Russ Feingold: Latest Idiot Hero to the Militant Left, Useless In Washington

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
The Feingold Resolution and the Sound of Silence
By Dana Milbank
milbankpic.jpg

Wednesday, March 15, 2006; Page A02

Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost.

"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.

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.

In a sense, they were. The cause of so much evasion was S. Res. 398, the resolution proposed Monday by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calling for the censure of President Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, 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.

So nonplused were Democrats that even Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said.

Republicans were grateful for the gift. The office of Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) put a new "daily feature" on its Web site monitoring the censure resolution: "Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0."

Many of Feingold's Democratic colleagues agree that Bush abused his authority with the NSA spying program. And they know liberal Democratic activists are eager to see Bush censured, or worse. But they also know Feingold's maneuver could cost them seats in GOP states.

Hence the elaborate efforts to avoid comment. Five Democratic senators called a news conference yesterday to talk about the Bush budget's "dangerously irresponsible priorities" -- but three of them fled the room before allowing questions. The other two were stuck.

"Was it a good idea for Senator Feingold to bring up this resolution?" came the first question, from CNN's Ed Henry.

"He brings up some very important issues," Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) ventured.

Henry was unsatisfied. "So do you support censure, or not?

Stabenow took another stab. "It needs to have hearings," she said.

stabenow.gif


Mary Landrieu (La.) pursed her lips. "Senator Feingold has a point that he wants to make," she said. "We have a point that we want to make, talking about the budget."

"Senators," an aide interrupted, "we need to go."

Next in the Senate TV gallery came Schumer. An aide hung up a poster showing a port. The senator called the ports situation "extremely troubling." The aide hung up a poster of an Exxon cartoon. "Obscene profits," decreed Schumer, equally passionately.

CNN's Henry asked the Feingold question. Schumer ended the news conference.

Outside the Democrats' lunch downstairs, the senators were similarly agile. The number two Democratic leader, Richard Durbin (Ill.), darted out of an elevator and into lunch when he thought nobody was looking.

"I haven't made any judgment," said Jeff Bingaman (N.M.). Two minutes later, he reappeared. "I will support an alternative that would call for an investigation," he amended.

The one Democrat happy to talk was Feingold, who, in a pre-lunch chat with reporters, seemed to enjoy his colleagues' squirms. "I'm concerned about the approach Democrats are taking, which is too often cowering," he said.

Feingold, seeking liberals' support for the 2008 presidential nomination, said he wasn't motivated by politics. But then he slipped. "If there's any Democrat out there who can't say . . . the president has no right to make up his own laws, I don't know if that Democrat really is the right candidate," he said of his likely primary opponents.

After an hour of closed-door negotiations, Democrats were no closer to resolving the Feingold rift.

"Most of us feel at best it's premature," announced Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). "I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal."

Dodd must not have checked with Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa). "The president broke the law and he needs to be held accountable," he said. "Talk about high crimes and misdemeanors!" Harkin said he'll vote for the Feingold resolution -- if it comes up.

That gives Feingold two solid votes, including his own. The rest: avowedly undecided.

Schumer, leaving the lunch, still hadn't found his voice. " He's gonna talk about it," Schumer said, pointing to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.).

Reporters, as instructed, asked Reid where he stood. "It's a question that's been asked 33 times in the last few hours," he said. "And so, for the 34th time, I'm going to say the same thing: I'm going to wait . . .''

Washington Post

Russ Feingold as represented in the animal world....
deadbeaver.jpg
 
Stabenow is a miserable excuse for a senator. I'm ashamed to say she is from Michigan. Although, Carl Levin is our other senator, so I guess it's just par for the course.

The evasion of every democratic senator on this issue is more proof that no one really wants this "domestic spying" program to end and they are just using the issue as political fodder.
 
Everything is being set up for the November elections. This will be a major issue. The Republicans are running scared, because there is a very real chance that they will lose control of both the House and the Senate. If that happens, goodbye Bush!
 
