All true, but it also keeps the NSA scandal in the news, where it belongs.

More to the point - if Dems can't agree to criticize a president who is at 34%, then what purpose do they serve?

This is a backbone stiffener, not just theater. It matters.

Political theater has its place, but every once in a while Democrats should do the right thing because, well, it is the right thing.

Holding the President accountable for blatantly and repeatedly breaking the law would seem to be a time to do the right thing.

And the reason that the Democratic response is "muddled" is because too many Democrats are still afraid of being seen as "siding with the terrorists." It has nothing to do with Feingold.

If Democrats wait until they are sure of succeeding, they will be in the minority until the last vestiges of democracy are swept away.

It would be one thing if the party had a clear message that it was trying to get across and Feingold was muddling it. Absent that, Feingold's action is better than no action. Republicans are having a field day with it only because the Democrats are running away with it.

For pity's sake, is there any reason that any Democratic Senator can't say that the censure resolution deserves a full investigation and hearing as to the underlying charges? Any reason at all?

Bring it to a vote. ASAP.

Haven't seen the Democrats head for the tall grass this fast since the "immediate withdrawal" vote.

Once again, vast majority of senatorial dems, lead and we will follow...

BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE YOU HAVE TO LEAD!!!!!111!!one!

This is what Feingold is doing, though he should have just told them before "Look, I'm going to introduce a censure motion this afternoon, take it or leave it." It's a great political move for Feingold and if the other dems were not fucking idiots it would be a good political move for them too. Instead they shot their own selves in the god damn foot.

HOW THE FUCK DID WE GET STUCK WITH THESE MORONS?!

It's already been labeled "Feingold's Folly."

Heh!

Kevin Drum: Wonker of the Day

Democrats are sprinting away from Feingold's resolution as fast as their legs will carry them. Charles Schumer, who normally can talk for hours and hours if a camera is pointed at him, was uncharacteristically mum. "I have no comment."

So now a vote for censure is not really a "genuine expression of censure?" That makes sense. Oh, wait, no it doesn't.

craigie:

keeping the NSA thing in the news is a surefire way to help the Republicans in the midterms. I like Feingold in a lot of ways...but as a politican...he's a moron. When will people figure out that the NSA thing helps Bush?

I actually would prefer to see the Republicans bloodied in the midterms. They've certainly become complacent and corrupt enough. However, the sheer incompetence that Democrats have shown in the last couple elections makes me wonder whether they wouldn't be even more inept than the current government if they were in power.

Abramoff, Abramoff, Abramoff, Abramoff....if I was running the party ... Congress/lobbyist corruption would be the centerpiece of my campaign....

"If Democrats wait until they are sure of succeeding, they will be in the minority until the last vestiges of democracy are swept away."

I thought we have been living under a fascist police state since 2001??

Feingold just set off a stink bomb within his own party.

Makes me wonder if somehow Karl Rove was somehow orchestrating this.

I have a dream.

The dream is that this kind of thing causes Democrats to say "what the fucking fuck is being done in my name?" and run for office. And so, we may just get a new political generation of Dems who aren't just willing to be GOP-Lite, but who actually are willing to say something.

Maybe.

If not, there's always New Zealand. We've got our passports ready...

Dear Kevin: Feingold's motion has solidified his standing as the one congressional Democrat with the guts to fight a criminal administration on the most significant grounds of all-unconsitutional behavior. This makes him very, very popular with many Democrats, including myself, all of whom will be voting in primaries and giving money come '08.
That strikes me as quite an effective bit of theater for a man thinking of running for president. It will be even more popular when the Beltway cowards squander their big lead and lose seats this November.

Couldn't agree more with MN. For once drop the political correctness and get busy with bashing this administration. It shows backbone. As far as the vote goes, I have no doubt that if all the Democrats rallied and supported this measure that it would send the first strong message for the Midterm. I would love to see a party line vote on this thing. What would that say? Something I believe the republicans wouldn't count on.

According to Busy Busy Busy:
-----
Update: A Timing Note. Commenter markbernstein suggests that Sen. Feinstein's proposed censure resolution against President Clinton should not be held against her because it was offered as an alternative to impeachment. Alas, this was not the case. A completely different censure resolution proposed by House Judiciary Committee Democrats in early December 1998 was, in fact, intended to substitute for impeachment (it was voted down in committee). But the quotes above are from a resolution of impeachment censure Sen. Feinstein attempted to introduce on January February 12, 1999, after President Clinton's impeachment had already ended in acquittal. -----

So Kevin, I think your postscript is not correct, at least so far as Feinstein is concerned.

Everyone wants to know how I feel about Russ Feingold's motion to censure President Bush over the NSA's domestic spying program.

Really? Everyone? Someone's a little full of himself.

And why not vote for it? Bush proudly violated the Constitution, and the most he might gain from this is to possibly crawl back up to a 38% approval rating before dropping even further again after that.

Kevin,
Feinstein's censure resolution, with numerous cosponsors, was introduced after Clinton had been acquitted in the senate.

The Post article you refer to where you say Feingold supposedly didnt bother to tell any of his fellow Democrats doesnt even say that - where exactly did you come up with that? It says none except Harkin are willing to take a stand or comment on it but it doesn't say anywhere in the article Feingold didn't tell anyone about it. In fact, it says:

"Most of us feel at best it's premature," announced Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.).

"Most of us feel..." sure sounds like a consensus as a result of some kind of previous discussion.

