This is a really big story, both because it will keep the censure issue in front of the American people for an extended time, and because Feingold finally seems to be provoking a much-needed blowup in the Democratic party. We need an ideological fracas before 2008, because as long as we keep cowering, we'll keep losing.

Updates on the Feingold resolution, contact info for Feingold, and (soon) an action plan for lobbying the Judiciary Committee can all be found at VichyDems, part of the multiblog Roots Project.

I was s-o-o-o glad to see that story. Dems in Congress will never be influential in any legislation. So why kiss-ass to the dominant party? For incremental influence on horrible legislation?

Where is Wyden on this?

R

It's just so restorative to find someone with the courage to speak the truth, in all its simpicity. With all the spin and bluster, and with the layer upon layer of lies and shams, I've been worried lately that we'd become immune to the deception and the fraud, and that we had begun to just accept it as ok... as just part of the landscape. Thanks Russ.

It's a species thing. It seems that across time, from human to chimp (Bonobos excepted), the biggest deal in life is whether you join in the hunt when the big man says kill.

When will people have the courage to take up issues consciously, instead of exhibiting the physiology-based, knee-jerk reactions that characterize our policies towards just about everything? Any pols ready to stop subsidizing reproduction? Anyone willing to help the global decline of livability by setting population caps voluntarily?

The point is that until that discussion doesn't sound crazy, you won't hear the end of "we're at war, pull together".

It is really a matter national security.

When the people of Iran, Iraq, or anyone against the U.S. reads how we want to censure our President, we must ask how this looks?

We only encourage the terrorists when we act like cowards in our streets, in our homes, on the Internet, and certainly in congress. Stand up and demand that we show the world we are not afraid and will not fade away quietly into the night. Draw a line and not let liberty be pulled over into an abyss.

Are we the generation of Americans who will later be known as the failed custodians of the American dream?

Dave - Sorry to throw a little reality into your twisted fantasy, but the world has our number pretty well right now: We are losing an illegal war we waged based on ignorant fantasies and lies, we violate the human rights of innocent people wholesale by torture and illegal imprisonment, and apparently we lack the courage to defend our democracy and the rule of law against a criminal administration led by a self-admitted, untreated, "dry" drunk. You can rest assured that they have the message that fearful and ignorant Americans like you and your ilk who bluster like fools about things you prove you are incapable of understanding continue to send.

Hopefully, when the people of Iran, Iraq, and other countries see that we can censure our president they will take hope that democracy is possible and can work. It's not like they are not aware of the lies and crimes of this administration. What it will "look like" is that Americans still care about liberty and the "American dream".

Turning back to the real issue. As much as it pains me to say it, one wonders if this may be a far more momentous political event than we image if our "representatives" don't back Feingold.

Personally, I am generally against modern third party movements and reactionary populist actions such as the tragically misconceived "One Ballot" initiative, which would reduce us to the lowest "cult of the personality" mode of politics that are exactly what we don't need right now. But one wonders if this is one in a series of events and a time on a par with those in the past when meaningful new parties arose. The polls repeatedly indicate that Democrats due to their own incompetence are not picking up the support the Republicans are losing due to their corruption, incompetence, and generally unAmerican disregard for the rule of law. That hasn't happened too often in the past.

For a lot of Democratic Party leaders (Dean, Feingold, and a few others excepted), the strategy seems to be one of null politics - people will feel they have to vote for one or the other, and a slightly larger percentage will choose Democratic candidates just as the alternative. Seems like another and arguably more likely alternative could be a further decline in voter turnout that results in no significant shift in power.

I know I'd pay attention if Feingold, Dean, and a few moderate Republicans who have said they are committed to civil rights and rebuilding the middle class left their parties to form a new party (but not if they dumbly became "independents" affiliated only for the next couple of elections at most). And while I don't think the Greens or Libertarians represent viable alternatives, things would get much more interesting if some percentage of their non "true believer" contingents joined the movement.

So here's an intellectual game I like to distract myself from the empty posturing of folks like Wyden these days: What name, 2008 presidential candidate, and fundamental values would make an genuinely viable third-party?

Here's my three proposals: I kind of like the "American Democracy Party". The candidate should be a former midwestern or western state governor (personally Kitzhaber looks pretty good to me but he probably lacks sufficient east coast and southeastern juice; it's too bad Californians have been so completely incompetent in developing and electing governors in recent years). The values should be: 1) a committment to civil rights for all, 2) recognition that property rights, while important, must serve and not trump civil rights, and 3) restoring the middle class by subordinating corporate rights and power to the rights and needs of natural born people. Health care, education, and all the rest needed for a healthy and good society seems to follow logically from those fundamental values, as would bringing the troops home and rebuilding a cooperative rather than belligerent foreign policy to deal with the obvious threats we must confront.

