Skip to main content

I would hope that my commitment and support for Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush for his deliberate violations of FISA is beyond question. But if there are any doubts, let me state it again here - censure is the approprate move for Democrats on this given the fact that Rubber Stamp Republicans are in the majority and will never support this resolution, much less Articles of Impeachment. It is a Lincoln 1860/Politics of Contrast moment. Not to mention the principle involved.

So what would be a successful result for Feingold's resolution? In my opinion, it will be successful if a vast majority of Democratic senators embrace it, if Bush's lawlessness becomes a major news topic, and if the Rubber Stamp Republicans embrace 33% Bush. The second and third of these results has occurred. The first has not yet.

A successful result faces two types of defeatism from Liberals and Democrats. The first is the typical DLC-style defeatism. Digby eviscerates it. The highlight for me:  

It seems that substantively, the party agrees that Bush broke the law and deserves to be censured, but there is a division among most of the blogosphere and virtually the entire establishment about whether this is a canny move politically. . . .

The [reservations expressed] do not denote timidity, so much as a kind of political blindness.

. . . Two: Please tell me that the Democrats are not going to withhold criticim of Bush because it might make Republicans rally around him.  . . . The Republicans have lost the ability to function without them. They are confused and rudderless and they will run back and forth toward Bush and against him dozens of times over the next few months. They literally don't know where to turn.

. . . I can see why [Democratic officials] are angry about it. They were caught short. But they need to move more quickly on this stuff. Planning is great, but you can't always control events. How you deal with things coming from left field is important --- they failed on this one, making it worse for themselves by ducking the press and dithering about their response. I think Democrats have lost touch with their political instincts. This is one of those things that a smart old fashioned pol would have been able to either finesse or respond to properly off the cuff. (They should have called Bill Clinton --- he was good at that sort of thing.)

. . . I said this yesterday and I'll repeat it. This image of "powerlessness" at a time when the Republicans are on the ropes is the biggest problem we face for the fall elections. . . .

Defeatism: acceptance and content with defeat without struggle. The term is commonly used in the context of war: a soldier can be a defeatist if he or she refuses to fight because he or she thinks that the fight will be lost for sure or that it is not worth fighting for some other reason.

I agree, again in every detail, with Digby. Let me talk about the other defeatism that stands as an obstacle on the flip.

The other defeatism is coming from the Left blogosphere. It is the knee jerk reaction of some to condemn Democrats before they have even decided on the issue. This is defeatism of a very dangerous sort. Why? Because it makes even a success a defeat. This morning I wrote:

With the exception of the dim bulb Dodd, [no Democrat (Lieberman doesn't count)] said anything really harmful. "I'm going to wait" is not my answer. It is not Feingold's answer. And in a perfect world it would not be the answer given by ANY Democrat, or Senator for that matter. But that's not our world.

Now there are different ways to say "I am going to wait." The manner in which our Democratic Senators did so is an exercise in stupid politics and weakness. Here is a simple lesson for them -- Next time, excoriate the Bush Administration for their arrogance, apparent lawlessness, "JUST LIKE IN THE PORTS SCANDAL," and their inability to "come clean with the American People," but Censure is a serious matter and one not to be decided lightly. Say that you will seriously consider the Resolution from Senator Feingold, "A MAN OF PRINCIPLE," but that you are not taking a position at this time.

Senator Reid, of the undecided Dem Senators, comes closest to this. But the opportunity to criticize the President must not be passed up. Argue from strength. Not ready to take a position? Then don't. But do not act afraid. Whatever you think of the resolution and its effect on Dems' image on national security, the pathetic show of weakness by these Dem Senators has done 10 times the damage - feeding every negative Dem sterotype of weakness and lack of principle.

Now, does this mean the fight is over? I say decidedly no. We must cajole, urge, fight with and plead with our Democratic Senators to do the right thing on principle and politically.

What we must NOT do is what too many in the blogs are already doing - declaring defeat; calling Dems cowards and worse; condemning them instead of cajoling them.

When we do this we declare defeat TODAY! IF we have lost already, there is no chance of success a week from now, a month from now. Senator Feingold has welcomed the fact that his resolution will be taken up in the Judiciary Committee. We should also. We should understand that only the first act of this drama has unfolded. There is more to come.

Declaring defeat NOW let's them off the hook now. It's not a question of trusting them, as one friend of mine wrote to me today. It's a question of understanding and thinking about what will be most effective in bringing pressure to bear on them in the battle to come.

I submit that declaring them a lost cause TODAY is not only not effective in this fight, it is harmful. Before we decry the defeatism of our Democratic officials it is best that we avoid it ourselves.

Originally posted to Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 06:58 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  For your consideration (157+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Bob Johnson, pb, Dr Van Nostrand, eleming, knowthings, sheba, Hollywood Liberal, Alice in Florida, mcjoan, ubikkibu, pHunbalanced, supergreen, nussbaumski, cotterperson, meg, DCDemocrat, Vico, fightcentristbias, frisco, caliberal, ilona, Carnacki, grndrush, musicsleuth, expatjourno, Eternal Hope, dpc, loudGizmo, jpiterak, RatIV, bronte17, missLotus, conchita, mentaldebris, Silverleaf, susakinovember, ColoDemo, HippyWitch, highacidity, boilerman10, ZanderOC, cookiebear, roses, oceanspray, Fe, jjhalpin, matt2525, fumie, WriterRoss, splashy, mosolino, Last Mechanic, Pachacutec, Eddie C, wader, DemocracyLover in NYC, IM, deminmarineland, mayan, WeatherDem, MamasGun, BarbinMD, BurnetO, MrSandman, mwk, by foot, draftchrisheinz, Chamonix, Nancy in LA, Sunqueen212, lezlie, smash, PitPat, rockhound, Tillie630, greenreflex, mrsnart, Buzzer, socal, coigue, BWasikIUgrad, smartguy11, walkshills, One bite at a time, ChiGirl88, kilo50, Sam Loomis, green917, clarke7, Little Red Hen, boran2, bibble, We hold these truths, Timroff, cohe, Jersey Joe, ch kes, MichDeb, mike20169, vcmvo2, bloomer 101, Rick Oliver, Five of Diamonds, rimstalker, irate, wizardkitten, ejmw, Webster, Luetta, Sinister Rae, HillaryIsMyHomegirl, Maine Atticus, trinityfly, montpellier, boofdah, homeland observer, curtadams, concerned, John DE, GreyHawk, annefrank, QuickSilver, teachenglish, ElDiceo, cerulean, Jlukes, makeitstop, occams hatchet, dannyinla, Nightprowlkitty, Keone Michaels, highfive, BlueInARedState, Naranjadia, Gorette, Yellow Canary, CommiePinkoScum, Dvalkure, Truza, buhdydharma, Jordan LFW, greenearth, quinque, TalkieToaster, global citizen, Rachel in Vista, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, KbThorn In Massachusetts, AmberJane, NearlyNormal, sadpanda, Coffee Geek, FloridaVoter, wiscow, chgobob

    Do you want to be the defeatist?

    I do not.

    The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

    by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 06:52:21 PM PST

    •  this was great for (30+ / 0-)

      thinking about on the subway this morning (when I wasn't focusing on my AAR podcasts).

      Anyhow, the Dems need to internalize what every parent knows:  The way to handle bullies is not to give in to them.  The GOP is a big bunch of bullies, and the more the Dems try to appease, the more the GOP will stomp all over them with a smile.  So, in the end, the Dems have to do SOMETHING -- firmly, unapologetically, and fearlessly.

      But I agree that it isn't unfair to wait to see whether a real strategy emerges -- as long as it's a strategy, not wishy-washiness.

      Regards,

      •  Forget fair (15+ / 0-)

        IT is what has a chance to work.

        Saying we lost and they suck TODAY is to make tomorrow irrelevant.

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 06:59:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not completely (7+ / 0-)

          if we aren't squeaky wheels, the appeasers can use that as justification, "well, my constituents don't want this...."  So, it's fair to be patient, to some degree,  as long as we're pressing them at the same time.

          •  Squeaky wheels (14+ / 0-)

            is EXACTLY what I propose.

            A BROKEN wheel gets discarded.

            The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

            by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:10:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  my bad== (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cookiebear, QuickSilver

              i'm tired and my eyes skipped over a couple of your crucial paragraphs.  sorry -- don't want you to think i'm not hanging on your every word...:)

              condemnation will take place, in any event, in the voting booth, when progressive challengers (like Lamont) arise.

            •  without the outrage from the liberal blogosphere (23+ / 0-)
              I doubt we would have five Senators behind this, with more to come. Why is it left up to us to articulate our outrage, and to beg and cajole support by phoning our Senators?

              Why are you blaming bloggers, Armando, for what's obviously a failure here of Democratic leadership? Who the hell is Harry Reid to say he hasn't read the censure resolution? Or Hillary Clinton to brush off reporters with a wave of her hand? The Democrats' tepid response and general tone-deafness when it comes to the national mood has been sobering. And distressing.

              Of course the Republicans are trying to turn this into a positive, to use the threat of censure and impeachment to rally its base. Will it work? I highly doubt it will work in the long run. This talk of censure or impeachment hits a nerve, and not at all the one Republicans want to hit. Bush is polling at 33%, largely because of the war, and that number is unlikely to change much because the war isn't going to get any more popular. Bush is also unpopular because of a terrible performance on Katrina and other issues. He's running an illegal domestic spying program and has LIED about it. LIED! And the Republicans are blocking an investigation into Bush's illegal activities. Republicans are standing behind Bush and his crimes and corruption.

              What's wrong with the talk of Bush's censure and impeachment? No, the problem isn't with this talk. The problem is the Democratic leadership, which has failed to recognize the value of marshalling this censure and impeachment talk in a manner that works for them, and failed to create a plan of attack around it. Like it or not, every Republican running in November is going to have Bush tied around his or her neck, and every competitive race won by a Democrat will (I predict) be a referendum on whether a Republican candidate can turn a blind eye to Bush's criminality. And if Reid doesn't have the horse sense to understand and capitalize on that, he ought to think twice about coming to YearlyKos, because he's going to get his horse's ass kicked there. I guarantee it.

              "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

              by QuickSilver on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:23:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  by the way, I agree with your diary, Armando (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                knowthings

                Reid missed a beat, that much we agree on. He is still missing a beat, at least as I see things. But looking back over it, I think I rewrote some of what you said but in much angrier colors.

                Sorry about that. Time for me to go to bed (/rant).

                "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

                by QuickSilver on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:49:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I think Armando is responding (7+ / 0-)

                to a fair number of defeatist comments posted to his diary yesterday.

                It gets irritating to read those comments after a while.  If people need to give up, so be it, but it would be helpful if people just did so instead of arguing with those of us who think we can and must fight against tyranny.

                Listen, this country that has faced many crises, some of them much more perilous than what we now face.  Give up if you must, but I have two kids and I'm not going to.

                I've made my calls about censure.  I'm going to work on Ned Lamont's campaign.  I take inspiration from the many people here who are taking action.

                Thank you.

                •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                  Armando is responding to me, at least that's what he said   http://www.dailykos.com/... .

                •  Actually, Censure does not go far enough. (0+ / 0-)

                  Point 1, Is Feingold getting a cold shoulder because his censure motion wasn't seen by the leadership?  Or, did Russ try grandstanding outside the leadership?  This is the part that is missing.  Is Senator Reid's "ignorance and 'missed step'" actually a rebuke for trying to end run the leadership on this issue?

                  I'm curious about this.  The world of Senate Caucuses seems too insular on its face for any talk of "being blindsided" by someone on your own side.

                  As for censure, that's too timid.  Impeachment conviction and deportment to the Hague Tribunal seems not only the proper thing to do, but actually a moral imperative.