The fact that the majority are unwilling to commit to censuring Bush or even make a comment (how utterly spineless) because Dems might lose seats in GOP states and that the GOP is making hay with it in the press...sorry but, *eyeroll.* What a lame ass piss poor excuse. The GOP make hay in the press with *everything* the Dems do. Everything.

The rollover and play dead trick is really old - these dogs need some new tricks.

Yeah, Kevin, I think you're letting the pro-censure Dems off way too easy.

After all, this is a party whose leadership felt the best way for Al Gore to win the election was to take on Joe Lieberman for the sole reason that he'd been Clinton's harshest Democratic critic.

This is, in fact, what separates Democrats from Republicans. We follow beltway wisdom when it comes to playing the politics. But Beltway wisdom is "Democrats are losers," so we always end up losers. Republicans believe they have the power to shape beltway wisdom, so they do insane things like impeaching a popular president in a time of peace and prosperity. And it ends up costing us, and not them, the next Presidential election.

It's time for the Democrats to take a lesson from the Republicans. Start shaping the conventional wisdom instead of following it.

Drum: Just another milquqetoast, tone deaf, sackless coward, of a kind with the entire DLC.

Grow some balls you fuckin' coward.

Why don't people trust Democrats? Because Democrats have -- by following Clinton's playbook without Clinton's personal political charisma, managed to convince the electorate they will say or do ANYTHING to be popular.

When was the last time the Democrats -- or even a substantal minority of them -- voted based on their conscience rather than political calculation?

Wonks like Kevin just enhance that trend.

I disliked Clitnon - I hate the bushbots.

Bush makes Clinton look like more than the sleazy southern hack that he is and was -- I won't forgive him for that.

This administration should be impeached! If Clinton endured impeachment for Monica - this bastard should be tried and hung for crimes against the constitution and the republic.

I am looking for new leadership from the dems - so far I see nothing tempting - George Clooney maybe.

I want LEADERSHIP - Feingold at least had the balls to do SOMETHING!

The opposition must seize every opportunity to publicly denounce the Bush Regime. Opposition Democratic politicians included. If the president broke the law, then he should be prosecuted and punished, just like he would presecute and punish a fourteen year old crack dealer.

keeping the NSA thing in the news is a surefire way to help the Republicans in the midterms.

Absolutekly, Nathan.

Because, where I'm from, despite electing Russ Feingold to the Senate, we're all for having our phones tapped without a court order; even after the fact.

And the fact that the President lies to us about it, and tells us these things require a court order? Up here in the upper midwest, we're all with Sully on that… Sometimes they have to lie to us or they couldn't get us to go along with what they want.

Go flog your papers.

NSA ain't helping Bush, not on this planet.

Paddy Whack: It's already been labeled "Feingold's Folly."

Similiarly, Alaska was labelled "Seward's Folly".

Wrong on the poitical theater I think.

First, making the GOP Congress rush to embrace 34% Bush is always good for Dems.

Second, debating Bush's lawbreaking is ALWAYS good for Dems.

Third, The uncertain Dems can take a storng position without endorsing censure.

Here's a funny example - Leahy's sppech endorsing Roberts where he gives every reason in the book why should have opposed Roberts.

Second, politically: I'm not so sure on this score. Anytime a congressman introduces a measure that's certain to fail, it's done for reasons of political theater: to make a point, to get some attention for an issue that's being ignored, or to reach out to some constituency or other. So the relevant question is: is this good political theater?

Like we couldn't tell what you were gonna say the instant our eyeballs saw, "Second..."

All the "political calculation" from guys like you has got us precisely nothing. No, that's wrong -- it got us an Iraq war, a financial industry gift called "bankruptcy reform", a fiasco called "No Child Left Behind", a half-trillion dollar clusterfuck called "Medicare Part D", and most recently, a "Patriot Act" that's here to stay (and about which you and other prominent "liberal" bloggers remain silent).

Quite a record. I can't wait for the "political calculation" that says, gosh, yeah, we have to say yes to bombing Tehran, or we might look like pussies. As if the Dems don't already -- in spades.

Nader was a nutcase megalomaniac, but goddam if he isn't look positively clairvoyant nowadays.

Nathan:

You should read this.

Key paragraph:
"Yesterday--while all this was going on--Gallup reported that the President's approval rating hit 36%, an all time low. Those are close to Nixon levels. And a recent Zogby poll found that 52% of Americans support impeachment if the President is found to have wiretapped American citizens without court approval (which, by the way, he has admitted to doing). If that many Americans are willing to support impeachment, doesn't it stand to reason that even more would be willing to support the far less drastic step of merely declaring, for the record, that it's not okay for the President of the United States to openly defy a criminal statute?"

Anything that even remotely might bring a poor light to King George, Vanquisher of Peace and Prosperity, Hater of Gays, and Lover of Blastocyst-Americans, is Pure Evil.

Nader said we'd be no better with Gore. Um, OK. Dean's firebreathing couldn't even win him the Democratic primary. He had way more money and had been campaigning longer than anyone but did poorly. Ciro Rodriguez was endorsed by the lefty blogosphere and got pummeled. I don't think I'd trust the left bloggers to be my political consultants. But that's me.

KEVIN DRUM: I'll give you two and a half answers: First, substantively: Sure, censure away. God knows Bush deserves it.

You want to dismiss substance in favor of your other 1 1/2-assed answers? That's what neocons and cons of all types do. Please get real.

