Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama on Censure (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's the question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pb, nogamez

    How could it hurt?

    I want Obama (or any of them) to explain what the HARM is in organizing a vote to censure. I'm sure they have a reason, I just wish they would explain it to us - cuz I'm not sure I see the downside very clearly.

    •  The problem: (0+ / 0-)

      I think they fear a backlash with the voters like the Republicans experienced in 1998 -- they failed to pick up any seats in the elections that year.

      •  Then they are idiots. (3+ / 0-)

        75% of Americans disapproved of the impeachment of William J. Clinton, and still the Republicans marched in shoulder to shoulder to do the dirty deed.  Americans know raw exercises of power when they see it, and the Republican impeachment of Clinton was simply that:  power used for no worthy end but to display its own might.

        Over 50% of Americans support impeachment if President George W. Bush lied us into war -- and every day more and more evidence piles up to support THIS FACT.

        There is only one valid comparison between the 1998 impeachment of William J. Clinton and the coming impeachment of George W. Bush, and it is this:  the non-impeachment of George W. Bush is being led by the same gang of thugs who orchestrated the impeachment of William J. Clinton.  In each case this gang of Republican thugs is on the wrong side of decency, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American populace.


        Have you heard the good news? God is fiction. All prophets lie.

        by Yellow Canary on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:03:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ironically (0+ / 0-)
          Ironically, these same people are actually leaders.  They are leading in the direction they want to go.  I get the feeling the Dems are a bunch of followers... and bad ones at that.  If someone leads in DC with a loud enough voice, they'll follow.  They may whine about it, but they ultimately follow.  Since the Republicans have very, very loud leaders, the Dems are going along.

          Obviously, such generalizations have exceptions.  But why can't the Dems just recognize that what Feingold is doing is LEADING.  And he's even going in the right direction.  Imagine that.  SO if they must be followers, could they please follow the right leader?

          •  Which is all the more reason: (0+ / 0-)

            Why Clinton is going down in the next primary because she is a follower and not a leader.

            The more these Dems show a lack of spine, the more Feingold looks good because even the Greens can see he is the only one who is really out in front on this issue.

            •  yes and no (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eternal Hope
              Unfortunately a lot of people get elected who are actually followers (case in point: 90% of Senate Democrats and 98% of House Democrats).  In fact, there's a decent case to be made that those who are now in DC are there BECAUSE they are followers.  They've convinced themselves that the way to survive under the Republican onslaught is to lay low.  What a load of crap.

              I wonder if Daschle still feels this way?

              And yes, I agree that Feingold looks better and better.  I'd also add that Howard Dean looks even better now.  (I remain convinced that he would have made minced meat of Bush in '04.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site