Hearing Set on Censure of Bush: Good or Bad for Dems?

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/politics/25censure.html?ex=1300942800&en=c8077a1aa0634ef8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Senator Sets Hearing on Censure of Bush

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: March 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 24 — The Senate Judiciary Committee has set a hearing for next Friday on the call by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure President Bush for his approval of a program to allow electronic eavesdropping without warrants.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the panel, said he had decided to schedule the session after Mr. Feingold, in a television interview, pressed for hearings on the censure proposal.

Some Republicans have seized on the issue to rally their supporters by arguing that the censure plan is evidence that Democrats would try to take some action against Mr. Bush should they gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.

The issue has also energized some Democrats who contend their party has shied from confronting Mr. Bush. But Mr. Feingold's Democratic colleagues have been cautious about endorsing the plan.

So they must think its good for them.

I think that the hearing is a sham, set up by BushCo, to put egg on Russ' face when no democrats support him in his cause.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=756956&mesg_id=756956

I'll let the political chips fall where they may.

for the sake of the nation and the Constitution, it needs to be done. How on earth can we possibly be an example for democracy around the planet when we trash it here at home?

record. History will judge.

in the Congress, Bush stands a snowball's chance in Hell of being vindicated. Having said that, it is for the sake of the Constitution and any future democratic government with real checks and balances that this needs to be done. I would say the same thing if a Democratic President had abused his/her power, put them self above the law thereby destroying the very freedoms that so many of our ancestors fought and died for.

you are right on!!

This vote is for history and posterity.

The world is watching.

It will not pass, I know, because this WAR Criminal could rape little boys in public, and the repukes would still try to excuse it, so I KNOW it will be defeated BY THE REPUKES.

It will be interesting to see how many Dems join them in this tratorous action.

We will be watching CLOSELY.

Time to stand up for the COUNTRY and CONSTITUTION and JUSTICE and WHAT IS RIGHT.

some bad blood (more).

Spectre would have talked for the bulk of time , all the while ridiculing Feingold. The process would have been controlled by Specter as he was the person who had the floor. It would have been much like debating O'Reilly on his show. He had control of the mike. Although feingold is clearly more intelligent and articulate than Specter, that forum was not a level playing field and it won't be in the hearings either. In past hearings, Specter has been famous for bullying anyone that disagreed with his position. He is "Mister Cover-up" of the Republican Party.

I don't care what it does to either party.

events@c-span.org

possibly be so wrong about a hearing? If it gets some more bush dirty laundry out in the public eye, what can the harm be? Things get worse for us and we say it would be harmful? Give me a break!
I think the time is NOW to pull out all the stops!

let me begin by saying "WAY TO GO RUSS!" :thumbsup:

on and off since smirk-boy plopped his butt in the oval office - we've been waiting for the Dems to "do something" other than apologize or bend over

when news of the warrantless wiretapping hit the "evil" media - which by the way has finally showed some guts (hope it lasts) - alot of us were upset -- and yep -- we were screaming for the Dems to "do something"

we've seen too many Dems stand up and then the next day they apologize and sit down... well Russ has done something, he's not sitting down and he's not apologizing

consider what happened right after Russ introduced the censure resolution -- Frist just about wet his pants to get an immediate vote, Spector got up there and hopped from one side of the fence to the other -- sort of agreeing that illegal warrantless wiretapping needed to be looked at on one side of the fence, and pooh-poohing the need to go as far as a censure from the other side of the fence

so why the call for an immediate vote, why did Spector get up there? Because they are scared. Yeah, it's been spun as just another Dem blowing it -- but in reality the Repugs are scared - they will be running in November without any coattails to grab onto

so what would be the result of a censure -- nada, zippo, nothing - it's a slap on the wrist, bush* can play "poor me" for the press, shrug it off and continue on his way -- it won't stop the illegal wiretapping or anything else he wants to do

With introducing the resolution to censure, it does force Congress to "do something" like at least look like they are doing their job. Whether or not people agree with illegal wiretapping is inmaterial - because they will be watching Congress and how Congress will respond. Is an investigation/debate going to be real or just show?

I hear alot of people say "Hey I've got nothing to hide. They can wiretap me all they want." A guy I work with said it to me a couple of weeks ago - I asked him for his social security number, credit card numbers, and pin numbers. He looked confused - then I said "If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind giving me all that information would you? Say you are on the phone with a help desk or on your computer, and you are ordering something, you give all that information to them - how do you know someone isn't listening in on it?"

