This is hilarious! Senator Russ Feingold made a complete ass of himself Tuesday on the Senate floor when he called for a censure against President Bush, which was followed immediately by...total silence. Except for the sound of many Democratic feet scurrying for the exits in an attempt to distance themselves from Feingold as quickly as possible. The Democrats own propagandist, The Washington [Com]Post reports:
"Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost."
They went on to describe the various vain attempts to corral any Democratic Senator who might be willing to give them an assessment:
"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).
"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.
He served in Viet Nam, but apparently The Washington Post is more fearsome than any Viet Cong.
Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).
"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.
Feingold himself announced his proposal for censure, then left the chamber immediately thereafter, not even slowing down long enough to engage in a debate with Senator Arlen Spector, who couldn't resist taunting him.
Which reminds me of a line from "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" in which Mr. Lund, the blind owner/operator of the radio station where the Soggy Bottom Boys recorded their big hit, said, (paraphrased) "He sang into yonder can and skeedaddled!"
Feingold "skeedaddled".
I'm thinking that Mr. Feingold may have been having second thoughts after his announcement went over like a lead balloon.
And then, like a bad penny, showed up yesterday to accuse his fellow Democrats of "cowering", rather than joining him on trying to censure President Bush over domestic spying.
The Post goes on to say, "At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq (So they think), the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party."
The statement contained within the parentheses is all mine. And remember, The Washington [Com]Post is a left leaning publication, so, coming from them, it is a stinging indictment of Feingold's rash actions.
By the way, I looked up the word censure in the dictionary, and this is what I found:
"censure[1]
(noun) 1 : a judgment involving condemnation; 2 archaic : OPINION , JUDGMENT ; 3 : the act of blaming or condemning sternly; 4 : an official reprimand
censure[2]
(transitive verb) 1 obsolete : ESTIMATE , JUDGE ; 2 : to find fault with and criticize as blameworthy"
Basically, what Feingold and a couple of others want to do is tell President Bush, "Shame on you for trying to protect our country without asking us for permission first. Bad President! Bad boy!"
Well, I have to give credit where credit is due. At least Senator Feingold is doing something. That is more than can be said for the majority of Democratic Lawmakers.
In the end, the Democrats are hoping to bring an article of impeachment against President Bush. But then, they've been trying to find a reason to do that since the Clinton administration ended. The feel they "owe the Republicans one", in the words of blogger buddy, ER. Why else would they keep making up scandals, no matter how trivial? They are practicing the age old tactic of throwing all the fecal matter against the wall in hopes some of it will stick.
It won't happen, of course. Not unless the Democrats win back the majority in Congress in the upcoming Congressional elections. If they get the majority, they will have at least enough votes to start the proceedings. Getting a conviction will be a little more tricky. But then, I doubt they really want to remove Bush from office. They just want to even the score.
Sounds a little like kids on a playground fighting over which team gets to bat first, doesn't it?
So, Democrats like Feingold will keep trying and keep making asses out of themselves, and before you know it, the Bush Presidency will be history.
Kind of seems like a waste of tax payers money to me.
I wonder if the Democrats are officially embarrassed yet?
18 comments:
If they are embarassed, it is because of the timing, not because of the action.
Across the board, Democrats across America WANT President Bush impeached, not because of anything that he has actually done, but because it happened to the last Democrat that occupied that office, and Republicans MUST be worse than(or at least as bad as) Democrats.
Once again, Clinton set the standard, and the Democrats now think that they have to drag down every President from now on and hold them to that standard, however low it may be.
The only think I'm embarrassed about is the way the faint-hearted chickens--t Dems in the Senate left Feingold hanging out to dry. Rich, detached bastards. If I could recall ALL of them, I would.
Feingold is right.
The Dems "do" owe one -- but only a blind camp follower refuses to see the STACK of impeachable offenses this so-called president has built up. Made-up scandals my heiny.
As I've said before, Democrats lack the blush gene, so we have to be embarrassed for them. Feingold is part of the wacko branch of the Democratic party. He has received praise from people like Pelosi, Dean, etc. But I think he just torpedoed his own presidential run.I think these Dems need to move to the Philippines, where all it takes to remove a duly elected president is mass street rallies. That's their kind of democracy.
I agree with ER:
Feingold, I'm proud of, but the rest of the Dems showed their colors. I'll say it again: IF you think that the evidence shows Bush guilty of horrible judgement at best and war crimes at worst, then what can we do BUT oppose him with all our might?
BRING ON IMPEACHMENT HEARING!!!! PLEASE!!!!
I wish they'd do it soon, so the 2006 midterm elections can reflect their insanity.
And if they wait till after 2006 and miraculously manage to reclaim the House, they can even have the votes to impeach him.......There's no way the Senate will convict him however. EVEN IF THE DEMOCRATS WERE TO WIN THE SENATE IN 2006.
------------
And lets just pretend to be in Libbyville and assume Bush does get impeached and even gets tossed on his ass:
I COULD LIVE WITH DICK CHENEY FOR 2 YEARS!!! I'm not so sure the Dems can, which is one of the million reasons it'll never get this far.
Dick would drive the Dems crazy, because he couldn't care less what they want..........Plus, he'd have the opportunity to elevate Condi if he wanted to.