[quote name='coffman']Everything is being set up for the November elections. This will be a major issue. The Republicans are running scared, because there is a very real chance that they will lose control of both the House and the Senate. If that happens, goodbye Bush![/QUOTE]

I don't really give a ratfuck since both of these parties are fronted by the same, scandalous money. The media just PLAYS it so the Democrats look cleaner than the Republicans when that's their deliberate attempt to disenfranchise Republicans with the Liberal Media schtick, the same goes with the Corporate Media bit. It's done deliberately to keep Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and Moderates divided. Also to really make sure they don't vote for the other party or the 3rd you throw in some Swing issue to keep them divided when one of the top issues EVERYONE in the Middle and Lower are probably united about which is job security. Coff the elections are just a nice, elaborate play. Look back in history and see where we lost economic, and in the process, TOTAL control of our country. The Media even subtly tries to tell us how something ain't right, remember them mentioning the "98% wealth, 2% people"? That's a clue right now.
Also check this one persons prediction for the primaries and see who actually gets it: Mark Warner/Hillary Clinton, McCain.
 
Sarang gets it right.

There are no clean politicians, or should I say few.

Unless you're a John Heinz, John Corzine or Rockefeller you really are dependent on other people's money.

I do believe that there are a handful of Democrats and Republicans that are saintly clean. I believe the overwhelming majority of Congresscritters take questionable money to flat out illegal money that has somehow been funneled to them and washed. Do I think they're aware of this? No. If you're relying on a staff and doing 2 fundraisers a week 52 weeks a year and receive countless thousands of individual donations from them, the internet, organizations you may or may not know even exist you'll never be truly aware of how each and every dollar arrives in your campaign or PAC funds.

Of course I think there are the ultra corrupt politicians, Rusty Cunningham as an example, that you know are on both sides of the aisle. I think their peers know who is and isn't clean but protect them like mafia type Omerta. Every now and again someone has to be made a sacrificial lamb to be thrown overboard. ABSCAM, the House Bank/Post Office scandals are a couple of recent historical examples. Congress once every 5-7 years sacrifices one of their own to try and appear clean.

[quote name='coffman']Everything is being set up for the November elections. This will be a major issue. The Republicans are running scared, because there is a very real chance that they will lose control of both the House and the Senate. If that happens, goodbye Bush![/QUOTE]

Wishful thinking.

There's no way terrorist eavesdropping is going to swing votes.

Every single poll that has the "public" supporting or favoring Democratic control of Congress needs to be taken with these facts in mind.

1 They're not weighted by districting, they're national.
2. The age old axiom in politics; it's not my Representative or Senator that's the problem, it's that guy in the other district/state I can't vote against.

Never, ever underestimate number 2.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Never, ever underestimate number 2.[/QUOTE]

QFT. You're on today, aren't you?

I'm not so certain that I'm upset with Feingold; it's the rest of the weak-kneed ninny-fucks who won't stand with him.

My position on this issue doesn't need to be debated in this thread. Instead, I'd just like to point out how disappointingly weak-willed many Democrats can be when it comes time to stand up for something they believe in. That is a major area that the Republicans are vastly superior to Democrats on.

Which reminds me, there was a hilarious sketch with Paul Hackett on The Daily Show last night; I'll post it if I can find it online. If not, I highly recommend watching one of the 7 replays that are on today.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Sarang gets it right.

There are no clean politicians, or should I say few.[/QUOTE]


Fair enough, but there have no politicians as bad as W and his cronies in several lifetimes.
 
So Paddy, very nearly every legal expert around has said that, yes, the president broke the law. If he did, shouldn't he be at least reprimanded for it? Or are you weak on crime? Senate leaders are stopping every effort to do a serious investigation leaving even fellow Republicans with opposing views out in the cold. Is the president above the law, or at least is a Republican president above the law?

