Censuring Bush
I've never had any qualms about expressing my affinity for Sen. Russ Feingold. He has been a stand out amongst the current congressional herd. When all of the other mooing denizens obligingly followed the piped piper of Crawford, he rebuffed the siren song. He was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act, which at the time represented a patriotic act in and of itself and a good bit of prescience on the part of the Senator given the many troubles that have arisen from that dreadful piece of legislation. He was among the few senators to vote against the authorization for use of military force in Iraq. And when it was revealed that President Bush had authorized the NSA to spy on Americans in violation of the law, Sen. Feingold bucked Beltway conventional wisdom that confronting the president on it would be political suicide and instead called for him to be censured for his actions.
Now Senator Feingold has once again brought up the issue of censure, this time for not only the continued deceptions and mismanagement of the war in Iraq but also this administration's numerous "assaults" on the rule of law. I know there are those who argue that censure is meaningless because it does nothing to alter the president's actions. Even the Dem leadership isn't too keen on the idea of moving ahead with a vote, saying the GOP will never allow it to pass. Of course they won't, which is entirely the point of the resolution.
After last week's filibuster, a vote on censure will be another instance to force the GOPers in Congress to choose. Will they side with Bush or will they side with the majority of their own constituency calling for change? If they should block or vote down the measure, they will have to return to their home districts and explain their votes. Those facing tough reelection probably dread the prospect of having to explain to the people they represent that although they too have misgivings about President Bush's actions, when it comes time to put their votes were their rhetoric is, the former falls far short of confirming the latter.
(Filed at State of the Day)
Now Senator Feingold has once again brought up the issue of censure, this time for not only the continued deceptions and mismanagement of the war in Iraq but also this administration's numerous "assaults" on the rule of law. I know there are those who argue that censure is meaningless because it does nothing to alter the president's actions. Even the Dem leadership isn't too keen on the idea of moving ahead with a vote, saying the GOP will never allow it to pass. Of course they won't, which is entirely the point of the resolution.
After last week's filibuster, a vote on censure will be another instance to force the GOPers in Congress to choose. Will they side with Bush or will they side with the majority of their own constituency calling for change? If they should block or vote down the measure, they will have to return to their home districts and explain their votes. Those facing tough reelection probably dread the prospect of having to explain to the people they represent that although they too have misgivings about President Bush's actions, when it comes time to put their votes were their rhetoric is, the former falls far short of confirming the latter.
(Filed at State of the Day)
Post a Comment