Obama on Censure

Those of you who read my previous post about getting a response to my letter urging Senator Durbin to support the censure motion, know that there is another Illinois senator, who, as it turns out, is a little more popular these days than the Assistant Minority Leader.

Read Senator Obama's response to the same request for support, and let's see whether the vitrol from this community is as potent as it was with Durbin.  Let me say, before you read his response below the fold, that while I am disappointed in Obama's response, I do believe it is honest.  Those with the "traitor" button on a hairtrigger should pause before responding.  With that said, follow me...

Thank you for writing about Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush. I understand your strong feelings on this issue. While I share your frustration and anger, I do not think censure is justified at this time.

I agree with Senator Feingold that the Administration's attitude toward congressional oversight and the FISA law has been cavalier and arrogant. We are a nation of laws, and those laws should be applied to all of us, from humblest citizen to the president of the United States. No president should be allowed to knowingly and willing flout our laws, and I believe the President exceeded his authority with his domestic wiretapping program. The justifications offered - that the president possesses inherent presidential authority under Article II, or was granted that authority in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force -- seem to contradict prior precedent and our constitutional design.

But my and Senator Feingold's view is not unanimous. Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president's argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts.

Also, a censure resolution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem of unchecked executive power. It would not force the president to modify his domestic surveillance program or force the Senate Intelligence Committee to do its job. In order to do that, Congress must reassert its constitutional role in overseeing the domestic surveillance program. And it should bring the warrantless wiretapping program back under the authority of the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Therefore, my focus is on crafting an effective surveillance program that both combats terrorism and contains meaningful judicial review of wiretapping, which is the most effective way to restore balance between the battle against terrorism and the rule of law.

Finally, I can assure you that your opinion is important to me, and I hope my opinion is important to you. I will continue to try to bring my best judgment to the issues before the Senate, and let the people of Illinois make their best judgment on my service to the state.

Again, thank you for writing. I will closely follow the hearing on Senator Feingold's bill taking place in the Judiciary Committee this week to see if any further information surfaces that might impact my decision.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

United States Senator

I disagree with him about censure, obviously.  I think that, if nothing else, there is a benefit from censuring a sitting president solely on the basis that it makes him worry about his legacy (whatever he may claim to the contrary, Bush would rather be remembered for leading a failed cause he believed in than being formally rebuked by the Congress as a liar).  This gives an otherwise-irresponsible Executive something to think about before committing our treasure and our citizens to an ill-conceived cause, if not now, then in the future.

I believe in Barack.  And, yet, he is compelled, for reasons that seem good to him, to make the political calculations like everyone else.  It's extremely frustrating.  And until he and the others who say that warrantless wiretapping and lying about it is all so terrible, realize that standing up and being counted for the rule of law (not just when a president lies about having sex in the East Room, but also canards about getting warrants when going after terrorists in the Rose Garden) is not akin to drinking the preverbial kool-aid, our party is going to be adrift on the question of integrity.  We will have the worst of both worlds, painted by the Right as generally amoral, while the courageous few like Feingold get savaged by people like Lyndsey Graham with impunity.

There was nothing more shameful that I have seen about my party recently than watching Feingold left blowing in the wind today, the hot putrid air from the few Republican Senators that showed up, and nobody but Leahy to get Feingold's back (and even then, only for 5 minutes before he scampered).  If Barack was serious that he would "closely follow" the Judiciary hearing, I hope that, in doing so, he learned something about standing up and being counted for what is right, for the rule of law, for our civil liberties, and doing so when it was politically unpopular to do so.  That is what I have learned from Senator Feingold.  That there are still a few people, thank God, with a megaphone willing to pour sunshine into darkness.  I remain hopeful that Barack will join them.  

•  Here's the question, then:

  What Constitutional scholars are saying this, and what connections do they have? We know that Bush pays off journalists; I wonder if he is doing the same thing here.

  Furthermore, we need to see what arguments these people are making and answer them.

  by Eternal Hope on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:43:44 PM PDT

  •  I agree...

    It's an easy way out (there are respectible people who think this is alright...) and yet its a tried and true way of deflecting responsibility in the face of what is obvious bullsh*t (FISA either controls the situation or FISA is unconstitutional, take your pick, because that's the only real option here).