My real question is: Why did he do it in the first place? The FISA court is a rubber stamp (some 20,000 cases in 30 years, 6 refusals) that can be accessed 72 hours after the fact. That seems more then reasonable. NSA needs to listen to TERRORIST ALPHA today or he'll blow up the world? Fine, just remember to call the office and have them send a lawyer over to FISA to get approval in a few days. It's not really that hard. They also say that at any given time there were between 500-1000 people being tapped. Wait... There are 500-1000 people so connected to terrorist groups that we had to urgently break the law to listen to their phone calls running around the United States? Hey, I got an idea, arrest them! Or were they not all terrorism connected? Perhaps they were just unAmerican. Like say, the ACLU. What is the administration trying to hide?
 
PS - Funny how the right was offended when Milbank wore that outfit, now they love it. And Paddy should mention that the Stabenow poster has been edited.
 
Democrats = Spineless pussies. At leat Russ Feingold has some balls and is willing to stand up for what he believes in.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Wishful thinking.

There's no way terrorist eavesdropping is going to swing votes.

2.[/QUOTE]

Even when there is mounting evidence that the eavesdropping extends beyond terrorists?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That is a major area that the Republicans are vastly superior to Democrats on.[/quote]
I gotta disagree. While I think everyone in Congress does what a politican does, equivocate to win elections, I must say at least compared to the Democrats in Congress the Republicans have shown absolutely no back bone in defense of any real conservatism at all. While President Bush certainly has his share of blame in high-jacking the conservative movement, this generation of Republicans really seem to be populists in disguise. You can rest assured that as angry as liberals are with the Democrats, the conservatives are with the Republicans.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I gotta disagree. While I think everyone in Congress does what a politican does, equivocate to win elections, I must say at least compared to the Democrats in Congress the Republicans have shown absolutely no back bone in defense of any real conservatism at all. While President Bush certainly has his share of blame in high-jacking the conservative movement, this generation of Republicans really seem to be populists in disguise. You can rest assured that as angry as liberals are with the Democrats, the conservatives are with the Republicans.[/QUOTE]

I suppose that's true, but only with those who support ideas of fiscal conservatism, or those who consider fiscal responsibility (in the conservative sense) to be of higher priority than the social agenda of the right wing. OTOH, when it comes to certain issues (particularly, but not exclusively social issues), the Republicans are willing to vote on those.

My concern is this: disdain for the NSA spying program is pretty consistent throughout the Democratic party, including those in Congress. So, when they get a chance to go on record in an attempt (and let's be clear here, this had no chance of passage) to censure the president (which I believe is merely an official record "spanking" for bad behavior with no legal repurcussions), they all jump off the bandwagon and hide. I can't see Republicans doing that (then again, they haven't been in that position - congressional minorities - since 1994, so what can I say?).
 
I'll say that the Democrats are either morally bankrupt cowards for evading this issue or morally bankrupt liars. They either are afraid to stand up for their principles or they are lying about their principles.

Democrats: your so-called leaders have abandoned you long ago.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Republicans have shown absolutely no back bone in defense of any real conservatism at all. While President Bush certainly has his share of blame in high-jacking the conservative movement, this generation of Republicans really seem to be populists in disguise. You can rest assured that as angry as liberals are with the Democrats, the conservatives are with the Republicans.[/QUOTE]

Amen brother. Bush is, has been and never was a Conservative. Compassionate Conservatism was a phrase for "we'll spend less than liberals for the same big government ideas". There hasn't been a Conservative to run under the (R) banner since 1984. Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush... none of them count. None of them were Conservative. The options of Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry were so unpalatable as far as options go Conservatives were really left with no option.

The 1994 COA gave me great hopes. Having Newt, Kasich, Armey in the House and the mandate given that Freshman class was overwhelming. They completely blew their potential. There have been no Conservative giants in the Senate, Phil Gramm was close and he was a converted Democrat for chrissakes. George Allen talks the Reagan line but frankly he's invisible as a Senator.

I haven't voted for a President yet. I've just voted against the other guy. Same is true of my Senate votes. Specter turns my stomach and Santorum is just a poster boy for idiot quotable politicians, right up there with what Dean spouts off.