The Democrats can't do much to oppose Bush. What they can do is state their views. Voting to censure Bush is a strong statement, regardless of whether the resolution is adopted. Democrats should do what they can do, and that is to vote for censure. It's the right thing to do.

On the question of tactics, my sense is that it would be a winner. It underscores (a) this shit is serious and (b) the Republican party will not hold this guy accountable.

I see nothing to lose by pushing censure as hard as possible. By hanging back and nervously twitching their noses, though, the Democrats reinforce the generally held view that they are spineless, weak-kneed sissies who either don't know what they believe or are afraid to stand up and speak out.

This is bad political theater all right -- but only because the DC Dems are cowering in the wings. I'd have trouble naming five Democrats in congress who I could whole-heartedly support just on grounds of character and personal strength, setting policy differences aside. The Republicans are equally as spineless and sycophantic, if not more so, but I don't vote in their primaries.

you said.... people don't trust democrats - because Democrats have -- by following Clinton's playbook without Clinton's personal political charisma, managed to convince the electorate they will say or do ANYTHING to be popular.

BINGO!

I don't automatically love Clinton because I hated Bush... this isn't party politics. Our fucking country is being run by tweedles dum and dee -- parties don't matter. So I have ZERO party loyalty.

Until and unless BOTH parties understand that some of us out here don't forgive sleaze from the right or the left.

The Ports deal is a case in point. What a STUPID move by Dems and Republicans... against DUBAI!?!!?

Now that both parties have conditioned the American Public that Arabs are evil [courtesy of the ruling Jews in media and government]

our representatives on both sides were obligated to demonize one of our more important allies in the Middle East.... Does anybody REALLY think alienated DUBAI was a smart move?

I think it was more an unintended consequence of Jews controling information on the Middle East... even Jews must know this is BAD BAD politics.

When the dollar collapses and oil is traded in Euros instead of Dollars - remember all those Hollywood movies conditioning the grass eaters to hate Muslims - all Muslims.

Even New York reps expected to be shot down in their phoney protestations... but they WEREN'T!

dumb fucks.... all of em... us too...

Israeli first neocons and complicit secular leftist jews have inflicted a FATAL blow on our diplomatic options with this little bit of brainwashing....

All of the above will suffer a backlash when the hand wringing begins.

If Clinton endured impeachment for Monica - this bastard should be tried and hung for crimes against the constitution and the republic.

You must support the death penalty. I know I don't. And I thought I was the GOP-lite person in the comments section...

Feingold's pushing this to warm up to the democratic primaries. I'm liking him less and less.

Nader said we'd be no better with Gore. Um, OK. Dean's firebreathing couldn't even win him the Democratic primary. He had way more money and had been campaigning longer than anyone but did poorly. Ciro Rodriguez was endorsed by the lefty blogosphere and got pummeled. I don't think I'd trust the left bloggers to be my political consultants. But that's me.

Hey, I voted for Gore, and I knew then as I know now that he was clearly the better choice. But I do not believe that the Dems are gonna do as well these next few elections as you seem to think. The national Democrats are hammering the morale of their own core supporters -- and who do you think wins off-year elections?

You must support the death penalty
I suspect the death penalty is only supported for Republicans. After all, they're a bigger threat than the terrorists.

The reason why the Republicans are "having a field day" with Feingold's censure is because this particular scene makes Democrats look more willing to attack the president than willing to attack the Terrorists. Everyone knows that the Bush administration is in a hole, so attacking him makes Democrats look opportunist.

A much more effective strategy would be to make a fuss over the "emergency" behind another 90-billion "emergency" military spending bill. Put Republicans on the defensive and make them embarrass themselves by justifying continued blood and treasure to their constituents. It makes Republicans sound like all they care about is saving the legacy of an feckless President.

I used to give the Dems the benefit of the doubt on things like this -- e.g. perhaps it is for the best to let what might be a single senator's grandstanding pass without comment or without committing political capital -- but increasingly I believe (along with most of those commenting) that the unwillingness to "count coup" on the Reps on the censure issue shows a shocking lack of cojones. I have never called D.C. before, but yesterday I called my 2 Illinois senators' offices yesterdays to urge them to get behind this censure motion! Every additional minute of inaction and waffling only increases the net cynicism in the country, esp. about the Dems. When oh when will we finally have a viable 3rd party ....??

Nathan: I like Feingold in a lot of ways...but as a politican...he's a moron.

Other advice for Dems: roll over and play dead. Keep you lips glued to Bush's butt. Be so cautious that you're afraid to get out of bed in the morning.

In other words, more of the same. Been working well, hasn't it?

Abramoff, Abramoff, Abramoff, Abramoff...

Why pick and choose - do both.

ATTACK!

I'm starting to like Feingold '08 even more. I questioned his chances of success because he's a Senator, Jewish and twice divorced. But what the heck. Throw the dice.

Meanwhile between the Ohio fiasco and this, I'm starting to like my own state's Sen. Schumer less and less. Chuck, grow a pair.

Kevin,

As long as you and your ilk dither from the wings about the lighting, makeup, and props, the spotlight will continue to be dominated by the most abominable political actor ever to tread the boards. Whether from stage left or stage right, someone must finally take the initiative, get out the hook, and drag this cut-rate thespian off the stage.

sg,

I'm not saying that the Dems are going to be winning the next few elections. All I'm saying is that the left or "liberal" bloggers have an extremely poor record. Could be because they are young, but I wouldn't want them running or vocally endorsing a campaign of mine (if I had intentions of running or was a campaign manager).

