Feingold to call for rare presidential censure

[gr8fuldaniel]

Woo-Hoo!!

Boxer just signed on!!

Thats MY Senator. Shes a keeper.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Woo-Hoo!! Boxer just signed on!! Thats MY Senator. Shes a keeper.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[gr8fuldaniel]

The joke is on you. Your party is over, monkey boy.

[samsara15]

I think it is amazing to watch all these Right Wing officials wrap the flag around themselves and get all huffy patriotic about censuring Georgie. Shows very clearly that patriotism is always the first refuge of scoundrels. They give public patriotism a bad name.

[Osborn F Enready]

That is why we should bounce the whole BI-PARTISAN GROUP out of all offices, ASAP.

[rmnunez]

Impeachment noises could rally Republicans:

For weeks, Republicans have taken to conservative Web sites and talk radio shows to inveigh against the possibility, however remote, that Democrats could impeach Mr. Bush if they gained control of Congress. Mr. Feingold's censure proposal fell far short of a demand for impeachment. Most Democrats in the Senate distanced themselves from it, concerned that they would be tagged by Republicans as soft on terrorism. But the censure proposal provided Republicans an opening. "This is such a gift," the conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh told listeners on his syndicated radio program on Monday, saying the Democrats were fulfilling his predictions. "They have to go back to this impeachment thing," he said. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, a conservative standard-bearer, echoed the thought. "We'd like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor," its editors wrote Wednesday in a column headlined "The Impeachment Agenda." The Republican National Committee sent the editorial out to its e-mail list of 15 million supporters. Brian Jones, a Republican spokesman, said the e-mail messages generated a higher response than anything the party had sent in several months, including bulletins about the Supreme Court confirmations. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/po...gewanted=print

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez Impeachment noises could rally Republicans:

So what? They would STILL be supporting a man the public no longer wants in office. If he's done enough to BE impeached and the Democrats make sure people know what those things are the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot with their support.

If the fear of the Republicans possible getting angry and backing Bush is what keeps the Democrats from at least ATTEMPTING impeachment they are useless to the point that the entire party should be dissolved forever.
An opposition party that will not oppose is useless.

[Technosoul]

I would agree that the President should be booted out of office for violating his oath to uphold the Consitution of the United States (not just a repremand).

But that motion should have been made by a democrat who is not after Bush's job, such clearly suggests that his action is politically motivated - next you will see ads where he will claim that he "stood up to President Bush" and blaa blaa blaa - he will not get my vote.

This should not have become a poltically motivated motion for Congress to concider because many Republicans would now like to distance their self from President Bush due to his ever-falling approval ratings in the polls, and making it a project to help shoe in a Democrat President is not going to get backing from those Republicans who listen to those polls and so the whole thing will fall flat on it's face.

[Scribbler1]

I would imagine that given half a chance every Democratic member of Congress would take Bush's job. But this is just another case of focusing on the speaker and not the words, which is something the Republicans love. Do NOT worry about who says what, but consider if what they say is TRUE or not. The truth is all you need to concern yourself with, not who speaks it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Scribbler said: Do NOT worry about who says what, but consider if what they say is TRUE or not. The truth is all you need to concern yourself with, not who speaks it.

I say:
I agree.

The Democrats acuse most if not all faults in government is the fault of the Republicans.

The Republicans acuse most if not all the faults in government is the fault of the Democrats.

They are both half right, because they both ignore the role of their own parties actions and the impacts they have made.

If they would take of their , tied, secured, pasted and reinforced partisan goggles, they would see the major party members themselves are some of the only ones in the nation that think they are still TWO seperate parties.

Notice the lack of spine by Democrats on impeachment and censure so far. They know that in the end, if this breaks out to a full fledged investigation, it will bring both parties down since the democrats were forced by republicans firm advancement of power to pull out all the stops in keeping them from setting all the rules for the soon to be "full Unitary Executive" powers over our nation, its economy, trade, information and lawmaking and judicial system by appointment loyalty.

This is like the two biggest bullies in the playground duking it out in the alley alone on the way home from school. Neither wants to be seen for the loser they are to the rest of the public, so they are having a (what they wish could be) private political battle (pork, media tirades, appealing to various groups for support through direct party funds via the internet) and they have pulled out all the stops. They are at the point now, where they are mutually stunned, staggering and out of wind, but both lack knock out power without bringing down their own party in the process since the lines of corruption are so intermingled. On top of that, both sides have "leakers" letting the people know what is going on in bits and pieces, between rounds, and they are equally damaging each other in this way since on the surface things may seem like its one party at fault, but deeper analyzation shows it is really both, and they are almost mutually represented in votes on all corrupt practices, unconstitutional laws, and illegal changes of the Constitution via Neuspeak interpretation.

Neither one is going to walk away from this fight. They are battling over an even split between half the country (1/4 population to each) and I would bet that out of that other half, most are swing voters for what they perceive as "the lesser evil" thanks to that bi-partisan idea, that has been perpetrated by both parties to ignore all other parties as if they didn't exist, and the media helping them along in that idea by giving no third parties air-time to plea their case when it could make a difference, if at all.