    Obviously, the heritage foundation is going to say the president can do whatever the hell he wants.  That's what it and its ilk are paid to do.  Does that mean that we have to pretend we are the MSM and repeat it?  Let's get some names.

    by aloha and mahalo on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:49:06 PM PDT

  •  Indeed

    I haven't heard anyone even remotely qualified or credible arguing that the president was acting within the law. This is complete nonsense.

    I do agree that this should go to the courts. So, as my boss would say, when can we have that?

    by Zackpunk on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:17:42 PM PDT

  •  Here's the question

    How could it hurt?

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

    by IL dac on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:57:31 PM PDT

    •  The problem:

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

      by Eternal Hope on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:14:07 PM PDT

      •  Then they are idiots.

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

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

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

        Clear?

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

        •  Ironically

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

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

          by Blech on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 02:16:01 PM PDT

          •  Which is all the more reason:

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

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

            by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 02:18:20 PM PDT

            •  yes and no

              Unfortunately a lot of people get elected who are actually followers (case in point: 90% of Senate Democrats and 98% of House Democrats).  In fact, there's a decent case to be made that those who are now in DC are there BECAUSE they are followers.  They've convinced themselves that the way to survive under the Republican onslaught is to lay low.  What a load of crap.

              I wonder if Daschle still feels this way?

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

              by Blech on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 02:41:42 PM PDT

•  Tip Jar

  Well, alright.  It's late and what's the harm in little shameless pandering for affirmation?

  by aloha and mahalo on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:43:58 PM PDT

•  Very insightful comments.

  Recommended.  I am waiting to see how this plays out -- between Feingold and Conyers, there is a very interesting dynamic going on.

  I agree with your assessment of Obama's letter - it is dishonest.  It's a dilemma for all the Senators and I don't envy them.  But right now my mind is on those who are standing up NOW.  They draw my attention far more than those who are on the fence.

  by Nightprowlkitty on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:45:34 PM PDT

  •  Why not envy them?

    They're paid to represent the people yet somehow feel they're not obliged to do so if they don't feel like it. They're like company men, working for someone or something other than who they profess to serve. What is that thing? Not us.

    by Scarce on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:18:19 PM PDT

    •  Good point ...

      ... but given what you say, I feel even more strongly that I wouldn't want to be them!

      Seriously, I don't think it is surprising that at this time there's only Conyers and Feingold taking the lead -- because they are leaders.  In the weeks ahead we'll see who comes around and who does not.

      by Nightprowlkitty on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:38:03 PM PDT

      •  We have already seen who has character and ...

        ... who does not.

        Obama is a shadow of a leader, plumped up by high cheekbones and middle-brow oratory.

        That's better than Sessions, who is a drop of voltaic snot charged by a complete circuit of elitism on top and separatism on the bottom.

        by Yellow Canary on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:11:07 AM PDT

        •  To be uselessly philosophical ...

          ... I point to the ancient text of the Chinese Book of Changes (I-Ching, Wilhelm edition).  There's a hexagram in this book called "Revolution," which speaks of necessary institutional changes when all other remedies have failed.  The I-Ching cautions against going too far in revolution once the actual changes have taken place, as follows:

          After the large and fundamental problems are settled, certain minor reforms, and elaborations of these, are necessary.  These detailed reforms may be likened to the equally distinct but relatively small marks of the panther's coat.  As a consequence, a change also takes place among the inferior people.  In conformity with the new order, they likewise "molt."  This molting, it is true, does not go very deep, but that is not to be expected.  We must be satisfied with the attainable.  If we should go too far and try to achieve too much it would lead to unrest and misfortune.  For the object of a great revolution is the attainment of clarified, secure conditions ensuring a general stabilization of what is possible at the moment. (emphasis mine)

          There are leaders and there are followers.  I agree with you that at this point Obama is a follower -- and Feingold and Conyers are leaders.  All I'm saying is that I believe the leaders will eventually prevail.  Assuming this happens, at that time the "inferior people" in the Democratic Party will go with the political winds and fall behind the leaders.  It is disappointing that there are not more leaders on this issue, but it is gratifying that we have people like Feingold and Conyers.  In this revolutionary process there's a role for everyone.  Obama's role, given his letter, is not one of a leader, but that does not mean he has no value.

          by Nightprowlkitty on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:28:20 AM PDT

          •  Well that was circuitous, but ...

