Glenn Greenwald on what I call "Drumitis" -- A chronic, lethal beltway ...

Kevin's assurance that Democrats will lose is nice conventional wisdom (and the standard beginning premise for many Democrats), but it's actually completely baseless. If the public became convinced as part of the debate that is finally happening that the President broke the law and that such law-breaking is intolerable, does Kevin actually think that it's impossible to find 6 Republican Senators to vote for the Resolution? Congressional Republicans defied Bush on the port deal for only one reason: because public opinion demanded it.

If public opinion begins to move even more than it already has to the view that Bush broke the law, it is far from certain that the Censure Resolution will fail. As I've noted many times, polls showed for two consecutive years that the public thought Watergate was a meaningless scandal and Nixon's popularity remained sky high throughout those years. The arc of that scandal ended up changing only because tenacious politicians and journalists continued to pursue the story and the public finally became educated and angry about it. If Democrats had followed Kevin's advice in 1972, Richard Nixon would have retired as a popular two-term President.

But even if the Censure Resolution ultimately fails, the rationale for pursuing it is self-evident. Kevin frequently frets about (among other things) the fact that Democrats are perceived as being weak. The reason for that is because Democrats often are weak, precisely when they do things like abandon their own Senators and refuse to take a principled stand against a President who got caught breaking the law.

People like Kevin -- who believe that Democrats must "prove" to the country that they can be strong -- should most understand the value in having Democrats take a stand regardless of whether they ultimately prevail. Strong and resolute people fight. Weak and spineless people run away from fights -- or fight only when their victory is guaranteed in advance. The Democrats have been running away from fights for five years now based on the Kevin Drum theory that fights are only worth fighting if you know in advance that you will win. It is beyond irrational to think that the Democrats are going to look strong by simply crawling away meekly and allowing George Bush to break the law.

<clip>

Link:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/stirring-defense-of-indecision-and.html

It appears the phone calls are having an effect. Although Mark Dayton told Bloomberg that Feingold's censure resolution was "premature, and over- reaching, which often involves losing more than gaining," callers to his offices are now reporting that he has backed off of this and has decided to take no position.

Could it be that Democrats are finally emboldened against a President with a 33% approval rating?

We've put up a list of "lions" and "lemmings" in the sidebar (so named by Digby). Maybe we should find out where Dayton belongs:

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006/03/dayton-wobbly-on-feingold-opposition.html