Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Feingold for Prez-ee-dent?

On March 13, Russ Feingold moved to censure President Bush for the unlawful wiretaps that he authorized the NSA to carry out. Not a single Democrat in the Senate stood up to second the motion. And by this Washington Post account, he caught his Senate colleagues off guard. However, Raw Story indicates that he announced it on ABC the day before. So the Senators would have had time to caucus, right? Why did Feingold step up and then out with such a serious move without consulting his colleagues? Does he have ambitions?

Part of me would love to see Bush censured. To date, the only poll done on the issue was done by the American Research Group The poll shows that a respectable number of voters (48%) would support such a move. And let's not ignore 43% of voters who wouldn't mind seeing an impeachment. ARA puts Bush's disapproval rating at 58%!

But, is it really good idea to make such a huge step at such a critical time without bringing your party with you? Is this a move too far to the left? It is just a stunt like Kerry's calling for a filibuster from the ski slopes of Davos? Does is further fracture the Party?

What do the Citizens think of Feingold's move?

(Yes, LTG, we know . . . Bush must be impeached.)


Dr. Strangelove said...

During the 2004 campaign, it was maddening to watch Cheney and others say outrageous things--which the media repeated and debated endlessly--while Bush himself was left to appear genial and moderate by contrast.

It is my guess that Feingold is doing the same thing for the Democrats. The press now have been talking about "censure" and "President" in the same breath now for a week... and by letting their dog bark alone, other Democrats take little flak for his remarks. And it will be forgotten in a few weeks by almost everyone. The only lasting effect will be that Bush will have been unable to raise his poll numbers by waving the flag on the 3rd anniversary of his war. And thus Feingold's act makes sense. Just my opinion.

So in other words, I subscribe to one of USWest's suggested possibilities: it is just a stunt.

Anonymous said...

US West, the rule of thumb is that every Senator has dreams of being President. Ambition is a job requirement.

I think Dr. Strangelove is right about this though. I also think this was a case of running it up the flag pole to see who salluted - i.e. look at the aforementioned poll numbers.  

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

I think what Feingold is doing is very important to the debate in this country. Let's swing the debate to whether we should censure him. The Economist has it right: if the Dems get control of either house, they will impeach or censure the president, or both, so we are going to have to face that debate soon.  

// posted by LTG

The Law Talking Guy said...

Feingold would be a poor candidate for president. We need a DLCer of sorts, a person *perceived* as a moderate. In order to have that perception, other Democrats further to the left need to come out swinging. Americans don't have a good sense of absolutes, only relative right and left. When the president started torturing in Guantanamo and the Dems said nothing, the debate came "let's find a middle ground to allow some 'stress positions.'" When Dems stop opposing tax cuts for the rich, the "middle ground" becomes "How much?" Feingold will help elect a moderate Democrat by stretching out the spectrum of debate and pulling the perceived 'moderate' position to the left.

Anonymous said...

LTG, I think that is a great role for Feingold. And he'll do a better job of it than Dean. Coming from Wisconsin (a "heartland" state), he can avoid much of the knee jerk opposition to anyone from New England or California.

Feingold would make a great second banana on the ticket. Bayh-Feingold or Warner-Feingold would be tough ticket for the Republicans to beat with anyone other than McCain (who, by the way, is not so popular with Republican activists as the media assumed he would be).

Imagine Warner-Feingold vs Frist-Bush or Frist-Dole? My dream Republican ticket would be Frist-Brownback. That would force the Republicans to compeletely abandon the suburbs in favor of the "ex-urban" mega-church types.  

// posted by Raised By Republicans