            ... enjoyably scenic.  I agree.  I let stand the implication that Obama is without value, but what I said is simply that his value is low.  I stand by my assertion that as of yet, Obama is more shadow than substance.  Like many here, I await his molting.

            by Yellow Canary on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:46:40 AM PDT

            •  Thanks...

              that made me laugh outloud!  You are right, I misread your post and see that you said he is of low value -- I agree with you on that.

              by Nightprowlkitty on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 05:52:56 PM PDT

•  I have nothing against Obama

  I do not understand his logic though. First he says that Bush is wrong but a censure will not stop him. So we should hold our breath and maybe Bush will change his ways.  If nothing else a censure would be the first step in regaining the country!

  by humphrey on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:48:35 PM PDT

  •  Look - we don't and won't have the votes

    better to get a black-eye once again? lose once again/, die trying once agin?

    If I were Harry Reid, I would turn to the Senate Majority Leader and say, this is a mess of your making. How are you going to clean it up?  Get serious and we will help.

    No impeachment - no censure - at least not from our side of the aisle.

    by llbear on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:52:28 PM PDT

    •  Maybe.

      But maybe letting people see us stand up for something, even when we know it's not politically expedient or has a high likelihood of success, will matter.

      Sure, people gravitate toward winners, generally. But the republicans have been winners for years now, and people are starting to move away from them -- and fast.

      So perhaps just letting people -- espeically people like us -- see them stand up and buck the political winds is a good thing.  Sometimes you just gotta stand on principle, regardless of the consequences, and people will respect that.

      by Marc in KS on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 05:07:47 AM PDT

      •  I forgot to add that

        people respect people who lead.  Getting out in front of what is apparently an unpopular position is the very essence of leadership.

        Figuring out which way people are walking and getting in front of them and walking in the same direction, constantly looking over your shoulder to make sure you're still in front of them, is not leadership.  

        by Marc in KS on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 05:09:42 AM PDT

•  The issue, as Bush frames it...

  is not resolvable by the courts.

  Suppose they say, as everyone believes they will, that he hasn't got the "inherent authority" to do this? Why wouldn't he say, as he says right now, that his "constitutional scholars" say he really does, and that the court is wrong, just as he claims it's wrong on Roe v. Wade?

  What's going to happen? The courts have said he can't be arrested while in office, so then what? What's the incentive to stop, if he thinks the court is wrong?

  by Kagro X on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:52:07 PM PDT

  •  Andrew Jackson...

    Did the same thing.  He got away with it.  Of course, he also was the last President to be censured.

    by aloha and mahalo on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:54:19 PM PDT

  •  But the Supreme Court is different

    from other courts, and so Schumer's approach (I haven't seen a full description of this yet) is interesting in that sense.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:18:47 PM PDT

    •  Ah...

      but "we don't have the numbers."

      I think Schumer's bill is interesting as a method of demonstrating that I'm right, but not much else.

      It permits a case to get to the Court, but doesn't say anything about what to do if the decision is ignored.

      Does it?

      by Kagro X on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:34:11 PM PDT

      •  Are you able to give a brief gist of the

        Schumer resolution? And is the bill up on thomas?

        by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:38:02 PM PDT

        •  The bill is on THOMAS. S. 2468.

          How easy is that to remember? 2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate? Schumer! Schumer! Yaaaaay, Schumer!

          Anyway, as I understand it, the bill would grant standing to anyone who wanted to sue if they've refrained from engaging in electronic communications for fear of being surveilled.

          So it allows people to get to court to challenge the legality of the surveillance programs.

          by Kagro X on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:44:08 PM PDT

          •  And the only thing SCOTUS will ever touch

            Will be the constitutionality of Schumer's bill, which they will shoot down immediately in order to divest themselves of jurisdiction.  Conveniently, Chief Justice Roberts is quite wary of citizen-standing suits, to the point that he will warp the language of Article III beyond all recognition in an effort to pretend that Congress cannot authorize them.

            by Categorically Imperative on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:48:50 PM PDT

          •  thanks for the # and heads up

            Before I get around to reading it or about it, one quick question.

