Motion of censure

Remove all ads!

So, what do you guys think about this motion introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold to censure Bush? (for that business of spying without any legal warrant). If you did not read about it in the news, here are some links
Feingold Calls for Bush's Censure
Feingold Pushes to Censure President

So far, the democrats are not very happy to talk about this. And the Repubs. reaction is predictable:

 

I'm glad to see someone's willing to stand up and raise the motion, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere. The Democrats won't want to throw themselves behind it fully, because the Republicans will claim it's a stunt and use it to make them look like (bigger) idiots. That's a shame, IMO, since it would demonstrate that they at least had the courage of their convictions by condemning the lies and hypocrisy around the defence of warrantless taps.

The Republicans can still vote it down easily. Still, I think it's better to fight than to go along quietly. Especially when the Republicans seem to still be trying to use patriotism and "our country, right or wrong" sentiments to deflect legitimate criticism.

 

Democrats are calling this a warranted move against the President, and a bold political move for Feingold. Republicans are calling this a petty polital shunt and questioning Feingold's patriotism.

Despite however anyone may feel about the merits of such a measure, the Republican-dominated congress would all die before voting in anything that would discipline their President in any way, despite what Bush did being far worse than what Clinton was impeached for. And whatever his motives, Feingold is certainly smart enough to know that.

Basically, it's business as usual in Washington and it won't go anywhere.

 

Go Feingold! Show 'em what we Wisconsinites are made of!

 

If Feingold really had any balls, he would have asked for impeachment. Censure doesn't really mean anything. The last guy we censured is on the 20 dollar bill.

 

Very astute post on Andrew Sullivan's blog about what may result in upcoming elections from this and similar situations:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/can_feingold_an.html

 

So, uh, what happens if Bush is censured? Is it like "you should be more careful, Mr. President, you do some bad things sometimes," or does it actually carry some practical penalties?

 

No practical penalties.

 

Right, no practical penalties, just a way of showing the Congress' disapproval of the stuff the president did. Still, it's not like you can expect any republican to vote for this.

An interesting tidbit: if I remember correctly, Feingold also introduced a motion to censure Clinton after the Monica affair.

Unfortunatelly, the response from the Dems is less than enthusiastic. From the political establisment, at least; the grass-roots show strong approval. However, the predominant point of view in the establisment seems to be that this issue actually helps the Reps. to turn out their base (as argued in the Sullivan quote above). So apparently they do not want to touch this stuff with a ten foot pole.

Be that as may be; I think it's a sad day when people are shying away from doing what's right for fear that it will hurt them in polls. If the Dems cannot win elections by speaking truth... what worth is winning these elections, anyhow?

 

The problem with the Democrats is their whole platform is based on doing the opposite of what Bush wants. If Bush gave a speech today declaring the sky blue, the Dems would flood the liberal media with scientists and polls saying the sky is red.
This is just another political move, if Feingold spent as much energy solving problems as he does Bush bashing, he'd have cured cancer by now.
And, by the way, why censure a president for spying on our enemies during wartime? If Kerry had won, every two bit thug and warlord would have their way with us around the world (like Somalia), probably with a helping dose of funding as well.

 

Maybe if Bush would do some things right, then the Dems would agree with him

What some see as Bush bashing, other see as standing up for civil rights and the rule of law. Pretty important issues, if you ask me.

 

Actually, now that you mention it, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if he gave just such a speech after somehow accidentally turning the sky red. That sure would be something to see.

A political move from a politician...I never would have imagined such a thing.

Well, I guess we are our own worst enemies at the moment...

 

I doubt the factual accuracy of that statement, but hey, even if I assume that it's true:

1. That's what political opposition is about.
2. Bush got elected on the back of fundamentalism and virulent anti-liberal sentiment; two things that most would consider poisonous to the concepts of democracy and the separation of spiritual and temporal authority (ie: church and state).
3. If Bush wasn't cocking up so much, and so often, maybe there would be some bipartisan support on some issues. Heck, members of his own party mutinied on him over telephone taps and the ports deal.

But hey, you can still blame the MSM - after all, all the media owners and conglomerates are extremist lefties, aren't they? They're all pinko commie gay terrorist sympathisers, right? And aren't they the ones leading the indoctrination to precede a massive worldwide conspiracy against the Republican Party to establish the EU and China as the new world superpowers?

If you believe that, I've got this bridge here I'd like to sell you...

Ghoul, I think you've missed the point. People - Democrats and Republicans - aren't angry because domestic phone-taps and interceptions have been conducted (at least, they shouldn't be). They're pissed off because Bush decided to ignore the need for a warrant - even a retrospective one that can be drawn up for a very compliant secret court 72 hours later, presumably after you've got something incriminating or with some intelligence value. But I guess his administration's line of thought was something along the lines of, "Just do the phone taps and don't worry about any of that civil rights, due process or privacy crap!"

And yes, I am aware of exactly how much work goes into drafting warrants. Even a relatively inexperienced schmuck like me could draft one in a few hours.