                  However, I will settle for censure as a start of this process.  That seems realistic, considering the political climate.

            •  I've been discarded (0+ / 0-)

              the problem is they think I'm worried about being discarded.

              Honestly, fuck 'em.

              Discard me?  I don't need 2000 votes in florida.

              If they think they have that option then there really is no hope for them, sweet talking them won't help...

              really at this point I wonder what good it is to convince these guys what they have to do, their will isn't in it, if cajoled to the right thing, they'll choke, they won't stand up and look strong supporting censure, they'll look unsure and craven, they just don't get it, you can't pull their strings and expect it to look natural... they'll look like they are playing to base.

              these guys... they're hardly in politics as I understand it, and I wish it to be, that is, a matter of statemanship, public debate, and personal judgement... a tin ear doesn't begin to describe how these people think... meanwhile they think it's Russ that has the tin ear (I'm taking dkos arguments as evidence for that idea).

              I can live without hope, but I can't pretend I have hope anyway.

        •  I hate to agree but you are right n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "For some reason Iraq is worth soldiers dying, but not worth rich people paying taxes."

          by Jlukes on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:01:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Screw Defeatism (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Maine Atticus

          Never give up Russ.... He is looking good for 2008

      •  I had a bully that beat me up 3 diff times (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pyrrho, Jesterfox, Mass Southpaw

        ..but I fought the guy every time...we were both bloodied.

        After a while the guy would run away when he saw me.

        I couldn't figure out why the hell he did that and wondered why for years and years (like decades) when it would come to mind.

        This kid saw me getting stronger and didn't want to face the day that I would get him.  I never did back down ever.  (Maybe he just thought I was crazy - you all might wanna chime in b/c I still don't know if my analysis is correct).

        It was curious.  It made me think further about what the definition of winning was... I knew I didn't get the upper hand in the fight... so why did I win the war?

        We're gonna explode?! I don't wanna explode! 宁静

        by TalkieToaster on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:47:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I had the same experience (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pyrrho, TalkieToaster

          It is important to remember that many bullies are not exactly cowards, some of them are very fierce fighters and when you fight them you have to match their intensity if you want to have a chance.  My bully and I fought and fought and fought, and I never did beat him, but I was eventually able to walk home without fighting.  Years later we went out drinking his dad's moonshine and I got terribly drunk while we talked about all the fights we had.  I eventually passed out in my truck up town and when I sobered up I found out that he had gotten really crazy and some of our buddies had taken him to the VA hospital (this was after he got back from at tour in Nam). He had escaped over the back fence before I even woke up and before the night started to get late again he was back in town.

          Anyway, my point is not that we will all go drinking with the Bushitstas, but rather that it is not enough just to stand there nose to nose with a bully you often have to actually get mussed up over and over.  If it important enough to fight for, it is important enough to fight for again.

          Sorry for the long rambling post, I hadn't thought of Bobby for many decades.

          "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

          by NearlyNormal on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 08:27:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  No I do not... (7+ / 0-)

      First of all thank you for this diary,  too many people (Kossacks included) are trying to paint Sen. Feingold's resoultion (which I support) as something that takes impeachment off the table, or is intended to fail, or simply a campaign stunt.  
      So my question about the defeatism you and I see as counter-productive is:
      If this is a campaign stunt don't you think (for the survival and eventual victory of the Democratic party) that every single Dem in the Senate should be jumping onto such "stunts" for the 2008 election whether they're running or not?
      Once again thank you for posting the diary I had running in my head

    •  I've been selling this same argument at FDL (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, curtadams, soyinkafan

      Most of our people get it.  

      But there's a lot of rage out three that is understandable, but possibly unproductive if it prevents us from soldiering on.

      We are not "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

      by Pachacutec on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:21:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I choose both paths (14+ / 0-)

      Maybe I am defeatist.  I have felt incredibly defeated.  You can't understate how demoralizing it was to have the GOP taunting us for days, and to see nothing but terrified silence from the Democrats.

      If the Republicans get to claim a political win on the issue of PRESIDENTIAL LAWBREAKING, it's hard to imagine what issue we could ever expect the Dems to put up a fight on.  Look how unpopular the war has been, for a long, long time, and yet they still shy away from taking a position.

      But I have been doing the best I can, in spite of it all.  I have made my calls to my cowardly Senators, day after day, and I will keep calling.

      Today was a better day, as a few lonely voices spoke up in support of Feingold.  But it's going to take a lot more than this to overcome my feelings of defeatism.

      This should have been a no-brainer.  It really, really, really, really should.  And even if more Dems eventually come around, we'll still have to hear the same old crap about how they stand for nothing, they have to check with their focus groups before they do anything, how they only did anything in the end because the far left held a gun to their heads.

      With a real opposition party we wouldn't have to listen to any of that.  It's depressing.

      •  Tomorrow is another day (0+ / 0-)

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:00:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am at the NASD tomorrow (0+ / 0-)

          But I will find time to call again, somehow!

          Even though I am a proud 3-time Clinton voter, my junior senator still has to earn #4, not to mention 5.

          How many calls do you suppose it will take?  Part of my angst is that these people have gotten THOUSANDS of calls in support of censure since Monday and are still wetting the bed.

        •  And it will be just like today. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          letsfight, NearlyNormal

          IF we have lost already, there is no chance of success a week from now, a month from now.

          Hackett/Sanders 08

          by dkmich on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 02:31:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It got like this over a couple of decades (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dkmich

            It will take some time to get recovered.  There is not much use in getting too depressed over the actions of this lot, they were not selected to be fighters by and large.  They have been the least offensive and the quickest to compromise and that is what got them where they are, so it does little good to ask much more of them than their nature allows.  That is our fault, collectively, for not demanding and backing fighters. I certainly have done little more than wave godspeed to the good as I went about my business since about 76.  And now we are in the pit with the beast and are short of champions.  

            Acquiring champions will be a process.  First, we have to encourage those that we have in place to fight as best as they can.  Help to those that fight for us, strong primary challenges to those that collaborate, and I would encourage a nationwide effort to punish joementum.  We can pull together for the short run with no damage to our determination to replace the go-alongers in the medium term.

            Between now and 2010 elections I think we should be very liberal in our support of democrats.  We need all the help we can get to end this very dangerous descent into actual tyranny-I can think of no other name for a system with secret prisons, secret trials, secret denials of appeals, and evidence acquired by torture performed by agents of our and our despotic allies governments-so I say all hands at the oars now, and judge the ok from the better later.

            I think that if we can beat the kleptocracy and its apparatus back and get some progressive laws in place we will consolidate a goodly majority of the population to our banner.  First we have to beat them back and claw their hands away from out throats.

            "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

            by NearlyNormal on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 09:20:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Masel for Senate on Censure motion (11+ / 0-)

      Mon Mar 13, 2006  10:58:32 AM

      Ben Masel, Democratic candidate for the United States Senate, supports Senator Russ Feingold in his effort to Censure President Bush for illegally spying on the American People. It appears that incumbent Herb Kohl thus far has been unable to decide whether he thinks the President is above the law.

      A Senator YOU can afford
      $1 contributions only.
      Masel for Senate
      1214 E. Mifflin St.
      Madison, WI 53703

      by ben masel on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:13:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  when is the censure vote scheduled (0+ / 0-)

      to hit the floor???

    •  Where Have I Heard This Rhetoric Before? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, letsfight
      Blaming one's own failures on one's critics and calling it "defeatism."  Hmmm....where have I heard that kind of thing before?

      Oh I know! That's the wingnut explanation for our failure in Iraq!

      Here, for example is neo-Con Max Boot:

      There are some honorable exceptions to this defeatism--Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark have remained stalwart supporters of the war effort--but they are clearly in the minority of a party steadily drifting toward Howard Dean-George McGovern territory.

      Perhaps Armando will claim he's borrowing the word "defeatist" ironically.  But I'm not buying it.

      To label "defeatist" those who criticize the Democratic Party not only for this vote, but for a consistent refusal to stand up to this administration -- on IWR, on the Patriot Act (and its renewal), on Roberts and Alito (isn't the SCOTUS extraordinary?), on bankruptcy "reform," on taxes, and now on a pattern of lawlessness unprecedented in our nation's history -- is as laughable as blaming our failures in Iraq on domestic critics of the war.

      The Democrats have failed manifestly to operate as a plausible opposition party from day 1 of the Bush administration. Nothing, not the Iraq quagmire, not Katrina, not Bush's plunging poll numbers have changed this pattern.  

      Realizing that the Democratic Party, at least as presently constituted, will simply never do the right thing is not admitting defeat.  It's the first step on the long, but necessary path to victory.

      First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

      by GreenSooner on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 12:18:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Greens (0+ / 0-)

        root for Dem failure so excuse me if I leave your comments to the side.

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 05:56:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Root for Progressive Success (0+ / 0-)

          Nice that you feel comfortable telling me what I root for, Armando.

          As I think you know, I'm a recovering Democrat.  I was active in Democratic politics for nearly two decades.  I even worked as a national staffer on a Democratic presidential campaign.  

          As difficult as it is to build a progressive third party, I think it would be more difficult to change the Democratic Party into a progressive force, both because of the power of conservatives within the party, and the refusal of actually progressive Democrats to do anything about it. That's one of the main reasons I'm a Green.

          But as I like to say (and I'm serious) I'd love to be proven wrong.

          More practically, there's a good argument that progressives, as marginalized as we are within American politics, ought not to put all our eggs in one basket.  So I'd be perfectly happy if there were a serious attempt to reform the Democratic Party (though I don't see one on the horizon).

          But do I want to see the Democratic leadership fail in their attempt to protect Bush from getting censured (let alone impeached)? You betcha!

          First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

          by GreenSooner on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:12:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I want to be realist (0+ / 0-)

      that's more important than feeling good.

      It may rob one of hope.

      That's other people's problem at this point.  I personally can live without hope.

  •  Armando, I have tremendous respect for you but (30+ / 0-)

    "We must cajole, urge, fight with and plead with our Democratic Senators to do the right thing on principle"

    Why?!  Why can't they put the good of the country before their pocketbooks?  Why should I have to plead with my democratic senator to do the right thing?  This isn't even controversial - it's a no brainer.  Bush admitted he lied and spied.  Standing together would rally the party but the party is either too far gone (stoned on meth perhaps) to get it.  

    I can't speak for anyone else but this is why I am fed up beyond my eyeballs.  The Scalito issue was a no brainer too and look what haa happened in South Dakota.  I can almost hear a democrat saying "who could've predicted this?"

    •  Oops (4+ / 0-)

      Standing together would rally the party but the party is either too far gone (stoned on meth perhaps) to get it.

      ...or they just don't give a shit.

    •  Why? (14+ / 0-)

      Because tht is the way it is. They are politicians - a craven opportunistic bunch by definition.

      Why is life unfair? I don't know. It just is.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 06:58:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  excellent diary, Armando-right on-important+rec'd (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gorette
      •  This is the way representative politics works (0+ / 0-)

        Armando is absolutely right about "craven, opportunistic," etc., but that's not all it is -- even if Senators were the upright stand-up guys we'd like them to be, we'd still have to tell them what we want them to do...  Any politician elected in a competitive political environment by a constituency of million of people is going to take actions (or fail to take actions) that frustrate huge numbers of constituents.  It's up to the constituents to demand that they do what's "right" (i.e., take actions that I agree with).  

        I am frustrated and disgusted by my NY senators' cowardice and silence on the censure -- that's why I'm calling them both, and Harry Reid, twice a day.  In a representative democracy, politicians need to be told, again and again, that their action (and inaction) has real political consequences.

    •  I strongly, strongly, strongly (20+ / 0-)

      disagree with this sentence.

      Why can't they put the good of the country before their pocketbooks?