I'm almost tempted to split my vote this year and vote for Casey. His father was an honorable man who the DNC screwed over time and again at convention time due to his being pro-life. He may be a Democrat but at least I know he wouldn't be an abject embarassment like Santorum.
 
Speaking of Howard Dean, where is he during this censure debacle? Conspicuously absent, IMO. Especially considering his constant rhetoric of the president being a criminal and a liar.
 
From my Inbox; from Howard Dean and the DNC:

Dear PAD,

Russ Feingold is a traitor.

That's what Republicans want you to think.

They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability.

On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism.

But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists".

So he's saying he didn't go along with it. Nice going Wayne Allard, thanks for the save. "Yes, Russ Fiengold, you and many others believe the president broke the law, that aligns you with THE TERRORISTS!!!" Russ's response should be, "Go fuck Yourself."

Paddy, will answer my question? If the president needlessly went around the FISA court, violating federal law, shouldn't there be some repercussions? I mean, Clinton lied about a blowjob and got impeached. This seems a tad worse.
 
The FISA court is a RELIC.

It is not a Constitutionally established court. It was a stopgap measure put in place by a liberal Congress and the worst President in modern history, Jimmy Carter, to curtail the power and sphere of influence of the NSA.

In a matter of national security I will trust the judgement of the CIC over a court any day of the week. That applies to any President, not just this one.
 
I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.

Also if the FISA court was a relic, why wasn't it done away with already? Are you saying that you like the government having the power to listen in on your phone calls and emails without a warrant?

Also: What has this President done to garner your trust? Would you trust the same power in the hands of Jimmy Carter?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The FISA court is a RELIC.

[/QUOTE]

If the FISA court is a relic than Bush is really in trouble. Because he has been relying on it .

I see you've adopted Sen. Spector's talking points.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The FISA court is a RELIC.[/QUOTE]

Because putting it in CAPS makes it true.

Either way its still the law.
 
[quote name='Cheese'] Would you trust the same power in the hands of Jimmy Carter?[/QUOTE]

:rofl: Carter is a castrated bull. He doesn't have the sack to offend a fly, hence, the point is moot.

He delivered and gave birth to the modern world wide terrorist movement. You think he'd want anything to do with killing his creation????

OH fuck NO!

:bouncy:
 
[quote name='Msut77']Because putting it in CAPS makes it true.

Either way its still the law.[/QUOTE]

Pffffffffft... did LAWS prevent us from getting attacked on 9/11? Nope. Laws do nothing but stand in the way of justice, and you're a coward for supporting them.
 
Ahem...


[quote name='Cheese']I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.

Also if the FISA court was a relic, why wasn't it done away with already? Are you saying that you like the government having the power to listen in on your phone calls and emails without a warrant?

Also: What has this President done to garner your trust?[/QUOTE]

So you trust THIS CiC, but not others.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']:rofl: Carter is a castrated bull. He doesn't have the sack to offend a fly, hence, the point is moot.

He delivered and gave birth to the modern world wide terrorist movement. You think he'd want anything to do with killing his creation????

OH fuck NO!

:bouncy:[/QUOTE]

Oddly enough Reagan was the one who funded Terrorists.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which reminds me, there was a hilarious sketch with Paul Hackett on The Daily Show last night; I'll post it if I can find it online. If not, I highly recommend watching one of the 7 replays that are on today.[/QUOTE]

QFT back at you. That was a great one!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The FISA court is a RELIC.

It is not a Constitutionally established court. It was a stopgap measure put in place by a liberal Congress and the worst President in modern history, Jimmy Carter, to curtail the power and sphere of influence of the NSA.

In a matter of national security I will trust the judgement of the CIC over a court any day of the week. That applies to any President, not just this one.[/QUOTE]

I believe the title of worst president in modern history now belongs to George H. W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush.
 
Get back to me when unemployment hits 10%, Prime is floating at 18%, inflation is in double digits, American embasies are overrun and staffs taken hostage and our primary nation state challenger to power is invading foreign countries and our response to military conquest is to boycott the Olympics. Oh and while you're at it when these things are happening deny that the military needs upgrading or to be better prepared, taxes need to be raised and the American people are responsible for the state of the nation.

