Where the HELL are the Democrats?

[pegkerr]

I am furious at the refusal of the Democratic Senators to support Feingold's attempt to introduce legislation to censure the President for his violations of the U.S. Constitution. They are cutting and running like gutless cowards in the face of smears like that of Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, who in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists."

How much of our government are you going to allow the Republicans to dismantle before you get off your duffs? Geez, try to remember that you have a spine and use it for once.

Comments

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

You're with Bill Frist, Hugh Hewitt, and me, among others -- Frist is trying as hard as possible, within Senate rules, to get Feingold's amendment to the floor for a debate, and unless Feingold withdraws it (unlikely) both Feingold and Frist will get their wish in about two weeks. (It could happen today, but Harry Reid won't consent to it -- he apparently agrees with that getting this to the floor is a lose-lose for the Democrats.)

More power to you, and Feingold, though. I think he's dead wrong on the issue, but I'm sure that he doesn't, and it'll be interesting to see how man Democrats will drink the koolaid.

[sternel.livejournal.com]

I read analysis somewhere -- I think it was Wonkette -- that the Dem's problem is that they're all a bunch of little wanna-be power trippers with their eyes on the WH, and with an attitude like that, it's impossible to work together.

And that it's likely Feingold only introduced the censure attempt in the first place to improve his standing with his constituents.

I'm contemplating Canada, personally.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Well, it's difficult for them to have things both ways -- is for most people. (Viz. Hillary declaring income of more than $400K for her husband's support of the port deal that she attacked. That wouldn't work if she was facing a competitive race for Senator; the opposition would have a field day with it.l)

As to Feingold introducing it for local consumption, unlikely; he's clearly got his eyes focused on the national scene, and he's positioning himself as the anti-Hillary. Might get him on the ballot as the VP, if a southern moderate gets the P gig.

And, that said, he's pretty clearly somebody who doesn't care about the fallout from actions that he thinks are morally requisite -- see McCain-Feingold, for example, and him following through on his commitment to abide by the fundraising restriction rules that he advocated, even when they weren't yet enacted.

I think that's admirable; it's just that I don't think he's on the side of the angels all that often.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

And, that said, any Democratic politician should know he made a major misstep when Darth Rove's response to it is to cackle with glee, rub his hands, and says, "very nicely done, my young disciple."

[sternel.livejournal.com]

I'm in NY -- the Republicans don't even have a candidate yet. Pataki's...er...illness was the most press the GOP has gotten here in months.

[silme.livejournal.com]

Rubbish!!! Snarl... I live in England, as you know, but since I'm still an American citizen, I am entitled to vote in federal elections, and I vote out of Colorado. I have NEVER voted for Allard. *sigh* It's so embarassing that the man with the worst environmental voting record comes from Colorado, such a beautiful state. :(

At any rate, I did try. Earlier this week I sent the Move-On petition to Senator Allard, Senator Salazar (I was hoping Ken, a Democrat, would be brave enough to do something) and to Representative Udall. Now, Udall (Mo's nephew, and a liberal type Democrat representing Boulder, which, like Denver is to the left -- it's the rest of the state to the right) would do something... but he's only in the House. At least I hope he would.

I am very disappointed in Salazar and will be writing to him to tell him so. Allard? *sigh* He always loses in Boulder and Denver, but the rest of the state votes for him. I have a friend who lives in his original area (he started in the House), and she does her best, along with her other people in the Ft. Collins area, to defeat him, but he keeps winning. :(

[gamps-garret.livejournal.com]

I don't know about the Democrats in office, but the Democrats running the DNC are revamping the party to create a unified national platform that actually has a point, define the issues that matter to individual states in state races, and put together concrete, cohesive plans that can be followed by someone who actually gives a damn. They're off training Direct Action Organizers and putting them on the ground in every state (40 already covered) to ask and answer questions, mobilize the people who care, and start making change from the ground up -- the way it should be made for effects to last.

Or so said my letter from Howard Dean yesterday, with my DNC grassroots survey, welcome to the committee message, voting instructions, and request for money. I'm happier with my New Yorkers, but wishing I could just snarl the rest of them up with the Republicans in a really big net and roll them all to Mars.

