Talkin' 'Bout Russ's Resolution
I see Dave got his Karl Rove-approved marching orders.
Dave's latest column mocks Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush. As The New York Times pointed out on its front page- "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry To Bush's Base"- its obvious that Dave, forever the loyal soldier, is giving his two cent's worth.
The funny thing is that I agree with the headline that accompanies Dave's column- "Stop cowering and vote on Feingold's resolution." And this is what Republican strategists are counting on. I mean, when you go American Research Group you find that 70% of registered Democrats agree with passing a resolution to censure President Bush for authorizing wiretaps without obtaining court orders. Yet, as Premptive Karma points out, only four Democratic Senators have signed on in support of Feingold's resolution: Kerry, Boxer, Harkin, and Menendez. I know I'm going to sound like I'm parroting Reinhard here, but: nice leadership here, guys.
Democrats, especially those in high profile leadership roles, have been consistently knocked around for failing to take a stand on their principles. Whether its the triangulating Hillary Clinton or the 'nuanced' John Kerry, they seem unable to make their points and stances as clear and resounding as the Republicans do: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. And has been shown by the past five years, once Republicans take a stand on an issue, they stick to their guns. It can be spelled out for them repeatedly just how wrong-headed their stances are, but that doesn't stop them from standing by them.
Now a Democratic Senator is taking a principled stance- that the President broke the law and should face the consequences- and is finding scarce support from other Democratic Senators. This, in turn, creates a field day for Dave and other conservative pundits.
Dave states that other Senate Democrats aren't backing Feingold's resolution because "it reflects his party's views of the National Security Program." That's what he would like you to believe. Feingold's resolution doesn't deal with the program, as Republicans and Democrats alike agree any efforts to intercept communication by al Qaida is essential. Instead, the resolution deals with the fact that the President considers himself above the law- something that Republicans worked themsleves in a tizzy about a decade ago. The law requires that the administration needed to go to the FISA court to obtain warrants for wiretapping; the administration felt that the law didn't apply to them. In short, the administration thumbed their noses at the rule of law. That's what Feingold's resolution is about- that the President simply can't openly and knowingly break laws.
For simplicity's sake, Senator Feingold should break it down similar to a math formula: 'If failure to getting a warrant is against the law, and the President failed to get a warrant, then the President broke the law."
Dave and his conservative ilk argue in favor of a 'unitary executive' theory- a President unimpeded by laws. However, by allowing this, or any, President unchecked powers opens the door of unrestrained government growth and influence on the individual. This argument is a radical departure from the core tenet of Reaganism, which he made plain in his farewell speech in 1989: "Man is not free unless government is limited."
Presidents that flaunt laws are the opposite of this sentiment. Call it anti-Reaganism, which Dave, who I'm sure was a dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite twenty years ago, now argues in favor of.
Dave states that Democrats don't support Feingold's reolution as "it highlights its weakness on war-on-terror issues." Funny, cause when you glance at the results over at pollingreport.com, you'll find that Republicans are currently at a low point on terror issues in the public's eye, only five points above the Democrats, who are at a high. For some confounding reason, considering that they were running the show during 9/11, Republicans have used war-on-terror issues as a suit of armor to hide behind and prod a cowed populace for support. Now, after years of increased carnage in Iraq, the extraordinary damage inflicted on a mjaor metro area by Hurricane Katrina, and a proposed sale of key ports to Middle Eastern "allies", its almost as if a wise young child has opened the eyes of the populace to point out that the Republicans suit of armor is, indeed, invisible.
The fact remains that this is the perfect time to introduce a resolution to censure the President. Bush's approval ratings are in the tank (the latest Pew results have him with a 33% approval rating), his political capital is shot, and is left on the defense, looking for support from an increasingly shrinking echo chamber. Although I don't expect Feingold's resolution to go far, there is one accomplishment that Dave himself is aiding the Senator in: and that is getting people rto talk about censuring the President. There has been an 'Impeach Bush' campaign around for awhile, but it has been in the hands of former attorney general Ramsey Clark, who, and I'm speaking as a liberal, is nuttier than a jar of Planter's. Feingold's resolution gives any discussion of censure an air of legitimacy. The more its mentioned in the media, the more the average non-politically aware person will ask: "Resolution for what? What does 'censure the President' mean?" Not good questions to be asked if the President is only polling a favorable majority in three states.
The conservatives want to use this resolution as a means to rally their base. In that Times article, there is a mention of an email that Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer, sent out to Republicans: "Impeachment. Coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House eight months from now."
Aren't the Democrats aware of this and using similar tactics? Regardless of how far Feingold's resolution goes, with a minority status in the House and the Senate they have no chance at either censuring or impeaching Dubya. However, if the Democrats can create the idea of how events would be diffferent if they were in control, then their base will be just as frothed up going into the mid-terms. But that's not going to happen with Feingold getting such lackluster support from lackluster 'leaders.'
So let's keep talking about Russ's resolution. And please help the Senator's resolution for censure.
