FEINGOLD: "Frankly I am Dissappointed That Democrats Are Playing It Safe"

[kpete]

Blogged by Brad Friedman from Phoenix, AZ...

In a conference call with several bloggers concluded moments ago, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) had a number of harsh words concerning today's procedural bickering and fillibustering by Republicans <1> in the Senate, which stifled both votes on his own resolution to end the Iraq War as well as amendments offered by other lawmakers to several non-binding resolutions that also failed to come to the floor for a full vote.

..................

In a passionate thirty minute call, Feingold stressed, "This is an important moment to see if we're gonna try and end this war. Frankly, I'm disappointed that Democrats are playing it safe on this one."

"We need to play hardball on this. We're gonna have to take the lead on this issue and we're gonna need to tie this place up as long as it takes," he said in describing what he sees as a fear and timidity in his colleagues who now hold a slight majority in the Senate...


"The problem is a whole lot of middle-of-the-road Democrats who refuse to pull the trigger, who refuse to do what needs to be done," Feingold stressed. "Even people who voted against the war" seem afraid, he explained. "It requires courage. It requires brinksmanship."

more at:
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D4123%26print%3D1

[bdamomma]

1. even Feingold sounds like he is angry with his colleagues

even Feingold called them timid on KO tonite.

[Nite Owl]

2. "It requires courage. It requires brinksmanship."

That could also be called leadership which is sorely lacking from the rest of dems. You would think that they would have learned what we expect of them after the election.

[closeupready]

4. And as we know, "leadership" is not a dirty wo... er, "compromise" is not a dirty word,

sorry. (I knew it was one or the other - :evilgrin: )

[pinto]

3. Although I'm often middle of the road, especially on Senate actions, I

favor a lot stronger action on Iraq from the upper house and, as Feingold says, some brinkmanship. I'm not writing off Reid's parliamentary maneuver to keep the chance for readdressing the issue (his procedural "Nay" vote was a good move in the circumstances) but I sure think the country's *more than ready* for some pointed action.

I support Sen. Feingold's statement.

[treestar]

5. It is strange that this is the way to play safe when the People clearly

said they want this war over. Safe from what? Re-election?

Right after 911 it made sense but not now.

Feingold can talk, since he was the only Senator voting against the Patriot Act. He did that in Oct. 2001 which took guts.

But a mere resolution against a war that the majority of the voters are against? How are they playing safe?

[mmonk]

6. Most resolutions have been nothing more than pretend so far.

Feingold wants set dates to leave with funding (ending after that date) as the enforcer.

[spanone]

7. Wouldn't want to piss off all the Raytheons & Halliburtons and all that PAC money.

Follow the money...

[youngdem]

8. I'm with you, Russ....MOST EMBARRASSED

I sure wish you would run for President Russ. I was so damn disappointed to hear you weren't running. I think you could have made it interesting at least. He has all the right important votes.

I am so disappointed in the new Dem Congress when it comes to Iraq. I am pleased with the other legislation (student loans, corporate loopholes, energy, minimum wage), but I am very disappointed that the only real reason we got a majority, and we are failing. This will not serve us well in 08. The repukes are once again winning the war on framing the issues.

We may need to hand out some spines to our Congressmen. They are asleep at the wheel on Iraq, worried only with having 'cut and runner' hanging on them, instead of doing what they were elected to do. They are doing exactly what was done in Vietnam, refusing to be the one who pulls the plug on the lost war because of what the wingnuts will say for 20 years (ya know, Rove, Cheney and the other Nixon holdovers).

[Golden Raisin]

9. Bravo Feingold!

The guy has brains, backbone, a quiet & serious demeanor, honor, fortitude and balls the size of grapefruits.

[dpbrown]

10. Because they drank the Kool-Aid about a "victory for the center"

What a load of crap. Enraged Americans stood up to the BFEE and the neocons and booted the Republicans out...over Iraq.

As soon as the election was over, we got lectured by all the nutballs from the DLC about how this was a victory for the "center" and how we needed to be grateful to them instead of Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

The mainstream media took up the chorus.

Now the Democrats are going all weak-in-the-knees since the Media Wurlitzer has cranked out the DLC wet-dream message.

[RiverStone]

11. Russ Rocks!

And summed up many of our feelings as well! Yea - why the hell after 4 years are some DEMS tap dancing around the issue; at the same time Shrub marches onward not giving a shit if 99% of We The People are opposed to his reckless action!!!

We remembered the DEMS who wimped out voting for the IWR back in October of 02 - we will remember if DEMS disappoint their public trust on this vote as well! They need to push for BINDING resolution! Even if they got this vote, its totally symbolic and won't stop a single bullet from being shipped to Iraq.

Do what we elected you to do!

[pstans]

Thanks Russ!