I've spoken personally to thousands of voters while canvassing--in blue, purple and red states over the last couple years. In no way would I say that this country is as gung-ho liberal as people who post to blogs seem to think. Center-left? Definitely. But not liberal-blog liberal.

I'm of the opinion that the only real "core supporters" of the Democratic Party are African-Americans. Whites have not voted a Dem for president in many, many years. A-A's consistently vote 85-90% Dem. Now that's a core constituency. And there is a reason that they love Clinton (Hispanics, too--they trust Bill Clinton more than the Pope). But that's another story.

gq said "You must support the death penalty. I know I don't. And I thought I was the GOP-lite person in the comments section..."

Clearly a case of two people in agreement talking past each other. You see, gail's word choice was 'hung', implying one of many things: 1) hung out to dry (figurative), 2) hung from someplace (literal but not necessarily fatal), or 3) a well-endowed president (no comment).

Now if gail had said 'hanged' then there might be genuine disagreement as to the severity of punishment due for presidential crimes committed.

:)

I don't know how I feel about the Feingold censure. On the one hand, it's great to see anyone censure Bush. He more than deserves it, and we can chunner away to our hearts' content about Feingold's balls and the empty underwear of all the other Dems. On the other hand, as I watched Cheney smirking and shrugging his lethal way through his "have you no shame" response to the censure, I wished Feingold hadn't handed this gun to the Republicans.

KEVIN DRUM: As I hope everyone knows, the censure motion against Clinton was an attempt to derail the impeachment proceedings, not a genuine expression of censure.

This 'opposition' party will guarentee Republican majorities for decades to come. Maybe they want it that way. I say vote these current batch of Dems out on thier asses, except Fiengold who was the only Dem to vote against the war and against the PATRIOT Act, and get some Independents in there. Anyone would have more guts than these losers.

Boy, Frist wanted to put this up for vote, and the Democrats ran. What's wrong with you Democrats, don't you believe in democracy any more?

Let's get that vote, the people want to know!

ExBrit: I watched Cheney smirking and shrugging his lethal way through his "have you no shame" response to the censure

Dickless has a lower approval rating than the devil himself. He makes Nixon and Kerry look positively charismatic.

I feel the need to remind some people here that MoveOn.org took its name from its original statement of purpose, which was to lobby Congress to "censure the president and move on." Republican shills that they are.

Feingold's censure proposal is entirely consistent with every other principled move the man has made. For goodness sake, he doesn't do this for political reasons, he does this because it is the right thing to do. When we start getting more democrats to do the right thing, we'll start winning.

I doubt Feingold will run for president but I think he will make a stellar attorney general.

Kevin, with all due respect, I can't help but feeling you're missing the point.

When Democrats are "muddled" and in "disarray," the answer is a principled stand that is at once substantive, clearly understandable, and demands redress of grievances.

Theater? The substantive, principled insistence that Bush be accountable before the law IS ONE AND THE SAME with political theater. If you didn't catch how clumsily and ineptly Frist and Reid jumped in and got in the way of Russ to limit his impact, get underfoot, and delay the moment, you weren't paying attention.

ALSO, reconsider your rather off-base (erroneous) comment that
Feingold, as I hope we also remember, was the only Democratic senator to side with Republicans and refuse to vote for dismissal of the impeachment charges. So let's keep the holier-than-thou stuff down to a dull rumble, shall we?

Feingold stood for the due process, Constitutional process, balance of powers, Congressional oversight -- in both cases.

By what possible measure is he hypocritical or "holier-than-thou"?

All he did was rightly hear the evidence and vote down a transparently insufficient case against Clinton.

Further, if Clinton deserved censure, then so be it. There's no 'holier-than-thou' contradiction here. Feingold's political theater is substantive, and will shame his colleagues even if nothing is done. It may well ignite a debate or push events towards critical mass -- and lead to impeachment.

I agree with the commenter above, who pointed out the Dems act like they are more ready to attack President Bush than attack terrorists.

What good would impeachment do other than distract everyone from the work that needs doing? If the Dems take back the house and the senate I hope to God they don't engage in this nonsense. It was dumb when the Republicans impeached Clinton. It drove Clinton's numbers into the stratosphere. It was a waste of time and the whole country knew it. I hope the Dems don't fall into the same trap.

The inability of democrats to discern the difference between domestic and foreign is understandable. Their insistence that government must blind itself to the obvious they way they did before 9/11 is a real good reason never again to let democrats drive.

In twenty or thirty years environmental change is going to radicalize many college students. Your granddaughter is going to disappear. You will think it is because she is a member of Greenpeace (declared a terrorist organization in 2020). As you sit in the lobby of the local federal building, taking your turn, day after day with your son and daughter-in-law, the months passing, trying to wrestle some word about her whereabouts (Guantanimo?), you will think about our Senators today and the responsibility they held to their office.

Your granddaughter is going to disappear.
Ohhh, scare tactics. I like those, please go on.

Wrong about the "derail" thing, Kevin. Check out busybusybusy.com for the real facts. DiFi introduced a censure resolution AFTER impeachment had been defeated.

Ohhh, scare tactics. I like those, please go on.

Here's one of my all time favorites: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Hey, is it too late to get a censure proposition on the California ballot? That's the one and only proposition I would vote for.

The Dubai port deal provided an opportunity for Republicans to "distance" themselves from the President.