      This has nothing to do with greed or money. One thing I really like about this diary is that Armando framed the censure in political terms. "A Censure resolution will do these three things that will be bad for Republicans." That, in my opinion, is the right way to look at it. It is by its very nature a political move, and it should be looked at as such. And it is an opportunity to put Republicans on the defensive.

      What I would guess Democrats are considering right now isn't their wallet, it's the best way to win. The debate isn't about money or fear or any of that. It's about what will get Democrats in the best position to win in 2006. That's a serious consideration that isn't necessarily going to happen overnight. I'm with Armando on this one.

      "Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked"-Dylan

      by AnnArborBlue on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:05:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's about saving their own asses (7+ / 0-)

        which makes it about money.

        With respect.

        •  Idiotic thought (3+ / 0-)
          I'm sure you have bright moments, jg, but any Senator is a multi-millionaire — if not while in office, certainly after leaving. So their personal motivation is not money. Average Americans may be all-too-often forced to make money their chief goal, just to survive, but Senators play a more subtle and varied game.

          Yeah, they need to raise money to run their campaigns. But that's just a matter of scheduling enough time for it. A Senator willing to meet with potential donors will be flooded with money, no matter what their character or votes; simply being a sitting Senator is enough.

          Senators instead are concerned with a blend of service, leadership, power, and potential. They've already got the money; now they're trying to get happiness. Many Democratic Senators really believe that it is better service, and delivers more potential to the country, if they maintain civility. Republicans disagree. Most of us here disagree. But to diagnose their problem as greed entirely misses it. And without an accurate diagnosis, there's no way we can help provide the cure.

          What they need to be convinced of is that in these extraordinary circumstances it is better service to this country and its potential to censure this President. They have to see a way to do that that brings them into leadership and power — not because of a greed for power but because if this President and his corrupted party stay in power much longer the Republic is lost.

          Most of them are lawyers, not historians. Most of them lack the imaginative capacity to recognize what it looks like from the inside as an empire falls. From their own life experiences, they think the ship will right itself, as it has so many times before — even despite the current drunken captain. Either that, or — darker thought — they have better knowledge than we do of the full scope of advance of the secret plans for martial law if this President gets fully cornered. (In that case censure would be folly prior to convincing the military not to support those plans when it comes to it.)

          Money is not the game. Whatever it is, the game's far more serious than money.

          •  You remind me of my father (5+ / 0-)

            If you must degrade people by referring to them in any manner as idiots it only speaks to your metality wytcld whatever the hell that means.  I use my name.

            If you look them up they are not all millionaires.  They don't all do this for the money.  And when the hell did I give up my country for their bank accounts?  Why can't I / shouldn't I expect more?  When did you become so callous that you would forfeit your country for a politician's bank account and greed for power?

            It is about money and power is secondary but don't get confused.  They go hand in hand.

            •  If they wanted 'power'.... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, NearlyNormal

              they would TAKE power.  By doing things like getting behind Feingold's censure.  Like maybe by TAKING OVER?

              Yep, it's about money.

              LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

              by letsfight on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:37:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  they (0+ / 0-)

              they indeed do it for power/money. Have or do any of you people personally know any politicians? Larger egos you will NEVER meet.  

              Many enter the field will inflated egos, others mainly get them due to the cancerous and disgusting system, that destroys all well intentioned people.

              The system is broke. I give you people credit for fighting the good fight, but at this piont its like trying to fix a broken pipe with scotch tape.

          •  'whatever'- sounds so 90's (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Little Red Hen
            You've said:

            it's not the money
            it may be pursuit of happiness
            it may be clinging to the known, civility.
            it may be hesitancy about the way to power.
            it may be a way to avoid martial law! 44 senators keep a secret?

            Maybe it's just envy, Feingold not christened.
            Maybe it's anti-semitism, let that red dog sleep.
            Maybe it's FUD. Fear Uncertaincy and Doubt.

            Maybe they should speak for themselves, like LEADERS should. The only voices on the tube are the pugs, malaise free, ready for the fight.

            Take a chance; you can never be sure.

            HL Menken- "The public...demands certainties; it must be told definitely and a bit raucously that this true and that is false. ...But there are no certainties".

      •  It is not a run of the mill (9+ / 0-)

        political move,  but it is political.

        But being political can ALSO be principled, as this is.

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:09:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Armando, vcmvo2

          and I'm 100% sure that Feingold introduced this in large part because he believes President Bush deserves to be censured.

          But I think it's wrong to see it only as a matter of principle, and to ignore the political aspects of it. That's the line of thought that gets you to "This is such a no brainer and it's been 4 days, why hasnt every Dem signed onto it yet?" Which I believe is a big mistake.

          "Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked"-Dylan

          by AnnArborBlue on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:12:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Armando, my problem is with (8+ / 0-)

          breaking the law... Why is it even an issue that they have to give tremendous, time consuming thought to?  To me, they are saying 1) breaking the law may be ok for the president (and i'm not sure i want to know if he did or not that would just make my life harder... and being a senator is hard work) or they are saying 2) fellatio is a much more serious crime than cavalierly (grammar?) throwing our troops in harms way, lying to the American people, violating international law, spying on American citizens without a warrant even tho that is a clear violation of our constitution and FISA, etc., etc., etc.  

          Sorry.  I'm pissed.  And my senator happens to be one of the dems who apparently didn't have to give much thought to censuring Clinton.  I do, and will continue to, compare the two situations.

          •  Cuz they are politicians (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NearlyNormal

            Craven and opportunist.

            I thought we agreed on this already.

            The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

            by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:24:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't agree. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm just a late to the game, radical, I want my politicians to be honest and good, citizen who expects a helluva lot more than I'm getting for my tax dollars.

              •  So do I (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NearlyNormal

                But they are what they are.

                The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

                by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:59:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  let me know when you find one (0+ / 0-)

                I want my politicians to be honest and good, citizen who expects a helluva lot more than I'm getting for my tax dollars.

                I've been really close to the election process for 30 years, and I haven't seen anybody close to the person you are describing run for any office

                you're gonna have better luck finding a doctor who makes house calls

              •  I agree with both of you (0+ / 0-)
                Armando, as always, a thought provoking and well-researched diary! I agree completely that defeatism is the wrong approach to this or any other political snafu on the part of our fearfull leaders. I am however, like jguzman, mad as hell that our leaders can't enunciate their  point to the American people in a manner that opposes (they are supposed to be the opposition party, aren't they?) the Republicans. I have not given up either however. I think that "cajole" is too timid a word to use. We have to light a fire under their asses and force them, kicking and screaming if necessary, to do the will of the people. I wrote a letter that I diaried earlier which I promptly faxed to every Dem Senator expressing my anger (politely) and letting them know that the American people are watching and waiting for leadership. I think you are correct when you say that they seem to have lost their political compass. It's time we point them in the right direction. I will continue my one-man barrage of their phone lines again tomorrow. Although I tend to try to avoid whoring my own work, please check out my letter at the link below.

                An open Letter to Senate Democrats

                "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Von Goethe

                by green917 on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 12:12:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I believe that the dems (8+ / 0-)

              are just hoping to slide into the win column on the strength of repub weakness without anyone (especially their corporate donors) noticing.

              That probably will not work to gain control of congress, but it may well work to ensure that they keep their own jobs - which is what they care most about.

              Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

              by MarkInSanFran on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:00:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  less the issue (0+ / 0-)

            more the strategy that takes the thought.

            "Why can't you and the idea of separation of powers just hug it out, bitch?" Wonkette

            by Hollywood Liberal on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:30:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  you need to clarify that a little (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HoundDog

        What I would guess Democrats are considering right now isn't their wallet, it's the best way to win.

        there is a difference between rank and file Democrats and Congresscritter Democrats

        the rank and file are working for a victory for the party

        congresscritter democrats are fighting for their money-power-rice bowl-whatever

        that should be obvious to anybody

        this joementum thing is worse than we first thought

      •  How funny. Making it a political issue is the one (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, HoundDog

        thing that makes this diary unrecommendable in my book.

        This is not about politics.

        It is about a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

        That's serious business in a constitutional republic.

        What I would guess Democrats are considering right now isn't their wallet, it's the best way to win.

        Won't it be interesting when they come out of their huddle and discover, "gee, well, I guess the best way to win was to stand behind Russ from the get-go. Oh well, next time."

        LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

        by letsfight on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:35:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because those are the cards we're dealt. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, cookiebear, Unduna

      And we can play them well or badly.

    •  Sometimes I put my tin foil hat on and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpecialEFX, HoundDog, NearlyNormal

      think maybe they used the NSA to get the goods on our Senators. I am with you, supporting Feingold should be a no brainer

      "For some reason Iraq is worth soldiers dying, but not worth rich people paying taxes."

      by Jlukes on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:08:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How to fight in Opposition 101 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      green917, NearlyNormal

      From where I sit, the Dems don't appear to know how to fight as the Opposition.  There are clearly defined ways on how to organize and proceed with an opposition fight, but I just don't see it playing out on the floors of Congress, yet.

      It's been what, 12 years since the Dems have had this status, and have yet to bring a true opposition style fight and/or strategy to the majority in either the chambers or out into the media (both highly useful avenues for the Opposition to shift the grounds).  

      In these type fights, what must be established first, and foremost, is legitimacy.  Why do you have the right to critize the way things are going?  The answer lies in how you define your legitimacy, and how honest you are with yourself about where it comes from, and how valid it is.

      • it's not enough to say, "you did XYZ and now must pay"
      • it's not enough to say, "I have photograghs of you doing the dirty deed, AND a soiled blue dress"
      • it's not enough to get them to admit in public they violated XYZ

      There have been glimpses of a fight, with Rep. Murtha being the notable example, which was a key illustration on how to establish legitimacy (but even he went it alone at first).  Unfortunately, how many Dems showed fear when he first began and backed away from him?  Why did they back away?  Did they know they showed the public 'fear' that day. Man, there's the flaw and the 'tell' on how well the Dems are organized to fight.

      When I look at the venom the majority spews all over the Dems, it says extremely loudly (in real big CAPS); "we don't value or honor or fear your legitimacy to oppose us".  The media boneheads are even worse, as they openly heap ridicule on the Dems (and subsequently, their legitimacy to stand in opposition).

      From that, one can derive how deeply the Dems have proceeded into the fight (early, early stages).  From there, it's easy to conclude they are still wrestling with how to fight as the Opposition.

      But after saying that, I still take Armando's point seriously (basically, you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water), so, support and encouragement are both needed while an appropriate fight is organized.  (Remember, it's not a street fight, it has to be done by parlimentary procedure; those take time, as you just cannot say, "Frist, you self righteous SOB, let's fight!")

      However, the opposing view is also well considered; the clock is ticking rapidly, and the Majority is out of control.  Further delay brings with it the risk of increasingly more damage, given the callous disregard of the majority for the American public.

      (which by the way, is exactly where you find all the legitimacy you could need.  Might I recommend, talking to them, paying attention to them, and finding out what it is on their minds. hint. hint! Duh, somebody is railing hard, even if the Dems aren't, as every single poll in the country is trending hard downward.)

      I never give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell. Harry S. Truman

      by rolling thunder on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:19:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a marathon... (11+ / 0-)

    not a sprint.  What about "I'll gum you to death" are we not understanding?

  •  We have to be in this ... (25+ / 0-)

    ... for the long haul.

    The Republicans remind me of a student who was stalking me in an attempt to get a grade change. This student believed they could wear me out and pressure me enoguh to make me give in. This went on for three months and, with many other teachers I know, would have worked. But it didn't work with me. The harder they pushed me, the harder I pushed back.

    The Republicans are the same way. And they know something we Dems haven't figured out: the value of digging in your heels and refusing to move. That's what we have to do, with appropriate fightback when it's called for, of course. We have to quit fleeing the premises when they say boo.