Russ Feingold will make a great DNC Chairman when the Deaniac steps down: he'll git those yeller dogs all riled up, and the checks will come pourin' in!

Russ can forget about running for the Presidency: even the Dems know burnt toast when they smell it. I doubt they would even put him on the bottom of the ticket, after this charade.

Karl's right. Anyone fighting the US in Iraq already gets all the encouragment they need from looking at the administration's policy. Given that they now know we can't plan, can't execute, won't adjust and are daily driving recruits to their side, the same bickering they always hear isn't likely to make any difference. It must be so easy for their recruiters to paint us as a great unified mass of anti-Islam culture. Hearing that 1/2 the country categorically rejects the Bush administration methods is much more likely to undermine their efforts than support them.

This is pretty obvious. It's like I said, those that object are just afraid that if we don't act like monkeys society will end.

Hey, Stick in the Mud, got a question... When Dems instantly dismiss candidates for any sound that isn't completely bland (Dean, Feingold, McGovern, Muskie, Shriver, etc.), why do you complain when you always end up with "wooden" candidates, like Gore, Dukakis, Tsongas, Grey, Ferraro, etc. How do you think they make it to the top? So the strategy is to get someone that says/does nothing to stand there and take fire from the right, and let the passionate defense come from moveon.org or some such group? Why don't the major parties just nominate cardboard cutouts, and the various lobbying groups from both sides can crank out scads of commercials defining the other candidate's policies?

We are living through what historians will likely see as the worst US administration ever, yet Congressional Democrats hesitate to speak out against its most egregious failures and transgressions for rear of losing swing voters. This fetish of playing to the middle is ruining the party and the nation. If moderates in the rustbelt don't understand the problem of a president who violates the Constitution, international law, and the laws of nature, EDUCATE them, don't pander to their ignorance and complacency.

Ask wrote:

The values should be: 1) a committment to civil rights for all, 2) recognition that property rights, while important, must serve and not trump civil rights, and 3) restoring the middle class by subordinating corporate rights and power to the rights and needs of natural born people.

Great. As an Indy and probable Green voter, I couldn't be happier to read this post.

But I'm wondering why you'd want to wait on the big names in the DP to lead the charge. I don't think they will, or they would have stated their desire to do so ages ago. Why wouldn't you want to start fresh, with someone who had less experience in office but also less baggage ?

Also, how do you get around monsters of supression like H.B. 2614, which DP leaders are just as happy with as Reps ? How are you going to open the closed shop for good ?

If a senator believes that the President knowingly and intentionally violated a law passed by congress, and the constitution of the United States, and lied to congress and the American people about it, then it seems a senators duty to at tne very least support a censure.

The only reason I can think for not supporting censure is that some Senators don't think there was a law violation, or at least believe he was acting in good faith based on legal advice, issued in good faith, from the AG's counsels office. Thats the question that should be asked of each senator.

More thoughts about what Feingold's motion means; more on my site.

Feingold's censure resolution isn't even about George Bush anymore. It's about us, our representatives and the essential nature of the Democratic Party. Are we appeasers who cower and calculate when our nation's essential liberties and values are under attack, or are we willing to take a stand and do battle for the principles our country represents? We know what the Republican propaganda says about us; the Senate Democrats' initial response to Feingold's motion suggests that propaganda is true. But there is still time for our leaders to redeem themselves.

Feingold has finally called The Big Question. In the Senate Democratic Caucus are Patriots who love the Nation and the Constitution that defines it, and Politicians who hoard their perquisites and their power. The two will now be separated, pols from patriots, goats from sheep. Thanks to Feingold, there is no longer a place to hide: sooner or later censure must be voted on, and on that day every Democratic senator will be weighed in the scales, his or her worth measured and recorded.

Our nation, endangered from without, embattled abroad, and divided within, requires leaders with extraordinary courage. Feingold's resolution, which imposes no penalty on the President other than opprobrium and exacts no cost from its supporters other than political capital, has become the test of which Democrats possess the requisite courage, and which do not. Those who fail that test -- who conform themselves to less strenuous principles than those their consituents hew to -- will pay a steep political price for their failure. Not, as the pundits will claim, for failing to "pander" to their base, but for being unworthy of it.

Hear, hear, Thersites! Some were asking earlier about whether or not this is the kind of event that creates new parties. Maybe, from a pure process point of view. If, say, Ron Wyden failed to vote for censure, though he conceeded the basic contention of the motion, could/would the local Dem party publicly announce that he does not represent or speak for the Dem position?