He pish-poshed me about it until the other day when the news of the IRS wanting to sell personal information hit the papers -- I shrugged "Hey, you told me you have nothing to hide, so what's the big deal". He's not pish-poshing anymore

onto the VOTE FOR GOP WE WON'T IMPEACH -- what they are really saying is they won't hole bush accountable, they are abdicating their responsibility as THE LEGISLATIVE BODY to act as a check and balance to absolute power. They are saying they are no more of a valid legislative body than a room of crash-test dummies .

if he does not, then the Bush Rightwing Spin Machine will be having all the Stepford Children in the US repeating, "Terrorist Surveillance Program" over and over and over again......

I am venturing a guess that how this hearing goes will play a very large part about how this issue is covered for the foreseeable future.

So hopefully, Feingold has some information that can tip the scales....

their job and properly investigated the issue they have to have the goods on them.

What they really need, however, is a special prosecutor. The Dems need to push for that as a consequence of Congress neglecting to provide constitutionally-mandated oversight. What this can't be is a summary absolution for Junior's illegal warantless wiretapping. The Dems must not take the bait and let the Repubs frame this as being for or against wiretapping; they MUST stay on course and remain consistent in their collective assertion that this was done without a warrant which is AGAINST THE LAW.

being that the pubs control the committee, but you are correct, the dems must frame this as what it is, breaking the law.

and every signing statement he has issue is a written admission that he has placed himself above the law, and the Courts, and Congress.

isn't time he is called on it?

Our elected offials must stay this course, however we can bet money that too many will fold like the house of cards they are. A couple phone calls from the Corporate Sponsers who hold the leash to these DINO's, and adios Censure, and Feingold is left looking like a dolt.

Now before we ask how they could leave Feingold out in the cold, remember that many of them have aspirations of the White House as well. Can't you see Senator Clinton selling Feingold down the river if she can use it to improve her own chances in the Democratic Primary, or better yet, make her look "Electable" to the MSM?

Howard Dean would probably stand behind it, but he doesn't have a vote, so we are left with the same Democratic elected who have betrayed us how many times of late?

However, I can visualize (worse case scenario) the Dems simply not supporting the call for censure and letting it fade away.

Feingold should have lined up support beforehand. What happened instead was flipping on a light switch and watching cockroaches scatter. Although Feingold is correct in his premise for censure (to say the least!), he is powerless standing alone (or with few sponsors).

I hope the Dems at least stay focused on the illegality of the warantless wiretapping. Doing that would be a positive on behalf of the Dems.

BTW, I don't like using words DINO and betrayal in discussing issues like this. There is much we don't know, yet many here at DU assign ulterior motives to Dems when they are really just guessing. Political strategy is tricky with the GOP wrecking machine as opposition, and the object of the game is to get more Dems in Congress than Repubs at this point.

The PATRIOT ACT, 40 Democratic Senators voted for that abomination, we still have the situation where we can be served, and denied access to an attorney. I know the Repugniks have no clue, but the rest of us are probably aware of the Constitution that we are supposedly sworn to protect.

The Sixth Amendment calls for among other things, rights to access your Attorney.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569008_8/Constitution_of_the_United_States.html

Forty Senators voted to ignore the sixth amendment, and keep the rights of the citizens of this nation, at bay for Political reasons. What did WE gain. What position does this give us? What did we gain by wiping our collective asses with the sixth amendment. The only thing that gives me something to smile about, is if I do violate the gag order, and am arrested, I would get the laugh of watching the Feds read my rights, including the right to contact an attorney, for the crime of contacting an attorney. However how many of our citizens know that the Bill of Rights trumps any law put forth by Congress? How many people know their rights, and would obey the order out of fear?

I don't know a great number of words to describe the action by those 95 Senators, 40 of whom were Democrats, other than Betrayal, or words like it. http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=Betrayal http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Betrayal You can take your pick of the synonyms that you like, however they will mean much the same. We were betrayed by our elected leaders, those 40 Senators who stood with Harry Reid and celebrated in December the "Killing of the Patriot Act" voted as a block, to approve that same abomination of a law.

Can't argue with your reasoning, mam.

Then the NSA scandal will appear as being a vindication of the Republicans and George Bush....and unfortunately, I think we will lose that vote.

This will happen very quickly and will all be history by the time of the congressional 2006 vote.

Plus it further splits the Dems, making them look unorganized and undependable in reference to providing the checks and balances.

I think leaving the NSA matter out there to fester and to be used as an election issue would have possibly served us better.

The thing about a "Censure" is that it is just a rebuke.....and even if it were to occur (which it won't), it will just mean that Bush got a small public spanking.

The administration still maintains they are doing this legally. What is needed is an independent (special) prosecutor to make that determination. Once it has been established unequivocally this is illegal - and it is - I think Dems could safely move beyond censure to impeachment.

there is no need since the administration has admitted that several times. The only one I could find quickly is Gonzales as follows.

"Here is Alberto Gonzales making this precise admission at his December 19, 2005 press briefing with Gen. Hayden:

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires."