  •  The Only Way (5+ / 0-)

    To stop the " Long War " that is being carried out, and the impending one in Iran, is to not only Censure Bush, but to do it quickly. Is being a realist being a defeatist ? I think not. That is like saying dissent is unpatriotic. It just does not compute. So the key question is do we want the long war and then some or not. We are a snoball rolling downhill.

    -8.63 -7.28 When Bush is in your face, may the wind be at your back.

    by OneCrankyDom on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:04:09 PM PST

  •  I will not support (28+ / 0-)

    any Democratic Senator for President at anytime in the future unless they vote for this resolution.  Our essential civil rights are at stake here.  The rule of law is at risk.  It doesn't get any bigger than this.  If Democrats cannot support even a censure resolution they cannot gain my support in the future.

    Who else is on board with this?

    Pennacchio for Pennsylvania

    by PAprogressive on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:04:18 PM PST

  •  Oh I definately agree WE should never give up (4+ / 0-)

    but, Armando, do you really think they'd support it after publically dismissing it as just a political stunt for a Presidental bid?

    P.S. My whole family one by one called our state's 2 Senators and told them to support Fiengold's resolution to censure.

    Let your conscience be your guide.

    by Jiminy Cricket on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:05:24 PM PST

  •  Dems (0+ / 0-)

    been snookered. How can Hill follow Feingold now?

  •  I agree in general, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    letsfight

    How many times have you declared something a 'Lincoln 1860' moment??? How many Lincoln 1860 Politics of Contrast/ moments can there be?  More than one or two is getting pretty ridiculous:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms. Groucho Marx

    by markymarx on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:13:01 PM PST

  •  Frist assures a vote on Feingold's censure: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cookiebear, kilo50, soyinkafan

    from Hewitt's radio show today:

    "HH: Now let's get on, Senator Frist, to the question before the Senate. Russ Feingold has accused the President of criminal conduct, has called for his censure, the Wall Street Journal predicts this is the beginning of a campaign of impeachment, should the control of the House of Representatives be lost in 2006. What's going to happen to the Feingold censure resolution?

    BF: Well, Hugh, as you saw the other day, after his political stunt that he pulled on television Sunday, which sent a clear signal that he was going to do a little grandstanding, attacking the President on Monday at 4:00, confronting him directly on the floor, I said if you want to censure the President, if you want to make these false accusations, let's take it directly to the American people, and let's have a vote right now. If you're going to put censure out there, I will accept your proposal for a vote, and let's go do it. And with that, there was objection. And then I basically said well, if you're not going to vote tonight, let's bring that censure vote up tomorrow afternoon at 5:30. And once again, they said absolutely no. So where we are now is that I made a standing offer, and I'm ready to take it to the floor at any point in time. You've got a party out there that fought against the Patriot Act, took great pride in, at a point in time, killing the Patriot Act, a party who opposes the NSA terrorist surveillance, and who's talking about cutting and running Iraq. It's time to finally call them on what we're saying out there, to show the difference between us and them.

    HH: Now Senator Reid commended Senator Feingold, plus Senators Boxer and Harkin, two Democratic hard left members of their caucus, agreed with the censure resolution today. So I'm up to 59. How do you get this to the floor? What's it require?

    BF: Well, there are two things, and this gets down then, in sort of the mechanics of the Senate. I can got out and just leader to leader say if you're ready to vote on this, I'm ready. Let's do it right now. Well, that didn't work. Then I tried a little bit different time, and that didn't work. I can continue trying that, which I do, and as you see us talking on the floor as we're moving around between votes. And then the other thing that I've done is referred it to committee. And when it goes to committee, there is this process of a markup of the resolution itself. And it's been referred to committee now, that week of March 27th, it should be coming out of committee, in which case it can be taken directly to the floor.

    HH: Does it go to Judiciary, Senator Frist?

    BF: It does. It goes to Judiciary, and I think, Hugh, you also heard Arlen Specter right after I spoke at 4:00 earlier this week, when they put that censure resolution out there. And Arlen understands the significance of this, and he will mark it up, and get it out of committee, and then hopefully, we'll be able to vote on it." radioblogger

    Free Donuts + Beer Tax Repeal = Landslide Victory '08!

    by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:14:19 PM PST

  •  Armando, I see what you're saying (5+ / 0-)

    and appreciate it. That said, (and making the assumption that this diary came out of the discussions on MSOC diary earlier this day)I think the point for alot of us is not about giving up too early or being defeatist.  We WILL fight for this.  BUT, what you have to realize is that, for many of us, our Democratic Senators have so disappointed us for so long and for so many times now that many of us are so without hope and so disgusted that we just dont see it happening no matter how many calls we make.

    And is that our fault?  No. That is the fault of the Democratic leadership that constantly lead us to defeat on no brainer issues like Alito and the Energy Bill.  And I am scared shitless that this is what they are doing to the rest of the American people - killing any hope. I have long-time voting Dems here who are telling me they probably just wont vote come November - because, why bother? The Democratic leadership will just sell them out on the important issues anyway.

    I work with Sen. Bingaman's staff on a daily basis.  I talked to them today about this and was told that he will most likely not support it but will instead support some sort of investigation.  Thats par for the course.

    So, I see what you're saying.  I'm simply trying to explain where a HUGE number of us are coming from on this. I'm cool losing the acutal censure vote IF we get every or nearly every Democratic vote.  That said, I just can no longer trust these guys to do the right thing.

    •  Some sort of investigation (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grrr, curtadams, concerned, jorndorff

      Great. He shoud say that publically.

      Because there will be NO investigation.

      And then where will he be?

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:19:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like the Phase 2 Intelligence Investigation? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        environmentalist

        Too many politicians are using investigation as an excuse not to take a stand on the issues.

        Support for Senator Feingold's Censure Motion has become a sort of litmus test line in the sand for progressives.  I've been waving this flag here for four days.  And from my view is hasn't just been Democratic Senators that have been slow to rally to support Feingold.

        But in the poll I started here two days ago last I check we had 465 dkos responsdants. 92% supporting Feingold in some way.  Over 50% saying they wouldn't support any Dems whom did not support Feingold, about 30% saying that would hold non-supportive Dems accountable but not to the point they would vote for a GOP candidate against them, and 8% supporting Feingold but saying they would understand if other Dems didn't for political consideratons.  

        About 2% oppose the Censure.

        As my diary tonight reports, Senators Harkin and Boxer have announced support for Feingold. And rumor has it John Kerry will support it soon.

        :-)  

        Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

        by HoundDog on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:29:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm OK with delaying (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      environmentalist, letsfight, Jlukes
      IF it's done in a way that acknowledges how bad what Bush has done and keeps the focus on his oathbreaking.  If you think there should be an investigation, say

      "Bush has been accused of serious, unprecedented violations of his oath of office.  We need a full investigation before choosing a remedy.  A full investigation, not a whitewash with limited witnesses testifying not under oath."

      If you just want to delay for a while, say "Bush has seriously  violated his oath of office.  I am not aware of any President besides Nixon who has intentionally, repeatedly, violated such a crucial law.  Whether this should be handled by censure is a difficult question and I'm not prepared to answer it without further consideration."

      These "no comment" answers indicate 2 things:

      1. the Senator hasn't the principle to put  doing what's right over political considerations

      2. the Senator hasn't the political sense to realize the value of Armando's point 2, keeping the lawbreaking in public discussion.  Really, I'd call that the only point of the resolution,  because broad Dem support only serves to crank that up, and there's no way to pass it without enormous public pressure on the few Repub Senators with a shred of conscience.

      It's very understandable that the blogosphere gets ticked off when the Dem Senators come out and indicate they are a) unprincipled and b) politically clueless.  I was fine with a genuine waffle on Alito because there seeming openminded was critical to a credible opposition later.  That's not the case here, because so many facts are already out.
    •  I know... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arkdem

      At what point do we as (enlightened) individuals come to terms with the idea that if you keep doing the same thing over and over again and get the same results that we are insane?

      Watch and wait. AGAIN????

      LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

      by letsfight on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:55:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

    This is but one battle, there will be many more.  

    Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin Survivor Left Blogistan

    by boran2 on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:17:19 PM PST

  •  O Dems (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Go Vegetarian

    I know you are craven, poll-driven, focus-grouped, Naomi-Wolfed, leery-of-committment, chary towards firmness, noncommittal, hard to pin down, bought, sold and without-spine, BUT...
    We'll give you time, time to reconsider your lack of standing with RUSS.  You must do this.  You need to do this.  It is the right thing to do and the right time.  Must you all be swept away? Sens. Hackett, Dean and Michaelman would vote their beliefs...

  •  I agree with you... (12+ / 0-)

    ...but you gotta admit it'd be a whole lot easier if the Democrats would stop being weenies.

    "...the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

    by Roddy McCorley on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:20:06 PM PST

  •  Impeccable reasoning (6+ / 0-)

    You've been writing some exceptionally important strategy diaries lately. The Dems should hire you because you've just finessed a very complex political choice for the Senators. I think all of our Democratic Senators (with the exception of Lieberman) want to censure Bush but they just haven't agreed on how to do it. This diary gives them the answer. The 1860 Lincoln strategy one of your best diaries!

  •  Agreed (again). The calls of 'coward' here are... (11+ / 0-)

    ... I think, unwise, unfair and counterproductive.

    There are plenty of principled Democratic senators who may come around over the course of the coming days.

    I wrote in my diary yesterday, that the real results of Feingold's motion will not be known for several weeks, not unlike the effects of Murtha's comments that continue to play out even today.

    Feingold opened the door so others could step through and say, "The President broke the law."

    I'm not saying that it is unwise to call senators.  I'm saying that calling Feingold's fellow Democratic colleagues "cowards" is premature at best and unfair at worst.

    Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:22:49 PM PST

  •  Look, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue, Northstar

    Feingold didn't exactly do things in the most incredibly smart way, if he wanted everyone behind him.  That is what leads me to believe that he didn't care if they got behind him, or not.  He does not necessarily look at this as an important statement for the whole party or he would have coordinated it with them, and he would have been willing to talk over the best possible way to broach it for the parties sake and to make it more apt to pass.  What was his reason for doing it then?  As much as I like him above most of the other senators, he is still a politician doing things for political reasons.  

    So do the other senators.  They are politically minded.  The reasons for their reactions go deeper in each case depending on their individual circumstances.  Yes it is obvious that Bush is a criminal, a lyer, a dispicable person.  There is not necessarily just one way of proving this or showing it.  Some of the senators might believe that a censure might cause the subject to disappear faster than they would like it to.  Especially if Frist can force it to a vote right away.  

    The fact that we automatically jump to conclusions within seconds of when something such as this occurs, often reflects upon us and our possible lack of savy in politics more than anything else.  

    This is politics.  It is not a dream where we can put our ideals to work and have them all come true all at once.  Life is more complicated than ranting on a blog.

    •  You may be right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet

      I have criticized Feingold for his "cowering" statement about Dems.

      Whatever Feingold thinks, I believe strong support from Dems on this is necessary for true success.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:28:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I competely agree with you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hopscotch1997

      as usual.

      ...and especially that we need some more political saavy

      downthread some people are talking about sending Armando to Washington on this. Personally I think you would be a good accompaniment.

      Pro-life=Anti-sex

      by coigue on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:59:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  tinfoil hat (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe this is tinfoil hat talk, but if Bush is spying on political enemies, Senator Feingold might have had to keep his powder dry and just spring this censure resolution without warning taking the GOP by surprise. Too bad the rest of the dems have forgotten Frist's staff spied on them by hacking their website. Who doesn't think NSA isn't spying on them?

      "The best Maxim I know in this life is, to drink your Coffee when you can..." -Jonathan Swift

      by Coffee Geek on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 12:51:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What if Feingold (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      has been working behind the scenes to get dem cohesion on this since the illegal spy issue came out?

