Censure Off The Table, Too
Something tells me that we'll need to bookmark these statements for future use. Senator Russ Feingold said that he would offer a motion to censure President Bush on several points, including mismanaging the war and making "misleading" statements -- but Harry Reid said that the Senate had more important work to do:
Liberal Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution. ...Feingold, a prominent war critic, said he soon plans to offer two censure resolutions — measures that would amount to a formal condemnation of the Republican president.
The first would seek to reprimand Bush for, as Feingold described it, getting the nation into war without adequate military preparation and for issuing misleading public statements. The resolution also would cite Vice President Dick Cheney and perhaps other administration officials.
The second measure would seek to censure Bush for what the Democrat called a continuous assault against the rule of law through such efforts as the warrantless surveillance program against suspected terrorists, Feingold said. It would also ask for a reprimand of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and maybe others.
The censure does nothing but make a political statement. It would carry no weight nor force any change in policy. It amounts to little more than a temper tantrum and is at least arguably inappropriate in terms of the Constitutional separation of powers. Congress uses censure to punish its own members, not members of other branches. It has only been used once against a president -- in 1834 against Andrew Jackson -- and the succeeding Congress vacated it.
Congress considered censure as an alternative to impeachment in 1998 against Bill Clinton for his perjury and obstruction of justice in his defense of the civil lawsuit brought by Paula Jones. It was rejected as inappropriate, basically on Constitutional grounds, but also because it essentially would have been meaningless, as well as easily reversible.
Harry Reid, asked in a later program about Feingold's announcement, wisely rejected it. Feingold tried censure once before but only managed to garner a handful of Senators to support it. After losing several cloture votes over the last few weeks, Reid certainly has better things to do than to get stomped on a censure motion that wouldn't gin up a third of the votes needed to pass, let alone gain cloture. Under the leadership of Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the 110th already is well on its way to becoming the least-accomplished Congress in a generation, and stoking partisan flames over a useless resolution would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.
That could change, however, if Reid thinks that he could gain some partisan advantage in pursuing censure. It's a good idea, then, to mark this statement for future reference.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 22, 2007 11:53 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (18)
Posted by Scott Malensek | July 22, 2007 12:21 PM
It's like the Democrats in Congress just don't believe their poll ratings are lower than the President's; almost like they're TRYING to see how low they can go in the polls and approval of the American people...
their bosses
Posted by Philip | July 22, 2007 1:08 PM
It's like Donks don't even know how things work. Or the law. Or the feelings of the American people.
I am absolutely ashamed of this congress.
Posted by kingronjo | July 22, 2007 1:13 PM
I disagree with you Scott.
I think when you see a rating below 30% for either side you are doing things that p*ss off people who would support you, like Pres Bush with immigration. If Reid were to bring up this for a vote his nutroots crowd would be back on his bandwagon.
I feel that when a pollster gets a moonbat on the phone and asks do you approve of Congress, the fact that Reid and Pelosi don't have the cojones to bring up a bill leaving our troops with spitballs and no impeachment of Bush and a firing squad for Cheney etc makes them rant, "HELL NO!!' Throw that cohort in with the conservatives and moderates and you get such low numbers.
Posted by richard mcenroe | July 22, 2007 1:34 PM
No impeachment.
No pullout.
Not even a censure.
By god, the Kos donors are getting their money's worth...
Posted by unclesmrgol | July 22, 2007 1:50 PM
Is Feingold going to censure FDR while he's at it? After all, Roosevelt let the US Military dwindle to a size below that at the end of WWI while poking and prodding at both the Japanese and the Germans to declare war.
And, as I remember with regard for Feingold's second cause of action, FDR acted against the advice of J Edgar and sent into the concentration camps a whole bunch of American citizens based solely on their race (such incarcerants included Harry Sumida, a 72-year old honorably discharged Spanish-American war veteran who received a Purple Heart as the result of shrapnel wounds sustained aboard the USS Indiana in the midst of battle.
I haven't noticed Bush incarcerating large numbers of Muslims based solely upon their beliefs, while his invasions of privacy have extended solely to communications with at least one terminus overseas, and his attempts to increase our warmaking capabilities have been severely hampered by the Democrats.
In this case, three fingers truly do point back at the accuser, Feingold, and his party.
Posted by Ray | July 22, 2007 2:06 PM
I think Mr. Feingold is simply trying to improve his poll ratings amongst the Democrats as he knows this is going to go about as far as the current impeachment motions, which is absolutely nowhere.
