Logic envy. Why are DUers who are clearly FOR censure being admonished

[blm]

just because we want the censure case to go through on its own merit and not offered as an ALTERNATIVE to impeachment?

Some of us have been supporting the impeachment case gathering strength in congress since the Conyers hearings on Iraq. We want the LEGAL REMEDY for criminal activity.

We are being told, via yesterday's press conference, that the censure is offered as the moderate approach and as an alternative to impeachment because impeachment would be bad for the country during a time of war.

WE are the bad guys now to those who condense our positions to just being against censure and Feingold, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Now WE are the bad guys because we want censure to go through AND we don't see the need to sell censure by offering it as an alternative to impeachment.

That's some logic going there.

And anyone who claims the censure isn't being offered as an alternative to impeachment didn't read the transcript from yesterday's press conference.

Senator Russ Feingold Holds a News Conference
On His Resolution To Censure President Bush
March 16, 2006
TRANSCRIPT
NEWS CONFERENCE
U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)
WASHINGTON, D.C.

SPEAKER: U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)

Snip...
QUESTION: Senator, this resolution, if it were passed, would
have no legal effect.
FEINGOLD: No.

QUESTION: So the only thing that would affect the NSA program,
if it's illegal, is to cut off the funding? You don't support that,
do you?
FEINGOLD: Well, there are several things that could affect the
program. First of all, one would hope, if this passes, that the
president would acknowledge what Congress has said and would bring the
program within FISA, which is what he should do.
Another approach, of course, is the legal system, is hoping that
we could get some kind of a court order and a response in the legal
system ordering the president to come within the law.
So I don't think that necessarily the idea of cutting off funding
-- even cutting off funding, how are you going to enforce that? If
the president has inherent power, he'll just shift some money around.
He'll just keep doing it. I mean, that's the problem with this
doctrine. If the president isn't going to acknowledge that a law we
passed, such as FISA, binds him, why should the cutting off of funding
affect him?

QUESTION: Senator, for those who are your critics who would
liken this or they talk about your central resolution in the same
breath that they talk about impeachment, and just say this is nothing
but one step ahead of impeachment. How do you counter that,
especially when they're using it as a weapon before the midterms to
say: The Democrats get in power, you're going to see impeachment.
FEINGOLD: Clearly, I chose to pursue censure rather than
impeachment, certainly at this point, because I believe at this point
it's a way to help us positively resolve this issue.
In other words, without getting the country in the middle of a
huge problem, like we had with the attempted Clinton impeachment, we
have a passing of a resolution of censure, and hopefully the president
would acknowledge it and say that he maybe went too far, and we would
be able to move forward and stop worrying about this and get a pledge
from the president that he's going to come within the law or make
proposals to change the law to allow it.
I think this actually is in the area of an impeachable offense.
I think it is right in the strike zone of what the founding fathers
thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.
But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong.
But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road. And anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.

Snip...
QUESTION: Do you see any chance whatsoever that your resolution
would be passed by this Republican Senate?
FEINGOLD: I'd be pretty surprised. But this president,
presumably, will be president for several years. And it is very
possible that others will later on control the Congress. And this is
something that could be examined at different points.
If the president changes course and indicates that he understands
that this was not lawful and that he should not have done it, then it
becomes less important.
But if he continues to assert not only this but other extreme
executive power doctrines, it will continue to be important to push
back and to ask the president to return to the law.

[electropop]

1. "a weapon to say: Democrats get in power, you're going to see impeachment"

I'd like to see that happen: the Pukes wave that around as a threat, and the public are so thrilled with the idea that Dems win in a landslide. Of course, we know Dems are too wimpy to support and defend the Constitution by impeachment.

[Minnesota Libra]

2. I'd like to see Feingold run for Pres in 08 - I think he'd win too nt

[jane_pippin]

3. Here's what he said on the Senate floor on 3/13:

"As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law."

He's not doing it as a road to impeachment. That's not his goal here. His goal is to hold Bush accountable through meaningful debate and discussion of/investigation of the facts, and if he was found to have broken the law, (which of course he did), a condemnation--censure. Actually, in that same press conference you quote he said his goal was to stir a debate and he did. However, he hasn't said that impeachment is off the table. He's said that it's something to consider and that it's very serious. (Which it is, and again, that doesn't negate it as a possibility.) This censure could be a first step to impeachment, but to start down that road was not his reason for introducing censure. That doesn't mean he's automatically opposing the possibility of impeachment though.

