The rest is just a colossal waste of time.

I think Bush has done vastly more harm to this country than terrorists ever will. But I also think censure at this point is a terrible idea. Suppose a censure motion made Lieberman decide to caucus with the Republlicans. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that would shift control of the Senate to the Repbublicans. Suppose the censure motion irritates moderates and therefore degrades the prospect of the Democrats retaining control of the Senate next year. I don't want to see the Senate (or House) ever again controlled by Republicans. The risk might be worthwhile if a censure motion could accomplish anyything practical. But it can't, not this year. A year from now, the circumstances will have changed, and it is conceivable a censure motion would be a good idea. "Censure Bush and move on." Right now, no. I'm part of the base and I applaud Reid (and Pelosi) for following a ruthless and intelligent strategy.

Congress voted to impeach Clinton over nothing, when his approval rating was close to 70%.

If Republicans want to attack Democrats for debating to censure Bush (not to impeach, just censure) I don't unbderstand why Democrats can't simple point that out.

In the case of Clinton, the Republicans were clearly politicizing. To argue that censuring Bush would be politicizing, given the amount of harm Bush has done to the country, is obsurd. Congress needs to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to demonstrate that it is actually representing the fellings of the American people.

I think Feingold would rather Bush be impeached. He knows, however, that as a senator he can't vote to convict until, and unless, the House votes to impeach. A senator can introduce a motion to censure. Why wait? Why choose? Censure now, and then if the House ever does decide to impeach, try Bush then.

I become nearly physically ill when I read Harry Reid's contention that the Senate has more important business than upholding and defending the Constitution. History will record that the American experiment failed when we ceased to have any opposition party. My children deserved better!

Holding congressional control for "control sake" is meaningless. Unless the Dems are willing to use this "control" to push forth the agenda they've tacitly or explicitly promised the American people (i.e. ending Iraq War, tackling corruption, education reform, etc.), what difference does it make at the end of the day who controls? If the Democratic leadership believes, as many Americans believe, that President Bush and co. committed impeachable offenses, then they have a duty to act on that belief. Otherwise, GET THE HELL OUT.

Americans want leaders who are willing to act on their convictions, regardless of political cost. This is why Bush and co. have won 2 elections and why they retain the, albeit fleeting, support of some Americans. Political posturing ALWAYS fails (Kerry, Gore, etc.). Get it yet Democrats?

Democrats need to free themselves from the paralyzing culture of fear that the Republicans have them buying into. It's that fear that got us Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc. in the first place.