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

I am really falling in love with Feingold. Only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Now this. I'd vote for him in 2008 if he runs.

Maybe I should call my repub senators and tell them I *might* vote to re-elect them if they support Feingold. You know who my senators are? -- Specter and Santorum. *laughs hysterically*

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Yes, Yes, YES!!

[dancingwriter.livejournal.com]

I got an e-mail about this from the DNC yesterday, encouraging me to send Allard a demand for an apology to Sen. Feingold--which I did immediately. Otherwise I have neither seen nor heard a thing about this contretemps in the news--yet another bit of evidence that the "liberal media" is a figment of someone's imagination....

[ceelee.livejournal.com]

"time and time again [sided] with the terrorists."
This makes me weep.
I see and hear this kind of behavior on the playground. Too bad our politicians can't grow up!
Sheesh!

[avengangle.livejournal.com]

I don't have any Democratic senators (I'm considering writing to Michigan's senators, because they might listen) but it's still ridiculous.

Secondly -- this practice of Bush's, of only seeing things in black and white -- isn't that a stage of emotional development that you're supposed to outgrow by age, oh, FIVE?

Third -- I understand their reluctance to censure a president in theory, since I think a president has only been censured once (unless The West Wing was wrong), but it's ENTIRELY deserved in this case. Please.

Wait, Feingold sided with the terrorists? Since when? Was that when I personally sided with the terrorists by protesting the conflict in Iraq? Thought so.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

I don't like this whole Feingold thing, for two reasons.

First, I don't think he's doing anything productive. Shaming a President who is already unpopular but who cannot be impeached, even if it were to pass with broad bipartisan support, isn't making America a stronger or nicer or better place. But far from having broad bipartisan support, there is clearly a pervasive and not wholly irrational sentiment that the President should use his powers in a sensible but authoritarian way to prevent terrorists from taking undue advantage of our perceived softness. Yes, I agree with everyone who is yelling at the screen right now that we don't know if the President is using his power to investigate his political enemies and that the Democrats got slapped around in 1998 on the grounds that the President wasn't above the law. But for various reasons, the debate is "should the President be allowed to fight terror or must we sit here and wait like saps for the next attack?" and we have to change the debate before we will stop looking like enemies of the state.

The second reason is that I am tired as death that our enemies, commentators, and even apparently we ourselves think that the Democrats are weak because they don't walk in lockstep. I'm 38, and the Democratic party has been strong and weak and controlled between 0 and 3 branches of government during my lifetime, and they have NEVER been united on anything. And thank God! Congress works best when there are 535 brilliant independent egotistical people who pool their ideas and come up with a solution that doesn't disgust a majority of them. I hate that the House is filled with Tom DeLay sock puppets, but it would be equally repugnant and potentially more personally embarrassing if it was taken over by Howard Dean sock puppets.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I think it's shameful. What the hell good is an opposition party that's afraid to be an opposition party? Against a 33%-approval-rating-president. On the side of an issue that polls well with voters. When the President lies on television and then admits to breaking the law.

Damn it.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Read this. And then everything you can on this blog.

[(Anonymous)]

Read it? Absolutely. "It really never ceases to amaze how the most aggressive smear jobs on Democrats who take a stand against the Bush Administration almost always come from the allegedly liberal pundits or anonymous Democratic consultants."

Clift's argument, for those who missed it and want to rely on Greenwald's attack as a summary, is, roughly, that both the Republicans who have been trying to get Feingold's resolution to the floor for debate and the Democrats who have been scurrying away from any such thing, are all acting according to their perceived political interests. Greenwald brazenly refers to "facts" that disprove that, but doesn't bother to mention them.

Oops.

Greenwald -- and Frist, Rove, Powerline, and pretty much everybody else he mentions, except Eleanor Clift -- will almost certainly get their wish. Chuck Schumer (who has bravely taken the position of "no comment"), Hillary Clinton ("ask her after lunch"), and Harry Reid ("I'm gonna wait") won't.

And if the (metaphorical) circular firing squad is going to be meeting, Chris Dodd ("I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal") should be high on the list.

After, of course, Eleanor Clift. Reliably liberal commentators are just too dangerous.

Ooops.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Didn't notice that I wasn't signed in. Apologies.