The out they keep looking for is the "unless otherwise authorized by statue or by Congress". And in that they have trouble. Except of course for the Nixon Act -- "if the president does it it is not illegal.

To me the Censure Motion is fairly straightforward. The President did not apply for warrants as required by FISA. He admits this and says he will keep on doing so.

Do we need an investigation to see what the scope was of the illegal eavesdropping and what types of information were obtained? Absolutely.

BTW, http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/ is doing a great job of sorting this out.
Do we need an investigation to determine if the President acted illegally. I do not think so. He has confessed -- quite proudly in fact.

Not unlike he talked about WMD. The message to John Q. Public is that it is perfectly legal, and that meme is being repeated over and over again by the GOP leaders. Frist, Boehner, and others ALWAYS preface their discussions of this issue maintaining that it is legal. Although you will find quotes sprinkled here and there admitting what they are doing is "technically" not legal, that's not the impression they are leaving with the American public.

The Dems have done a HORRIBLE job of framing this issue. They should be hammering its illegality, pointing to the quasi-admissions of same. The public has been left with the idea that this issue is about wiretapping terrorists, not the REAL issue - the legality of it. The Dems have only themselves to blame for that misconception. And that is precisely why the censure attempt will fall flat. Worse, they have fallen into the trap of the GOP's claim that Dems are weak on national security.

This has been bungled.

a softball. One of the GOP lines is don't you want us to listen in on Al Qaeda? This one is too easy. The FBI asked the NSA to stop sending them tips from this wiretapping. The FBI was wasting thousands of man hours chasing calls that had nothing to do with anything. They were not listening to Al Qaeda. They have been listening to Aunt Martha.

Why can't the Dems just get it. This is easy.
A: It's illegal and the administration admits it.
B: It's not working. Al Qaeda is not using the phones. Americans are.
C: It's not what it seems. Who and what are they really listening to/for?

And bottom line, it is what defines this administration, illegal, incompetent, and not what it appears.

And once again, the Dems let the GOP frame the issue and then the Dems run away.

And you're right about the censure is falling flat. The Dems have run so far away from this one, it's a wonder that they are even returning to DC.

Maybe this time they are getting real heat from those of us outside the beltway. I know Senator Kohl's staffers are at least sounded embarrassed when I call them on this. And Kennedy's guy actually said on Friday that "sometimes the Senate has to consider other factors besides the wishes of their constituents". And I hadn't even brought that up.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

but is the timming right on the hearing? first of all we don't have the votes(reason specter called hearing). secondly, it will rally their troops. third, i don't see the dems being united on this, especially those up for election. fourth, it will somehow be spun into our being weak on terror, and hurt us in the mid-term elections. personally i'm so sick of our congress people caving on just about every issue, that i wish they would show some spine and go forward with censure, and whatever happens, happens.

have is that the Dems have still not found their spines except for a few exceptions.

More specifically on your points,
first, why did Specter call the hearing? I'm guessing he may actually have a problem with the WH breaking the law. On the illegal NSA wiretaps, Specter is on record as follows.

"They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it," Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think what is going on now without congressional intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong."

Second in terms of rallying the GOP troops, the administration has gone to extremes to keep this out of hearings. They pulled out all the stops to get the Senate Intelligence Committee to table hearings on this after Rockefeller had the votes.

And fourth spinning it into the Dems being weak on terror is yet another problem with the Dems letting the GOP frame the issue. The fact is that NSA spying on Americans makes us weaker on terror. The FBI asked the NSA to stop sending them tips from this program because it costs the FBI thousands of hours of investigations that go nowhere.

The Dems need to start pounding the table and the WH will run. It's illegal, it doesn't work, and it's spying on Americans for info for Karl Rove.

that is my main concern. we have yet to show them that when things get tough, or we are in the right, we will fight them on it tooth and nail. i like your idea of pounding the table, maybe our leaders should try it.

Republican districts was based on the premise that the Repub base would stay home. The Repubs have been frantically looking fro a rallying cry to get them to the polls. This may be it. The Limballs of the world will work this to the hilt and betray Bush as the "put-upon wartime President".

Even if the Dems vote for it, they don't have enough votes to win. Once again they will look weak.

Most people don't watch C-span. This will be filtered through the different News Media and we all know how that works.

We need to get our Dems in there in the '06 elections and then carry out the many investigations that are necessary, when OUR people are in charge.

This is my biggest fear.

and bad for those unwilling to go on the record about it.

Either they support the president assuming powers he does not have or they support congressional powers of oversight. That's how simple it is!