When all that happens we can seriously debate the title of worst President ever.
 
Cheese has asked the central question, and not a single conservative here has the stones to respond to it:

If Bush has broken the law, should he be penalized for it?
 
[quote name='Cheese']I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.

Also if the FISA court was a relic, why wasn't it done away with already? Are you saying that you like the government having the power to listen in on your phone calls and emails without a warrant?

Also: What has this President done to garner your trust?[/QUOTE]

Paddy? Paddy?
 
And PAD with the deflection!!! That's his 21323rd of the season, folks. He's really looking for the nutjob forum conservative MVP trophy this year.
 
Face it fellas. No President is ever going to face criminal charges, ever, from actions in office. The point is moot.

Even if forced to resign the pardon from the successor is inevitable.

It's a pointless discussion, not a deflection.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Amen brother. Bush is, has been and never was a Conservative. Compassionate Conservatism was a phrase for "we'll spend less than liberals for the same big government ideas". There hasn't been a Conservative to run under the (R) banner since 1984. Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush... none of them count. None of them were Conservative. The options of Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry were so unpalatable as far as options go Conservatives were really left with no option.[/quote]

It's what makes me so frustrated with those liberals who antagonize you as a Bush drone or something just because you agree with one or two things he does. National security is, without a doubt, the most important issue we will ever face. This man wants to do something about it, and that, in my mind, trumps every other issue I don't agree with him on.

[quote name='coffman'] I believe the title of worst president in modern history now belongs to George H. W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush.[/quote]

George H. W. Bush is former President Bush. :roll:
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']National security is, without a doubt, the most important issue we will ever face. This man wants to do something about it, and that, in my mind, trumps every other issue I don't agree with him on. [/QUOTE]

But what has he done for our national security? Ports and borders are a mess, we caught very few Top Al-Queda guys, he invaded a country completely for ideological reasons on trumped up/cherry picked/completely phony WMD charges blaming the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., leaving our intelligence agencies with egg on their face, lessened civil liberties and returned us to government deeply intertwined with the military industrial complex to the point where billions of dollars disappears and no one questions a thing. The one thing I will give him might be the creation of the Homeland Security Dept., which on it's face is a pretty good idea, but of course will soon be ruined (ie the previously discussed DHS God office).

PADDY!:
well, I'll paraphrase Bill Clinton's legalese. It depends on what your definition of "if" is

"if" = If a congressional investigation finds that his bypassing the FISA law is in fact a crime.

Should he be impeached? Censured? Is there another thing Congress can do to slap him on the wrist? Tarred and feathered? Forced to eat pretzels? Forced to let his dog go duck hunting with Cheney?
 
Feingold, in his news conference Thursday:

I think that the press decided immediately that somehow this was
a bad thing for Democrats and a good thing for conservatives. The
facts don't bear it out. You don't have the polls to prove it. The
way my colleagues are responding to me suggests to me they're thinking
about this, that they feel that there has to be some accountability.

So the instant decision about what the story is, actually, I
think is going to backfire on those who made up the story. I don't
get the feeling that I had on Monday about this -- yes, people were
concerned -- I'm not getting that.

And if the right wing really believes in this country that --
Rush Limbaugh and others -- that they can somehow turn the president's
reputation around by saying, "You're darn right he violated the law,
and it's a good thing," I think they're just as confused as they are
about their Iraq politics. People aren't buying it anymore.


http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Face it fellas. No President is ever going to face criminal charges, ever, from actions in office. The point is moot.

Even if forced to resign the pardon from the successor is inevitable.

It's a pointless discussion, not a deflection.[/QUOTE]

Okay, then....presidents have been successfully censured.