Posted by Ray | July 22, 2007 2:10 PM
"I think when you see a rating below 30% for either side you are doing things that p*ss off people who would support you"
When the poll ratings drop into the low teens, as Congress's has lately, it is very apparent that you're p*ssing just about EVERYBODY off.
Posted by Brady | July 22, 2007 2:18 PM
I've sent the good Senator from the great State of Wisconsin the following email.
Can you not find any legislation more important to sponsor than censoring the President? Didn't you state on the Senate floor in September 2002 that "The threat that we know is real - Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD - is unquestionably a very serious issue...Saddam is a vile man with a reckless and brutal history."? In this same statement your arguement was that the President's Iraq strategy was too general; your quoted statements obviously suggest that you agreed that Iraq WMDs were a problem. If that was true then, how can you now say you want to censure the President for issuing misleading public statements? Perhaps your proposed censure will include your name as well as the names of all your collegues who publically agreed that Saddam had WMDs.
Your second proposed censure of President Bush whom you say is "continuously assulting the rule of law" is laughable on its face. Please show me where any of our civil rights have been limited (more security at airports is not a challenge to our civil rights.)
I would think Sir, that the great State of Wisconsin and the United States itself, would have more pressing needs for you to contemplate than these. Please reconsider your priorities and help to move the country forward rather than continue this juvenile partisan behavior.
Posted by bulbasaur | July 22, 2007 4:08 PM
Hey democrats, how's it feel to see your leaders cut and run from your fight against President Bush when you feel the fight can be won?
Please recognize that this is exactly how we republicans feel about your party's abandoning the more important fight against terrorism which we feel the West can win.
Posted by Scott Malensek | July 22, 2007 6:49 PM
ened before the election last fall. Over at Daily Kos, Markos put out a big ole post in response to the claims put forth by DNC panderers that "impeachment was off the table." Markos argued that it was a small price to pay, and that the party's agenda was more important.
Then, not long ago, Cindy Sheehan was booted from Daily Kos. Why? Because she was taking her anti-war campaign too seriously. She wanted results. She recognized that she had been used, and had threatened to run against Speaker Pelosi so she could personally end the war. Markos didn't like that, so he booted her.
After all, it's the agenda that really matters.
Stole a national election-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
Stole a midterm election-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated the 911 attacks and killed 3000 Americans-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of investigation by independent and bi-partisan 911 Commission looking into 911 conspiracy-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up and investigation by Dem controlled Sen Intel Com into 911 conspiracy-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up and investigation by 20 different govt agencies looking into 911 conspiracy-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
manipulated intel to deliberately start Iraq War causing 20,000 American casualties and 655,000 Iraqis as well as spend/steal $trillions-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of Sen Intel Com Phase I report into Iraq intel manipulation-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of Sen Intel Com Phase II report into Iraq intel manipulation-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of independent bi-partisan wmd commission investigation into manipulation of Iraq intel-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of British independent and bi-partisan Hutton Inq into Iraq War intel manipulation-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of British independent and bi-partisan Butler Comm investigation into Iraq War Intel manipulation-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of independent Australian investigation into Iraq War intel and manipulation-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of Australian bi-partisan Parliamentary investigation into Iraq War intel and manipulation-Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
caused 4 hurricanes to hit Florida in 2004-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
caused record number of hurricanes in 2005-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
caused hurricanes Katrina and Rita to devastate Gulf Coast voting blocks that didn't support him-Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
blocked aid to New Orleans after Katrina because he hates black people-
Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
orchestrated cover up of bi-partisan investigations into negligence and deliberate blockage of aid to New Orleans after Katrina-Let it slide, it's not a big deal anymore
What's really important isn't justice for all these crimes against humanity that the President is guilty of committing. What's really important is the Democratic Party's agenda of an immediate troop withdrawal from Ir-
What?
What do you mean they're not gonna do that either?
Yep, even Cindy Sheehan has seen that light now, and she saw it long before the big midnight pizza party show this week (remember, Harry Reid's "it's not a political stunt" gimmick that even he didn't stay for all night?)
After all, it's the agenda that really matters-not stolen elections, 911 conspiracies, 8 booted political appointees, impeachment, or even ending the war in Iraq.
All that matters is their agenda. If they REALLY wanted any of those other things, they earmark their way to getting them done.
For the parrots, it's about the Bush hate, and for the leaders, it's about the party agenda. All the ranting about this conspiracy and that, about impeachment, or railing against the war, it's all just fear/hate for the parrots and tools to get power for the agenda by the leaders. If the leaders really saw conspiracies, then some of the 300 investigations would've found something substantial, and if they cared about impeachment, they'd have done it, and if they cared about the war, they'd have sold their agenda to end it.