Here's a link to his speech from Monday in case anyone wants it: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html

Some aspects of this resolution are pretty black and white: Did Bush break the law, or not? If so, should he be censured for it? Other aspects seem to be a little more complicated, like where impeachment may or may not come in. I'm speaking only for myself here, but I don't feel the need to admonish others over this. I do think that we are all trying to get our heads around the implications of Russ' actions and that process can get a little ugly at times. It's been a long week.

And since it has been a long week, I'm going to go relax with a beer and some mindless tv for a bit. :)

Edit: clarity

[blm]

6. And then he had a press conference and said exactly what he said.

.

[jane_pippin]

12. I don't think the two thoughts are in total opposition.

Impeachment is a big deal. Removing a sitting president is a big deal and it's something that needs debate and consideration of evidence. I think that's what Russ is getting at. That doesn't mean that once it's considered his (or anyone else's) decision wouldn't be, "Yes, impeach him. He obviously deserves to be removed for XYZ reasons." We're unfortunately not in a postion to try to impeach him now, but if we win in '06 that's a whole new can of worms that will, in my opinion, probably be opened up right quick.


Anyway, my beer is calling but I didn't want to lose my train of thought and leave without responding to you. Have a good night.

[NNN0LHI]

4. I am for censure and have never been admonished here for it?

Maybe its because no one cares what I think? :-(

Don

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. I care what you think and I am for anything that results in minimizing

GW's power. I'd rather he be impeached, indicted and imprisoned. Here's hoping.

[blm]

14. People like you too much - that's not my problem. ;))))))

.

[mzmolly]

5. Can I ask why some think we have to choose/end with Censure?

People are - wacky.

[Solly Mack]

7. I'm still conflicted but

I want impeachment. Heck, I want imprisonment.

But censure could be a start in restoring the balance of power. For the senate to tell Bush that he is not King and he is subject to the laws of the country and a that body of government, the Senate half of Congress, can hold him accountable when he abuses his position as executive. Fact is, Bush has marginalized Congress - with help from within Congress by those who prop up his crimes.

Impeachment can still go forward and that too would be a wake-up call to the executive from the whole Congress - and Bush deserves to be impeached and convicted for his crimes.

Imprisonment would go a long, long way in showing any future would be tyrant that the executive will not behave criminally and get away with it.The entire Bush Regime deserves imprisonment.

just a thought...


In a just America, Bush would be impeached, convicted and tossed from office - then tried, convicted and imprisoned

but none of that prevents a censure from happening as well

[blm]

20. It CAN still go forward but it certainly doesn't HELP to have a senator

offer censure as an alternative to impeachment. He could have made his case without referring to impeachment at all - the case is certainly strong enough.

[Solly Mack]

24. Oh I agree...censure is not an alternative to impeachment

I just didn't understand why anyone was admonishing others...

as censure could happen and so could impeachment.

it's not a case of either or....though it will certainly be used as a talking point "if we censure him, no need to impeach him" kind of thing.

I've read where Feingold has said any number of things about censure

1- censure to help restore balance of power (it's a start)
2- censure not impeachment (can't agree with)
3- impeachment not "good for the country" (a real ass chapper that one - as impeachment would be very good for the country

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

30. Today I heard on the radio that Impeachment can only be introduced in the

House and that was why Feingold was introducing the measure for Censure. It doe snot neccessarily replace impeachment and it might be an introduction to impeachment or it might be an end in and of itself. The person who said impeachment had to be brought from the House was Eleanor Clift. This comment clarified a lot of issues for me. I am still solidly behind eingold for this stand and I hopes that it acts as a prelude to impeachment. If not, Bush still deserves censure (at a minimum!)

[blm]

32. Everyone knows impeachment is by the house. Feingold told the press

that he he's offering censure as an alternative to impeachment which he he said would be wrong at a time of war.

He should have JUST offered censure and not said one word about impeachment. He pre-judged iimpeachmentand said he thinks it's wrong during a time of war.

Why can't people be for censure and admit that Feingold probably shouldn't be selling it to the press by saying it's the moderate approach and as an alternative to impeachment?

he's crystal clear about it in his press conference transcript in the OP. Eleanor must not have been listening very hard.

[Iowa]

37. Good points, and thanks for posting the transcript...

You make perfect sense. So I'll say it:

I am for censure, and I agree with you that Feingold shouldn't be selling it to the press by saying it's the moderate approach and an alternative to impeachment.