Feingold's censure resolution has forced those same Republicans to climb back in bed with the 34% approval commander-in-chief.

The idea that the Republicans are enjoying all this discussion about the NSA wiretapping reminds me of those silly news articles about how bombing the Taliban while they were holed up at Tora Bora was actually hardening their resolve.

Feingold's censure motion is to NSAgate what the
Rather memo was to AWOLgate.

Challenge of the Day-
To those who disagree with Senator Feingold's censure motion - Defend Bush's warrantless wiretap program without mentioning the words "al qaida" or "terrorists". Since the constitution and FISA do not make exceptions for these groups, they should not be allowed to be part of the argument.

gq -- Thanks for the lengthy reply!

I'm not saying that the Dems are going to be winning the next few elections. All I'm saying is that the left or "liberal" bloggers have an extremely poor record. Could be because they are young, but I wouldn't want them running or vocally endorsing a campaign of mine (if I had intentions of running or was a campaign manager).

Very good points, and impossible to disagree with. Political tactics aside, I note that many of them were pretty gung-ho about charging into Iraq -- though your set of "liberal bloggers" may not be identical to mine.

I think the observation about blogger age is spot-on. In particular, most or all of them seem to have zero life experience beyond a carefully arranged college prep-->college-->internship vector. True, Kos (whose blog I can't stand) did a stint in the army. But "cloistered" doesn't begin to describe many others...

I've spoken personally to thousands of voters while canvassing--in blue, purple and red states over the last couple years. In no way would I say that this country is as gung-ho liberal as people who post to blogs seem to think. Center-left? Definitely. But not liberal-blog liberal.

I'll go along with that. But I don't think ideology is nearly as important as perceived character, and in that arena, most Americans gravitate toward a guy who knows what he believes in and isn't afraid to talk about it.

In this case, what would real, tangible effects would censure have? None, that I can think of. Hell, it wouldn't even pass. But I don't think the real dangers that this administration is bringing can be denied, and if the Dems can't even try to state their dismay, if they gotta run to their focus groups to see how it plays -- why the hell should anyone trust them to actually govern?!?!

I'm of the opinion that the only real "core supporters" of the Democratic Party are African-Americans. Whites have not voted a Dem for president in many, many years. A-A's consistently vote 85-90% Dem. Now that's a core constituency. And there is a reason that they love Clinton (Hispanics, too--they trust Bill Clinton more than the Pope). But that's another story.

Well, I dunno. Fortuitously, E.J. Dionne has another breakdown of voting habits today. His take jibes with mine, that the parties are more regional entities than anything else.

Thanks again for the reply!

"I agree with the commenter above, who pointed out the Dems act like they are more ready to attack President Bush than attack terrorists."

That's just utter bullshit. I don't see the problem with wanting us to fight terrorism with every legal method at our disposal and objecting/attacking those who want to spy on us by illegal means. We still want to fight terrorism but we also want to protect those civil liberties & the rights to privacy that makes being an American mean something. Freedoms taken away by terror or freedoms taken away by our government to protect us from terror are still freedoms taken away. Democrats & Republicans should all be more vocal in calling this administration out on the carpet. It should not be a partisan issue, it should be an issue of patriotism and preserving what it means to be an American.
And for anyone who cares, Tom Harkin came forward to co-sponser the censure motion.

This clip from The Daily Show pretty much sums up the "strategery" of Beltway Insiders and wannabe's like Kevin:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Hackett-3-14-06.wmv

Plus, its damn funny.

BigRiver, Bush and his administration are part of the terrorists!

Two thousand American service personnel died who didn't have to die because they started a war they didn't have to.

They've repeatedly tried to keep the American populace in a state of terror to achieve their political goals. The color alerts always came before elections, remember?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I've cited the line from A Man for All Seasons every year since 9/11. When we abandon our laws to get the enemy, we in effect become what we are pursuing.

The censure motion is on target to bring into public debate for the first time, Bush's violations of the law. It should be supported by by all Democrats and responsible Republicans.

Alex:Meanwhile between the Ohio fiasco and this, I'm starting to like my own state's Sen. Schumer less and less. Chuck, grow a pair.

i agree, last night i saw Hackett on The Daily Show and thought to myself, "they refused to fund this guy!?" i'm writing Chuckie a letter today.

Nathan - sorry, but believing something is true does not make it true.

You disagree that the Dems appear weak on terror. And you probably think that is unfair. But that doesn'[t change the reality of how the Dems are perceived.

Kevin's reaction demonstrates why moderates have no place in the leadership of political affairs or movements. The only real political function a moderate has is to tip the balance one way or the other once the heavy lifting and risk taking has been done by others. Because they feel strongly about very little, moderates tend to be pragmatic and political about matters of priciple. Once it became dominated by moderates, the Democratic party lost direction and ceased to have value to the country. Still under the influence of moderates, the party has not rediscovered its way. But Kevin and other moderates will one day have a useful purpose. Once the way is found they can help the movement be cautious and avoid the errors of exhuberance. Until that time they should be tolerated, not heard.

Jayarbee nails it again.

"KEVIN DRUM: I'll give you two and a half answers: First, substantively: Sure, censure away. God knows Bush deserves it.

This is the only answer that matters. Your other 1 1/2 answers are based on bullshit."

For heaven's sake, political theater or not, Feingold is finally doing the right thing, just as Jack Murtha finally did the right thing and Democrats had to backtrack and support him after initially turning up their noses at what he had to say.