Some of that question is pure query about the process. If the national party allows a candidate to run as a Dem, to what extent can state organizations go their own way? They don't actually "allow" anything, right? If someone registers in a primary as xyz and they win the election, then they are the elected rep of the xyz party, regardless of what xyz party thinks. Right? Can someone be "kicked out of the party"? What would it take? I don't suppose you can, or the Republicans would have dealt with David Duke summarily, one hopes.

So, assuming that he's a Dem spouting Dem policy if there's a D after his name, would the local party have the gumption to call up news outlets when stories involving the ostracized run and simply say, "His/her statements do not represent the policies of the Democratic party in Oregon"?

With response to Rebel N. Dog, I can think of a couple instances where a party turned on the nominee and the nominee lost. John Silber got the Dem. nomination for Gov. somewhere back East years ago and in disgust many Democrats voted for the mainstream moderate Republican who won, and that ended Silber's political career; LB Day prob. won his last state senate term when the Democratic nominee who'd previously represented a more rural district was discovered to have voted to the right of Norma Paulus. So a number of famous Democrats took out that memorable "as Democrats, we say vote for LB Day" radio ad.

Which is why primaries are important. But to use the Wyden example above, his not voting for Feingold's resolution might cause county/ state resolutions to be passed condemning that vote, at which time he'd be wise to come home and explain himself. That is, if a majority of those voting supported the resolution--not always a given.

But unless he were challenged in the primary by a (younger?) person of equal quality, maybe nothing happens. It really is about the voters in the district, not just the activists. If the people who favor Feingold's resolution could not win over the average voter who asks "and why is it you want to throw out that nice Ron Wyden?", are you sure he doesn't get re-elected?

It is like the story Jimmy Breslin wrote about Tip O'Neill speaking to a Wyoming Chamber of Commerce about Nixon's possible impeachment--he'd promised to travel anywhere to speak on behalf of any member who supported impeachment. When he saw heads nodding as he gave the impeachment part of his speech, he thought "this is over, the people in DC just don't know that yet".

Unless and until you know the folks in the Rotary and the Elks and the Chamber of Commerce and the Grange and the union halls are with Feingold on his censure motion, it is not wise to pressure elected officials on something like this. Not that I don't admire Harkin and Boxer for supporting Feingold.

The tricky thing about the slogan "when the people lead, the leaders will follow" is defining "the people". If it is a wide swath of the general population (as concern over the Iraq War and whether we will ever leave seems to be begining to be) that is one thing.

Sometimes politicians and activists get ahead of themselves. I once was in the capitol and saw Jason Atkinson say to a reporter "Everyone loves the idea of funding schools by the 81st day, across the spectrum". Some days later, a friend came over to visit--someone whose interests are more tech than political (does the video for lots of events, helps friends with their computers as a hobby--his profession is completely different). So I asked what he thought of the 81st day proposal and he said "OH! What are the assets and liabilities of that idea?" He'd never heard of it before.

How many folks at the grocery store or in the union hall or at the civic organization luncheon or in the carpool for some event involving kids even know Feingold or his censure resolution exist? Until you know the answer to that question, it is tough to decide political feasibility of forcing elected officials to discuss this.

Indeed.

A lot of politicians want to simply change the law when they either don't want to follow it or enforce it. An example of the latter occurred in Oregon in the early 90's when the Legislature passed a video poker law when they claimed that illegal games couldn't be stopped. So instead of enforcing the law, they just decided to get in on the action. And despite what some people might think about video poker being the fattest cash cow in the state, they should remember that lots of people are hurt by gambling addictions.

Here is how this ties in. You say that Sen. Lieberman wants to legalize the illegal wiretapping, which probably goes far beyond what we think of as just listening in on once-thought private phone conversations. They can't stop the NSA and president from intruding on the privacy of romantic conversations, routine e-mails between family, friends and partners. So, just go ahead and make it legal.

It's a good point. But what I wanted to add is that politicians always seems to want to put loopholes in laws, bend laws for their political expediency and so on.

Scott, how 'bout "The South". I used to actually believe the states' rights/civil war position, until I realized that the ONLY time the South has ever supported states' rights in 265 years is when they did't agree with the central government's position.

At least they're less hypocritical these days. Now they'd like to impose socially retarded ideas on the whole country, not just protect their ability to continue in historiam. Shrub's flip-flop on Federalism, vis a vis issues like MM and Assisted Suicide, is pretty much par for the course.

<hr/>