[Neil Lisst]

9. Impeachment is immaterial to Censure

Impeachment is not a reality until the House is in Dem hands, and it's still probably not on the table then.

Censure is a reality NOW, however. It allows the issues to be discussed.

[blm]

10. I agree they should be kept separate and one should not use censure

as an ALTERNATIVE to impeachment to make a case for censure - the case for censure is strong enough.

[Justice Is Comin]

11. I'm for him getting a

free ride on the Concord to the Hague, so you won't see admonishment from me.

But there is no outrage from the public about the damn spying. That's why everybody is running from it.

If we had a case of black and white court ruling that he broke the law, and the polls showed anger about it, the fraidy cat Dems wouldn't be looking like they can't touch this with a ten foot pole.

And as much as I hate to see it, we need that damning proof.

[EFerrari]

13. Because we all have B* fatigue and have lost track of

"one step at a time"?

The way trauma victims do?

[blm]

15. Except that's not how it's being sold in this press conference.

I wish it was. But, it isn't.

[EFerrari]

16. Sure. But why not back Feingold

for now.

He's the closest thing we have. And at some boiling point, it won't be up to him.

We can take this step with him. Whether it stops there isn't really in anyone's control, imho. And that is what is freaking out Dr. Catkiller and his posse.

We're looking down a LONG line of consequences, for sure.

[blm]

19. That's the rub, I DO back censure and Feingold and am not changing my

position on supporting censure, at all. I am pissed off that he is using impeachment as the badforthecountry bogeyman to sell censure.

I can't believe so many who supported Conyers work on impeachment are so quickly jumping on censure as an alternative just because that's how Feingold decided to sell it.

He really didn't HAVE to - the case for censure is strong enough.

[EFerrari]

21. Two quick thoughts. Take with pillar of salt.

1) You are right. Feingold doesn't have to do that. It's a mistake.

2) I don't see many people embracing censure over impeachment at all. They defend Feingold (as I may) but they don't choose censure over impeachment. Posting is quick and dirty and not careful sometimes.

I want that bastard drawn and quartered. And I will back Feingold's step in that direction WITHOUT ceding any ground at all TO ANYONE on impeachment.

[blm]

23. Don't need even a grain of salt - I know you mean what you say.

.

[KittyWampus]

17. The Fish Swallows The Bait Thinking To Eat While The Fisherman

is the one who actually enjoys the meal.

Most DU'ers, it seems, are so easily moved to excitation, they lose perspective and any real capacity for sense that the good lord gave them.

If it feels good NOW! that's all that matters. Politics is all about instant gratification dontcha know.

[EFerrari]

18. Or, maybe there is some gratification in taking a step forward.

Myself, I'm a step forward gratification junkie.

Because few politicians or well compensated and utterly incompetent "consultants" have any control over move #2 or #3.

Move it forward. You want to get rid of this Bush criminal? Move it forward.

He has put it in the palm of our hand.

[blm]

22. That would be true if he wasn't specifically against LEGAL REMEDY that

is meant to remove a president.

The left blogosphere was wrong to say censure was a first step and then impeachment - the censure offered here by Feingold is an alternative to the legal remedy of impeachment and he makes it crystal clear in his press conference.

[EFerrari]

25. Lol! I see we both are very concerned about this.

My question is, because I'm not a Constitutional scholar or even a scholar of Senate proceedings, is that within Feingold's control?

He has written this measure and I guess I need to read it, to read the language. To see if the language of his measure matches what he's said in public exactly. Sometimes proposed legislation has a way of not doing that.

Because if it does, I'll still have to support him and I will be pissed at him for being stupid and for limiting us unnecessarily.

Before I get pissed, I want to read.

[blm]

26. That's why I posted the transcript of the press conference.

I accepted he probably misspoke the first time, then gave him the benefit of the doubt the second time - but this press conference was TOO specific to doubt what he's saying.

[EFerrari]

29. Okay. But we still both could benefit from reading his actual

measure, the one on record.

I see now more clearly what you've been concerned about. But, I want to read what he is proposing, exactly what the language is. That will tell us a lot.

[ScreamingMeemie]

27. George W. Bush is bad for the country and I am all for censure,

impeachment and charging him and his cohorts with war crimes.

[JohnnyCougar]

28. Because no one is admonishing these people

But the weakness and lack of logic in their arguments that attack Feingold has been pointed out.

[blm]

31. Not what I have read - Even if you're for censure you get called out

because you are also for impeachment and don't appreciate Feingold using impeachment as the badforthecountry bogeyman to make his case for censure at the press conference.