Democrats should get behind Feingold on this one, and if it's even remotely possible to run him for President, should do so forthwith.

Kevins gets a major smackdown from Glenn Greenwald Ouch! Kevin, are you going to respond?

There's a term in hockey for players who take cheap shots rather than lead by example of playing hard: gutless pukes. I rarely use that kind of language, but this craven, dishonest display has pushed me over the edge.

Kevin, you and every one of the spineless Dems who'd rather avoid the tiniest speck of "political damage" (i.e., criticism from rightist enablers of our new system of elected monarchy) than stand up and fight for the Constitution: you are gutless pukes.

I'd like to add to what Glenn Greenwald says in the post linked above.

Suppose the Democrats do lose. Suppose they lose on a party-line vote, 55-45. That will have been an important, even crucial, reaffirmation of the Party's belief in the rule of law. In proceeding to that vote, it will spark important debate in the country about whether the President may violate the laws.

But, of course, this requires that Democrats actually take a stand. The will gain immeasurably. If they do not, their loss will also be immeasurable.

Nell... Those are some tough words!
Spot on. Thank you.

Kevin is nothing if not consistant.
I'd sure hate for him to have my back in a fight.

...

Way to go HARKIN!!

....

Greenwald bitchslaps the King of the Moderate Handwringing Capitulators but good.

And it couldn't happen to a more deserving motherfucking asshole.

Note to all Vichy Dems:

Stop thinking like politicians for once and start thinking like AMERICANS!

Tom Harkin has signed on to Feingold's resolution as a co-sponsor, bringing the total number of co-sponsors to..... uh...... well.... ummmm...... uh.... ONE!

One, folks! Just one!

Can you feel the groundswell, Dems?

Drum gets brutally pwned by Glenn Greenwald.

Hey, why is it again that Washington Monthly, a self-identified progressive magazine, has a non-progressive moderate as their frontispiece blogger?

Fire Drum, hire Greenwald. Do it for Jeebus.

PWNED

Question for Kevin, Vichy democrats, etc, on this issue -

Why does it simply not matter that:

a. Bush broke the law, and should be held accountable?
b. The unitary executive theory this rests on - even if "legally allowed", which it is not, but the RepCons might change the law to allow it - is fundamentally destructive to the system of checks and balances?

Anybody?

And yes, Glenn gives Kevin a much needed corrective on this.

Also, from a few days ago, Anonymous Liberal, on the same site, has a very good post on the six reasons why vocally opposing this whole NSA spying thing is the right thing, AND good politics.

Kevin:

We should only fight the battles we stand a chance of winning???? WTF is an "opposition party" for, particularly in this age of Republican hegemony (and lawlessness)????

Cheers,

That is it. I refuse to read this site any longer. Kevin's explication de politics is so mind bogglingly stupid and craven that it scarcely deserves to be noted, let alone fisked. But I'll draw everyone's attention to glenn greenwald's masterful takedown: read it and weep.

aimai

Kevin,

I think the Democrats can convince the American people of their fitness to lead by running away from some more battles with Republicans. Could you maybe outline some more battles the Democrats should NOT fight? Maybe some more things they should NOT censure Bush for? Maybe some more principles they should cut?

It might just be possible for the Democrats to avoid any principles whatsoever by the time the next election comes around.

Except Health Care. We all like that, right?

It's about leadership, Kevin.

Perhaps its been said, but my Senator, Levin, as well as others, have used the wiretap investigation to run interference for them as to why they aren't coming forth on the Feingold resolution. But wait, an independent investigation was shot down. What they are refering to is a dog and poney show.

Finally somebody stands up with the stones to face down the majority concerning the Preznit. Clearly Feingold is right to bring it. Theater? Ok. Doesn't all politics involve theatre?

Democrats are blowing a chance to show some spine and gather together all those who agree. That, presumably, would include a whole lot of people who respond to the surveys which say Bush is not trustworthy, and is an unpopular President. It's not just about the Democratic base.

The wiretap scandal as well as others can easily be included in the discussion. And just maybe we will begin to see real oversight and investigations. Well, moreso anyway.

This is the kind of wimpy and illogical conventional wisdom that led to the debacles in '02 and '04. Dems afraid to question or stand up for the truth because they're afraid of being attacked by the illogical arguments of the right, arguments that characterize the Dems as weak. How the hell can standing up for the Constitution and holding an imbecile accountable for breaking the law be seen as anything but patriotic and strong?

Finally someone is standing up to the punk and the wimpy Dems don't have the brains or the guts to back him up.

Instead of running away, the Dems ought to be telling Feingold "we've got your back".

Any Dem with presidential ambitions will find this wimpiness come back to haunt them. Like Biden and Clinton for instance.

I'm not sure why people haven't figured it out quite yet:

While Russ Feingold cares about what you think, at the end of the day, Russ is gonna do what he thinks is right.

There were people who loved him (and people who didn't) when he voted against the Patriot Act back in 2001, when that was a VERY tough thing to do polilically.

There were people who were very upset with him (including many readers here) when he voted in favor of John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination. But Russ had his reasons, he told us what they were. And you gotta respect a guy who votes against "his base" when he thinks its the right thing to do, and stands up and tells you so.

So all of the discussion of 'political theatre' and 'smart/dumb tactics', while interesting, is beside the point. Russ thinks that censure, as opposed to impeachment or nothing, is the right thing to do. So that's what he's gonna do.

And I respect the hell out of him for it.

