Feingold Resolution
Polls show about 40% public support for the Feingold censure resolution, when he's the only one out there pushing for it. If there was actual leadership from Democrats, they could make an issue out of this. But they're scared.
The media frame is completely whack. This is not about the "liberal bloggers." It's about Feingold's (1) sincere political beliefs, which never get mentioned in coverage of the resolution; and (2) a strategic gamble that getting out in front of the rest of the party--and, trying to catch up to the public, as Congressman Murtha would say--is his best bet for the 2008 primaries. The rest of the Democratic contenders have to wake up, or we might end up with "the Jewish McGovern," as TMcD once described the junior senator from Wisconsin.
posted by Number Three @ 10:02 AM
13 Comments:
My predictions are rarely on target, but I refuse to let past humiliations stand in the way of my prognostication for today. The Feingold effort, if it proceeds beyond bluster, will be a train wreck blocking the democrats' tracks in 2008. What people want from democrats are novel solutions to our domestic and international entanglements, not finger pointing.
So censure has higher approval ratings than Bush does. Why am I not surprised?
The Dem problem is that they're afraid to take a principled stand that may have short-term negative consequences. So they never get the big benefits that can come from having been right when it was unpopular to be so. They calculate, maybe correctly, that even if you are right, you may not get the credit later. But that opens them to the GOP charge that they're always calculating, and thus, while you may disagree with Bush on every single issue, "at least you know where he stands."
Dems would take one giant step in the right direction if they stopped hoping the press would be nice to them. This makes Dem leaders high school nerds, pathetically longing for the approval of the "popular" kid who turns out to not really be very popular, and who merely keeps the nerd in the posse to be a whipping boy (Em? As Triumph the Dog says, "I keeed!"). This behavior does nothing but reinforce the winning GOP memes of strength and authenticity. The lesson for Dems: the MSM is your enemy. Even if you recognize, intellectually, the positive role in can play, bash it relentlesly, and then speak and act with less caution. Screw the Wash Post. Censure now, censure tomorrow, censure forever!
BTW, couldn't disagree more with Stephanie.
The Dems have plenty of practical solutions and programs, etc. Heck, they've got too many. What they need is a frickin' baseball bat. GOP hegemony today certainly has nothing to do practical solutions. It has to do with how they project the strength and confidence of their values, even if it's turned out to be the empty chest-pounding of a retard cripple (I apologize in advance to FFB's retarded readers--unpoetic license, you know). And as for 2008, you simply cannot equate a long-drawn out BS porno-impeachment of a hypersuccessful and popular president with a mere censure of the incompetent, lawless, and widely loathed W.
Am I going nuts or did TMcD just write the phrase "a retard cripple?" So this guy - a private school frat boy from the south - uses that sort of language and somehow I'm the FFB asshole? Can we have a re-vote, please?
And for the record, TMcD, we didn't keep Emery in the group as the whipping boy. We kept him for the phat outlines he gave us.
Apology accepted.
CL, as you might have noticed, I used the aforementioned colorful language as a metaphorical description of the GOP--a context in which I suspect it is overly mild--rather than as an ad hominem description of any particular person, or, more particularly, someone else posting on a shared weblog comment page. If that offends, your PC sensibilities, well, suck it up.
DK, can you (should you) censure someone for "incompetence" as opposed to "illegality"? The former charge is incredibly broad, and while I agree that it may be better electroal strategy, it seems a bit vague and squishy to me, something that an ornery Congress might apply to lots of executive actions they don't happen to like. It could become a way for Congress to give itself a self-congratulatory fig leaf when a Prez becomes unpopular.
The strength of the wiretap censure is that it focuses on the President's open disobedience of laws passed by Congress, laws backed by repeated expressions of congressional intent, and laws the President has a basic constitutional duty to uphold as "chief executive."
Great jumping Juniper! I hope I never see anyone from Congress wearing a fig leaf.
I saw a poll that about 40-42% of Americans support censure. That figure includes 20% of Republicans, which means it does not include all Dems. Realistically, this isn't enough of a critical mass to get it passed. Should it be pursued on the question of "principle"? I'm with Stephanie on this one -- I think the Democrats should focus on some sort of broader message of "Making Bush and Congress accountable". That means for now they should focus their arguments on Congressional oversight. If a real investigation of the program is undertaken, only then should censure be voted -- don't put the censureship-horse before the investigation-cart.
Don't deny it--you imagined Orin Hatch first.
Ooops. That's the censurship-cart before the investigation-horse....
The problem with going from investigation to censure is that the GOP can prevent there from ever being an investigation, which seems to be what they're doing at the moment. Phase II WMD report, anyone?
Yeah I realize that's true, but that's the point. The election should be about accountability. The Dems should tell the voters they'll hold Bush more accountable, but first they need the facts (on WMDs, FISA side-stepping...) before they can do that, but they can't get the facts as long as the Republicans are in control and obfuscating. Ergo, vote in the Dems to get some real investigations. Don't say exactly what "accountability" means beyond promising that insofar as it is within your power the Congress and public will get more information so they can decide what is appropriate. I think this is also better politics because you're not going to get censure at this point anyway, and in the process of trying you'll just turn off swing voters for appearing too partisan. With a call for accountability on the other hand, you can still get in your whacks with a bat, look good for the base, look moderate and reasonable for the undecided and you keep the opposition from getting big turnout to fend off specific charges. This is what the election is going to be about anyway, so the Dems should begin framing it that way: "If you're happy with how things are going, vote Republican. If you want some changes and accountability, vote Democratic. You get to decide."
Post a Comment
<< Home