Which he clearly did.

Am I supporting him on censure - YES. But, I sure don't have to accept the weakness HE shows when he decides to SELL censure to the press by offering it as an alternative to impeachment.

Censure case is strong enough on its own merits.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

33. Feingold should just say Bush deserves censure as a "minimum"

Kind of answers this whole dispute. I am sorry too if he sold it as the total alternative for impeachment. But, maybe he's a greater statesman and better thinker and politician than I am. I want my pound of flesh but maybe Russ is more focused on healing and bringing a country together.

[blm]

45. That may be, but DUers are getting attacked for supporting the LEGAL

REMEDY of impeachment AND the censure.

And also, many DUers are so ill-informed that they THINK censure leads to impeachment, when Feingold is ACTUALLY selling censure as an alternative to the legal remedy of impeachment.

[JohnnyCougar]

35. But Feingold himself said eventually Bush could be impeached for this

He didn't say impeachment "was" bad for the country, he said it "may" be bad right now.

Part of selling any proposal to the American public is appealing to people on the fence. That doesn't mean pander, like most Democrats, but it does mean take a true progressive principle and sell it to the public. Not take a moderate principle and try and sell it to the Democratic base like Democrats too often do.

[jonas_stradlater]

34. I think that it might be a good strategy

to offer censure as moderate alternative to the supposedly "radical" issue of impeachment. If Feingold can sell to the public the fact that he is a level-headed guy that can be trusted, then censure would be seen as a reasonable thing to do. Of course, odds are censure will fail. Then, when talk of impeachment comes, Feingold and Democrats can be able to say, "We tried the moderate route. Once that was objected to, we are forced to more serious alternatives." Then, those that advocate impeachment can't be depicted as "the loony left." That's my theory on how this might play out.
Of course that's not considering the high likelihood of the Democratic Party shooting themselves in the foot with in-fighting.

[blm]

40. That's why lawmakers talk to each other and build support for bills

and resolutions and filibusters.

[Swamp Rat]

36. SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!! ... SUPPORT CENSURE!!!

STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT!!!

SUPPORT FEINGOLD!!!

:patriot:

[David Zephyr]

38. I'm with you, Swamp Rat.

Stand up and stand with Senator Feingold.

I can not believe that only a handful of Democrats are with him on this. Nevemind that they should do it even if it were risky, but the American People would respect the Democrats more for doing so as the polls now show.

Support Feingold.

[blm]

39. No one is saying DON'T support Feingold - we do AND want him to keep

censure in the senate without OFFERING it as an alternative to impeachment.

You want censure and move on like Feingold, or do you want censure in the senate AND an actual legal remedy of impeachment? Because with the impeachment case in the house gathering strength, I don't think any senator should pre-judge and say it's wrong in a time of war.

Do you really think that the case for censure is so weak that it can't be made WITHOUT offering it as an alternative to impeachment? I don't.

[pinto]

41. See your point, but I don't read this as "admonishment":

"Clearly, I chose to pursue censure rather than
impeachment, certainly at this point, because I believe at this point
it's a way to help us positively resolve this issue.

I think this actually is in the area of an impeachable offense.
I think it is right in the strike zone of what the founding fathers

But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong.

But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road."

Sen. Feingold seems to be stating his own personal point of view, as a Senator,
on bringing the Censure motion to the floor. I'm willing to cut him some slack here.

[blm]

43. The admonishment is being done by DUers attacking those who support

censure, but are not pleased by Feingold's decision to sell it to the press as an alternative to impeachment, making impeachment out to be the "badforthecountry" bogeyman.

The case for censure IS strong, and Russ doesn't NEED to dump on impeachemnt to sell it.

[lanah]

42. Conyers must stand with Feingold

He should be making just as much noise, holding press conferences, writing oped's.

AND he should introduce the sister resolution for impeachment in the House for illegal wiretapping. Conyers has been pursuing impeachment over Iraq but not really over the illegal wiretapping.

He needs to make a stronger stand and make his voice heard. All the evidence needed was already presented in his hearing.

[blm]

44. Feingold's SELLING censure as an ALTERENATIVE to impeachment.

It's CUTE to say it's a sister resolution, but it's completely UNTRUE based on the FACT that Feingold is using impeachment as the badforthecountry BOGEYMAN in his effort to sell censure to the press.

READ his press conference transcript. He wants to censure and MOVE ON with NO IMPEACHMENT at a time of war.