Dems Waiting for Poll Numbers to Rise to 60% in Favor of Censure

Poll: Nearly half of Americans favor censure
But pollster Dick Bennett said Democratic leaders won't publicly back it until at least 60 percent of Americans support it.

This piece is linked in John Dean's article his Law Find website, entiled: An Update on President Bush's NSA Program: The Historical Context, Specter's Recent Bill, and Feingold's Censure Motion

Here are excerpts of the referenced article, link provided below..


By Scott Shepard
WASHINGTON BUREAU
Friday, March 17, 2006

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold's effort to censure President Bush has sent his fellow Democrats scurrying for political safety, but a poll released Thursday suggests nearly half of Americans favor such a move.

A poll by the nonpartisan American Research Group found that 46 percent of Americans support censuring Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans without obtaining court orders, as part of the administration's effort to fight terrorism.

But the pollster, Dick Bennett, said he does not expect the Democratic leadership to come out of the shadows until at least 60 percent of Americans support a censure.

to get to this article above, go to this link below, once there, scroll down till you get to this segement and click on hyperlinked text that i have emphasised in bold text here.. (the link is way too long to post here and widens the page too far)

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060324.html

Feingold's Motion For Censure

While Specter's bill may be the best idea yet as to how to deal with Bush's behavior, the approach that has received the most media attention is Senator Russ Feingold's resolution calling for censure of President Bush. The resolution condemns Bush's actions in authorizing the illegal wiretapping program of Americans as part of his war on terror, and then misleading the country about the existence and legality of the program.

Even though nearly half of Americans favor censure,it too is a long shot. Yet is probably the most damning of the documents before Congress.


edited for clarification

It might affect their cushy vacations.

What they are really saying is they need strong support from more than just the blue states.

could use some work. But thats fine others can read what I posted still.

True Libertarians are very much Pro Bill of Rights, and far less Government Authority powers, especially at the Federal and Executive level.

Southern states on the other hand have a whole different world view, that dates back pre Revolutionary War times when most Southerners were British Loyalists, meaning they liked the Monarchy just fine and still do apparently.

than I have run into before. But thats cool.

as in a toast..........totally agree with you

...and usually support for something won't increase, if you don't work to advocate for the position.

The base is important especially at election time.

I assume that some of the advantages in polls that we see for our side are because of the good job are representatives have been doing. Of course we can debate these tactics, but there are signs of success right now. A failed censure, which of course it will fail as we do not control the Senate, may not do as well as many here in the blogosphere think of increasing our advantage.

The American Research Group poll shows 70% of the Dems, 42% of the Independents, and even 29% of the GOP favoring censure which is just a slap on the wrist but at least it's a start.


Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?
3/15/06 Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 46% 44% 10%
Voters 48% 43% 9%
Republicans (33%) 29% 57% 14%
Democrats (37%) 70% 26% 4%
Independents (30%) 42% 47% 11%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide March 13-15, 2006. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

oh noooo... :scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

Molly Ivins expressed it best for me writing, "I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there"

with at the moment, just three exceptions, Feingold, Boxer, and Harkin. Maybe if Lamont pulls it off in CT, they'll start listening to those of us outside the beltway -- nah.

I'm almost sorry for Lieberman, but it isn't hard to be reminded of why people are so upset and disappointed with him..

recently someone posted an idea to reach the "masses" ...

if memory serves, the idea was to essentially create audio and video skits of eavesdropping private phone calls (of private citizens)and video recordings of people in their bathrooms, bedrooms and such.

then run these audio video enactments on radio and tv shows like Jon Stewart, KO AAR etc - you know, some could be sort of satirical, others sort of serious, either way, enough realism to drive the point home until the idea of private citizens having their every move was being spied on and recorded - people would understand why this isn't such a cool thing for our "freedoms" and democractic society.

If the issue was presented in this sort of theatrical or entertainment format, it might raise the awareness of sheeple en masse. :shrug:

short of that, i don't know what it would take.

shout at the top of your lungs

Where is he pulling that number out of ? It's not like he has polled Democratic leaders to come up with it.

Is because isn't enuf POLLING high enough. Politicians aren't supposed to govern by polls. They are supposed to do what's right.

That's why idiot boy says all the time that he doesn't look at polls. (yeah right)

It was a big MSM criticism of Clinton triangulation. Polls, polls, polls.

Well, that gets it done, doesn't it. This is no time to wait, IMO. If all the Dems had signed it right away, the polls would BE at 60% NOW! They needed to make it happen, not wait for it.
They just don't get it.

:banghead:

But just waiting will not bring it up to the needed level. More Senators and Representatives are going to have to take the chance and step out in front and talk the thing up.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

they haven't been doing that, the issue isn't really hard.

all they have to do is put in "political enemies" context quite simply..