Hey! Looky that! Bigwig Glenn Greenwald has caught on to See-No-Evil Drum's cowardly Chaimberlin-style appeasement of the republicans.

this kind of nonsense is a good reason to avoid publications such as Washington Monthly

"...the only causes worth fighting for were the lost causes."
- Jefferson Smith, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

"Oh, you only fight the fights you can win? You fight the fights that need fighting!"
- A.J. MacInerney, The American President

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group -- led by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton -- is designed to focus "fresh eyes" on the war debate from people who "love their country more than their party," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, during a Capitol Hill news conference.

Obviously, a group which would never include Pat Roberts or Bill Frist who've both done all that they could to obstruct any critical review of the war or this administration's so-called "GWOT" (aka, George's Waste of Time).

Bush is violating the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, dammit! What mode are we in: IOKIYAR 24 x 7 ?

Kevin,

Sorry, but you are pwn3d!

Their insistence that government must blind itself to the obvious they way they did before 9/11 is a real good reason never again to let democrats drive.

And Bush was told that al Qaida was going to use planest to attack us and did nothing.

Your point?

Spineless, brainless and useless...

That was the Duke of Wales, referring to Sir Percy Blakeney, aka, the Scarlet Pimpernel.

Now it has become the fitting epitaph for Kevin Drum.

Goodbye and good riddance, Mr. Drum.

The senators in favor of that censure resolution were trying to do themselves a favor, to give themselves a chance to be on record as deploring Clinton's behavior without actually doing anything about it. Which is why the Republicans voted it down.

If I were Feingold, I would introduce a measure to censure other Democrats for being spineless wusses.

I would also change party affilliation. Immediately.

Wow, Kevin. I've been reading you since the Calpundit days, and I don't think I've ever disagreed with you more. Not a very good post at all. Please think about this a little more. Do you really think we should just let executive lawbreaking go on without any attempt at official action? For political reasons? Are you really saying we shouldn't even try? Because it looks bad?

I have to tell you, Kevin, that the reason my two Democratic Senators look muddled and stupid is that, as far as I can tell, they both _are_ muddled and stupid. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are the next best thing to electing a couple of store mannequins to the Senate--at least mannequins wouldn't talk.

The Democrats got brutally hosed on the Senate Intelligence vote, and they do need to react to that, loudly. A censure resolution seems like an appropriate response. To make matters worse, dems like Feinstein who want to wait to learn more about the program are clearly being foolish -- they lost. There's not going to be any serious investigation, and if they expect the silly briefings that were agreed upon to be of any value, then they clearly don't realize just how screwed they were on that vote.

Burn.

People like Kevin -- who believe that Democrats must "prove" to the country that they can be strong -- should most understand the value in having Democrats take a stand regardless of whether they ultimately prevail. Strong and resolute people fight. Weak and spineless people run away from fights -- or fight only when their victory is guaranteed in advance. The Democrats have been running away from fights for five years now based on the Kevin Drum theory that fights are only worth fighting if you know in advance that you will win. It is beyond irrational to think that the Democrats are going to look strong by simply crawling away meekly and allowing George Bush to break the law.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/stirring-defense-of-indecision-and.html

Kevin,
Fight only if you can win?
What kind of BS is that?
If we wait for something we can win before we fight these people we will end up comrades.
Step away from the kool aid.

Kevin-

Sometimes you do a thing simply because it is the right thing to do, not because it's likely to succeed or because it makes you popular. Bush broke the law and violated his oath of office. There is no neutral ground in this, you either object to it or you acquiesce.

In introducing the censure motion, Feingold demonstrated integrity; the last I knew, the problem with our politics was the dearth of integrity, not its surfeit. . In failing to support his motion, the craven Senate Democrats demonstrated once more why they are the minority party; when it push comes to shove, they are more concerned with protecting themselves than defending the country. Three years ago, they refused to vote against the invasion of Iraq because for the same reason, consequently, effective opposition to the war on the part of Congressional Democrats (with the exception of Feingold) has been blunted.

Instead of standing up in support of the censure of this president, being counted and taking their lumps for it, they folded yet again. Getting the Republican controlled Senate to censure a Republican president may have been a lost cause, but it would have been better had this battle not been lost without a fight.

Well, Drum, at least you nicely set Greenwald up for his on-target riposte.

Also, jesus christ on a diving board, you have attracted the fucking trolls with this comment! Maybe in the future you'll think again before parroting Karl Rove's talking points?

FYI: Speaking of courage and spine - go see Andrew Sullivan's blog today. He's got a link to a petition. If you sign this petition, you are saying that you support free expression, you support the Manifesto of 12, and you recognize that this clash is of democrats versus theocrats.

You also are saying that you are not afraid of islamic terrorist death-threats intended to silence free expression. Sign it. We are all combatants in this war of ideas. Put your name on the death list as I have, and show the theocrats that you are not afraid of them.

Kevin, you've just jumped the shark. Bye.

Kevin, how come no trackback for Greenwald's screed? And aren't you going to respond? Your reputation's at stake, man! Stand up for yourself, or be further accused of sniveling hand-wringing and equivocation.

I wonder what possessed Feingold to sandbag other Democrats, and then turn around and hand the Republicans a clip they can all use in their re-election campaign commercials?

I mean, if he was standing on principle and I assume he was, since he had the balls to vote against the Patriot Act, he still coulda planned it a lot better.

Kevin,
As usual, you are one step behind.