      He kind of has, since he was on the Jud Comm. The hearing was a month ago?

      And, really, that's why there are committees. So senators can get educated on what's what and then report back to the entirety of their party, and ultimately to the entirety of the senate and the nation.

      Isn't it Reid's job to appoint a senator to a committee and then to actually SUPPORT that senator when he comes back from committee with his 'report'?

      I sense that Feingold is just doing his job.

      And no where along the way since the illegal spying issues (constitutional lawbreaking, btw) have the dems EVER RALLIED together against it.  

      Maybe, just maybe, Russ actually IS being a stand up guy?  Maybe he is being gracious and NOT posting his correspondence to all the dem senators that he might have been writing to them for the past few months - to no avail.

      Seems to me that that would be a realistic speculation.

      LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

      by letsfight on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:08:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hope he is working behind the scenes. (0+ / 0-)

        In fact I was talking (posting) to another person a couple of days ago about how low key Specter was in opposing him after his speech.  That is compared to how demonstrative Specter could have been.  The other poster, whose name escapes me, said that he has worked on the hill and that he would not be suprised if something was worked out with Specter to put this forth so that it could come up in committee again and bring further investigation.  Intrigueing idea if correct, but unfortunate that Specter can't get the guts to come out against Bush himself.  Thats why I think that the Democrats get a raw deal.  The Republicans now are far more cowardly, and sheeplike than Democrats, but no one is willing to point that out.

  •  Give me backbone (6+ / 0-)

    or give me a new opposition party.

  •  I agree with you, Armando, but ... (22+ / 0-)

    ...like many others here (and elsewhere in Left wwwLand), I'm finding it more and more tiresome knowing that we have to remind so many Democrats that they are supposedly the opposition party. Tiresome and irksome.

    You know me. I haven't given up on (some of) the Democrats. But I do understand the tendency among bloggers and others (including Maryscott O'Connor) to condemn the Dems even before the censure motion is definitely dead because we've been through one round after another of Democratic caving on Roberts, Alito, NSA, and still, for cripe's sake, Iraq. A potential military assault on Iran is just around the corner, and Dem leaders are blowing soap bubbles on that one.

    Me, I'm all for waiting to write condemnatory pieces AFTER the fact. But, it's getting harder and harder for any of us to keep from mocking these guys ahead of time because of their habitual unwillingness to take a political risk. How far down do Bush's ratings have to go before they start following the American rank-and-file instead of resisting?

  •  Easy said than done (0+ / 0-)

    I think/wish we would all save our own asses from these thugs, they want us to lie down and roll over, now is the time, this is our country.

  •  A-fucking-men (12+ / 0-)

    The problem for the Dems is that Feingold's position is not spin, it is the plain unvarnished truth.  And there is nowhere to hide from Russ's unassailable logic.

  •  I wish I knew (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    what has the Democrats so cowed.  All I can think is, like JE Hoover, the administration is blackmailing them in some way.

  •  I want what you're having for breakfast (6+ / 0-)

    Good heavens, man, you've been on fire lately. Throwing off the shackles of front page status has done you good.

    I agree with all your points and have one to add: don't underestimate the power censure will have with Bush voters with buyers' remorse. They are struggling with their consciences and looking for reasons that help legitimize their newfound disgust with the administration.

    This could very well be it just as the Clinton censure gave folks some level of moral cover.

    Unbossed--a dangerous blog for dangerous times.

    by em dash on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:32:52 PM PST

  •  CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nasarius, SpecialEFX, letsfight, Jlukes

    Sorry for screaming, but isn't this a no-brainer? Isn't the "strategizing" excuse just bullshit?

    C'mon, folks, it's not about looking for a better strategy, it's about getting re-elected. Our democratic leaders care more about that than letting King George permanantly reshape the balance of power in our country...for the worse.

  •  Interesting second kind of Defeatism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando

    I've often ranted against the first kind of defeatism that says "we can't win, why try?". But I'm interested by that second kind of armchair-quarterback defeatism which says, "You guys suck! You'll never win!" I haven't been to Chicago lately; are there Cubs fans who love how their team never wins and cheer them on to loss after loss?

    It has to be awfully demoralizing to our elected officials to hear how awful they all are (all of them, no exceptions, of course). Bah humbugh!

    It's part of framing the debate that we reiterate our ideals of how things ought to be. Criticize actual faults; inspire desired results.

    I would still like very much at least 44 Senators to vote to censure. I will take up lambasting any actual cowardice after the votes are cast, as we do for the Iraq War resolution and the PATRIOT Act.

  •  Bingo!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, greenreflex

    Once again...I agree with you! Which probably occurs about as often as you seem to agree with Digby...we should all get drunk together...we wouldn't really have anything to fight about so it'd have to be fun!

    Anyway...back to reality...dead on Armando...I'm happy to see you taking the lead on this (even if you don't want to be seen as taking the lead or whatever...although I hope you do)...you've got a big voice here, hopefully people will listen!!

  •  What's with Dodd? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    Is he just being "collegial" for Holy Joe? I thought he had some character.

  •  With lots of good cursing (11+ / 0-)

    I think the Rude Pundit said it beautifully today concluding with, "Back Feingold and the public will follow you to 2006 and 2008 because you actually said enough is, indeed, enough."

    Damn straight we have to "cajole, urge, fight with and plead with our Democratic Senators to do the right thing," Armando. If we don't, we're not doing our part anymore than the leaders we're so frustrated with are. If being better than they are is our burden, we can handle it.

  •  Soooo. . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpecialEFX

    can I criticize the democratic politicians or not. . ?

    I made my phone calls, but I still need to vent because I'm STUPIFIED over the fact that I EVEN have to call and cajole. KWIM??

    "I did NOT have sex with that lobbyist!"

    by donailin on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:57:30 PM PST

    •  Criticize Dem consultants (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hollywood Liberal, Kidspeak

      It's more fun anyway.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:01:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  please give me a reason (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nasarius, SpecialEFX, Tonedevil, HoundDog

        I have made many calls and e-mails and have not yet given up or resorted to the words "moron" or "coward" but honest to God..Can someone please elaborate as to what could be taking our Senators
        so long to conclude the obvious? What strategy could
        possibly motivate this delay? I'll admit I'm a novice at this process. But so far I've heard nothing that doesn't like we're making excuses for thier timidity.

        •  I think it's about money - we reply by Organizing (0+ / 0-)

          The culture of money is very seductive.  The parties are classier, the hotels nicer, the music refined, the sense of personal well-being very comforting.  The ability to live the life, send your kids to the most elite schools, vacation in luxury, etc. have come to be the expected percs of high office.

          Politicians need lots and lots of money to win, mainly because our side is nowhere near organized enough with focused and determined grassroots boots on the ground in every precinct in America.  We won't win until we make that happen.  

          The donors and their lackeys (nearly all of the Senators) live in a different world than we do that gets re-inforced every day - physically with the food they eat, the people they see and the places they reside.  

          We have to counter the seductive pull of candidates going for the money, with the bald fact of millions of Americans voting for candidates who don't buy that shit.  Candidates who support publically financed elections.  Candidates who put the well-being of all Americans above the profits of the military-industrial-Congerssional complex.

          We have a hell of a long way to go, but the fact is, what we want is what most Americans want.  We must keep that front and center in our minds as we work hard for candidates at all levels who are committed to our goals.

          Everyone has an important part to play.  Those in "conservative" communities need to start with promoting the very existence of a clear Democratic alternative.  Those in "progressive" communities need to participate the candidate selection process, make sure actual progressives get elected, and not just 'mouthpiece' "progressives" supported by Party machines.  Those in the swing areas, do some of both.

  •  Is it too much (8+ / 0-)

    To ask that all of them have one voice? There's 45 of them and each of them sings a different note. If they got together and said the same thing, it would be much more effective.

    Murtha says withdraw. The rest say no.
    Kerry says filibuster. The rest say no.
    Feingold says Censure. The rest say no.

    Either do it or don't do it, but please, please let there be 45 people doing it or not doing it. Let the people know what we stand for. Otherwise, no strategy, no charter, no agenda is going to help. Instead of saying that we should not critisize them, what we should be doing is asking them for some discipline. Democracy and principles are fine, but if you don't let the people know about them, what's the point?

    I prefer DKos News to Google News

    by inetresearch on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:07:13 PM PST

    •  get used to it (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah, I think as a general concept it IS indeed too much to ask. You're not going to get one voice, especially not between now and 2008 when you're going to have quite a few people from the party running with different platforms and strategies. Plus, you know, they represent different constituencies.  It's also easier to speak with one voice when you have a President and his chief strategist threatening you from the White House to toe the line instead of thinking for yourself.  

      "Why can't you and the idea of separation of powers just hug it out, bitch?" Wonkette

      by Hollywood Liberal on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:49:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I made my calls! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, makeitstop

    Fortunately I live in California and can reasonably expect my senators to do the right thing without my prodding, or usually have a good reason why not.  I too an upset that Democrats have not spoken with one voice on this.  This lack of concerted effort is our biggest and perhaps our only weakness right now.  I have had it up to here with Republicans redefining discussion as flip flopping and debate as waffeling.  However, I feel that in the current political environment it would be wise of Democrats to hold their discussions off the record, behind closed doors, and speak with one voice in public.  If the voice is calm enough, wise enough and passionate enough there will be no stopping us.

  •  This puts me over the edge (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, green917

    I can see why [Democratic officials] are angry about it. They were caught short. But they need to move more quickly on this stuff. Planning is great, but you can't always control events. How you deal with things coming from left field is important

    I've been looking for a reason to agree with all of you. Thanks to Digby (via Armando) now I can.

  •  exactly <n/t> (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando
  •  Do you remember what happened in January? (12+ / 0-)

    They put up half a fight on Scalito.  We pleaded, we cajoled, we begged, and we lobbied.  We lost the vote that counted 72-23.  What's going to be different this time?

    Feingold has, what, 3 votes right now?  I'm sure that, after we plead and cajole and beg and lobby, we can probably get up to 23 this time, too.  Maybe, w/ W's #'s irrevocably in the toilet, we can get up around 30.  That's probably about our ceiling.

    I'll probably waste more time sending still another letter to Bill Nelson that will be ignored.  Hell, I sent a letter Monday to my Cong, Kendrick Meek, on Conyers' impeachment resolution.  I expect that letter to be ignored, too.

    If you're that serious about this one, then you should do what a large chunk of this board wanted last time.  Let's send some DKos emissaries to the Hill.  Send you, send MSOC, send Georgia--hell, send Kos.  Let some people tell you to your faces why that dry powder must be kept dry one more time.

    There was no reason not to send emissaries last time.  There's even less reason not to send them this time.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:14:12 PM PST

  •  Is Feingold now the canadry in the coalmine? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IL dac, kovie, HoundDog

    We currently seem to have two scenarios

    1. that every Dem put on their gloves and start jabbing, but that ain't gonna happen.

    or...

    1. that some Dems speak up and others say "wait" - which is effectively what is happening.

    What the WSJOnline pointed out today is that Feingold tipped the Democrats' hand when he played the censure card. It can now be thrown back in the face of the Dems - this is about "hate Bush" (whether or not that's true is irrelevent). But, duh!, we know that this is going to be the Dem's strategy if and when we win the Senate or House. Someone will not only introduce censure but will also introduce impeachment.

    Here's what I think... and I say this as someone who thinks "President Feingold" sounds real nice (but won't win because, I'm sorry to say, his religion will be made an obstacle)... I think Feingold is becoming the Senate's version of John Conyers. He is the canary in the coalmine. If Feingold can come out of this without political damage, then others will follow. Worse case scenario - this stays in the news for several months. A smart Democratic Party will draw this out. Next week another Dem will say he/she's for censure. Then two weeks from now another. Then another. Keep it in the headlines. Because, I think, that is now the only option.