            Under Schumer Res., can anyone file a case (or a class action suit), or only those that somehow find out that they have been wiretapped? If the latter, how will people find out?

            Of course, going by what i have sene so far, it fails to hold Bush accountable for circumventing FISA.

            What would be great is if the "inherent authority", "war powers", "unitary executive branch" claims by Bush are somehow sent to the USSC for arguments and judgement. On these separation of powers issues, the SC seems to be not only the ultimate arbiter, but in fact the only arbiter, IMO. With Roberts/Alito out there, I am not sure how things will pan out, but it'll be interesting, for sure.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:16:12 PM PDT

            •  Anyone.

              If the bill were enacted and enforced as written, anyone who claims to have refrained from engaging in some communications for fear of being monitored could sue.

              Yes, it fails to directly hold Bush accountable for circumventing FISA. Instead, it asks you to go do that for yourself.

              Well, not even that. It asks you to go get an injunction.

              Apparently, the answer to Congress having ceded its powers to the presidency is for it to now cede more, but cede it to you. Thanks, Congress!

              by Kagro X on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:33:13 PM PDT

              •  Here is my plan for holding admin accountable

                Here is a possible full course of action for addressing these matters, that uses the wisdom of many people:

                A Comprehensive Plan
                for Holding the Administration Accountable
                

                1. Draft articles of impeachment on Bush's declared dictatorial intent, claims of "unitary executive" privileges, which are instantiated by the arrogation of power on warrantless wiretaps.
                2. Demand a special counsel investigation into warrantless wiretaps, with suitable clearances being granted for the investigation, and operating in the FISA court, if necessary
                3. Form a congressional panel to look into the classification requirements being claimed by the administration on wiretaps.
                4. Establish whistleblower protections.
                5. Demand telephone companies to cease and desist giving private information without a warrant.
                6. Filibuster any bills that attempt to retroactively justify the circumvention of the law by the administration.
                7. Conduct congressional inquiries into various other matters of administrative dysfunction (as in HR 635).
                8. Dem leaders should make extensive media appearances informing the public about the excesses of the administrations and its attempts to sidestep the constitution, and soundly argue for taking appropriate actions to remedy the situation
                9. If the Whitehouse and the Rubberstamping GOP stonewall and shut out getting to the bottom of the NSA wiretaps, then censure Bush.

                Please see my recent comments, which contain my arguments:

                • on censure
                • on unitary executive impeachment article

                and earlier comments:

                • unitary executive deal
                • censure is softball
                • line of succession issues
                • Tice and Clearances

                Thanks.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 04:39:09 AM PDT

  •  One would hope that...

    In such a showdown, Congress would simply quit signing the effing checks!  Such games have been played before. Of course, with this gutless crew (on both sides of the aisle), I doubt there would be the collective nerve to challange the Chimperor.

    by wgard on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 03:06:27 AM PDT

  •  Bush's ruinous lying is a POLITICAL ...

    ... PROBLEM for America foremost, and secondarily a LEGAL problem, and as such deserves a POLITICAL solution first.

    The political solution is IMPEACHMENT.

    Bush frames it every day as a political issue -- "Me am mandate (beats chest).  Me protect (beats chest).  You endangered!  You afeared (beats chest).  You need me (beats chest and smiles)".

    The courts can fight over the minutia of electronic eavesdropping and the meaning of "foreign" (are satellites in the US?).  Certainly the legislature needs to take on the false claim of the unitariness of the executive.  But the current issue is and always has been political, and the solution is and always has had to be, political.

    by Yellow Canary on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:33:24 AM PDT

•  It is better than the MI senator

  Mr. Levin's office said, "we are keeping an eye on it."

  I wonder why they all couldn't at least show up and be there in person to hear and keep an eye on it.  