(like the Democratic Party as an example) and to put it a non-partisan context, like Feingold has tried to do, (but not as forcefully as I would like him to)is to posit the question as to how would they feel if Hillary Clinton (or simply a Democrat) was in the White House with the ability to be able to conduct the same warrantless activites as this president?

All Repukes need to do is think of the possibility of Hillary Clinton being able to spy on Rupert Murdock and that should take of the matter one would think.. ;)

specter of a President Hillary in their nightmares. They have been moving hell and earth to make this go away as seen by the full court press on the intelligence committee. The Repukes are not known for long term thinking so they will worry about a a Dem President when that happens.

What they can not afford now is for this administration's crimes to start to come to light. A censure on NSA spying could be the break in the dam that brings the whole house (WH) down.

And that is exactly why we need to keep putting a spine in our Dems. My fax program is starting to pant and Kohl's office is getting really tired of hearing from me. But if not now When?

i swear that man is a befuddlement..

background as inheritor of Kohl's Foods (WI only) and Kohl's Department Stores.

However, I do not recall him as "there" on any recent issues, e.g. censure or Alito.
When I call his office, I usually get the "he hasn't decided" answer to which I reply "that means he will not support" censure/filabuster/... and then I start the the debate of why not.

When did I miss that "he was there"? As much as I try, I can't keep 24x7 on everyone. ;)

I should have been more clear, sorry (my bad) ...

I meant that Kohl was actually sitting in the Committee hearing room at the very beginning, i didn't see Feingold yet, so i think it was before he arrived.

I can't remember now if Kohl bailed from the hearing before Specter's opening remarks or just after..but some point around the opening of the hearing. one minute he was there, and then *poof* he was gone.

Unfortunately, from what I've read (could not watch much of the hearing), there were too many empty chairs (Senator's) in that room. omg, isn't past time these guys were just phoning it in?

Just made another donation to Ned Lamont. He could be the best way of sending the DC Dems a wake up call.

expectation that it would be a full committee hearing, and yet only Democrats there to four Republicans if i remember the count.

just disgusting.

On the other hand, some of us knew it was going to be a dog and pony show anyway... so... :shrug:

debate was called for... This guy talks out of one side of this mouth and acts out of the other.

Arlen Magic Bullet Specter...

I wish someone would raise this farce of a theory in the CM. Something tells me that Kennedy wouldn't participate in this charade today because he knew it was going to be a cover up operation..

If a case to impeach and remove Bush is made in the minds of that many people (IMHO a case has already been made, open and shut, against Bush, Cheney and three of the four top cabinet officers), then any Democrat will win easily in 2008. No Republican president hopeful wants to be caught in a situation where there are no more Republicans to be founds in America in 2007 than there were Nazis to be found in Germany in 1945.

It would be a mistake for them to do as they did with Nixon, and back him to the very end. It should be noted that the several of the Republicans who supported Nixon on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 lost their seats in the ensuing election that year, while several of those who abandoned Nixon were later elevated to the Senate.

As far as the war on Iraq is concerned, it had nothing to do with terrorism (Saddam had no ties to Osama) and therefore could not have made us safer. Iraq did not become a terrorist training ground until after the invasion and as a direct result of it. It was, pure and simple, a blunder.

As for the idea that Bush even needs the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, that is pure poppycock. It the DOJ and the FBI can show that an American citizen is receiving calls from al Qaida, they should have no trouble getting a warrant. He doesn't have the authority and doesn't need it. No president should be trusted with it, especially not this one.

I hadn't realized that none of the Republican Nixon supporters were re-elected in the next election.. i guess that's why they had to take cover for a while until Reagan Bush got in to set the table for their re-entrance a la Dubya.

The Democrats made big gains in the Congressional elections of 1974.

Unfortunately, Trent Lott survived and was later elevated to the Senate. Charles Sandman of New Jersey did not. William Cohen of Maine, who abandoned Nixon and supported impeachment on the Committee, was soon after elected to the Senate and later became Secretary of Defense.

She is a hard lady, and would know just what to do with what she found, too....

But seriously, you are right in this. The mirror technique is a valuable one for argument and changing minds on this issue.

The fact is, our whole political system depends on mutual adherence to an un-spoken pact not to push things too far in one's own favor, because it simply lisences the other side to do the same in its turn, and so the real operating principle is the old rule of Hillel: "What you don't like, don't do to others." The most basic element of the problem we have now is that the reactionaries of the Republican Party have abrogated the pact, and are pressing ahead as if there will never be a countervailing movement with the precendents they have set wielded by other hands. In doing so, they are placing themselves in a position which can only be kept tenable by erecting a dictatorship, so that whether they are conciously aiming towards that end or no, their actions must eventually produce that result, if they are to keep themselves out of jail. In the face of this, all elements of the left and center must band together, and not even refuse the center right at a pinch, without rancor and with our focus clearly on the most reactionary enemy. We can resume our customary squabbling once the crisis has been overcome....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

if you have the clout/means to send the message up through the proverbial "stove-pipe", it would be magnificent... any chance of that?

