Feingold (Democrat) proposes Bush censure
March 13, 2006
Nothing like sending the right message to our enemies:
Senator proposes Bush censure - Politics - MSNBC.com
The resolution says the president “repeatedly misled the public” before the disclosure of the NSA program last December when he indicated the administration was relying on court orders to wiretap terror suspects inside the U.S.
Perhaps Russ should stick to restricting other, less important rights.
“Nothing like sending the right message to our enemies:” What message is that? Rule of law and personal liberty are applicable solely at the benefit of the president and his mindless supporters.
“Perhaps Russ should stick to restricting other, less important rights.” Yeah! How dare he attempt to limit the power and influence of the wealthy vs. that of those with lesser means!!! Doesn’t he know that what is good for business is good for me (and everybody else)!!!
I believe there’s no doubt that our enemies relish witnessing (Feingold’s) anklebiting.
Whose rights have been violated by these imaginary breaches of personal liberty? Can you produce one example? Similarly, can you submit an example of where the Patriot Act has infringed an American citizen’s personal (or civil) rights? For such egregious abuses of Presidential power, surely there must be some aggrieved parties? Impeachable? C’mon. Quit chasing your nightmares around.
You don’t think the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation restricted any first amendment rights? If anything, this legislation (like lots of other well-intentioned laws) had the opposite of the intended effect. It seemed to accelerate Big Money (not just Big Business. . I’m talking about all the Big Money political interests) input political campaigns by seeking other avenues–back doors that are uncontrollable.
“One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.” - William F. Buckley giving aide and comfort to the enemy.
It is the right and duty of every american to speak out and hold this immeasurably inept (and in this particular case law breaking) president accountable (personal accountability used to be a republican tenet… lol). I am personally more concerned with our enemies using our tax dollars to build the bombs that are blowing up our soldiers in Iraq. That’s aide and comfort that concerns me.
The reason Feingold is seeking censure (not impeachment) is due to the fact that the president broke the law by ordering wire taps on US citizens without permission of the court. The administration has admitted to this therefore personal liberties have been violated. I personally value separation of powers with checks and balances and from what I understand so does the constitution.
I qualified my statement regarding McCain Feingold with “Attempt.” I’m not terribly familiar with the McCan Feingold bill but if you are concerned that the rights of corporations and the rich are being infringed upon as result of donor limitations then you’ll get no sympathy from me. We can at least agree that there is still too much special interest money in the political process. I support 100% public financed campaigns with limited private spending on primary campaigns.
Buckley can’t pull any levers of gov’t. Neither can Feingold, fortunately, since he has such “great” standing even among his fellow Democrats.
Aren’t you the least bit apprehensive about having such strong opinions on something you can’t possibly know? Oh, but you’re certain! I say, let the Supremes decide. Doesn’t the DOJ have a plausible (defendable) legal position on interpreting Constitutional, statutary, and (possibly unnecessary) FISA operational boundaries? Guess not, all because the leftist websites you’re reading all tuned into the hidden code words buried in Bush’s Dec 17th 2005 radio address. (I just got a visual of Ed Schultz out in Fargo tuning in next Saturday’s address wearing his tinfoil hat. — lol).
You wouldn’t wince if, after another 9/11, the sitting administration admittedly neglected to use all means available to prevent such an event because of some vagueness in scope or ambiguous technicality, which is precisely where the current debate is focused on. You *would* expect a progressive and defensible attitude, wouldn’t you?
Please show me where Joe American is having his Fourth Amendment rights handed to him on a tinfoil plate.
Back to my original point—McCain-Feingold makes it a felony for corporations, nonprofits and labor unions to run ads that criticize–or even name or show–members of Congress within 60 days of a federal election, when such quintessentially political speech might actually persuade voters. This, however, excludes any ‘60 Minutes’ hit pieces using forged documents.
It also forbids anyone from soliciting or spending soft money to publicize the political ideas, which in itself prohibits free speech. What kind of shit is that? I think all people of all political stripes now fully realize the perverse outcome of such well-intentioned legislation.
Scope creep may even mean that websites like this might even fall under the McCain-Feingold umbrella–something I’m watching very closely.
A FISA wiretap warrant can be obatined in a matter of minutes over the telephone so spare me the ridiculous “if there was another 9/11″ hypothetical bs. This is nothing more than a presidential power grab.
They’ve been doing the wiretaps for years now… surely you can provide a substantial list of arrests made and tragedies averted as a result?
“It also forbids anyone from soliciting or spending soft money to publicize the political ideas, which in itself prohibits free speech.” …so my freedom of speech is being prohibited because my message isn’t being nationally or regionally broadcasted? You are failing to separate free speech with the means to disseminate free speech.
And honestly, who the f is Ed Schultz? The Peanuts guy?
Ed Schultz is the VOICE of the HEARTLAND. Dang, I was hoping that liberal talk radio was making inroads to new audiences. . . .
If understanding the FISA rules were just so plain and simple any Air America DJ can understand it, please explain it to the FISC judges who seem very ambiguous on scope. So to say that King Bush clearly violated some obscure law is reckless and intellectually lazy.
Perhaps we should not monitor suspect international conversations, for the dearth of “success stories” on CNN. Smart national security policy.
Listen, I personally agree with some of Feingold’s stoic stances on the Hill (not many, but some). But for him to call for a sharp rebuke of a wartime President for something that Feingold admittedly would have done himself (albeit with more priggish accuracy) was a failed political gambit, nothing more.
Laziness, intellectual or otherwise, suits me. But you are missing the point. There is a basic principle at play here. Either you believe the president should have unfettered powers during times of war (you) or you do not (me).
For the sake of cutting through the Festaian obfuscation I’ll correctly restate your false interpretation of my position: “Perhaps we should not monitor domestic conversations for the dearth of success stories.” To which I would respond: “Not for that reason alone but it certainly deserves consideration.”
Feel free to mischaracterize my position at anytime.
Can’t you post a new article? There’s a lot of news going on, and Feingold was last seen long ago sitting alone in the Members Cafeteria, sucking his stoic thumb.
So, have you accumulated any new evidence in the last couple of weeks to support your accusations of Presidential abrogation or are you just waiting for the next order from Star Command?
Should we talk about gas prices? ;^)