  This is the first time I have heard any of them really explain anything, though, so I am glad for your letter and his response so I can get a glimpse whether I like the glimpse or not...sigh.

  by cfk on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:57:01 PM PDT

•  Well, I guess supporting Obama for Prez...

  ...just isn't the right thing in this century.

  by cskendrick on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:04:16 PM PDT

•  Another calculating politician?

  What appealed to so many about Obama, I think, was the sense of idealism he expressed during his keynote speech, as well as the eloquence and passion he's brought to many public appearances. It felt like something different, something new.

  To see him now, "observing," calculating, reading the political tea leaves like every other damn pol in Washington, is deeply disappointing. But that's what almost inevitably happens when we project our own desires and idealism onto a barely known and relatively untried personality. Disappointment.

  I'm still glad he's my Senator, even if he's not the future. For that I'll have to look elsewhere.

  Russ was a brave man today. That was courage on display. I'm proud to be his neighbor.

  by BobzCat on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:09:58 PM PDT

  •  The odd thing about Obama

    ..is that as the annointed one, the golden boy that comes along once a generation is that because they enter the scene with the highest expectations they have a more narrow window of opportunity than others. JFK realized that in the 1950's and Obama will have to confront it too if he hopes to grab the brass ring and become President one day. His time in the ascendency is exceedingly short and the sooner he makes his mark actually doing something or taking a stand the better his chances will be of attaining the ultimate goal. Otherwise he'll drift off into the realm of disappointments, the land of Gary Hart and so many others.

    by Scarce on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:30:58 PM PDT

    •  If he wrote books

      like the ones Gary Hart's been writing these last few years, it wouldn't be a total loss.

      by Noisy Democrat on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:06:53 AM PDT

•  Weak, at best

  The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts.

  Okay, first lets just laugh off the question whether Shrub understood the law. He has an army of lawyers working for him whose job it is to tell him what the law is. Apparently some of these people repeatedly told him that the domestic spying program is probably illegal and unconstitutional. As for the good faith bit, since when is good faith the magic ticket that puts anybody above the law? And why must this be resolved by the courts? Why then does Congress have the power to censure the President? What for?

  Also, a censure resolution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem of unchecked executive power. It would not force the president to modify his domestic surveillance program or force the Senate Intelligence Committee to do its job. In order to do that, Congress must reassert its constitutional role in overseeing the domestic surveillance program. And it should bring the warrantless wiretapping program back under the authority of the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

  Huh? This is one hell of a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. How does Congress not "reassert its constitutional role" and "force the president to modify his domestic surveillance program" through censure??? Isn't that exactly what censure is for - to put an administration that has ursurped a big chunk of the power of Congress back into its place?

  by brainwave on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:19:13 PM PDT

•  Give me a break

  Let's be honest with each other before we start kidding ourselves.  Censure will actually help the Repubs at this point.  It will be a rallying cry used against the Democrats through November.  Feingold's intentions may be good, but Obama's are prudent and realistic.  

  If you have paid attention to Obama for 1 minute, you will note he is playing his cards carefully and stepping up to fight real issues, not smoke and mirrors.  He clearly gets that politics is not a science of absolutes, but the art of compromise.  Like it or not, that is the way the game is played here in the real world.

  I am with all of you that the "president" spit in the eye of the FISA law and the American people.  Anyone can build a "legal" case, that in the end is made up of nothing more then BS.

  I know this is not going to be a popular statement here, but we need to be sure and keep our powder dry over the next 8 months to ensure we are capable of winning at least one house of Congress.  At that point, the Dems will be able to deliver more than a symbolic censure gesture.  With control, comes our chance to subpoena and hold the real hearings that need to be held.

  by dangoss on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:19:52 PM PDT

  •  You know

    Somewhere out there right this minute is probably a redneck shaking his head in disbelief. So here are the Dems, making nice rightous speeches about how the prez broke the law, and then doing - absolutely nothing. He may not agree that shrub broke the law (although many, many people of all ideological stripes understand this bit quite well, and do not like the notion that the government has unchecked powers to spy on them). But why would he ever trust the Dems to protect him and stand up for him if they're too cowardly to do their constitutional duty before 20 polls and 35 focus groups have confirmed that it may be "safe" for them now to do so? Why would he ever vote for the Dems?    

    by brainwave on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:34:25 PM PDT

  •  Let's be honest

    You have no idea who it will help.