Russ is standing up for US!
"It's time to stand up - not to cheer, but to fight back." - Russ Feingold

[cui bono]

12. I just shot off an email to him thanking him for being him even though I live

in Los Angeles. Told him I hope to vote him in as President someday.

[pstans]

13. Send a couple bucks to the Russ's PAC, the Progressive Patriots Fund

Send Russ a couple bucks at the Progressive Patriots Fund...http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/

[Divine Discontent]

38. done!

If he'd run for President, I'd have a hard time NOT voting for him over Wes or John...


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[cascadiance]

17. Russ is da man!

Wish he was running for pres in 2008! Still hoping he's VP with Al Gore then!

#junk

[mod mom]

14. Don't you just love that man?

[tnlefty]

15. Thank you for speaking up for me, Senator Feingold.

I can only imagine how it would be to have such a thoughtful, intelligent, courageous Senator.

As it is I'm saddled with Alexander and Corker who have none of those attributes nor any integrity either.

[Individualist]

16. K&R

[Clark2008]

18. Frankly, I'm disappointed that Feingold isn't running for President.

:cry:

[Rex]

19. Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a dam!

We've been eating these fucking potatoes and turnips way too long now! I want some of that shitty rich food!! Dems need to back away from the buffet and realize the Pukers will offer them anything they want if...if...if...

Like is an if.

[SaveElmer]

20. Grandstanding...

Russ, show us a PLAN for convincing the 19 Republican Senators to vote for a binding resolution to end the war...

If your only plan is to "tie this place up" then you are not serious. Republicans would like nothing better than for Democrats to tie up the Senate over this...and then they can happily go home and campaign against a do-nothing Congress....

[jgraz]

21. You're right...better to not say anything

Let's follow the Hillary route...just leave our finger in the air while more young Americans die in Iraq. How many more coffins does she need before she starts really opposing this war?

[SaveElmer]

22. Bullshit...

How about actually contributing to something that has a chance of passing and accomplishing something rather than just stand on the sidelines criticizing others...

[jgraz]

24. Because the others need some criticizing

Craven political triangulation is how we got into this war. They're not running a fucking OfficeMax....it's ok if they don't get anything "done" for a while if it means that fewer Americans come home in body bags.

And in case you haven't noticed, Feingold isn't running for president, and his seat is about as safe as it gets. Just who exactly do you think he's grandstanding for??

[SaveElmer]

25. I have no idea...but he makes a habit of it...

Clinton Impeachment, Censure, now this...with no constructive proposal for getting what he supposedly wants passed...he is a bomb thrower...

The exception of course is McCain-Feingold...

The Republicans are apparently afraid enough of a non-binding resolution...does anyone SERIOUSLY think they will go for a binding one...if they do they are delusional...or are not serious about passing such a proposal...

My Senator Jim Webb apparently thinks the non-binding resolution is worth voting for, and I would trust his judgment on this issue before just about anyone else's...including Feingold...

[jgraz]

27. yeah, it can't be because he sincerely believes in what he's doing

Believe it or not (and I'm guessing "not" given your avatar) there are some politicians who occasionally do things for motives other than furthering their own ambitions.

[SaveElmer]

28. If he did...he would have a serious proposal to get it passed...

He doesn't...when he comes up with a workable plan I will take it more seriously...

I have no doubt he would like a binding resolution, but he apparently doesn't want it bad enough to actually figure a serious way to get it passed...and criticizing his fellow Democrats who are trying to get something constructive through does not seem to be the way to do it...but it is his MO...

[jgraz]

30. That kind of spineless accommodation is why we're in this mess in the first place

The only problem with Feingold is there aren't enough like him in the Senate. Happily, 2006 was the year when that started to change.

We already have more than enough Clintons and Bidens and Feinsteins. I don't know why you think we need another.

[SaveElmer]

31. Right,,,and what will Feingold accomplish...

Zilch...

[jgraz]

32. Depends what the meaning of "accomplish" is

If you only define it as getting mega-donors to cough up for your presidential campaign, then yeah, he probably won't accomplish much in your eyes.

If you define it as being a strong progressive voice in the Senate and representing the views of the majority of Americans, then Russ is accomplishing a lot.

[SaveElmer]

33. Another specious argument...

To switch the topic...

Russ Feingold is apparently not serious about getting a binding resolution passed in the U.S. Senate...if he was, he would have a serious plan for doing so...

[jgraz]

35. Not specious at all

Feingold has a perfectly viable plan to get a resolution passed: state what you believe, advocate for it passionately and encourage the American people to call their congresscritters and pressure them. The fact that most of the electorate agrees with him just makes his job easier.

I'm sorry, what was Hillary's plan again?

[SaveElmer]

36. Hillary supports the non-binding resolution...

Currently supported by a majority of Senators, including Jim Webb...which in fact would amount to a very public rebuke of the Presidents Iraq policy which would necessarily include members of his own party, and would amount to a vote of no confidence...obviously the Republicans fear this or they wouldn't be filibustering it.

