Feingold’s shot across the Republicans’ bow

In a surprising Sunday-morning bombshell, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) announced on ABC yesterday that he will introduce a Senate resolution today calling for the censure of President Bush. Oddly enough, when I first heard about Feingold’s proposal, my first question was, “About which scandal?” (We’ve reached a point in which Bush could face censure for so many things…)

In this case, Feingold is focused on the president’s warrantless-search program.

“What the president did by consciously and intentionally violating the Constitution and laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered,” Mr. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said on the ABC News program “This Week.” “Proper accountability is a censuring of the president, saying: ‘Mr. President, acknowledge that you broke the law, return to the law, return to our system of government.’ ”

Mr. Feingold, who has said he will consider a run for the White House in 2008, said he planned to introduce his legislation on Monday. He said his censure proposal was not “a harsh approach, and it’s one that I think should lead to bipartisan support.”

Needless to say, bipartisan support is more than a little unlikely. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who was on the same ABC program, responded with predictable demagoguery.

Frist: George, what was interesting in listening to my good friend, Russ, is that he mentioned protecting the American people only one time, and although you went to politics a little bit later, I think it’s a crazy political move and I think it in part is a political move because here we are, the Republican Party, the leadership in the Congress, supporting the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, who is out there fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and the people who have sworn, have sworn to destroy Western civilization and all the families listening to us. And they’re out now attacking, at least today, through this proposed censure vote, out attacking our Commander in Chief. Doesn’t make sense.

Stephanopoulos: So you’re against it. Are you going to allow it to come up for a vote?

Frist: Well, George, this is the first I’ve heard about it. I really am surprised about it because Russ is just wrong. He is flat wrong. He is dead wrong. And as I was listening to it, I was hoping deep inside that that the leadership in Iran and other people who have the U.S. not in their best interest are not listening because of the terrible signal it sends.

Stephanopoulos: You’re saying that censure resolution weakens America abroad?

Frist: Yes. Well, I think it does because we are right now in a war, in an unprecedented war, where we do have people who really want to take us down and we think back to 9/11 and that war on terror is out there. So the signal that it sends that there is in any way a lack of support for our Commander in Chief, who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that we know is making our homeland safer is wrong.

Got it. Criticizing Bush, or undermining his support by highlighting the president’s legally dubious conduct, is necessarily helpful to America’s enemies. It’s the GOP’s favorite trump card: when they can’t defend Bush’s behavior, they insist it’s borderline treasonous to even raise the question.

Regardless, Feingold’s bold move should make for an interesting political story. Will other Senate Dems co-sponsor the censure resolution? Will the controversy help reignite debate over warrantless searches? How aggressively will the GOP smear machine go after Feingold?

On a related note, ReddHedd seems to have a good idea.

Russ Feingold really stuck his neck out today, and it would be great if he — and every other Senator — knew that we had his back. It’s a gutsy move, not without risk in the polarized environment that is Washington these days and with the hatchet squad that Rove and his ilk generally deploy when their actions are questioned, so you have to hand it to Sen. Feingold for having the guts to raise the censure issue — not just in the privacy of his office or at home, but right there on national television for all the world to hear.

So, what am I asking you to do? Something small by comparison, but if enough of us do this, it could start a little snowball rolling down the hill. By the time it reaches bottom, who knows how big it will have gotten — but I sure like the sound of the word avalanche, so I say we get it going.

Your action steps: call both your Senators first thing in the morning and ask if they support Russ Feingold’s censure proposal. If they don’t, ask what their position is on the issue — and why.

The more people we have calling, the more staffers in the offices start to realize that Feingold struck a political chord with a bunch of us in America. And then the more we continue to call, the more that message starts to sink in…and then some. Plus, it forces Senators to go on the record one way or the other, which is useful information for all of us to have.

I suspect Republicans believe that they can control the discussion by labeling the very idea of censure as unpatriotic. The more lawmakers realize that a sizable number of Americans see official public admonishment as a reasonable response to the president’s behavior, the more Dems can push back against the demagoguery.

Frist did sound like an idiot on Sunday. I’m just surprised that Stephanopoulos allowed him to make such an assnine comment without calling him on it. But I supposed Feingold is not George’s candidate for 2008.

  • When they turned to George Will in the Round table on This Week, it was his opportunity to disagree with Feingold’s censure. The only critism he could make that the NSA spying is all about process, because everybody wants the program to go on, but Will and Feingold both want it under a legal and constitutional framework, which it is not right now.

