Does anybody know if Kerry is making public an official position on

censure.

It is my understanding (from my personnal experience and some of some here and elsewhere) that his office is saying he is supporting Feingold, but that he has not make a public statement to this effect.

Until yesterday, I was fine with that. However, it seems that there is a attempt (what a surprise) to make Kerry look as he was uncertain since yesterday. An example in liberaloasis.com this morning.

www.liberaloasis.com


I have the feeling Kerry needs to clarify this. I am going to email to Bill Scherr what Kerry's office has answered to me (last time I emailed, he answered with a long answer), but I think that they need to settle this story: either by not answering that Kerry is supporting or by making a PR that he is supporting. Otherwise, it looks like he is trying to have it both ways. (and I am sure that somebody in his office can make a PR even if the Senator is busy with ANWR)?

Just my two cents. Sure Feingold's move is messy, but there is no good for Kerry to have this used against it.

My phone call on Monday said he was supporting it. I can't call until later. Will keep you posted.

this point they will accuse him of pandering. Kerry is the guy they just love to hate. I think he should do what ever he wants on this. It just amazes me the double standard here, they weren't all over Feingold when Kerry lead the Alito Filibuster. The media and the "Liberal/Progressive" blogs showed him very little support. However, let it be Feingold, and no matter if it was a stupid move that more one in the Senate really supports, and he gets nothing but praise. This just proves to me how phony they all are.

your position clear, if idiots try to make it murky. It is prevention, that is all.

Of course, they are phony, but why help them? And more importantly, why help people like Dana Milbank, John Nichols, or KO, who have a national audience.

And, as somebody from MA, I'd like to know where he stands without having to wonder every other minute whether a reporter is lying, misinformed, or whatever.

One solution only for that: a statement from the senator.

My feeling is it will turn out to be a completely bad move. People are always pretending that the political implications shouldn't be considered. Well, in his interview Feingold said we have to think about the "politics" of impeaching the president over this issue.

Guess politics is all about politics.

But these senators dont have staffers answering that they are supporting the move. I have no pb with Kennedy not saying anything. He has not decided.

The pb with Kerry is that he has staffers answering he is supporting Feingold (and this has been said by people who are not pro-Kerry and called his office), but still no statement. This is the only thing that bothers me. If he has made his decision, why not make it public and clear.

Not coming from Mass and not supporting this move by Feingold at all at this point in time, my opinion certainly would differ from you. I however, recognize that he is your senator- not mine.

DU whined that Senators, mostly defined as Kerry, were not speaking about the DSM. Then Kerry did in MA - which was ok for about a day. Then when he wrote the letter - it was sort of so, what - the new test (that Kerry will fail) is:

I just wonder if Kerry isn't working with people like Kennedy and Dubin to transform this to something better than a censure vote for the Democrats. (So, it may be that he is simply saying he would vote yes if it come to a vote.)

but I always thought it was better if you made your position clear and dont allow people to muddle with it, if you have one.

It is not about Feingold. It is not about the DUers or the kossaks or whoever. It is about regular people, who may care and are not understanding where he is, if they call and get an answer, and then read in the media the opposite. My husband asked me the question this morning again, wanting to know if Kerry had made a statement. I am sure he is not the only one.

This is not to say that Feingold's move is smart: it is not. But it is not going to disappear.

I imagine Kerry is going to make clear his position at some point.

even if it's a simple statement that says he will vote for it, possibly saying he would prefer an investigation first.

on pre-war intelligence?

and not one to stop Alito? Why vote for John Roberts and against Alito and Gonzales? Why stake out ground as the only one to vote against the Patriot Act knowing it can be amended, then turn around and sponsor the amendment---offered by Specter? Why propose a censure asking for an apology, on an issue not clearly defined in the public mindset, when Bush is being criticized left and right for his failures and the Republicans are being linked to the sinking ship?

Good progressive Democrat and I support him, as I do every Democrat, but he confuses the shit out of me.



Edited to add this: I am still hoping there is more to this we don't know, maybe a strategy.

is that he feels there was enough information to rule out WMD, even if Bush distorted things. It would still be wrong that Bush lied though. If I wanted to be cynical, his IWR vote is a large part of his candidacy and he wouldn't want anything that mitigates a yes vote.

at Liberal Oasis is saying:

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/031206.htm#031606

I bet he supports it. The people who are never happy will continue to be not happy. The ones with an open mind will wait. The rest are relatively content and can wait it out.

My point is just not to let people who are unhappy misinform the other ones.

I've had this rattling around in my head since last night, and since we're going away tomorrow I need to rid myself of it so it doesn't bug me all weekend.

I'm talking about the difference between being an apologist/'bot for a pol as opposed to being a reasonable person who is content to, as you said, wait it out when the pol is someone you trust.

Apparently that's too fine a distinction for some people.

It seems to me that everybody is saying the same thing: that Kerry supports it, but that because of the absence of a statement, some think they are allowed to distort this support as something more wishy-washy.

sick:

"We all want the Democrats to unite on important issues."

Sorry, back to our regularly scheduled programming:

"Where are the cowards"

"The Democrats are a bunch of wimps."

"The Democrats are nothing but a bunch of traitors."



Dean should have issued a statement about how the Democrats are going to try to paint the Democrats.