Russ Feingold Is Right and He's Wrong
I am all for censure. Hell, I think if Bush were a man he would have resigned in shame months ago. But I am also a realist and understand that we the opposition will continue to get nothing done if we keep thinking as individuals instead of as a group. The Republicans have understood this for years.
From their leadership to right-wing hate radio to their corner of the blogosphere, they all read from the same script.
Democrats on the other hand act as if they are all a party of one. Mr. Feingold’s motion to censure is a fine idea and would have had a terrific impact and been a lovely show of strength if the rest of the Democratic Party knew about it before hand and was already on board. It is ridiculous that, apparently, the first time any other Democrat heard of his idea was when they read it in the paper.
As usual, David Sirota, is absolutely right in saying that Democrats seem more concerned with playing nice than with winning. In an earlier post I wrote that the Republicans “would do whatever it took to take control, while the Democrats had (and still have) an almost British, "That's not cricket, old chap," attitude.”
So many Democrats seem to view Republicans like some drunken, abusive stepfather. They hate the bastard, despise how he’s abused and duped their poor mother, obsess on seeing him fail, are petrified of his anger -- and yet deep down crave nothing more than a pat on the back from him after they hit a homer in Little League.
So I am thrilled to see strong Senators like Feingold and Kerry taking strong stands against this failed regime. However if they can’t organize their own party to follow them, how are voters supposed to believe that they could ever govern?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/r...an_b_17280.html
Full Version: Russ Feingold is Right and He's Wrong
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
QUOTE(Noonan @ Mar 14 2006, 02:16 PM)
Russ Feingold Is Right and He's Wrong
I am all for censure. Hell, I think if Bush were a man he would have resigned in shame months ago. But I am also a realist and understand that we the opposition will continue to get nothing done if we keep thinking as individuals instead of as a group. The Republicans have understood this for years.
From their leadership to right-wing hate radio to their corner of the blogosphere, they all read from the same script.
Democrats on the other hand act as if they are all a party of one. Mr. Feingold’s motion to censure is a fine idea and would have had a terrific impact and been a lovely show of strength if the rest of the Democratic Party knew about it before hand and was already on board. It is ridiculous that, apparently, the first time any other Democrat heard of his idea was when they read it in the paper.
As usual, David Sirota, is absolutely right in saying that Democrats seem more concerned with playing nice than with winning. In an earlier post I wrote that the Republicans “would do whatever it took to take control, while the Democrats had (and still have) an almost British, "That's not cricket, old chap," attitude.”
So many Democrats seem to view Republicans like some drunken, abusive stepfather. They hate the bastard, despise how he’s abused and duped their poor mother, obsess on seeing him fail, are petrified of his anger -- and yet deep down crave nothing more than a pat on the back from him after they hit a homer in Little League.
So I am thrilled to see strong Senators like Feingold and Kerry taking strong stands against this failed regime. However if they can’t organize their own party to follow them, how are voters supposed to believe that they could ever govern?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/r...an_b_17280.html
I am all for censure. Hell, I think if Bush were a man he would have resigned in shame months ago. But I am also a realist and understand that we the opposition will continue to get nothing done if we keep thinking as individuals instead of as a group. The Republicans have understood this for years.
From their leadership to right-wing hate radio to their corner of the blogosphere, they all read from the same script.
Democrats on the other hand act as if they are all a party of one. Mr. Feingold’s motion to censure is a fine idea and would have had a terrific impact and been a lovely show of strength if the rest of the Democratic Party knew about it before hand and was already on board. It is ridiculous that, apparently, the first time any other Democrat heard of his idea was when they read it in the paper.
As usual, David Sirota, is absolutely right in saying that Democrats seem more concerned with playing nice than with winning. In an earlier post I wrote that the Republicans “would do whatever it took to take control, while the Democrats had (and still have) an almost British, "That's not cricket, old chap," attitude.”
So many Democrats seem to view Republicans like some drunken, abusive stepfather. They hate the bastard, despise how he’s abused and duped their poor mother, obsess on seeing him fail, are petrified of his anger -- and yet deep down crave nothing more than a pat on the back from him after they hit a homer in Little League.
So I am thrilled to see strong Senators like Feingold and Kerry taking strong stands against this failed regime. However if they can’t organize their own party to follow them, how are voters supposed to believe that they could ever govern?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/r...an_b_17280.html
Feingold had the guts to do what he thinks is right.....no matter the consequences for his potential presidential run, if he should run...kudos to him...bravo.....he's one politician I can truly respect...
Baloney - get real. He would never have been allowed by the R's to get in on the floor if he didn't act independently and besides why wouldn't the Dems line up behind this - the president is no sacred cow regardless of his reputed speaking with God. I was watching live on C-Span and the only thing that got Feingold on record was the surprise element, IMHO
lenal
lenal
I think there is some merit to notifying the Party leadership before advancing this idea, but I doubt they would have been behind it even then. I also have a hard time believing they were surprised by this, I managed to record and review his interview on "This Week" several times before he was speaking before the Senate.
Frist certainly seemed like he was prepared to talk about it when he followed up after Russ on the same show.
Having followed my Senator for some time now, his idea of censure isn't something he just decided recently. He's been talking about it as an option for months now. This move shouldn't have been an outrageous surprise to the leadership of either party.
Frist certainly seemed like he was prepared to talk about it when he followed up after Russ on the same show.