 

Oh, I agree Bush has screwed himself on several fronts, but on the wiretapping, no. First, the general public really doesn't care. only the left makes a big deal out of it. Secondly, foreigners don't have constitutional rights, that's just for us.

On the Due Process front: these wire taps are not for criminal activity, this is not a judicial matter. If they tapped your neighbor talking about all the weed he's growing in the basement, then you'd have something to crow about. This is international spying! All you European nations are doing it, China, India, everyone who has something to protect at home is spying on someone. Heck, even our greatest allies (Israel) spy on us.

On the warrents, how can you get a warrent for a conversation about, i don't know, spiking the water system with anthax, that has not happened yet? How do you get a warrent for future conversations? If the CIA, NSA, whatever anagram hears something happening RIGHT NOW, how does it get a warrent? Why does it need a warrent when a criminal investigation is not happening?

NonSequitur@ Bush did have the far right's support (who else could they go with) but I believe the majority was looking for a conservative, both fiscally and morally. While he has done nothing to help the budget, I like his appointees to the Supreme court and the UN. As for the political opposition, in the grand scheme of things, Dems and Repubs are just a fraction to the left and right of center as opposed to the Communists and Facists. It doesn't have to be the exact opposite all the time. What I would like to see is a well thought out platform with some real answers to the problems of the day. Whether you like them or not, at least you know where the Republicans stand on the issues. Like Kerry and Kennedy, they are all for abortion rights, but they each disapprove of actual abortions since they don't want to upset their Catholic dogma in front of their constituents. Or how Bush sees there ill be a problem with Social Security not too far in the future. His ideas were not the best, but at least he got something on the table. All the Dems brought was fear for the elderly that they would lose their monthly check. I know, as things stand now, I will never see the thousands of $$ I have paid into SS over the years. But, lets just shut our eyes and maybe it will go away.
Finally, ya got me on the ports deal, what was he thinking?

 

That's actually the worst part of it all. The warrants can be applied for after the fact, after spying on whoever the heck they feel like, and they won't even bother to do that! They already have the power to spy however they want just so long as they justify it afterwards, but instead Bush refuses to be even the slightest bit responsible, even when it would be so easy.

 

As long as you are not speaking of the Bill of Rights in your comments on the "Constitution." Otherwise, I would suggest that you view its history.

The problem is that he wants to eliminate it. Yes, if he has his way, you will never see any of your SS benefits. But you may have a "private account."

 

I work in the financial world, I would love to see SS eliminated. Now, its like forcing people to bury money in the backyard and hoping you remember where it is 30 years from now. Even a simple bank savings account would earn some interest over time and you could do hat you want with it. I could pay into SS for 50 years, then get hit by a bus the day before I turn 59.5. Then who gets my $$, the government.
Imagine if we took the billions going into the federal coffers for SS (and where it is spent on everything, since there is no dedicated fund) and use it to invest in American companies. It would boost our economy, create jobs, and come back with a healthy return. A megagiant 401K type fund, with similar loanability and hardship withdrawls. And it would be inheritable, so no loss for your heirs. More jobs = more income taxes, more company profits = more corporate taxes, more taxes = happy government.
Explaining it this way makes sense, or we could just tell people we are taking away their monthly stipend and will be putting them out on the street.

 

But that's just it - some of the people who are being spied on ARE American citizens. And like many others have said, you ARE allowed to tap phone wires without permission, as you can apply for a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact.

It does help the Republicans. By censuring Bush, you set him up as the fall guy - but he's someone who never has to answer to the voters ever again. It's his second term, and he can't run again even if he wanted to. Many Republicans are worried about the mid term elections this fall. By censuring Bush, you push the blame away from Congress and onto the President, thus helping the Republican lead Congress get re-elected.

 

You're quite wrong there; SS is completely separate from every other government expenditure. When you pay money into SS, it always comes out of SS to the people who qualify, nowhere else. That's why there's actually a row about SS going broke, because money doesn't go in or out with respect to other government funds. Otherwise, we'd just be pulling funds from other places and simply whining about it without having to actually do anything.

Regarding getting hit by a bus, I always thought that that was what SS counted on: people who don't live long enough to enjoy the benefits they've been paying for. That way there's more money in the pot for the people who do live long enough.

 

Sorry, Fel, but SS is just a tax like everything else. I will try to get a link to the wording of the original bill. The gov doesn't have to give you anything back, ever. And the money does go into the general fund, how many times has congress placed IOUs to ppayback from borrowing to shore up the budget. Yes the money does come out of SS, there has been a surplus for decades as many more pay in than take out. But with the baby boomer generation moving into retirement, the ratio declines greatly, so more is coming out than going in. At this rate it will be empty by 2041, a long way off, but not if we don't fix it.

Fel, don't you see the unfairness of dying early. If your folks were rich, maybe the thousands they paid in means little to you, but for most I believe it would make a difference to pass those assets down to the next generation. People work hard to earn this money, why can't they benefit from it.

Don't get me started on the Socialist redistribution of wealth, we are a capitalist society, let me keep what I've earned. If the next guy is too lazy to do more than the minimum thats his problem.