I
know this is going to be taken the wrong way by some people, so please take the time to read through the entire document. I also am not claiming here that President Bush's actions with respect to the NSA eavesdropping were legitimate or that they shouldn't be challenged. However, part of politics is tactics and timing, and, for the reasons I hope to make clear (below the fold), Senator Feingold's resolution was the wrong action at the wrong time.
There were, as I see it, three possible purposes for introducing this resolution. The
first is, simply put, to do what the resolution says: express the sense of the Senate as to the improper actions of the President, and in so doing, officially chastise him for those actions. I think we can all agree that, even with pressure from a unanimous Democratic caucus, this wasn't going to happen.
The second option was for the Censure supporters, knowing they wouldn't get a majority vote, to send a message of their concerns to the public, and by extension to their political opponents: we believe in the rule of law and protecting your rights; Bush and the other guys don't. And here is where tactics come into play. First, it is essential to have enough support (even if not a majority) to make it a meaningful statement. To do that, you need to headcount, and make sure that you have supporters and that they're prepared to act. Now, I know some of you will argue that this is so clearly the right thing to do that no negotiations should be needed, but that is an unrealistic view of the political landscape under almost any circumstances. Successful politicans, however honest they are, are always evaluating the aspects of what to say (or do) and when. And that has to do in part with the second tactical element; knowing if the audience (in this case, the public; more specifically, apolitical independents)is listening when you speak, and will be interested in what you have to say. In my opinion, sad as it sounds, the audience isn't listening on this issue.
Now, we know from polls that the electorate is increasing dissatisfied with the performance of the President and the Republican Congress, and is also(to a lesser degree) less enamored of Bush's "honesty" when speaking. But, the issue of eavesdropping, in my opinion, has not resonated with them as something that actually affects their lives (remember the Administration's mantra that "if you don't talk to Al Qaeda, you have nothing to worry about"), the details are sufficiently blurry to those who don't go the extra mile to research political issues, and the constitutional implications of unfettered executive power, for better or worse, aren't of great interest to the average voter in Nebraska or Florida. In addition, I think that less politically informed voters, however they feel about Bush's competence, don't want to think of him as a potential law-breaker, and aren't going to warm to the notion easily. I'd like to believe differently, but having grown up during the Watergate era, I can see a difference between how people viewed those crimes, and how they view these.
By throwing this issue onto the Senate Floor atthis point, on his own, and with pre-arranged backing by others, I fear that Senator Feingold has distracted the attention of the audience from the broad issue that does have resonance with the electorate (Congressional and Executive incompetence); rallied the Republicans (who in some cases recently appeared equally happy to slap the administration around) to the President's side; and made the Democrats again look disorganized and inconsistent on message.
The third option, which I offer for completeness only, would be to put fellow Democrats on the spot by compelling them to take a stand on a controversial issue, and in so doing to stand out in the crowd for one's own political future. That would be a highly inappropriate thing for Sen. Feingold to do, and I don't for a minute believe that this was his intent.
I'm well aware of how much support this resolution has, here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, and I can share people's anger at the Adminiistration, and their frustration at the Democrats for failing to take a hard swing at Bush on any issue. I've spoken personally to Schumer, Pelosi, Emanual, and about a dozen Senate and House candidates about the need to clearly convey an attractive message to the electorate about what Democrats do stand for. But politics is ultimately about getting people elected, and then getting things accomplished. Democrats can't do the latter at this point this resolution doesn't help with former. Where we need to act is in reminding people of what the Administration has done about the war, about Katrina, about Medicare etc.; how those actions have affected their lives; and what we'll focus on (broad brush) to fix things.
(nb - I'm sure someone's going to opine that electing a Senate full of "DINO's" isn't really an improvement over not electing anyone; if you can't see the improvement of even a "moderate" Democratic Senate over the current Republican one, I don't think you're trying.)