Posted by docjim505 | July 22, 2007 7:22 PM
This is starting to have the earmarks of a sham staged for both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides talk a good fight, but when it comes to tangible action, they harumph a few times and then stammer out excuses for why they can't do anything. Naturally, these excuses usually boil down to, "The other side won't let us!"
I don't know whether Feingold is serious about censure. Given its inherent lack of legal effect, it's hard to believe that he is. Even if he could get it passed, it basically means nothing beyond a headline or a soundbite; Bush will simply say, "I'm disappointed that the Congress did it" then go along on his merry way. It's similar to the dem temper tantrums about the war: they claim that it's lost, that we can't win, that it was a fraud, blah-blah-blah... but sign the checks anyway.
One wonders what Dingy Harry and his filthy crew would do if the Republicans agreed to allow the vote on the Iraq war... but all simply voted "present", leaving the dems with unquestioned ownership of surrender and the consequences of it. I suspect that Dingy Harry would pull the resolution from the floor so fast that it'd make Congressional history.
Cap'n Ed wrote:
Under the leadership of Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the 110th already is well on its way to becoming the least-accomplished Congress in a generation, and stoking partisan flames over a useless resolution would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Keep in mind that these are career politicians we're talking about. They LIKE "doing nothing"; that way, they're never on record supporting or opposing anything ("I was for it before I was against it even though I'm currently for it"). Further, they can spin "doing nothing" into an "impressive record of accomplishment". Look at how SanFran Nan, Dingy Harry, and their partisans characterize the work done by this Congress. Politicians specialize in polishing turds, and the smaller the turd is, the easier it is to polish.
Posted by Lightwave | July 22, 2007 8:07 PM
It seems to me a "purely partisan political act" like this would be right up the Dems alley, but I guess even Baghdad Harry has noticed the Democrats in Congress stand at 14% right now, and falling.
Posted by Scott Malensek | July 22, 2007 8:29 PM
The problem for the left will come when President Bush is gone or clearly irrelevant. At that point, Democrats will have to be FOR something.
All three leading Dem Pres candidates have said they'll keep the war going.
impeachment is off the table
"bring the troops home" is off the table
When average Democrats start looking at their leadership with the understanding that the leaders are liars, panderers, and have been using distraction and accusation to cover their own part in the Iraq War, 911, and so much more....then the party will have serious problems (as if it doesn't already).
Seriously, can anyone tell me how the DNC plans to hold control of Congress if Congressional approval is the lowest in American history?
Posted by Ray | July 22, 2007 8:40 PM
"Seriously, can anyone tell me how the DNC plans to hold control of Congress if Congressional approval is the lowest in American history?"
To be honest, I don't think they can. Although incumbents usually have the advantage in elections, I think more independents will enter the races and change the "political landscape" on both sides of the isle. As to which party will gain the majority, that's something only time will tell but my hunch is for a small Republican majority with independents as a wild card when it comes to party line votes.
Posted by Carol Herman | July 22, 2007 11:47 PM
I think Ray's right.
And, it's always a good idea to check for motive.
Now, why would Feingold need a "boost," huh? Is it possible when McCain tanked that it clued Feingold in to the other half of the equation?
McCain counts on Bonkeys. So, if McCain's numbers plunged, it's possible Feingold began to worry that he'd be seen as a failed "other half" of the McCain/Feingold balloon?
It makes more sense than anything else.
Does anyone know when Feingold returns to the arena for re-election?
Posted by ShochuJohn | July 23, 2007 5:28 AM
"Under the leadership of Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the 110th already is well on its way to becoming the least-accomplished Congress in a generation,"
I think you meant to begin that line with "Thanks to a constant GOP filibuster," No shame in filibustering, but it's a little transparent to blame others for not getting anything done.
Brady says, "Can you not find any legislation more important to sponsor than censoring the President? "
Hmm, censoring the president? I never thought of that. How about we bleep out every inaccurate statement he makes?
Posted by Neo | July 23, 2007 8:18 AM
The "NewD irection" continues.
Posted by TW | July 23, 2007 8:50 AM
Politics as a contact sport.
I didn't realize that censure was intended for Congress' own. If so, drop it and let's get on with the real thing, impeachment. Except we can't because it would expose the nasty truth about this war, which is the underlying quest for oil security. And that would reveal the casus belli of WMDs to be a lie, which would expose our leadership to charges of war crimes.
Much as I dislike this administration, I don't want any of our leaders paraded in front of the zoo that an international tribunal could look like. It would further degrade our international standing, and that's bad for all Americans. That this administration puts us in this position makes me dislike them even more.