These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Come back here and defend yourself!
Published on March 15, 2006 By singrdave In US Domestic
You might have heard about the Democratic Senator who proposed President Bush be censured for efficiently tracking suspected terrorists and their phone calls. It's bad enough that someone disagrees with the president for tracking members of Al Qaeda but now people want to condemn the man for doing his job.

The liberal outrage meter must read something like this: on a scale of 1-10, 1 being "not at all outrageous" and 10 being "extremely outrageous", liberals rate: Indoctrination of students, 1; comparing the US military to the forces of Stalin and Hitler, 1.5 (and it's fun too!); outing secret prisons and plane routes, endangering the CIA and the American people, 3; The UN aiding Saddam Hussein and raping underage African girls, 4; but tracking suspected terrorists via the NSA? That apparently gets a 10, extremely outrageous!

At least we know they keep their priorities in order. But I digress...

Anyway, Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced a bill to censure President Bush, and this action really gave us a look at how cowardly people like him can be. Yesterday, Feingold gave a thirty-minute introduction to his proposal... but when Arlen Specter (R-PA) wished to debate him on its merits, or lack thereof, Feingold literally ran away and hid. He scurried away amid calls for him to return to the Senate floor! There's even a video, it was live on CSPAN2!

I suspect he was afraid of being made a fool of, although he did a great job of that himself. I don't blame him, since everyone knows that this censure proposal is more ridiculous than the talk of impeachment. This hollow move is just another example of how the loony liberal left party has no ideas other than to desperately attack President Bush and propose phony censure motions.

The closest the Dems will ever come to impeaching GW is through a New Jersey high school.

Do you know what this reminds me of? Remember, during the beginning of the war in Iraq and near the 2004 presidential elections, when the Democrats used the threat of a military draft as a fear-mongering technique to scare voters? And do you remember who it was that actually proposed a draft? It wasn't Mr. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld -- no, it was NY Democratic congressman Charles Rangel. They used a military draft proposal (made by a liberal) to drum up fears that the Bush Administration was going to steal America's children and force them to fight in Iraq. Isn't that the Democratic Party we just know and love? I wasn't going to write about this call for a censure because it was beyond stupid and many Democrats have distanced themselves from it. However, since Russ Feingold has refused to debate his own proposal I felt that it was important to point out why he has issued the proposal in the first place. He is making his bid to the far-left political groups, which literally own the party, in order to stake out a position for the upcoming 2008 presidential election. The far-left, which reason escaped long ago, has demanded that their employees (the Democratic Party) try to impeach President Bush. That is out of the question for most Dems because they know how frivolous the attempt would be and they know it's political suicide. Given that, MoveOn and other activist groups have realized that the impeachment thing will never happen so they were forced to support another desperate move --censure. It's kind of sad, huh. It's almost as sad as Air America and its inevitable collapse due to the fact that they have to actually pay radio stations to put their filth on the air.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 16, 2006
lol, K.
on Mar 16, 2006
Feingold did NOT call for a vote,


You introduce a measure, and then do not stick around when they say "ok, let's vote"? Good plan! We could have used him at the battle of the bulge. Maybe we would be speaking German now.
on Mar 17, 2006
Republicans moved to vote on it right away

the R's calling for a vote to make Feingold look stupid.

Sen Majority Leader Bill Frist did what he should have done, called Feingold's bluff, but the call for a vote was long after Feingold's departure. Like letting loose a stinky fart in a crowded room, Feingold made for the door immediately after dropping the censure bomb.

It is clear from the video that Specter asked Feingold to stay afterwards to hear the rebuttal.

There's also a big difference between legislators who stand behind what they are doing and intend what they pretend, and legislators who make grand overtures for the camera, seek to impose punishment when crime hasn't be established, and who paints political mechanization as an ethical stand.

This I like, very much. Point well made.

Why would Russ introduce a censure motion and be too afraid to stay for the consequences?
on Mar 17, 2006
I thought the point of putting up a resolution was for it to be voted on. What did anyone think would happen once the resolution was put there? Does it really matter who asked for a vote on it? I thought that was the whole point in the first place.
on Mar 17, 2006
They just want to "discuss" it for a couple of weeks in really loud voices, since they can't get anything done legitimately.
Thanks to the control of Republicans to thwart debate.
on Mar 17, 2006
I won't come in, I can't come in. They will hurt me and make me feel bad.
on Mar 17, 2006
' Thanks to the control of Republicans to thwart debate."


Debate isn't the appropriate reaction to a crime. The assertion here is that a crime has been committed. What the Democrats want to do is play court TV and ruin the jury pool as best they can before the next election. Face it, they don't want it to be hashed out by anyone with legal authority, because the President might be vindicated. Much more profitable to do it all themselves, and let the voting public just believe whatever they're told.
on Mar 18, 2006
The assertion here is that a crime has been committed.
The censure is predicated on alleged misdemeanors without intent inappropriate to one in high office. Censure in this case is like a student body reversing its role and calling the principal to the commons room.
on Mar 18, 2006

The censure is predicated on alleged misdemeanors

Note the bolded word, and the reason it is pure politics with no basis in law.

on Mar 18, 2006
I thought the point of putting up a resolution was for it to be voted on.

I think the point was to bring attention to the subject, fuel to the fire as it were, and not for meaningful discussion on the subject at all.

If Russ wanted to discuss, why'd he jive and dive?
2 Pages1 2