What makes this a political hot potato is the input of strategists who want democrats to avoid taking strong stances opposing the president on national security. That's a *political* notion WE shouldn't even entertain (much less encourage) because it distracts from the issue, which is: THE PRESIDENT IS SPYING ON US WITHOUT OVERSIGHT It's not our job to support their friggin' strategies or to stand up and cheer as they back the eff away from a fight for strategic reasons. Our job is to urge our electeds to our defense.

but if fewer of our electeds are reelected because of it, we are shooting ourselves in the foot down the road. I know many DUers do not care about cutting of their nose to spite their face, but I am not one of them.

I am not sure if the censure issue is going to bring out the GOP vote in 06, but I do not blame people for considering it.

Are you saying it's okay for the president to spy on Americans without oversight? Because voters aren't thrilled at the prospect no matter what the pundits and strategists and scaredy cats say.

I am saying that Americans don't care about this issue as much as they should, Americans defend Bush more than they should, and Republicans like the idea of this censure because
1. it isn't going to fly
2. it might even rally their base for 06.

As much as it would be nice to give Bush a public spanking (censure), I am more interested in defeating republicans in 06. *IF* this censure issue is going to make it harder to defeat republicans in 06, I am not for it.

I get it.

The censure issue should be their sword, the thing they hold over republicans running in the mid-terms. Something on the order of, "So-and-so voted against censure because he thinks it's OKAY for the president to surveil Americans.." If they'd run toward it, it could've been a make or break. That censure vote could've been symbolic, an indictment against any opposition party member who voted nay. The hesitation and hiding made them look like weenies so now it's not about the act justifying censure, it's about THEM. Even the president called them out. He said, (paraphrasing) "...if that's what they think then they should..." I can't finish the rest, it's too humiliating.

IMO, if there's a loss it'll be a bad thing only because they didn't...wait for it...take ownership. :) (I learned that from our president during his first term.) A majority vote against censure means the republican party will stand behind their president even when he's WRONG, even when he abuses the civil liberties of their constituents. How's that a winning position?? Answer: when the democrats don't step up and 'frame' the issue properly and when they agree not to take a strong stance on something they're accused of not being strong on.

Why should I vote for anyone who would ask me to let a bully punch me in the face over and over so they can win? I guess I could cross my fingers real tight and hope they think what he's doing is wrong because they surely don't walk the talk. People vote for strength.

I'm a VOTER, not a wisher. I've donated, written, called, walked and voted and asking me now to just accept the unacceptable is insulting. It's the very opposite of leadership, that's what it is. So, what happens to the NSA spying thing - DeWine gets to run on legislation backdating approval...while the democrats cringe and treat the issue like a hot potato?

.

are daring dems to try it.

Do you, as a US Senator, so concerned and covetous of your little corner of power in the US Senate stand up for law and the Constitution or do you stand down like a whimpering coward. Do you support holding the President accountable for laws broken or do you prefer to quietly sweep it under the rug? This is a time for the Senators to look themselves in the mirror. What do they see? A courageous American or a coward?

Watergate didn't simply erupt fully developed one day. It developed over a period of time, with naysayers all along the way, at every step, saying "stop this, it's not going to work."

it needs to get rolling and now is as good a time as any. maybe develop a groundswell demanding an investigation.

It's damned hard to get any attention on the GOP's scandalitos, no matter how horrible they are.

Feingold has gotten the public's attention on perhaps the worst one.

Feingold's clear, simple statement should be a rallying cry.

These monsters control the entire government and the media. Every fucking thing they do is a trap.

But we need to start making a record that we can use to prove their abuse of power, and whatever they do to Feingold now will be part of that record.

Let's rally behind this true patriot.

Censure: Yes!

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

keep up the good work rove :toast:

:evilgrin:

peace

at the very least

peace

(on edit: BTW: i was being facetious in the OP)

I mistook your post for one of the many that really are saying that speaking up is a trap.

I feel like we're psyching ourselves out to play it that way.
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

of our leaders are psyched out.

even tho the REPUKES will have enough votes to quash it, then it could be bad for THESE Dems in the short term - because people like me will see how spineless and thoroughly without principles they are, and will STAY HOME rather than vote for them.

Mark my words, we will NEVER vote for a repuke.

But it may be time for a NEW PARTY.

This election will be a big test for the Democratic Party, and to see if for the first time in my life, instead of settling for less, and going along to get along, and have them count on my and countless other votes, see if we switch to "independent" or "no party" or FORM ANOTHER PARTY to ensure that the once great party takes it's place in history along side the WHIGS as a relic of the past.

Fewer Democratic votes for the Republicans to throw out.
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

...is to put the onus on the Republicans that would disregard our laws and Constitution. When the Republicans put partisanship and cult of personality above the laws of our land, then we are in serious trouble. Those that demand the truth and an investigation are on the side of our Constitution and the law and they have nothing to apologize for. Let them choose which side they wish to be on.

that is one way WE can frame this issue.