    You don't know who is being prudent or smart.

    The argument for censure is political.

    Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

    It is ok to disagree. But do us the  courtesy of intelligently discussing the issue.

    You sound no more intelligent than Eleanor Clift.

    by Armando on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:42:20 PM PDT

    •  You have every right to be wrong

      but no right to be impolite.  You are both.

      by llbear on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:57:12 PM PDT

      •  Yes,

        Wouldn't want to sully the room with impolitic jibes while the ignorant, willfully or otherwise, advocate wholeheartedly for some more Democratic bed-crapping.  Frankly, there's no such thing as being impolite to those who, at this very fucking late date continue to argue "Let's keep our powder dry."  Yeah, right up until Miniluv comes to take the powder away.

        by Categorically Imperative on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:02:37 PM PDT

        •  Well, OK - as long as you keep

          ranting everyone will think you are crazy.

          You sound like Ann Coulter.

          Just saying...

          by llbear on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:09:10 PM PDT

          •  Was that meant to be an example

            of polite discourse?  Because it was always my understanding that ad hominem attacks were impolite.  But perhaps it was my mistake.

            by Categorically Imperative on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:13:48 PM PDT

          •  While you

            You sound like Ann Coulter.

            While you, on the other hand, just sound like a fool.

            by mjshep on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:27:25 PM PDT

          •  Troll-rated

            because comparing anyone to Ann Coulter is just about the worse thing you could possibly say.

            by BobzCat on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:31:32 PM PDT

          •  What an idiot

            Now I know what I am dealing  with.

            I thought you just were an sanctimonious hypocrite.

            Now I see you are that AND a moron.

            by Armando on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:32:13 PM PDT

  •  Get real

    Censure will actually help the Repubs at this point.  It will be a rallying cry used against the Democrats through November.  

    And the reason for this is??? What make you think that cnsure, which is supported by the public before any debate brings out the real dangers of Bush's actions, is a loser for the Dems? Fox News says so?

    Ａs for "keeping our powder dry" if I hear that chestnut one more time I'll scream. Our powder is so dry it's about to turn to dust and blow away. Bush is in the mid thirties in approval. If there ever was a time to use that powder it is now.

    Obama just gets more and more like Hillary and Shumer every day. His letter was disgraceful. Fuck him.

    by mjshep on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:24:10 PM PDT

•  WTF?

  "Some" constitutional scholars say that sitting SCOTUS justices should be poisoned.  At least, if you believe Fox News' description of Ann Coulter as a constitutional scholar.  WTF is Obama talking about?  Where are these people publishing their views?  Whose payroll are they on?  Is he referring to John "I love torture" Yoo?  

  I'm not inclined to cut Obama any slack here, specifically because he attended Harvard Law.  He, as a legal scholar himself, should know better.  His "resolve it in the courts" theory is lovely, except that given Article III standing requirements, citizens cannot sue to determine if a "unitary executive" is a constitutionally valid proposition.  So I don't see what court is going to determine any of this.  

  Aside from that inconvenient problem, I wonder why Obama has decided to internalize the GOP talking point of "good faith," in light of the strong -- if not overwhelming -- evidence that Bush didn't take his program to Congress only because he knew it wouldn't fly

  by Categorically Imperative on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:24:25 PM PDT

  •  Zactly

    This letter is ridiculously weak.

    by Armando on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:40:15 PM PDT

    •  And that's being nice

      Ridiculously weak is about the kindest thing you could say. Morally reprehensible, spineless, craven and politically cowardly and stupid also come to mind.

      by mjshep on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:39:45 PM PDT

•  He lost me at Ohio

  by Free Spirit on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:31:55 PM PDT

•  This

  Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president's argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts.

  No reputable lawyer believes that.

  He needs a new dodge.

  This is incredibly weak.

  Let me suggest a new one for him - we need to investigate.