    •  Canadry? WTF? That should be 'canary.' n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  This is a strategy I suggested in my diary this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpecialEFX, IL dac, dannyinla

      afternoon, but I am hoping it comes in daily not weekly.  And we get other Democratic leaders whom are not Senators nodding their moral support.

      I got the idea from a conservative who wrote today anticipating that this was a conscious democratic
      "Water torture" strategy.  Drip, drip, drip.  I thought it was funny.  But then it occurred to me that this is one was to reframe the Rovian "Anti-Terrorist Monitering" system back to a bypassing Congressional oversight and breaking the FISA laws.

      All Democrats are against terrorist and support our government to intercept bombing instructions.  The issue is will Executive branch follow the constitutionally required Judicial and Legislative branch oversight and FISA laws.  Or take the initiative in getting them changed.

      We should be distilling this all down to three talking points and reframe this issue day by day.  

      Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

      by HoundDog on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:54:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  please give me a reason (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IL dac, blueoasis

    I have made many calls and e-mails and have not yet given up or resorted to the words "moron" or "coward" but honest to God..Can someone please elaborate as to what could be taking our Senators
    so long to conclude the obvious? What strategy could
    possibly motivate this delay? I'll admit I'm a novice at this process. But so far I've heard nothing that doesn't like we're making excuses for thier timidity.

    •  Some ideas (0+ / 0-)

      a) The Bush Rovies have bribed/blackmailed/threatened people. (Honestly, I think this possibility is unlikely, but it's really scary and ought to be taken seriously if anyone ever comes up with evidence that this is happening.)

      b) The Democrats have some alternative strategy for punishing Bush that's still in the works.

      c) This whole controversy is a brilliant effort to give the censure bill a lot more media attention than it normally would get, given the fact that there's no way a Republican-controlled Senate would approve it. Maybe Reid, Pelosi, Feingold, etc. have choreographed exactly what they're saying to and about one another to put everyone in a frenzy.

      d) Democrats have reason to believe that Carter and Clinton did the same things that Bush is accused of doing and are afraid of the censure bill boomeranging back at Democrats.

    •  The only reasonable delay was for senate procedur (0+ / 0-)

      To refer the issue (4th Am violations) to committee and hearing.

      Check. All done.

      Now that the hearing is done, if something was discovered to act on, it needed to be acted on.

      Feingold acted.

      All according to protocol and decorum.

      I bet, just bet, that Feingold has been trying to get cosponsors for this resolution for weeks now.  Why wouldn't he?

      Then he did his job. Alone.

      LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

      by letsfight on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:27:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  insert correction (0+ / 0-)

    doesn't sound like we're making excuses for thier timidity

  •  In practical terms, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    letsfight

    I agree with this diary.  (Pity me, for I must vote for Cantwell in November!)  But we have given these folks the benefit of the doubt and "kept our powder dry" for so long that a little anger is in order. Our best shot at fixing this is to make sure that Democratic primaries are truly elections from now on.

    The 33% rethugs are primed to have their asses handed to them, and we can't seem to find our own with both hands.

    www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:58:45 PM PST

  •  Who's declaring defeat?!? (11+ / 0-)

    I'm confused. Yes, I realize that there are people here who have taken Democrats' lukewarm (at best) response to Feingold's resolution as yet another sign of the party's defeat, and that come November the Republicans will still control both house of congress and retain the presidency in '08. But these are probably the same people who say this every time Dems fail to take the initiative--and sometimes even when they have. Their's is a mindset that believes that no matter what happens, we will always lose, so what's the point of even hoping for change. And they give examples such as the Repubs' allegedly total and irreversible control of voting machines, the press, the hearts and minds of most voters, etc. Yes, such people ARE defeatist, and I deplore their defeatism utterly, and have gotten into quite a few flame wars with them. I really have no idea why they even bother to post here, and have on more than one occasion not so politely told them to go away.

    But I don't believe that most of the people here who are frustrated with Dems' lack of support for this resolution--even ones calling Dems cowards for it--are this defeatist, or really defeatist at all. They might show their frustration here, but I think it's more of a "What's wrong with you idiots, don't you get it, it's safe to attack Bush without fear of being tagged as weak, and in any case this is and always has been the right thing to do" sort of thing than a "This just proves why we'll never beat Bush and the GOP" sort of thing. It's certainly the case for me, and I suspect that it's pretty much the case for most others who have been strongly criticizing Dems for not supporting Feingold. This is NOT defeatism. Just the opposite, it's an expression of anger and frustration at these Dems for not joining the fight which we now know we can win (well, I've known this for years, but better late than never).

    There's yet another thing that I disagree with you on, encapsulated in this quote:

    The other defeatism is coming from the Left blogosphere. It is the knee jerk reaction of some to condemn Democrats before they have even decided on the issue. This is defeatism of a very dangerous sort. Why? Because it makes even a success a defeat.

    Here's the problem with this statement. If you had made it back when the story first broke and everyone was trying to find out more about it and see what all the legal experts had to say, I would have agreed. Knee-jerk opposition to a program that on the surface appears like it might be illegal before getting all the facts and opinions pro and con is stupid and self-defeating, especially politically. But it's been months and months since the story broke, we have a lot of facts and tons and tons of legal opinions on it, and the overwhelming opinion of those who actually know what they're talking about (and are honest about it) is that the program is not only blindingly illegal, but a danger to our civil liberties if not democracy. Hell, even Sandra Day O'Connor all but said this the other day. So it's not as if we're still in the "Oh gee, I'd like to have some time to look into this further" stage any more. We moved past that quite some time ago.

    Nor, I'd argue, do Dems have any legitimate right to claim that they're still trying to figure out what to do about it. They've had more than enough time to get their shit together and come up with a coherent and effective (not to mention courageous and honest) strategy for holding Bush accountable for this crime, and hopefully putting an end to this program (in its current, illegal format, and not, of course, altogether, in a legal format, which NO ONE is arguing). And yet, they've yet to do this, let alone act meaningfully and forcefully against Bush and this program. So you can hardly blame Feingold for saying "Fuck it, these guys won't do anything, well, I will, and it's up to them to decide how they're going to respond". This is what Murtha did, and this is what Conyers has been doing. And they should all be applauded for doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, other than wait around to see what happens.

    Which is why I view the incredibly lukewarm response of nearly all Dems to his resolution as cowardly. They haven't had just a couple of days to think about the resolution. They've had literally months to think about the illegal program that led to the resoltion, and about how to respond to it, and they've failed in that monumentally, and let all of us down (not just us here in the blogosphere, but all Dems, and, really, all Americans). To call them cowardly for not knowing what to do and not standing behind someone who has some balls like Feingold is NOT defeatist. It is HONEST. Just like they refused to stand behind John Murtha's call for redeployment (NOT immediate withdrawal), and have refused to support John Conyers' call for preliminary impeachment investigations into the WMD intel, they are now refusing to support Feingold's call for a completely justified, deserved and necessary censure of the worst, most criminal, most heinous president in our history.

    Those of us who call them cowards aren't defeatist. It is these Quisling Democrats, these cowardly "go along to get along" DLC triangulators, these Bush-fearing, focus group-driven, inside the beltway don't-rock-the-boaters, who refuse to do the right thing yet again (in both a principled and political sense) for fear of upsetting some timid little soccer moms (who, in fact, are not timid, and who, if anything, would likely respond positively to their taking a stand), who are the defeatists, not us. Feingold and Murtha are to Grant and Sherman what they are to McLellan and Meade. And until we find our own latter-day Lincoln, guys like Feingold and Murtha are the best we've got, and to not rally behind them at this point is simply shameful, and yes, cowardly. And to say that is not defeatist in the slightest. But to take it easy on them is.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

    by kovie on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:03:45 PM PST

    •  I too am tired of these gonad-free (9+ / 0-)

      Dems who take forever to decide on a matter that has been transparent to the rest of us with brains for months.  WTF is there to decide on?  Whose ever post it was today (forgive me for not remembering the name!) that was on the recommended list forever that had snapshots of ALL the conservative websites bashing Feingold  and all the scliberal websites NOT EVEN FUCKING MENTIONING Feingold's bill said it all.  NOT EVEN PELOSI HAD THE FUCKING GONADS!!! If the Republican congress is Bush eunuchs--and they ARE, I can only assume that most of the Dems in congress are Bush bitches.  And the worst part is, THEY DON'T FREAKING NEED TO BE ANY MORE:  34% and they STILL can't stand up?  I want to win---desperately---in November, but I sure as shit don't want a bunch of cowed 'bitches' running Congress.  Perhaps better cowed bitches than eunuchs, but, as my high school civics teacher used to say, aren't we talking about the difference between a cabbage and a potato?  

      The congressional Dems have NO EXCUSE for not backing Feingold.

      -7.88, -6.72. I AM paying attention, and I am so fucking outraged I can't see straight. TORTURE and ILLEGAL SPYING ON AMERICANS are not family values!

      by caseynm on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:25:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent! You've summed up my feelings (0+ / 0-)

      Best. Post. Ever.

      •  Thanks, I might turn it into a diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        letsfight

        Although there's this idiotic article in Thursday's NY Times about how Repubs are supposedly falling all over themselves with unfettered joy at how Feingold just has handed them the magic key to winning back their base and the elections (as if) that I was thinking of writing about if no one else does.

        Maybe I'll find a way to combine the two.

        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

        by kovie on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:56:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well said! (0+ / 0-)

      "time to look into it/think about it."

      Like in the hearings on this.

      Russ took it to the floor of the senate as was his job, as per his OATH of office.

      With that, I would add to your colorful description of dems as being derelict in their duty to this country.

      LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

      by letsfight on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:32:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the pusillanimous George McClellan (0+ / 0-)

      No Civil War reference is perfect, but I do think General George McClellan is a most appropriate analog to today's Senate Democrats.

      Over-polished, over-rehearsed, over-cautious, McClellan miscalculated the strength of his enemy and missed an ideal opportunity to defeat Magruder's Confederate forces in the 1862 Peninsula Campaign. Arguably the war could have ended years before it did, and tens of thousands of lives would have been saved.

      And the compromises inherent in McClellan's 1864 political platform, which opposed Lincoln's re-election? Don't get me started! Our country would still be divided if McClellan had prevailed.

      Was McClellan a bad man? No. Was he unpatriotic? No. But McClellan illustrates the old maxim that "the good are the enemy of the great." To my mind, that's exactly the problem we are dealing with when it comes to (most) Senate Dems. We are at a decisive moment. Feingold knows it and has seized the reins. Good for him, and for every patriot who follows his example.

      "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

      by QuickSilver on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 05:19:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I turned this into a diary (0+ / 0-)

      now available for your perusal--with poll!

      Defeatist? Who's Defeatist? [w/POLL]

      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

      by kovie on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 01:31:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  damn it, Armando, you're edumacated... (0+ / 0-)

    "lets them off the hook", NOT "let's them off the hook"

    -7.88, -6.72. I AM paying attention, and I am so fucking outraged I can't see straight. TORTURE and ILLEGAL SPYING ON AMERICANS are not family values!

    by caseynm on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:03:59 PM PST

  •  Love it...I tried to say this here (0+ / 0-)

    today, and you said it so much better. BRAVO ARMANDO

    *"It is the difficulties that show what men(women) are" ..Epictetus*

    by Chamonix on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:08:02 PM PST

  •  Are these Democrats leaders or not? (5+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry, I don't buy this. If this case is so clear cut, as you rightly say it is, then real leaders would support it. Period. They would not need people pleading and whining and threatening to withhold campaign contributions.

    This is why we are screwed unless a whole new crop of LEADERS is elected.