    So is George Will saying you shouldn’t censure the President for breaking the law? Consider that the only options are to impeach him or let him get away with breaking the law. Because even John Ashcroft thought they were breaking the law.

  • Call your senators and tell them this:
    If the president can ignore the 4th ammendment, he can ignore the 2nd ammendment and come after our guns. We can’t pick and choose what law to obey.
    We should contact the NRA with the same message.
    Think that would attract some attention?

  • “he can ignore the 2nd ammendment and come after our guns.” – BuzzMon

    I’ve thought of it the opposite way. Bush claims that he has the power under Article II to ignore FISA and spy on Americans to protect them because 3000+ Americans died on 9/11. But every year 3000+ Americans die from handguns that were legally owned either by the killer or the victum in the victum’s own home. If the 2nd amendment prevents Bush from taking away those Guns to protect the lives of Americans, doesn’t the 4th amendment prevent Bush from conducting warrantless spying on Americans to “Protect” them.

    The Presidental Oath states that the President will: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Note he is defending the Constitution, because the constitutional form of government is the best balance between defending our rights, our property, our wellfare and our lives. Bush distorts this by claiming any and all power to protect us against the enemies created by our own policies on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

  • I seem to remember during the Clinton Impeachment process that the alternate possibility of a censure was proposed and it was shot down by the Republicans because it is not Constitutionally sanctioned – so I doubt that it would get GOP support in this circumstance when Impeachment isn’t on the table (unfortunately).

  • I was hoping deep inside that that the leadership in Iran and other people who have the U.S. not in their best interest are not listening because of the terrible signal it sends.

    What signal does it send, Sen. Frist? That in a democracy, we in this country have the right to stand up and speak out against our leaders?? Or perhaps the people of Iran will see how that as a government OF the people, we are able to hold our leaders accountable. We sure as heck would be sending the people of Iran a message if we showed them that in a democracy the people don’t have to bend to the iron will of their rulers.

    Secondly, I think this censure should come to the floor for a straight up and down vote. As Mr. Frist has said himself:

    All 100 members of the U.S. Senate will soon decide a basic question of fairness. Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote…It is time to vote. As Senate majority leader, I have tried for more than two years to find common ground with my Democrat colleagues…In other words, I have sought to address Democrats’ grievances while holding true to the core principle of an up-or-down vote.

    So Senator Frist, will you adhere to your principle in this case? Will you allow an up-or-down vote on the censure of the President?

  • Notice that Frist didn’t threaten to get it ruled out of order, like the House Repubs did with the attempt to censure Clinton. Sounds to me like a tacit admission that they know the president broke the law.

  • Lance –
    My suggestion is a “two-fer.”
    First, let the senator know that you want the censure.
    Next, throw them a curve. We know how much influence that the NRA wields. Can it give them a “talking point” to justify moving against the All Powerful Oz of Bushland?
    Can we inject some reality about the Bill of Rights, AND reach the real conservatives?
    No logic in the world will reach the Cult of Bush, but there’s enough doubt in the air to start peeling away some republicans.

  • I don’t have the videotape to make a thorough diagnosis, but from that paragraph that begins “Frist: George, what was interesting in listening to my good friend, Russ, is that he mentioned protecting the American people only one time” I can assert professionally that Bill Frist is a blithering idiot. Which, based on recent experience, might give him an edge in his bid for the Republican nomination.

  • And “the little Marin housewife” (no kidding, 30 years ago, a Very Senior California Democrat used that term with an exasperated tone) my senator Barbara Boxer, comes through with a statement of agreement with Feingold and a willingness to co-sponsor the motion of censure! I sure do love having a Senator I love voting for, may she never retire.

  • Reference:

    Article. II Section. 2 The Constitution of the United States

    Reference:

    http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

    The authorization was passed almost unamimously.

    Senator Feingold’s resolution is a gift to all Republicans running for contested seats in the “red” states. Vote for the resolution and explain, or vote against and risk losing, or at best being bloodied, in the primary.

    I hope this comes to the floor in October

  • Seems the “shot across the Republicans’ bow” is really into the foot? I see now why Democrats are for gun control, self preservation.

  • Democrats have zero chance of enacting gun control. It is _very_ difficult for a voluntarily disarmed populace to persuade others to disarm… At least without utilizing force by proxy.

    Guys, they’re tools. You may need one some day.

  • Comments are closed.