  You'll excuse me, but Senator Durbin is much much better than Obama on this.

  by Armando on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:39:49 PM PDT

  •  But, but

    Some constitutional scholars believe that the Constitution can be unconventionally amended via "transformative moments" such as the New Deal, and that these inchoate amendments only reveal themselves after the passage of time.  So, it is at least possible that, when 9/11 changed everything, it also changed the Constitution such that what Bush is doing isn't only permissible, but is actually a mandatory element of the "amended" Article II.

    Or not.

    by Categorically Imperative on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:46:31 PM PDT

    •  Actually

      IF this is a constitutional moment, more reason  to vote No by voting for Censure.

      by Armando on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:49:47 PM PDT

      •  Indeed

        Though I'd prefer a no via impeachment.  Given the way the unitary executive debate is shaping up, especially given the miniscule likelihood that any court will substantively weigh in for the foreseeable future, Ackerman's theory is making more sense than it ever did before.  Because there's no question that if Bush manages to establish some sort of post-9/11 perpetual war president precedent, the Constitution will have effectively been amended.  

        All without the involvement of -- gasp! -- activist judges

        by Categorically Imperative on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:55:20 PM PDT

  •  Feingold

    today pointed out the shifting explanations given by the administration in response to their program's discovery. One of his points seemed to be that the uncertainty surrounding the legal justification was enough to warrant censure. I agree.

    I mean, c'mon. The idea that first it was authorization to use military force, then it was the inherent powers of the executive, then it was the One Ring that bestowed the power to Bush alone to decide who was guilty or innocent.... these guys were making it up as they went along. Feingold knows it, Hatch and Specter and Graham know it, and I suspect Obama knows it too.

    Let the courts decide? You mean, pass the buck, I don't want to touch this.

    by BobzCat on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:04:06 PM PDT

•  Another FISA

  Therefore, my focus is on crafting an effective surveillance program that both combats terrorism and contains meaningful judicial review of wiretapping, which is the most effective way to restore balance between the battle against terrorism and the rule of law.

  I'm confused.  Why does he think we need another FISA law. and what makes him think Bush would obey the new law?

  Next time you write your Senator, please ask hoim or her where they would draw the line.  Can Bush take our guns away?  Can he declare that that we need to be more Christian and force us all to go to Church?  Can he shut down the Internet because it gives comfort to the enemy?

  We have all the law we need.  It's called the Constitution.  The Senator from Illinois took an oath to defend it.  What's he waiting for?

  by ndib on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:55:52 PM PDT

  •  Nail on head is hit

    Why does he think we need another FISA law. and what makes him think Bush would obey the new law?

    Exactly. Is Obama saying maybe Bush broke the law so we should make another law that he can break as well? And that's some sort of solution??

    Obama is doing he is best to be so "reasoned" he is about to waffle himself into irrelevancy. Is this the John Kerry school of confrontation? I was for the Constitution before I was against it?

    by mjshep on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:35:44 PM PDT

•  Wonder if 12-Yr. Old Obama Saw Watergate Hearings

  John Dean understands exactly that Bush is shredding OUR Constitution. My two-senators, Durbin and Obama, play with their worry beads under their desks as the shredding goes on. George W. Bush doesn't give a tinker's damn what laws the Congress passes to curb his criminal acts. I'm ashamed of both my senators for supporting the Bush crime family instead of upholding the law. John Dean, Russ Feingold and the grassroots Democrats get it. The 12-yr. old is now a 44-yr. old U.S. Senator, who doesn't get it.

  by mcartri on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:59:17 PM PDT

•  The Dems are brain dead

  Bush has them by the balls on this one because "talking about it is alerting the enemy!!" If the Dems had any balls, they would band together and back the censure until they get some fucking answers as to who this asshole president was spying on! They are still relying on the "take my word" I am a good guy scenario after this ass wipe lied about taking the country to war, AS WELL AS whether he was spying on us without a fucking warrant!

  (My apologies for the rant, but the bullshit this man gets away with is simply mind boggling!!)

  by ejbr on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:04:58 PM PDT

•  anyone who thinks censure isn't justified

  needs to reassess the facts.  don't let us appear weak!  48% percent of Americans support censure and 42% oppose (New Yorker).  A winning issue.

  by anthonyLA on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:13:22 PM PDT

•  Have I missed any Senator

  bringing up how we know who is being spied on? Or who monitors that? Does anyone monitor that?