Dave's latest column mocks Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush. As The New York Times pointed out on its front page- "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry To Bush's Base"- its obvious that Dave, forever the loyal soldier, is giving his two cent's worth.
The funny thing is that I agree with the headline that accompanies Dave's column- "Stop cowering and vote on Feingold's resolution." And this is what Republican strategists are counting on. I mean, when you go American Research Group you find that 70% of registered Democrats agree with passing a resolution to censure President Bush for authorizing wiretaps without obtaining court orders. Yet, as Premptive Karma points out, only four Democratic Senators have signed on in support of Feingold's resolution: Kerry, Boxer, Harkin, and Menendez. I know I'm going to sound like I'm parroting Reinhard here, but: nice leadership here, guys.
Democrats, especially those in high profile leadership roles, have been consistently knocked around for failing to take a stand on their principles. Whether its the triangulating Hillary Clinton or the 'nuanced' John Kerry, they seem unable to make their points and stances as clear and resounding as the Republicans do: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. And has been shown by the past five years, once Republicans take a stand on an issue, they stick to their guns. It can be spelled out for them repeatedly just how wrong-headed their stances are, but that doesn't stop them from standing by them.
Now a Democratic Senator is taking a principled stance- that the President broke the law and should face the consequences- and is finding scarce support from other Democratic Senators. This, in turn, creates a field day for Dave and other conservative pundits.
Dave states that other Senate Democrats aren't backing Feingold's resolution because "it reflects his party's views of the National Security Program." That's what he would like you to believe. Feingold's resolution doesn't deal with the program, as Republicans and Democrats alike agree any efforts to intercept communication by al Qaida is essential. Instead, the resolution deals with the fact that the President considers himself above the law- something that Republicans worked themsleves in a tizzy about a decade ago. The law requires that the administration needed to go to the FISA court to obtain warrants for wiretapping; the administration felt that the law didn't apply to them. In short, the administration thumbed their noses at the rule of law. That's what Feingold's resolution is about- that the President simply can't openly and knowingly break laws.
For simplicity's sake, Senator Feingold should break it down similar to a math formula: 'If failure to getting a warrant is against the law, and the President failed to get a warrant, then the President broke the law."
Dave and his conservative ilk argue in favor of a 'unitary executive' theory- a President unimpeded by laws. However, by allowing this, or any, President unchecked powers opens the door of unrestrained government growth and influence on the individual. This argument is a radical departure from the core tenet of Reaganism, which he made plain in his farewell speech in 1989: "Man is not free unless government is limited."
Presidents that flaunt laws are the opposite of this sentiment. Call it anti-Reaganism, which Dave, who I'm sure was a dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite twenty years ago, now argues in favor of.
Dave states that Democrats don't support Feingold's reolution as "it highlights its weakness on war-on-terror issues." Funny, cause when you glance at the results over at pollingreport.com, you'll find that Republicans are currently at a low point on terror issues in the public's eye, only five points above the Democrats, who are at a high. For some confounding reason, considering that they were running the show during 9/11, Republicans have used war-on-terror issues as a suit of armor to hide behind and prod a cowed populace for support. Now, after years of increased carnage in Iraq, the extraordinary damage inflicted on a mjaor metro area by Hurricane Katrina, and a proposed sale of key ports to Middle Eastern "allies", its almost as if a wise young child has opened the eyes of the populace to point out that the Republicans suit of armor is, indeed, invisible.
The fact remains that this is the perfect time to introduce a resolution to censure the President. Bush's approval ratings are in the tank (the latest Pew results have him with a 33% approval rating), his political capital is shot, and is left on the defense, looking for support from an increasingly shrinking echo chamber. Although I don't expect Feingold's resolution to go far, there is one accomplishment that Dave himself is aiding the Senator in: and that is getting people rto talk about censuring the President. There has been an 'Impeach Bush' campaign around for awhile, but it has been in the hands of former attorney general Ramsey Clark, who, and I'm speaking as a liberal, is nuttier than a jar of Planter's. Feingold's resolution gives any discussion of censure an air of legitimacy. The more its mentioned in the media, the more the average non-politically aware person will ask: "Resolution for what? What does 'censure the President' mean?" Not good questions to be asked if the President is only polling a favorable majority in three states.
The conservatives want to use this resolution as a means to rally their base. In that Times article, there is a mention of an email that Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer, sent out to Republicans: "Impeachment. Coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House eight months from now."
Aren't the Democrats aware of this and using similar tactics? Regardless of how far Feingold's resolution goes, with a minority status in the House and the Senate they have no chance at either censuring or impeaching Dubya. However, if the Democrats can create the idea of how events would be diffferent if they were in control, then their base will be just as frothed up going into the mid-terms. But that's not going to happen with Feingold getting such lackluster support from lackluster 'leaders.'
So let's keep talking about Russ's resolution. And please help the Senator's resolution for censure.
posted by true_slicky at 8:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home