    Do you want a car that only runs when you get out and push it?

    I don't.

  •  Mixed feelings about this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    green917

    Much as I would like the Dems to at least look like they have a collective spine, and much as I would like somebody, somewhere, to call W to account for his crimes, I have pretty mixed feelings about this move of Feingold's.  I'm no doubt influenced by years of working on the Hill, and listening to  strategy sessions amongst Members, but I have the impression that Harry Reid is a pretty savvy guy.  And if the Dem leadership concluded that this censure effort would have a similar effect on Republicans as the impeachment effort against Clinton had on Dems, I guess I can see an argument that this is less an anchor than a life jacket for the opposition.  And, in addition, a censure effort once again can easily be caricatured as a "negative" campaign - of course, it's really a law and order campaign, but the Dems have lost this battle before with the SCLM.  

    So, I don't know - I do think people who post here get so desperate for a positive bold step from the Democrats that we just dismiss political calculations like the one suggested above as "ridiculous" and "cowardly", etc.  And it could well be completely wrong - I frankly don't know (although the NYTimes is running an article tomorrow positing that the censure move is waking the Republican base up - probably bullshit, but we know the Repugs love to pretend they're the embattled underdogs, and so perhaps there's an element of truth in it).  But I do think it's likely the Dems have looked at a lot of stuff and concluded that this particular move, at this particular time, is not helpful.  

    Maybe they're wrong - but I don't think it's just spinelessness.  They really, really want to get the majority back in both houses (being in the minority sucks, and in particular sucks under these nazis) and I have to think that's what much of the calculation is about.  

    And, to be frank, some part of it is about pre-2008 Presidential race positioning.  Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and whoever else in the Senate is thinking about running for President, have no reason to help make Feingold look like a hero - it may be petty, it may be unworthy, but that's politics.  And to me, understandable whether or not I agree with it.

    We want principled stances and actions - the Dems in the Senate want to win control back.  The latter, frankly, is more important to me, but I would like to think the former is a better way to get there.  Nonetheless, I ain't runnin' for anything, and I don't know what they're looking at when they make a decision like this.  I'm just suggesting it's possible they've got a reasonable argument for the decision, as much as I might disagree with it.  That doesn't make them cowards, it just might make them wrong.

    •  Geordie, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      green917, SpecialEFX

      I would have agreed with everything you wrote one week ago. But this was a last straw for me. If they want the majority back, and I agree with you that they do, then it's just plain high fucking time they started fighting for it! And yes, of course, it is politics as usual. They are positioning. But you know what? One Senator made the noise I want to hear. One Senator stood up not giving a flying fuck what anybody thought and if anybody had the balls (and lack of fear for getting busted on special interest monies) they would be behind him.

      Many month ago a diarist here wrote a write up on his/her over-dinner-conversation with Feingold. The thing that stuck with me most was the message the diarist conveyed that Feingold knows full well he is maneuvering a well established system. I've watched him for years and that just plain makes sense.

      I think the dems are cowards. For whatever reason they have. Be it to conceal their own indiscretions, their fear of the upcoming elections, blah, blah, blah. I no longer see a reason, political or otherwise, for them not to fight NOW

      "If you're going through hell, keep going". -Winston Churchill

      by One bite at a time on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:41:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      letsfight
      why the other potential candidates will put Presidential Primary considerations in. What i don't understand is why they don't realize that getting  behind this is critical to success in the PP.  It's real simple: NOBODY WANTS A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE  PRESIDENT OBEYING THE LAW!  Kerry,  I think, got this, and that by standing with Feingold immediately he gets almost as much credit and diffuses Feingold's inevitable primary boost from this.  Hillary doesn't - which is particularly shocking since, as one of the few people genuinely harmed by that blowjob, she would have killer, unshakeable credibility pointing out that this is far, far, far, far, far, far worse than Bill's office nookie.  She could get in front of this and get more credit that Feingold. But she waffles, looks unprincipled - and makes people wonder whether she'd behave if she got into office.
  •  Thank you Armando. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nasarius, SpecialEFX, letsfight

    It's as if the senate Democrats WANT to lose.

    I kept hearing "Now is not the time..."  Censure is not the answer....what will the scary right-wing media noise machine say.

    It's about time we stop defining our agenda based on fear of reprisal from the lying Republican power structure.

    Well if not now when, if not Feingold who?

    Now is the time to have 100 Finegolds on the podium lobbing attack after attack of this incompetent President, his administration, the whitewash congress, and the money-sucking establishment that allowed these tragedies to occur.

    Now Finegold on NSA, tomorrow Durbin on Katrina, the next day Clinton on Iraqi Civil War, then Reid on Port Security...healthcare...corruption...if the Dems would only got their shit together, follow Feingold's lead and organize, they could be hammering the Republicans until Christmas.

    A coordinated offensive that places the Democrats and our message in the position to define the terms of the debate.  The Republicans are floundering.  IF NOT NOW WHEN?!!

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:21:57 PM PST

  •  Oh I'm not declaring defeat, (0+ / 0-)

    and I have the phone bill and lost wages to prove it!

    "If you're going through hell, keep going". -Winston Churchill

    by One bite at a time on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:25:53 PM PST

  •  The problem is co-opting (0+ / 0-)

    If Feingold and, say, Pelosi are just having a dispute about the proper approach to taking a nuclear grenade out of the hands of a rampaging zombie warrior, well, emotions may run high during that sort of discussion. The real problem is the nuclear grenade in the hands of the zombie warrior.

    But I do think there is a small concern that the Bush Rovies might have used blackmail, threats of physical violence, etc. to block the censure measure.

    If anyone here comes up with evidence the Bush Rovies is using severe forms of coercion to block measures like the Feingold censure measure, I think that would cast the dispute in a whole new light.

    •  Sorry, but I'm against censure - (0+ / 0-)

      Look, the next election is not the Presidential Election.  The next election is Congressional.

      I think that the Dems should excorate the Repugs for keeping a dirty house and for making the House Dirty.

      The Dems should rant about making the Senate the Amen corner for the thugs in the White House.

      Give 'em hell, Harry.  Give 'em Hell.

      Make the Republicans regret they ever served as the
      door-mat for the White House neocons to wipe their feet on.

      "Time to clean out the crap in Congress" - Jesus (D) Nazareth

      by llbear on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 12:03:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  censure puts Republicans on the defensive (0+ / 0-)

        and more than any other issue, forces them to defend Bush and his actions.

        Hang their loyalty around their necks! Make Republican candidates offer good reasons why neither Bush, nor anyone else in his administration, should be held accountable for the domestic spying and for the lies that took us to war.

        I don't have to see the polls to know this talk of censure and impeachment is a good thing. The Republicans know it is hitting a popular nerve. That's why they have reacted in such a high-handed, indignant way.

        "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

        by QuickSilver on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:41:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The talk itself is the main thing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          QuickSilver

          I don't really have an opinion about whether Democratic senators getting behind the censure measure is a good idea because I'm not so great at strategy. Maybe, for example, there's a group of Republican moderates who are really in our camp right now but will get pushed back into the wingnuts' clutches if the measure comes to a vote. Or something. Who knows.

          But I'm annoyed at any Democrats, or Republicans, who would harshly criticize Feingold for simply calling a fink a fink.

          But the main thing is the nuclear grenade (e.g., global warming) in the hand of the rampaging zombie warrior. I will forgive everyone for everything if we can somehow get to 2100 without the surface of the Earth looking like the surfaces of Mars or Venus.

  •  What we apparently must not do, is (0+ / 0-)
    stop giving money to "Dems" who have allowed "Rebubs" to do irreparable damage to the world at large! When those "Dems" semmed to have everything going for them, they seemed to deliberateky flush it down the toilet, WHY?

    "Is there a dime's worth of difference?"

    What an excellent day for an Exorcism... SCI/Kenyon

    by DianeL on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:39:02 PM PST

  •  kovie is right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    letsfight, HoundDog

    What else are we to think?
    I am begging for some other explanation than
    cowardice or unforgivable ignorance as to why
    Democrats would NOT support Feingold.The legal arguments were spelled out by
    Greenwald a month  and more ago.Don't tell me
    this idea occured only to Feingold.Even if that were true,part of being a good politian is being able to recognize an opportunity like the one
    Russ just handed them. So far it appears they've
    fumbled it badly.Please tell me why thats not the case.Im no defeatist.But I have no clue as to why
    these Senators would be acting this way.

  •  The thing that worries me is Iran (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    letsfight

    and the upcoming banging on the pre-emptive war drum. If the Dems won't sign on for censure how can we count on them not to sign on for wasting more lives (and money) in Iran?  This is worse than deja vu because this administration has made so many inroads in the last 5 years.  People may scream at the television, but it just keeps on, the Cheney/Bush steamroller from hell.

    •  Democrats have already fallen (0+ / 0-)

      all over themselves when it comes to Iran.  H.CON. RES. 341 passed the House 404-4.  The bill is now back in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The bill calls for economic sanctions on Iran.  Details

      H.CON.RES.341
      Title: Condemning the Government of Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council.
      Sponsor: Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] (introduced 2/15/2006)      Cosponsors (29)
      Related Bills: S.CON.RES.76, S.CON.RES.78
      Latest Major Action: 2/16/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      ALL ACTIONS:

      2/15/2006:
      Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
      2/16/2006 10:14am:
      Consideration initiated pursuant to a previous order.
      2/16/2006 10:14am:
      Considered pursuant to a previous order. (consideration: CR H337-351)
      2/16/2006 11:02am:
      The previous question was ordered pursuant to a previous order of the House. (consideration: CR H350)
      2/16/2006 11:29am:
      On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 404 - 4, 4 Present (Roll no. 12).
      (text: CR H337-338)
      2/16/2006 11:29am:
      Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
      2/16/2006:
      Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

      Read the text of the bill here:
      H.CON. RES. 341

  •  I do not see this as a Democrat Republican (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    conchita, letsfight, curtadams

    political fight. I think this really goes to the heart of our system of checks and balances. The President has said he can decide what the law is. Any American that believes in our system of checks and balances should be up in arms no matter what political party he or she belongs to. This goes to the heart of what being an American is all about. I would be just as up in arms if Al Gore were trying to pull the same stuff. Letting this go will bring real meaning to the words that George bush said "The Constitution is just a piece of paper". I will give you this Armando, you are right about giving them time to make a decision. This also includes the Republicans. One cannot allow this to pass and still call oneself an American patriot. It just goes against the evolution of one of the greatest documents ever written.

    "For some reason Iraq is worth soldiers dying, but not worth rich people paying taxes."

    by Jlukes on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:57:41 PM PST

  •  I hope,... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    "I would hope that my commitment and support for Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush for his deliberate violations of FISA is beyond question."

    What other magical things does Armando hope for?

  •  I'm not defeatist. (5+ / 0-)

    I just believe, after years of writing "strongly worded letters URGING" my representatives in Congress to do the right thing and being rebuffed repeatedly...

    and after the Alito/filibuster/cloture BETRAYAL...

    that these people respond better to anger than to pleas.

  •  Sure, I can give then another chance... (0+ / 0-)

    Most of us have a pretty good sense of what's going to happen here, I think. Nothing good. I'll watch and see like I always do.

    But if they fail this time...? If only a handful of Senators support the censure...? If no one takes the opportunity to excoriate the Bush administration...

    Should I keep sucking it up and giving them more chances? Probably... What choice do I have?

    I think most of the defeatists are unfortunately but realistically tuned in to the true horrifying facts. The dems will fold.

  •  I'm going to wait...til there's no Constitution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadB0y, Tonedevil, letsfight

    That's the position of the timid, in the face of tyranny.