  Feingold says we all want to monitor terrorists and we can do so within the law. I agree. But who really believe that it is terrorists being monitored or at least terrorists as anyone outside of bush's administration would define them.

  A small majority of Americans are comfortable with bush disregarding law to spy ion terrorists and it keeps being phrased that way. But why? Because bush sys so? Did I miss something else? Or is it impolite for a Senator to suggest bush might not be honest about that.

  If I thought I was awake and this was really happening I would really be upset. As it is I really hate this long, complex and ugly dream.

  by joynow on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:31:22 PM PDT

•  when Obama first came on the scene

  I had lots of hope that he would be worthy of all the praise that was heaped upon him.

  However as each moment to stand up for the people on several different things came along and he failed, i lost that hope.

  He is going to be another Biden in a few years I predict.

  by eaglecries on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:40:59 PM PDT

•  Obama's statement is the very definition of

  'half assed'

  The only good thing I can say about it is that that's better than 'no-assed'.

  by bee tzu on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:21:55 PM PDT

•  Did the President act in good faith on

  FISA?  Or in making the case for war in Iraq? Or in shoving the Prescription Plan down the throat of Congress?  Or in handling the leak investigation in the White House?  Or in Clear Skies?  Or in fighting the 911 Commission?  Or...

  It goes on and on and on. How many times does Bush have to shove your face in the dirt before you figure out he's NOT acting in good faith.

  Really.  

  Read it again, and weep:

  The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

  This Oct 04 Suskind article

  says it all.

  Good faith?  

  That's not the way Bushco works.

  Keep studying that reality, Obama.  

  What a disappointment.

  by 2lucky on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:37:50 PM PDT

•  A reposting

  of a comment I just made on a later diary of the same subject. (Sorry I missed yours.)

  This deservs attention.

  Also, a censure resolution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem of unchecked executive power. It would not force the president to modify his domestic surveillance program or force the Senate Intelligence Committee to do its job

  What? What? Censure is not about forcing somebody to do something, it is about the Congress asserting its power as one of the three equally powerful branches of government through a symbolic act. Using the excuse that it would not force the modification of behaviour is like saying "There's no use giving my kid a talking to about ethics and the law--he'll just go out and do it again!"

  Congress can still, and must, after the fact, "reassert its constitutional role in overseeing the domestic surveillance program." Censure does not inhibit that in any way.

  But my and Senator Feingold's view is not unanimous. Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president's argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists.

  So what is the point of your view if you're not going to stand up and stand behind it? Leaders are not made of "Well, this is my view, but it's just a view, it's not that important."

  This is weak weak weak weak weak weak weak weak.

  by Earl on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:53:16 PM PDT

•  Pathetic: Barack NoBama

  by Cantinflas on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:14:33 AM PDT

•  Yobama!

  First things first:
  Here in the woods, word is that you're acting like robin when you should be patrolling like a goshawk.  You're a Senator, not a clerk.

  A large part of your failure is one of posture.  A small part is diction.  You got +50 points for using "flout" correctly.  A bodkin of a word, deftly placed.

  Then you lost 250 points for misusing "flount".  Buy your letter-writers Macs and teach them how to use the built in dictionary.

  For those of you keeping score, George W. Bush broke the LAW:  he flouted the US Constitution he swore to protect.

  USAGE Flaunt and flout may sound similar but they have different meanings. Flaunt means ‘display ostentatiously,’ as in: tourists who liked to flaunt their wealth, while flout means ‘openly disregard (a rule or convention),’ as in | new recruits growing their hair and flouting convention. It is a common error, since probably around the 1940s, to use flaunt when flout is intended, as in | the young woman had been flaunting the rules and regulations. (from the New Oxford American Dictionary, which is part of Mac's OS X and is right-click available in every Mac application)

  by Yellow Canary on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:56:12 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for catching this

    When I read the "flaunt" part, I wondered, "OK, which intern wrote this thing, and when is he or she going to take some lessons in English usage?"

    by Noisy Democrat on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:15:45 AM PDT