Now the voting system has been breached by corruption, so I question all of this "political posturing" by both sides, since now it is about who buys the best hackers to control the votes. (hackers with names like Diebold)



America needs to uniformly reject both parties from all of the upcoming elections.

Even the most incompetent, unskilled, ninny could do better work, with less corruption if they were all evicted from office in the next elections and the lines of corruption that have been building for years are broken.


Look at the elected seats of our government as our prisons if you would. Every election, new people are graduated through the bi-partisan control, and entrench themselves in the chain. Some come in with well meaning, and zeal, ready to make changes for the people. (Cynthia Mckinney, Ron Paul come to mind as current examples) Over time though, they are sucked in to the corruption of the party, and they are led to believe it is a never ending battle of forced compromise, regardless of Constitutional limitations. The goal is to walk away with as much as you can for your state, yourself, and you pet agendas as they would have you believe. So like a prison, we have new people coming in to "reform", and they are immediately placed "in population" amongst the hardcore criminals who have been breaking, rewriting, and passing down the system for years on end. They are lured into deals, and agreements, and then hung out to dry to be publicly embarassed or marginalized to non-existence in the eyes of the voters through the media unless you agree to "step in line" with the party agenda.

We need to clean house, bounce 'em all out, and re-elect every seat fresh, with open debates with canidates from all parties, and a verifiable voting system, with a guaranteed right to vote.

Then, we can see some change for the better, but not until, in my opinion. If left as it is, it will surely get MUCH worse, before it gets ANY better.

[gr8fuldaniel]

This is just a heads up.
Russ Feingold is on PBS right now.
Charlie Rose Show.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Os They are both half right, because they both ignore the role of their own parties actions and the impacts they have made.

Actually the Dems are doing about all they CAN do.
You neglect the facts I brought up earlier:

John Conyers addresses the same concerns I mentioned earlier in this thread, Source :

The New York Times has had some remarkable coverage about Senator Feingold's censure resolution. Remarkable in its naivete and lack of balance. Today's Times featured an editorial entitled, "Time for Facts, Not Resolutions," suggesting that: "[T]he censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now.They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings." Just how exactly does the New York Times editorial board propose that Democrats conduct investigations as a minority party? Do we Democrats just ask the Republicans to hold hearings, subpoena government officials and documents, and expect them to "fulfill their sworn duty to investigate?" Tried that. Didn't work. On January 20th, relegated to a basement room, I conducted my own hearing on the NSA warrantless wiretapping. I invited bipartisan participation, bringing in witnesses to discuss the legal arguments for and against the NSA domestic spying. The New York Times says: "We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law." Well, I had the hearing on January 20th, what did the New York Times have to say about that? Nothing. No coverage. Did the Republicans "fulfill their sworn duty to investigate" as a result? Nope. Tried that. Didn't work. I do appreciate the New York Times' favorable view of someone who "proposed creating a bipartisan panel." Maybe I feel that way because I have already done that, in December, in response to the administration's alleged acts of wrongdoing - lying about the decision to go to war; manipulating intelligence; facilitating and countenancing torture; using confidential information to out a CIA agent in political retaliation against her husband; flagrant violations of federal wiretap laws. In December, last year, I introduced a bill, House Resolution 635, which calls for the creation of a special bipartisan committee to investigate the activities of the Bush Administration leading up to war. When I introduced this resolution December 22nd, it was accompanied by a 182-page report, with 1,000 footnotes, documenting compelling reasons to investigate the White House. Oh, and I also introduced resolutions censuring both Bush and Cheney. Imagine my pleasure when the New York Times finally took notice two-and-a-half months later. Well, sort of. Actually the story was about how Feingold's resolution was going to be a boon for the Republicans. It was an interesting piece of "balanced" reporting to be sure. Essentially, we are told, that we have just handed the November elections to the Republicans. Who do we go to for this information? More...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Osborn Notice the lack of spine by Democrats on impeachment and censure so far.

Its not for lack of spine. Its the lack of power.

What we have now is not the form of government our founding fathers had in mind. Where one party is in control of all three branches so there is no oversight. And the one party that is in control of the country, is controlled by corporate interests. Its fascism, basically. But its not cowardice. Anymore than the libertarians are to blame for their cowardice. Its lack of power. Thats the dillema.

Sure, some Dems are "Discreet", (which can be mistaken for fear) but they have to be decide what hill they want to fight and die on. I hope to god they are saving their strength for the major war that comes with impeachment, once a majority is gained in November. Dems need 6 seats in the Senate and 15 in the House. It would be futile (and stupid) to attempt an impeachment without investigative powers.

[Osborn F Enready]

Daniel, for the 1000th time now, if the democrats were concerned of this type of corruption, they would have changed other things, that limited the executive, when they were in office.

They didn't do that, because they too were busy using it illegally.
They didn't modify lobbyist money laws, because they too were on the take.
They didn't modify justice selection, because they were helping to corrupt the courts.
They didn't modify election process, rights, or standards, because they were benefitting from the mess.