    It's not that they don't know Jack. It's that they don't know him on a first-name basis. :)

    by cskendrick on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:56:31 PM PST

  •  Nice try... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpecialEFX, Tonedevil, letsfight

    This is the response of  Democratic apologist if I ever heard one. Okay, let's beg our representatives to act on our behalf. What ever happened to representatives representing their voters? Cajole, grovel, beg for the law to be upheld and apparently be greatful when it is? I guess I know longer live in the US. Give thanks that free speech still exist while your at it. I understand caution, but this country has been moving solidly to the right over the past 30 years while the opposition practiced caution, what has it gotten us?

    The biggest lesson I learned from Vietnam is not to trust [our own] government statements. - Senator James W. Fulbright

    by american pastoral on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:28:44 PM PST

  •  Personally... (5+ / 0-)

    I'm more of an optimist.  I feel that anything that keeps a negative narrative going about Bush in the polls and the media is a good thing.  Not only is my glass half full here, I'm fucking glad to still have a glass.

    And even if the right thing to do is unpopular or might backfire, it doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do.

    Put on your jockstrap, Herb, because I intend to give your cojones a mean twist.

    by HillaryIsMyHomegirl on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:49:24 PM PST

  •  Who's claiming defeat? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    letsfight

    We're in the front-lines already fighting, where our leaders should be, and calling them the hell out.  

  •  Saw Kos on Olberman last night (0+ / 0-)

    on the front lines, fighting the good fight (he looks so young!)

  •  If this were just politics and an election year.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, megisi

    I might be able to rally around what you have posited above.

    But, gosh, this is about having a TRAITOR to the US Constitution and the American people in the oval office!

    And the ONLY PEOPLE in this country who have the power (barring bloodshed in the streets) to SAVE the constitution are....sitting where?  On the fence?  

    About that?

    Of course the traitorous bastard's party is standing behind him. They pretty much have to (though when Clinton was impeached and censured... his party didn't stand with him.  Do the math on that one.)

    But OUR party?  OMFG.

    Defeatist?  In this ONE instance?  I hardly can classify myself as a defeatist when I have sat here - incredulous and betrayed - by my party for going on five years.

    And if you really think about it....Clinton acted as president in spite of the democrats in Congress.

    Wait... if you really think about it... the democrats have been working against the party and THE PEOPLE since.... well... since Ronald Reagan started shining his pearly whites on the campaign trail in 1978/79.  I first voted in 1980, and have been supporting the dems with my time and votes since that time, and up until really last year.

    Yeah, I am a big defeatist! Not willing to have any patience.  And it is ME who is undermining my party's ability to get anything done. Yeah, I buy that.

    LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

    by letsfight on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:27:09 AM PST

  •  Harkin's statement (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jesterfox, IL dac

    I haven't seen this posted here yet:

    We have a President who likes to break things. He has broken the federal budget, running up $3 trillion in new debt. He has broken the Geneva Conventions, giving the green light to torture. He has repeatedly broken promises â€" and broken faith â€" with the American people. And now, worst of all, he has broken the law.

    In brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. And, despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.

    Let's be clear: No American â€" and that must include the President â€" is above the law. And if we fail to hold Bush to account, then he will be confirmed in his conviction that he can pick and choose among the laws he wants to obey. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.

    So it is time for Congress to stand up and say enough! That's why, this week, Senator Russ Feingold proposed a resolution to censure George W. Bush for breaking the FISA law. And that's why I fully support this resolution of censure.

    Nothing is more important to me than the security of our country. Of course, we need to be listening to the terrorists' conversations. And sometimes there is not time to get a warrant. That's why the FISA law allows the President, when necessary, to wiretap first, and obtain a warrant afterward. But that's not acceptable to this above-the-law President. He rejects the idea that he should have to obtain a warrant before or after wiretapping.

    We have an out-of-control President whose arrogant and, now, illegal behavior is running our country into the ditch. It's time to rein him in. And a fine place to start is by passing this resolution of censure. I hope that Senator Feingold's measure will be brought to the floor. And when it is, I will proudly vote yes.

    LINK

    Send the man a note in support, through the website.

    An election does not make a democracy.

    by seesdifferent on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 06:35:55 AM PST

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    Calling for censure sitting on the fence sends a terrible message to the terrorists Republicans.

    -5.25, -2.26 "Free your mind, and the rest will follow..."

    by KilljoyTXinMI on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 06:42:31 AM PST

  •  Great Post (0+ / 0-)

    I like the post.  Armando, you are spot-on.

  •  lost their insticts AND and strategy (0+ / 0-)

    Armando - I'm afraid you confuse criticism with defeatism. A critic remains engaged and still struggles despite disappointment, but a defeatist throws in the towel. Big difference.

    Digby quotes a democratic insider crticizing Feingold with the following:

    "Third, there was not even a hint of party strategy on this. The past couple of years, there's been an effort to try and have Dems coordinate more on major political and policy initiatives"

    Say WHAT?

    If the national D's think they are coordinated, we are surely lost.

    •  A critic (0+ / 0-)

      offers constructive comments with real suggestions.

      Alot of people here are just crying about "balls" "spinal transplants" and just offering up wish lists without any explanation about how these wishes occur.

      I mean, Truman, Roosevelt (both of them), etc, these politicians stand out because they were the exceptions to the rule, and therefore should be accepted as rare cases that frankly only fools would come to expect to reappear.

      Yet too many people on this side are too busy  lamenting about the politicians that we do not have instead of finding ways to accomplish stuff with the ones we have. The Repubs are full of loser politicians and yet that party seems to accomplish its objectives. Why can't we do the same?

  •  Best. Armando. Ever. (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think I've ever said this before here, but Armando, I am in complete agreement with everything you wrote here.

    Let's all keep calling.  It's not over.

    Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

    by ubikkibu on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 08:56:40 AM PST

  •  it's all sensible but I reject it (0+ / 0-)

    they've failed.

    when do you declare defeat?

    Oh, always after the next chance.

    Eventually, the person has failed.

    If you can't fire  or divorce them, then you expect defeat. The person needs to do better. I am biased, I've always overcompensated for other people's weaknesses, but it does no good in this case.

    I simply cannot visualize the loss of declaring their self-imposed defeat the moment it seems likely.

    As you said/quoted, they already missed the chance to seem deft, to have a good instinct.  Can they try to recover, sure. How many times do you force yourself to have an open mind, do you ignore the likely events, based on the patterns?

    How often?

    Are they listening to the netroots? I don't know, I can't tell, and I don't care, I'm a citizen, they can listen to the netroots, the DLC, whatever they want, they are still not listening to me, nor my smarter ideas on what they should do.

    Is it my fault?  

    AHAH!  trick question, it doesn't matter if it's my fault.  I have a vote in my pocket, I don't have anything more, and I owe that vote to no one and if they don't care, I'll survive.

  •  Congressional Republicans rally around Bush!? (0+ / 0-)
    The terror!

    Well, I have news for the beltway:  Bush won't up for re-election this year, or ever again.  And Congressional Republicans up for re-election are almost invariably less popular than Bush (individually, not collectively).  Yes, associating the former with the latter might somewhat equilibrate the two. If that happens, 33% Bush might go up somewhat, but what really counts (i.e. in terms of winning elections) is that Congressional Goopers might go down.  This entropic hypothesis may generally hold this year as it did in 1998, but Clinton had something like twice the approval that Dear Leader currently has.  Congressional Dems equilibrated up in '98; Congressional Repugs should equilibrate down this year.

    But this goes way past politics.

    This is about the rule of law and separation of powers.  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  The very basis of the America's national values.  Something that shouldn't be merely be used or not used as a political football.

    Frankly, it's travesty that playing off xenophobic hysteria can get our leadership to stand up, while Bush's evisceration of the Fourth Amendment cannot.  I weep for my party and my country.

    Russ '08.  A leader and a patriot.

    "Whether the British ruling class are wicked or merely stupid is one of the most difficult questions of our time." - George Orwell on the Spanish Civil War

    by Ramo on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 10:45:01 AM PST

    •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

      "And Congressional Republicans up for re-election are almost invariably less popular than Bush (individually, not collectively)"

      Meant to say that Congressional Republicans are generally more popular than Bush.

      "Whether the British ruling class are wicked or merely stupid is one of the most difficult questions of our time." - George Orwell on the Spanish Civil War

      by Ramo on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 10:48:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

pontificator, Bob Johnson, gina, em dash, tameszu, Go Vegetarian, JR, pb, tankej, tedward, Izixs, bolson, Ivan, glitterscale, lipris, Hollywood Liberal, Joan McCarter, ubikkibu, musing85, 2pt5cats, joeltpatterson, pHunbalanced, markymarx, Powered Grace, msl, wytcld, jethropalerobber, BooMan23, Lahdee, supergreen, Pondite, CleverNickName, kpardue, meg, DCDemocrat, Vico, Dan Hrkman, Ramo, DemDachshund, frisco, caliberal, ilona, Carnacki, grndrush, Joe B, mataliandy, expatjourno, memberofthejury, Eternal Hope, loudGizmo, jpiterak, mlafleur, kwinz, PaintyKat, RatIV, bronte17, conchita, Dusty, macdust, sjersey, Loquatrix, HippyWitch, highacidity, Glic, Scoopster, boilerman10, Patricia Taylor, MoCrash, edderh, buckhorn okie, cookiebear, Ignacio Magaloni, murphsurf, oceanspray, Fe, Miss Blue, plad0005, itskevin, jjhalpin, Brian Nowhere, Nate Roberts, matt2525, ctsteve, Jesterfox, mosolino, Pachacutec, aitchdee, Eddie C, wader, sonandar, ducksoup, DemocracyLover in NYC, IM, mayan, jhwygirl, writingdiva, menodoc, Barbara Morrill, rcvanoz, BurnetO, MrSandman, sockpuppet, NewDirection, SlowToAnger, NYC Sophia, by foot, draftchrisheinz, Chicago Lulu, Nancy in LA, brainwave, TXsharon, HeedTheMessenger, Kidspeak, desmoinesdem, Black Maned Pensator, dwahzon, chantedor, DeanFan84, PitPat, Calidrissp, rockhound, greenreflex, Ascendent, Mrcia, mrsnart, socal, Eddie Haskell, 4jkb4ia, inclusiveheart, walkshills, Oaktown Girl, ChiGirl88, kilo50, Sam Loomis, plymouth, paisa, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, PAprogressive, MetaProphet, kd texan, jgruber, Renaldo Migaldi, boran2, thereisnospoon, We hold these truths, Timroff, rickroks, ch kes, seronimous, MichDeb, vcmvo2, chumley, Stranger in a strange land, pattyp, mvr, Gabriele Droz, Elise, blueyedace2, Five of Diamonds, LisaZ, mtndew00, OpherGopher, irate, PBen, wizardkitten, ejmw, Luetta, Sinister Rae, chicoTowner, HillaryIsMyHomegirl, Maine Atticus, trinityfly, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, homeland observer, suskind, btrflisoul, curtadams, AnnArborBlue, concerned, jorndorff, Jontown, GreyHawk, annefrank, QuickSilver, rpm5250, libbie, chasewho, RElland, cerulean, Cannabis, Jay Elias, nakedcomputerguy, neroden, wiscmass, nieman, FindingMyVoice, Jlukes, Cory Bantic, Brian B, Spathiphyllum, MaryG, rumbacher, soyinkafan, bently, Tranny, makeitstop, occams hatchet, Keone Michaels, highfive, rgdurst, Louisiana Fury, LaX WI, CommiePinkoScum, Dvalkure, Truza, buhdydharma, dangangry, Sassy725, quinque, SherriG, TalkieToaster, global citizen, Rachel in Vista, aldpol, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, KbThorn In Massachusetts, Kitten, bunk, a small quiet voice, Coffee Geek, FloridaVoter, downrodeo, joelado, Cienfuegos, katasstrophy

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site