20 Democrats and Jeffords Supported Censure of President Clinton

There is so much to say about the censure resolution, but this morning I'll do what I rarely do: be quiet for a moment and let others speak for me. Mostly, however, I would really like to point out is this, from Liberal Oasis:
Here's the list of Dem and Independent Senators who backed censure for Clinton (S. Res. 44 in the 106th Congress) and have yet to back censure for Bush:

Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Inouye, Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry*, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer, Ron Wyden
Despicable. Censure President Clinton for lying about sex, but only push for investigations when President Bush conducts illegal surveillance, and lies to you about conducting illegal surveillance. I wrote last night that one of the main problems we are facing is a media landscape that rewards Democrats for attacking other Democrats, but gives no incentive for Democrats to attack Bush. The only environment where that does not seem to be the case is the progressive blogosphere. We need to push as hard as we can to reward Senators like Russ Feingold when they make strong moves like this, and we also need to reward Senators like Tom Harkin who have come out in support of strong moves. Unless we start to give incentives to our own caucus for demonstrating leadership and standing up to Republicans, they are less likely to do so themselves.

Keep calling Senators. Show your support for censure.



Display:


Re: 20 Democrats (none / 0)

It isn't the media landscape. It's the Vichy Dems themselves. They do not represent us. They, like the GOP, are mostly rich white guys with proportionately more rich white gals. Going after many if not most of the same corporate honey-pots the GOP goes after. Same revolving door, same neo-liberal worldview, just a little softer around the edges and, decidely, more socially liberal.

There's a reason why much of the business press (The Economist, the Financial Times to name two) have taken to endorsing Democrats. It's because, by and large, they're not on our side.

Simple as that.

The faster we figure this out, the better it is for all of us on the left.


by redstar66 on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:29:25 AM EST

Wrote this to Senator Feinstein (none / 0)

It has beed extremely disappointing over the last 24 hours to have seen the sickening lask of support for your colleague, Senator Feingold, in his attempt to propose and bring to vote, the resolution to censure President Bush.

It is being make very clear in many public forums your proposal to censure former-president Clinton for his lying about a consensual affair with and adult female.

Knowing this, it makes very little sense for you at present to withold support for your team-mate, as he seeks to bring censure to a president who has broken a very important statute, repeatedly, admits this action, and appears to be proud of his activity.  To the average citizen of your state, this is much worse than something as innocuous as lying about sex.  Please let me be clear on this:

THIS ADMINISTRATION IS SPYING ON US AND USING THAT INFORMATION TO OUR DETRIMENT

If you think for a moment that they haven't been checking your communications, please think again....your opposition has read their Sun Tzu, and take full advantage of every oppotunity to strengthen their position.  By not standing tegether with your team-mate(s), you're playing their game, and literally planting your foot in the faces of your constituents.

I Plead with you at this point to re-consider your support for Senator Feingold's resolution, and to convince your other team-mates to make the same commitment.  Stating strong Principles mean nothing at all if, when the chips are down, you retreat from those Principles and remain silent while your team-mate gets mauled.

Thank you for your time


by justadood on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:57:46 AM EST

Whoa! (none / 0)

For God's sake, calm down!

I think Reid is a horrible Senate leader. But he's absolutely right when he says

I think that people should cool their jets...

Lefty bloggers will not turn Senate Dems from a bunch of risk-averse, office-loving, ideology-free, corporate whores - don't say I don't call 'em as I see 'em! - into what they would like them to be by shouting and stamping their feet!

The vast majority of Dem senators were never going to vote for Feingold's censure res under any circumstances.

You think that's wrong, I think that's wrong - but thinking doesn't make it so.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the - by me - entirely essential 50 State Strategy and the sudden imposition of a litmus test on Dem senators which everyone knows most of them will fail.

If the lefty 'sphere is serious about Dems taking control of at least one house in November, that has to be the overriding priority. Lapses in discipline like this only gladden the hearts of the GOP.

I don't know what Feingold's game is - but it is certainly a complete 180 from the way he went about things with PATRIOT Act renewal.

And blaming the media this time is completely beside the point - Feingold had absolutely no need to go on the record with his cowering crack.

Much as I hate to say it - on behalf of the bunch of risk-averse, office-loving, ideology-free, corporate whores - the guy who crossed the line into party mud-fight was Feingold, not the fainthearts.


by skeptic06 on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:08:02 AM EST

Re: Whoa! (none / 0)

Very good points, Skeptic. Especially as regards Feingold's actions, though while I agree wholeheartedly with the analysis, I perhaps disagree with the appraisal of the value of his actions.

Feingold nailed 'em, and aptly so. And rarely a bunch of snivelling whiners merited less.

Please humor me by giving your opinion on when would be the right time for someone to quit supporting a "bunch of risk-averse, office-loving, ideology-free, corporate whores".

Full disclosure: I already have.


by redstar66 on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:18:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 20 Democrats and Jeffords Supported Censure of (3.00 / 1)

There's actually a pretty good argument for not pushing hard for censure at this moment. Even my extraordinarily liberal home town paper, the Boulder (CO) Daily Camera, editorialized against it this morning. Pushing for censure and for more information about the program (via hearings) at the same time is dissonant, to put it kindly. First you fight for hearings and for full disclosure, THEN you censure. Makes a lot more sense to me.

Plus, what the hell good is censure going to do, besides making us all feel better? The idea is to get the facts out, to disinfect through sunshine. Not to score political points against an administration that's not running for anything ever again.


by ColoDem on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 12:47:32 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.