If, as legal scholars have said, Bush violated the law, should he face censure as a penalty?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Get back to me when unemployment hits 10%, Prime is floating at 18%, inflation is in double digits, American embasies are overrun and staffs taken hostage and our primary nation state challenger to power is invading foreign countries and our response to military conquest is to boycott the Olympics. Oh and while you're at it when these things are happening deny that the military needs upgrading or to be better prepared, taxes need to be raised and the American people are responsible for the state of the nation.

When all that happens we can seriously debate the title of worst President ever.[/QUOTE]

It's no use PAD. This was well before most of them were born. They don't remember waiting in lines for gasoline, wondering if dad was going to get laid off again, or eating spaghetti day after day becuase it's cheap. All they really know is whether they want a lexus or a scion for their graduation present.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's no use PAD. This was well before most of them were born. They don't remember waiting in lines for gasoline, wondering if dad was going to get laid off again, or eating spaghetti day after day becuase it's cheap. All they really know is whether they want a lexus or a scion for their graduation present.[/QUOTE]


Ignorant wrong headed patronizing.

Delicious.
 
Well, the first polls are out on the censure issue, and its looking like Feingold isn't QUITE the left-wing kook that PAD would like to portray him as: Voters favor censoring the president by 48% to 43%.
 
Who the fuck is the American Research Group? They have a one page website, no reports of methodology or sample creation and....

No track record of proven accuracy. BTW, their question was misleading and innacurate.

Nice try, where the hell did you find them, back of a pack of Bubble Yum?

BTW, Feingold is a kook. What happened when Bill Frist said, "Okay, let's vote!"?. The entire Democrat caucus put bags over their heads and wanted nothing to do with it. Who signed on with this? Barbara Boxer, Queen of the Moonbats.

I know you think this is high stakes political poker. I know you think that this is a serious attempt at wel, something. What, I have no idea. However it proves every accusation against Democrats is completely accurate; they would rather have a political issue over the conduct over a war as opposed to running it, winning it or maintaining a strong upper hand.

Hey, I love the guy. I love the measure. I want a vote on it. I want the House Democrats to begin an impeachment movement. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, would please me more.

Kook? Bring it on D's, bring it on. Let's draft the measure, turn on the cameras and microphones, have a passioned Kook Concerto and get down to a vote that will fail as miserably if not worse than the 2/3rds drubbing the Democrats took when the Patriot Act was renewed. Oh, that after Harry Reid's applause line, "WE KILLED THE PATRIOT ACT!" which met with rousing ovation from the Kool Aid drinkers seated after their go through on the purple punch bowl line.

The fact that you don't know how this measure is playing in the mainstream proves..... you're also a kook.

It's okay, we love you, we need more of you. Please email, call and fax your Representative and Senators and tell them you're behind Russ Feingold and the House Democrats that wish to impeach the President.

Please Drocket, make this dream of mine a reality.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Who the fuck is the American Research Group? They have a one page website, no reports of methodology or sample creation and....[/quote]
Yeah, they have a pretty crappy website. Although they're not the biggest or most respected polling company, they're not a fly-by-night organization either. Which is to say that there IS a fair amount of support for the measure, regardless of what you choose to believe.


BTW, Feingold is a kook. What happened when Bill Frist said, "Okay, let's vote!"?. The entire Democrat caucus put bags over their heads and wanted nothing to do with it. Who signed on with this? Barbara Boxer, Queen of the Moonbats.
Actually, I think Frist's reaction shows how worried they are about this. They wanted to skip normal debating proceedure to prevent any real discussion of the measure, while he could guarantee that the Republican majority would vote against it. Now that its out and public, people are talking about it. Its brought attention back to Bush's illegal wiretapping, which numerous other polls have shown the majority of the public to be unhappy about. Toss that in with the growing evidence that the illegal wiretapping was targetting poltical opponents and not just 'terrorist suspects'...

It IS a shame that the majority of Democrats are too spineless to stand up and fight for this. Public opinion is already roughly tied for and against measure, despite the fact that there's been absolutely NO leadership on the pro side. With a few decent speakers on the Democratic side clearly articulating the arguments against Bush, I have absolutely no doubt that his current ~34% approval rating would be much lower.