They are only making noise now, because they are on the other side of the knife and they know the leaks in the corruption in the Bush administration have been providing enough fodder to propagandize the public to democratic support for at least 8 years if its done correctly, and all third parties are isolated out of the debates, and election run-up media.

Democrats are making noise NOW for reform, when they could have been reforming for good reason for the last 75 years easily........

"but just trust them one more time Dan, just once more, and they will take you to the promised land." or so says the local democrat vying for your campaign dollars, your vote, and your bumper sticker and yard sign space.

They will forget about corruption as soon as the election is won, just like they ALWAYS do, FROM BOTH PARTIES.

[gr8fuldaniel]

So you are saying, Just let the neo-cons rule the world unchallenged?

Because of resentments for past wrongs of the Dem party?

Shouldnt we all focus on on doing WHATEVER it takes to remove empire builders from office?

I know the Dems are not saints, at least they are not the Anti-Christ.

[Osborn F Enready]

Daniel said: So you are saying, Just let the neo-cons rule the world unchallenged?

I say:
You know that is NOT what I am saying, so why do you even throw it out there?

NO, I am saying instead of rallying more sheeple to the Democrips, you should be rallying people for REAL CHANGE, and get ALL the corruption out of ALL THREE HOUSES. Instead, you go around talking about democrats like they are some kind of "answer" to the problem, obviously not noticing they have been an integral part for the last 150 years, and provably for the last 75.

Daniel said: Because of resentments for past wrongs of the Dem party?

I say:
Daniel, if it were little instances here and there of them simply "dropping the ball" occasionally, I wouldn't bitch. That is not the case though. They have been steadily ruining this country, right alongside your "despicable" rebloodlicans, holding hands as they walked down the Yellow Brick Road.

Time to tap your heels Dan, there is no place like home.

Daniel said: Shouldnt we all focus on on doing WHATEVER it takes to remove empire builders from office?

I say:
Not if you are simply taking one out, to put in another. That makes even LESS than NO sense, that makes BAD sense.

Daniel said: I know the Dems are not saints, at least they are not the Anti-Christ.

I say:
I don't believe in either, I just stick to the facts Dan.

What you don't consider is that they could easily be the false prophet, and if you look at the facts, they would most likely be in that fable.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Its not for lack of spine. Its the lack of power.

That would make sense if not for one big question. What did they do when they HAD the power? You already hate the Republicans, Dan, so just what will it take to convince you that the Democrats are for all practical purposes part of the same party as the Republicans? The "I share ALL the power with the other guy and I'm not about to give it up so I'll work with the other side" party.
The game has been played much the same way it is now for decades and I cannot believe there are still some people who don't get it yet. Both parties share almost equal power, no matter what the political climate and NO significant change for the better comes from either side. Bush is properly blamed for being an inadequate president but he did not create the deficit or the debt, nor did he create the oil companies that gouge the public as well as a lot of other things that make you angry. There were tax increases and government waste LONG before Bush took office and the list goes on and on. The only really big thing Bush gets the blame for is the Iraq war. Almost everything else was there before he took office and he either made bad things worse or failed to take any action to change things for the better. Much of these things are on the heads of Congress no matter WHO has/had the majority.

Both sides have LONG AGO given up any right to the benefit of the doubt. I side with Osborn on this one.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I know the Dems are not saints, at least they are not the Anti-Christ.

They are also not the only choice as to non-republicans. I wish you would put your admirable focus and energy into supporting something other than the Republican's co-conspirators.

[gr8fuldaniel]

OK, so lets see some ACTION from another party. Not just a bunch of belly-achin', pissin and moanin'. Have the Libs (I dont like calling Libertarians, "Libs" because they are actually more right than left) introduced articles of impeachment? Why not? ..........Spineless?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel OK, so lets see some ACTION from another party. Not just a bunch of belly-achin', pissin and moanin'. Have the Libs (I dont like calling Libertarians, "Libs" because they are actually more right than left) introduced articles of impeachment? Why not? ..........Spineless?

I think it safe to assume we can only see ACTION when they have some POWER. How many Libertarians are in Congress right now?

Your point is unfair on two levels. One, as I said, I'm sure LP members of Congress would be more than happy to advocate impeachment if they were IN Congress, and two, 100% of your support is for the Democratic party, which didn't make any impeachment noises while they were voting FOR Bush going into Iraq or voting FOR the unread Patriot Act. They chose to wait until there was as little political risk as possible to advance impeachment. In other words, they were checking the wind and waited until Bush's poll numbers showed them they could easily get away with this. That ain't leadership. With all the mistakes the GOP and Bush have made, where was that mythical spine when they could have hammered the Republicans with them?
You act like they are out of power completely but the truth is they are only, perhaps temporarily, in second place and have supported quite a few things the Republicans have, just as the Republicans have supported Democrats when the Democrats had the majority.

Quit acting like the Democratic Party has no history. As I said before, as bad as Bush is, he didn't create NEARLY the number of problems as he inherited.