-------------
Also, any of the above events would lead to a Republican landslide in the 2008 General Election........Republicans would reclaim both houses of Congress, and would increase their majority to a larger level than it currently is.
And the Republican nominee would be elected President as well.
--------------
If the Democrats are smart, and there's no doubt some are (even though most are shortsighted), they will allow the 2006 midterms to go off without a hitch........And maybe they'll get some seats. Maybe even pull the House.
Then they can pray for Bush to tumble......All hell could break loose in the Middle East, they have willing accomplices in the Media and Hollywood, and who knows how the economy will go.
IF THEY ARE SMART THEY WILL PLAY OUT THE STRING!
I don't think they are this smart though, and they'll likely shoot themselves in the foot instead.
Hey Dan and ER, are you guys Molly Ivins Democrats?
"I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton." - Molly Ivins
I thought that senators could only censure themSELVES...
"This is hilarious! Senator Russ Feingold made a complete ass of himself Tuesday on the Senate floor when he called for a censure against President Bush, which was followed immediately by...total silence. Except for the sound of many Democratic feet scurrying for the exits in an attempt to distance themselves from Feingold as quickly as possible."
Liked how you opened this post up with that paragraph.
I listen to Laura Ingraham a little at night sometimes when they re-air her show at 10:00 pm. Last night I heard her talking about Hillary hiding behind the short lady and I just had to crack up. I like it when dems put their foot in their mouths. And it seems to happen a lot.
Count me in with ER. Feingold is right on, and it is PRECISELY for what Bush has done. I know it, you know it. We all know it.
If Bush has done nothing, then why has the Senate Intelligence Committee been neutered by the Republic leadership and the administration? If Bush has done nothing wrong, then why can't he make the case in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee?
48% of people polled agree with Feingold, 44% don't. Looks like censure is pretty close to mainstream.
Honest opposition, or differing ideologies, do not warrant impeachment, let alone censure-- a power not enumerated in the Constitution. Dem's want to castigate the President for instituting un-Constitutional programs, via an un-Constitutional censure? Feingold's "proposal" stinks of hypocrisy and ignorance... to say nothing of the unwashed democratic masses who ignorantly believe Censure is Constitutional. The self-same unwashed masses who believe Al Gore garnered more votes in the 2000 election.
Sour grapes and hatred aren't reason enough for what Democrats wish to do to President Bush.
Homerun, have a cold one, no reason to say more.
I thought that senators could only censure themSELVES...
Censure is reserved for the House and Senate. The only form of punishment for a president, according to the Constitution, is impeachment.
When majority Whigs censured Andrew Jackson over a document, it was expunged from the Senate journal about 3 years later, when the Democrats regained the majority. It never belonged there in the first place.
Pero, if the Dems can't win at least one-half of Congress this year, then I'll vote for a Green or a Libertarian or ANYONE besides the Damnocrat candidate for prez. Let the party completely collapse and rot. Oklahoma would vote for a complete dunce for prez if he ran as a Repub -- oh, we already did! -- so my protest vote won't take away from the Damnocrat candidate's chances for our six little electoral votes, and will be a true protest vote.
And I've always like Molly Ivins. She gives good truth.
"Sour grapes and hatred aren't reason enough for what Democrats wish to do to President Bush."
And I'll say it yet again: We believe that Bush has committed a criminally horrible lapse in judgement at best and war crimes at worst. We want him impeached and in jail preferably and censured would be a small step in the right direction.
This has nothing to do with "not liking" Bush and everything to do with law and order.
It has everything to do with hating Bush. Rationalize it however you will, but your desire is rooted in dislike at best, out-right hatred at worst of President Bush.
You're willing to attack this president for "crimes" that, if one looked honestly, Clinton-- the Democratic Demi-God --is just as, if not more guilty. This is nothing more than a Tit-for-Tat democratic tantrum, and it tickles me pink to see it resurrected each and every week; Democrats have no platform of their own to stand on, except, the vilification, and imprisonment of GWB.
The Left's hypocrisy is evident to all who have eyes.
Impeachment is the constitutional remedy for exactly this kind of thing. The fact is,when it comes to that misty-foggy place where politics, policy and the law meet, at the very pinnacle of the presidency, in the person of the president, it all -- law, policy, what's best for the country -- does boil down to politics.
Impeachment of the president -- with both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- was an act of politics.
I do not want Bush jailed. I do not think he deserves to be charged with a common crime -- or an uncommon one. And no American president or former president should ever face "justice" in any foreign or so-called "world court."
Bush does deserve to be impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
Oh Feingold started something alright he just drove a dumptruck into a nitro-glycerin plant.
I am still lmao at the post from Poison a few above me, that was good Poison lol.
elashley, the all-knowing said:
"It has everything to do with hating Bush. Rationalize it however you will, but your desire is rooted in dislike at best, out-right hatred at worst of President Bush."
Oh, well thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't think I hated Bush, just his policies. And apparently I do like Clinton (I didn't think I liked his policies, either - all those letters I sent to the editor criticizing Clinton must have been done out of appreciation for his policies).
Obviously, you know better what I think. Thank you, dear wise one, for setting me straight.
Schmuck.
Post a Comment