Still, though, the debate has been started. This one isn't going to die out as fast as you or Frist would like.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Who the fuck is the American Research Group? They have a one page website, no reports of methodology or sample creation and....[/QUOTE]

[quote name='The Question Asked']Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?[/quote]

How would you reword it to be more fair? Do you think it's loaded, or asking a "double" question?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']They have...no reports of methodology or sample creation and....[/QUOTE]

[quote name='The Godamned Text Box Below The Goddamned Data']Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide March 13-15, 2006. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.[/quote]

Care to recant that last criticism?
 
[quote name='Cheese']But what has he done for our national security? Ports and borders are a mess, we caught very few Top Al-Queda guys, he invaded a country completely for ideological reasons on trumped up/cherry picked/completely phony WMD charges blaming the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., leaving our intelligence agencies with egg on their face, lessened civil liberties and returned us to government deeply intertwined with the military industrial complex to the point where billions of dollars disappears and no one questions a thing. The one thing I will give him might be the creation of the Homeland Security Dept., which on it's face is a pretty good idea, but of course will soon be ruined (ie the previously discussed DHS God office).[/quote]

Sure, let's do some political dick sucking.

There have been no attacks since September 11th to this country by any terrorist organization thanks to the President's solid efforts against terrorism. We've set up a completely soverign republican form of government in Iraq, a place that hasn't ever seen democratic ideals in the history of the country. Always plauged by oppressive dictators or monarchs from foreign lands, the area can now proudly boast an election process with a turnout upwards of 70% of the population. The Iraqi people cheer and praise our soldiers for the work they've done and it's becoming increasingly common place for these people to turn their backs to religious extremists in favor of a safer, modernized way of life. There has yet to be, nor will there ever be if progress continues, a civil war in Iraq despite how badly the left wants it to happen. The Iraqi army grows everyday and continues to bolster experience and creditentals good enough to fight any enemy they should encounter.

So ease up Cheese, I can spit out rhetoric just as good as any of ya'll can.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Sure, let's do some political dick sucking.

There have been no attacks since September 11th to this country by any terrorist organization thanks to the President's solid efforts against terrorism.[/quote]

The U.S. went from february 27th 1993 (95 if you count mcveigh, but that's a different form of terrorism than bush is fighting and is having an effect on) to september 10th 2001 without a terrorist attack. Bush still has a bit to go before equaling clintons record, or any other 2 term president.

We've set up a completely soverign republican form of government in Iraq, a place that hasn't ever seen democratic ideals in the history of the country. Always plauged by oppressive dictators or monarchs from foreign lands, the area can now proudly boast an election process with a turnout upwards of 70% of the population.

You can't be completely sovereign when there are soldiers in your street that another country controls.

An elected Iraqi parliament first formed following the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in 1925. The 1925 constitution called for a bicameral parliament whose lower house, the Chamber of Deputies (Majlis an-Nuwwab) would be elected based on universal manhood suffrage. The upper house, the Senate (Majlis al-A`yan) was appointed by the king. Ten elections took place between 1925 and the coup of 1958.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Assembly

The Iraqi people cheer and praise our soldiers for the work they've done and

?

it's becoming increasingly common place for these people to turn their backs to religious extremists in favor of a safer, modernized way of life.

Psstt, Saddam ran a secular government.

There has yet to be, nor will there ever be if progress continues, a civil war in Iraq despite how badly the left wants it to happen.

Bush wants to bomb children.

The Iraqi army grows everyday and continues to bolster experience and creditentals good enough to fight any enemy they should encounter.

The number of Iraqi army battalions judged by their American trainers to be capable of fighting the insurgency without U.S. help has slipped from one to none since September, Pentagon officials said Friday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-25-iraqi-army_x.htm

Good rhetoric is factually accurate.
 
[quote name='Cheese']I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.\[/QUOTE]

Is that crickets I hear? Answer the motherfarking question already.
 
bread's done
Back
Top