Having followed my Senator for some time now, his idea of censure isn't something he just decided recently. He's been talking about it as an option for months now. This move shouldn't have been an outrageous surprise to the leadership of either party.
So why didn't he get anyone on board with him? He's up for a failure. If he was serious about this he would've had at least one other Senator join him but he didn't tell anybody. When Kerry did the filibuster Kennedy supported him. When Reid closed down the Senate Durbin was there as minority whip to support him. He knows it will fail.
John Conyers introduced censure in December of 2005 in the House. So what makes Feingold think he can do anything about Bush?
John Conyers introduced censure in December of 2005 in the House. So what makes Feingold think he can do anything about Bush?
QUOTE(Noonan @ Mar 14 2006, 02:37 PM)
I think there is some merit to notifying the Party leadership before advancing this idea, but I doubt they would have been behind it even then. I also have a hard time believing they were surprised by this, I managed to record and review his interview on "This Week" several times before he was speaking before the Senate.
Frist certainly seemed like he was prepared to talk about it when he followed up after Russ on the same show.
Having followed my Senator for some time now, his idea of censure isn't something he just decided recently. He's been talking about it as an option for months now. This move shouldn't have been an outrageous surprise to the leadership of either party.
Frist certainly seemed like he was prepared to talk about it when he followed up after Russ on the same show.
Having followed my Senator for some time now, his idea of censure isn't something he just decided recently. He's been talking about it as an option for months now. This move shouldn't have been an outrageous surprise to the leadership of either party.
QUOTE(Noonan @ Mar 14 2006, 11:16 AM)
Russ Feingold Is Right and He's Wrong
I am all for censure. Hell, I think if Bush were a man he would have resigned in shame months ago. But I am also a realist and understand that we the opposition will continue to get nothing done if we keep thinking as individuals instead of as a group. The Republicans have understood this for years.
From their leadership to right-wing hate radio to their corner of the blogosphere, they all read from the same script.
Democrats on the other hand act as if they are all a party of one. Mr. Feingold’s motion to censure is a fine idea and would have had a terrific impact and been a lovely show of strength if the rest of the Democratic Party knew about it before hand and was already on board. It is ridiculous that, apparently, the first time any other Democrat heard of his idea was when they read it in the paper.
As usual, David Sirota, is absolutely right in saying that Democrats seem more concerned with playing nice than with winning. In an earlier post I wrote that the Republicans “would do whatever it took to take control, while the Democrats had (and still have) an almost British, "That's not cricket, old chap," attitude.”
So many Democrats seem to view Republicans like some drunken, abusive stepfather. They hate the bastard, despise how he’s abused and duped their poor mother, obsess on seeing him fail, are petrified of his anger -- and yet deep down crave nothing more than a pat on the back from him after they hit a homer in Little League.
So I am thrilled to see strong Senators like Feingold and Kerry taking strong stands against this failed regime. However if they can’t organize their own party to follow them, how are voters supposed to believe that they could ever govern?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/r...an_b_17280.html
I am all for censure. Hell, I think if Bush were a man he would have resigned in shame months ago. But I am also a realist and understand that we the opposition will continue to get nothing done if we keep thinking as individuals instead of as a group. The Republicans have understood this for years.
From their leadership to right-wing hate radio to their corner of the blogosphere, they all read from the same script.
Democrats on the other hand act as if they are all a party of one. Mr. Feingold’s motion to censure is a fine idea and would have had a terrific impact and been a lovely show of strength if the rest of the Democratic Party knew about it before hand and was already on board. It is ridiculous that, apparently, the first time any other Democrat heard of his idea was when they read it in the paper.
As usual, David Sirota, is absolutely right in saying that Democrats seem more concerned with playing nice than with winning. In an earlier post I wrote that the Republicans “would do whatever it took to take control, while the Democrats had (and still have) an almost British, "That's not cricket, old chap," attitude.”
So many Democrats seem to view Republicans like some drunken, abusive stepfather. They hate the bastard, despise how he’s abused and duped their poor mother, obsess on seeing him fail, are petrified of his anger -- and yet deep down crave nothing more than a pat on the back from him after they hit a homer in Little League.
So I am thrilled to see strong Senators like Feingold and Kerry taking strong stands against this failed regime. However if they can’t organize their own party to follow them, how are voters supposed to believe that they could ever govern?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/r...an_b_17280.html
While I can agree that the Democrats need to get their act together in terms of functioning as a group rather than individuals and speaking with one voice on a consistent set of core issues and principles -- I do think it is unfair and even illogical to place that onus on Senator Feingold simply because he has proposed a resolution of censure.
It seems to me the issue raised by this article is a structural problem within the party itself. Rather than all out of the blue expecting every Democratic politician to clear his or her point of view with some nonexistent central Democratic party machine and get everyone in lock step, it seems to me we need to set-up this leadership structure on the front end, get everybody together to explain the structure and explain how everyone should operate within it.
I realize there is presently a semblance of such a structure now in that Harry Reid is the Minority Leader in the Senate and Pelosi serves that role in the House. Nonetheless, I think the article is suggesting something more far reaching and all encompassing than what is currently in place. As such it seems inappropriate to suddenly expect Feingold to make this happen simply because his conscience has moved him to call for censure of the president.
I do however think that the current Democratic Party leadership (Reid, Pelosi, Dean and whomever else) should get together and make this happen (i.e, functioning as group that speaks with one voice).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.