Keep up the good work!

gutless..no maybe chicken..no just trying to be in the game not really caring if you win the game. That is where Kevin, Hillary and Leberman are at.

So Kevin got it wrong...what else is new?

Ditto. Shark sucessfully jumped. Off my bookmarks.

Maybe Lieberman has a staffer spot for ya Drum. You and the Bullshit Moose like peas in an inane and irrelvant pod.

Drum: Winner of the Milquetoast Irrelevant Clown award. Congrats big guy, you earned it.

Pew has Bush approval at 33% now--but God forbid, don't censure this wildly popular president for shamelessly violating the Constitution.

I predict a big lose in 2006 for Dems. People will stay away from the polls because there are absolutley no Dems worth voting for. And then who knows how creepy it will get.

Should we start hoarding food?

Jeebus people, relax. I agree with much of Greenwald's criticism, but chill out. Kevin is the man. Plenty progressive on social issues and consevative on fiscal issues: just what all Dems should be. He has a unique business-wise take on things that should be heard. I am sure Kevin will respong to Greenwald, and I am sure I will be satisfied with his honesty and insight. Maybe we won't agree, but...

[K]eeping the NSA thing in the news is a surefire way to help the Republicans in the midterms. I like Feingold in a lot of ways...but as a politican...he's a moron.When will people figure out that the NSA thing helps Bush?
-Nathan

The President is breaking the law. The President is claiming that he has the authority, via a 'signing statement' to interpet the law. The President is claiming that he has the ability to judge for himself which laws are unconstitutional. These are the legal underpinnings of dictatorship. We cannot let this stand: if we do, then it doesn't matter if we win in 2006 because the President will have the recognized authority to disregard Congress. The NSA scandal does not help Bush: he's at 33% in the latest poll, for God's sake. If it was helping him, wouldn't he be seeing a bounce? If we can't take on Bush now, then when? When he's retired, and been replaced by McCain? When he's dead of natural causes? When the statues we'll put up to his memory so the Republicans don't call us traitors are rusted and crumbling? At what point do we act like an opposition? Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if the NSA scandal helps Bush: we have a duty to oppose this seizure of power, we have a duty to our country, and our elected representatives have a duty before God and the Constitution to defend our democracy and the American Revolution. If we abdicate that responsibility, as you are advocating, then we are all cowards. We will burn in the Hell that is reserved for the cowardly, which is quite simply living with the knowledge of our own cowardice. How on earth can you argue that opinion polls outweigh defending our democracy? And you dare call this strength?

Some dare call it cowardice.

I wish I knew how to quit you, Kevin.

(p.s. your check is in the mail.)

"...we have a duty to oppose this seizure of power, we have a duty to our country, and our elected representatives have a duty before God and the Constitution to defend our democracy and the American Revolution."

EXACTLY! Padraig hit the nail on the head. Some things are not matters of political posturing, some things are a matter of duty!

I am so glad Glen Greenwald so took you to the cleaners Kevin. He stated every reason for observing that Senator Feingold, my Senator Kevin, is the leader of the Democrats. A leader of courage, values and direction. You have no idea what a great leader is Kevin. You are truly a committee wanker. Your premise is..."hey can we get consensus on this? No? Well ok then. Next item..." Find a spine please Kevin.

"More to the point - if Dems can't agree to criticize a president who is at 34%, then what purpose do they serve?"

Well, they can get his approval back up over 50% if they really get behind Feingold.

The NSA story is a loser for Democrats. It reminds everyone that Clinton tried to fight terrorism (Militant Islam) as if it were the Mafia for 8 years and we ended up with 9/11.

Anyone who really wants a thought provoking treatise on the 20th century and its pathology should read Robert Conquest's "Reflections on a Ravaged Century." The eerie thing about it is to keep Daniel Pipes' analogy of the terrorists, as one more utopian totaliatarian ideology, in mind. Pipes describes them as educated young men who are not really devout Muslims but who are using Islam as Hitler used Teutonic mythology and Marx used distorted history of Germany to justify a pure power-seeking ideology. If you accept the Pipes theory, the Conquest book expands that and really shows how similar they are to the Bolsheviks and Nazi storm troopers.

Conquest points out that the Nazis got their first support from students. The Bolsheviks were not workers or peasants. They were theorists. Mohammed Atta was an engineering student.

Feingold's attempt is irrelevant but shows how far he is from reality. I fear he has lots of company.

Mike K: It reminds everyone that Clinton tried to fight terrorism (Militant Islam) as if it were the Mafia for 8 years and we ended up with 9/11.

Which reminds everyone what a persistent liar conservative lemmings like Mike K are.

Harkin has also signed on to Feingold's censure.

I guess he's divorced from reality also.

Or, could it be that Mike K is?

Well, we all know the answer to the last question is a resounding "in spades".

Why the heck should Feingold consult any other Dems on this issue?

The genetic eunuchs that comprise the current Dem line-up in D.C. are scared of their own shadow.

Telling them that the censure action was going to be introduced would have caused physical pain to those people. He did them a favor by going it alone.

Wow. Have I stumbled upon the mirror image of freerepublic. Take a big chill pill people.

Wow. With friends like you, who needs enemies.
The fact that you can find any justification for not supporting Feingold's motion is appalling. I wonder, what was your position on impeaching Clinton for a blow job?

Anyone who isn't appalled by your - and numerous other dems - Rovian approach to this matter simply isn't paying attention.

God save us from liberals like yourself. You've lost touch with reality.