I'm happy to put off the squabbling until after this is accomplished! (big grin) :hi:

To beat these assholes will take plenty of work

Is it possible that when a man like that doesn't back it there may be more to it than just cowardly behavior.

Why hasn't Ted Kennedy backed the measure?

Obviously.

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

..... because he has a special double-secret long-term strategy! He's keeping his powder dry! He's working behind the scenes!

I've been hearing all that for 5 fucking years. I'm sure that any day now, all this secret strategy behind the scenes work is going to pay off. Yeah, right.

When have you known Ted Kennedy to be afraid to speak his mind...do you seriously believe he is cowed by the Bushies?

I don't have the SLIGHTEST idea why Mr. Kennedy (I will agree, usually a man that can be counted on) held back here.

I don't really care that much, this isn't about Mr. Kennedy. This is about a Democratic Senate that abjectly fails to take a stand EVER.

Reasonable people can disagree about Alito, Roberts, bankruptcy, IWR, tax cuts, things buried in committees, but nobody can really argue that we don't have a SERIOUS problem here.

You know, America is ready. America is waiting for someone to stand up and say what they, in their hearts, fear might be true. That the Bush administration has failed on every front, lied repeatedly, is trashing the Constitution, trying to make the executive all powerful by edict and I could go on a long time. America is READY for someone to stand up and say "enough is enough".

I'm starting to doubt that there are more than 3 people in the senate worthy of their jobs. I don't know why it is, it seems like political cowardice to me, but I'm not there....

That the political instincts of a Ted Kennedy might be worth listening to. That he hasn't come out for censure says alot to me. I have no doubt that he supports the concept, but this tells me there may be forces at work here we do not understand yet. I think that once Teddy does come out for it publically, many more will follow him.

... the old "behind the scenes". I've been listening to that for 4 years and forgive me if I no longer expect ANYTHING to come of it because it hasn't yet.

Some of you are better at hanging on to a thread of hope, any hope, than I am.

The strategy of this senate seems to be to just wait it out. Maybe the "give them enough rope" strategy has merit. But here is my fear. If Democrats don't offer a real alternative, then all we are is "not Republican". That will work if people are still pissed off come Nov. But there are any number of events, both real and created, that could tip that fragile balance. If Dems are not offering anything of substance, no real opposition, the balance could tip back to the pukes in a week.

I just disagree with the idea that there is some big political cost to standing up for what any and all reasonable people know is right. On the contrary, there could be one for not standing up.

How perfectly dishonest of you. Not that I am surprised.

and I'm supposed to get all worked up about it?

..my hope is we win both houses.....nothing could be better than to impeach this "fool".
How the hell anyone on this earth can see this guy has president is beyond logic.

... they CANNOT LEAD because to do so might risk their perk-encrusted prestigous jobs.

I'm rapidly changing from "anti-Republican" to "anti-incumbent".

Throw them all out, only a handful are worthy and that handful doesn't include several sacred cows around here who are resting on laurels 20-30 years old.

Recently there was an Impeachment panel put on by Harper's magazine I think it was, with Rep. John Conyers, the great John Dean, Elizabeth Holtzman and others, and Conyers made the point that it would be futile and would destroy the whole effort, to try to impeach (or censure, etc.) prematurely, before the legal evidence has been developed. Conyers explained that during Watergate, the thing that really got the ball rolling and started to bring Nixon down was not public outcry and calls for impeachment, not even the Ervin Committee, etc.--that was later--but was the evidence developed by the original Grand Jury, with subpoena power. If you start to call for the legal attempts to end a corrupt Presidency before you have the actual legal case able to be explained and proved, you will sabotage it all.

I agree that the corporate lobbyists of "D"LC, Inc., who have taken over the official Democratic Party and replaced it with "their Republican friends," has killed one fight after another that we might have won, and should all be kicked out, but I also think, on something this important and historic, that you need the facts first, the assembled case first, before calling for impeachment, censure, or anything else. There is a timing to these things, and the evidence--to take to court--comes first.

Because the entire process will take so long and it will require Grand Jury Indcitments/Investigations - by the time any impetus could be developed, we'll be into the spring or summer (maybe fall) of 2007, and that's assuming Democrats get control of the House. Then the DLC will remind us that it's time to start thinking about 2008 primaries, that the nation has more pressing issues to deal with.

At least a resolution for Censure has the advanatage of more immediate results, (cease and desist mandate) and doesn't require extensive investigations or indictments and so on.

poll accordingly.