Senators: Stand with Feingold

Russ Feingold is a hero in a country embarrassingly and perhaps fatally lacking in heroes.

We are in very grave danger. We have an elected leader who claims that he is not subject to the rule of law and has acted, secretly, in controversion of the law. He says that his subverting the law is for us, that it's what we want, what we "hired him" to do.

We have one kind of government. When our elected leader makes and acts on such a novel claim, what follows is a different kind of government. (It is probably not a unilateral decision, of course. Usually, for a decision like that -- going suddenly from one kind of government to another -- all the important generals have to be on board.)

That strong new government -- the one where the Rule of the Ruler (and his Junta) supplants the Rule of Law, may function very efficiently, with trains running on time and fewer messy strikes or protests, and it will almost certainly bring great happiness to most of the rich. (The rule of the strong man is generally a very cozy and productive time for the rich.) It may be a wonderful government in all respects, just what the doctor (Frist?) ordered, but of course it is not democracy.

Calling that new government by its real name when we see it rearing its terrible smirking, leering head in the United States is considered uncivil and potentially alienating and extreme -- as extreme, for example, as censuring a president who openly brings on that new government ("Bring it on!") by fiat -- by claiming he can decide which laws apply to him, ignore the others, and make up useful new ones (or useful new interpretations of old ones) all by himself, without any oversight, without any checks and balances, without a peep from you or from us. (Besides, if you try to interfere, he'll just take you out back and veto the daylights out of you, won't he?)

He's doing it for our own good, of course. Of course. But has any elected government ever been subverted for any other reason than to save it?

Make no mistake, Feingold's motion to censure is not a foolish nuisance interrupting your busy lawmaking schedules, not an unnecessary distraction from the great work of appealing as unspecifically as possible to enough disgruntled Republicans that we can eke out a tarnished and compromised numerical victory in November. It goes to the heart of what the United States is and means. It also goes to the heart of the responsibility we have given you -- and you have accepted -- to preserve and protect our country.

Stand with Feingold for the democracy, or pass -- and continue, as a party, to stand for as little as possible. Alienate no one, appeal mildly and broadly, and then be buried forever in the hapless, dithering, frightened irrelevance that is the Democratic Party's astonishing achievement in these terrible times. Stand with Feingold or don't bother standing for any more elections. If you can't censure this President for such a patent and chilling offense, it probably won't matter much to anyone but you whether you're re-elected or not. This country may soon be past needing the little that you find yourselves able -- or willing -- to do for it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-dwyer/...in_b_17318.html

Dwyer says it muh better than I ever could...but this is what I have been saying in some of my posts....I no longer will excuse politicians, from any Party, who refuse to stand up for important issues because they are more concerned with pleasing voters than with taking a principled stand, using the excuse that getting elected is more important, the first priority and THEN they will let Americans know what they really stand for. These days I am only interested in how willing politicians are to openly express their beliefs and how willing they are to fight for those beliefs....I couldn't care less if their views may offend or turn off some voters....I'm looking for behaviors that tell me who the politician is, what he believes in, what he's willing to fight for, regardless of whether or not those stances will make him electable....the irony is, those who expose themselves openly and honestly may very well be the ones who capture the majority of votes.....

Right on !

It's not partisan PDF Print E-mail
Written by ilya S
Wednesday, 15 March 2006
A lot of the attacks on Senator Feingold from the media and the right have accused him of being a "liberal" "partisan Democrat" or "playing politics". Now, anyone who knows the Senator's record knows how absurd these claims are but lets recap anyway.

Back when Clinton was being impeached, Sen. Byrd wanted all the charges dismissed without a Senate investigation. The one Democrat who broke with the party and voted no? That's right Senator Russ Feingold. The Senator believed that the constitution mandated a Senate investigation of the facts before a final vote. After this happened, he voted no on removing Clinton from office because the case was weak.

As ABC points out:



But, George Bush isn't Bill Clinton and lying about sex sure isn't the same as breaking the law to spy on American citizens. This is much more serious and the Democrats need to stand with Feingold and be counted.

Courtesy of Kos, here's a list of Democrats who supported censure of Clinton but haven't come out in favor of Feingold:

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

Keep calling these Senators as well as your own and asking them to stand with Senator Feingold and publicly support the President's censure.

TOLL FREE NUMBER FOR ANY SENATOR: 1-888-355-3588