She has proposed a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq and increase levels in Afghanistan where they are needed...opposes escalation...

Some form of both of these actually has a chance of passing. And though not perfect are a step in the right direction...

Russ Feingold on the other hand has meetings with bloggers, where he bad mouths his fellow Democrats and their leadership, presents no plan for passing what it is he says he wants to do, gets liberal bloggers to genuflect in front of him...and in the end accomplishes nothing toward his supposed goal

[jgraz]

41. Yep, Hillary's positions are popular

among Senators. And corporate donors (well, at least the ones who aren't giving 100% to Rethugs).

Feingold's positions are popular with the people and (gasp) he actually TALKS to them. How disgustingly non-elitist of him.

[SaveElmer]

43. Again with the cliche left wing, boiler plate attack...

That means nothing...and has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic....

Feingold has no plan for accomplishing anything...until he does, his criticism is worthless

[jgraz]

44. And responding with cliche DLC triangulating nutless bullshit

God forbid a Senator should express his views publicly. The guy has obviously has some characteristics which make you uncomfortable, like integrity and courage.

I don't know where you got the idea that speaking directly to the American people was worthless while craven cloakroom ass-kissing with lobbyists and weak-kneed centrists was "accomplishing" something, but somehow I must have missed all the stunning Democratic results coming out of Congress these past 12 years.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but your wing of the party got its ass kicked this past election. By all means, keep on advocating that your candidates to toe the party line. It will just make them easier to beat in the primaries.

[SaveElmer]

58. ...

"The guy has obviously has some characteristics which make you uncomfortable, like integrity and courage."

yes, he is a bomb thrower apparently more interested in criticizing other Democrats from the sidelines than coming up with a working plan for passing what he allegedly wants to happen. And courage...it doesn't take courage to criticize your leadership from the sidelines...what takes courage is to try and work with people to actually get things done, perhaps at the expense of political capital...he did it with McCain-Feingold...but seems unwilling to do it for anything else.

"I don't know where you got the idea that speaking directly to the American people was worthless while craven cloakroom ass-kissing with lobbyists and weak-kneed centrists was "accomplishing" something, but somehow I must have missed all the stunning Democratic results coming out of Congress these past 12 years."

His one major accomplishment - McCain Feingold - was completed using the opposite tactics that he is employing now...working with others, establishing coalitions etc...instead is is just a sideline critic with no plan...meaningless.

"Perhaps you didn't notice, but your wing of the party got its ass kicked this past election. By all means, keep on advocating that your candidates to toe the party line. It will just make them easier to beat in the primaries."

All evidence to the contrary....more blue dog and centrist Democrats than ever...winning in places such as Kansas where a left-winger could not be elected dog catcher...

[jgraz]

66. Try some actual evidence

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/jgraz/4

Progressives won in all sorts of areas where they couldn't get elected dog catcher a few years ago.

Time to wake up and smell the irrelevance.

[SaveElmer]

72. "Wake up and smell the irrelevence"

And his name is Russ Feingold...

[jgraz]

75. Good move -- ignoring the evidence is your last chance to not look like a complete ass

Oh sorry, too late. :boring:

[Mind_your_head]

45. Meanwhile, as Hillary is 'stepping in the right direction'

:nuke: Ka-boom

OOPS America starts war on a third front and attacks Iran?

Feingold has the right idea. Hillary is an ENORMOUS disappointment for this voter.

[jgraz]

46. This is a woman who couldn't figure out where she stood on torture and habeus corpus

I called her office two days before that vote and her staff said she hadn't arrived at a position yet. Just sickening that this is what a "centrist" Democrat looks like these days.

[cui bono]

52. Wow! That's ASTOUNDING!

She also came up with a terrible idea for dealing with the Iraq War. Stop funding the Iraqis, but nothing about no escalation. Huh? How are the Iraqis going to take charge if we stop helping them financially but add more of our troops? She got that completely backwards.

[SaveElmer]

59. Feingold is the disappointment...

All talk no action...a sideline critic with no plan for carrying out what he says he wants...when I see a plan...I'll pay attention..until then it is just noise...

[jgraz]

65. At least Feingold knows where he stands on torture without needing to check a poll

Seriously, what the hell kind of plan are you looking for? This is really the reddest of red herrings. Like the posters who keep asking for evidence because they have no ideas of their own.

Can you point to such a plan from one of your precious right-wing pseudo-Dems? Other than going on MTP and saying "I'm just gonna do what Harry Reid tells me"?

[SaveElmer]

73. Anything...anything at all...

He has none...he proposes none...and he accomplishes nothing!!!

[jgraz]

76. Like I thought ... you're just here to cut down the real patriots

Otherwise, you'd provide substantive responses to any number of the questions posed to you. You're only interested in making sure that no true Democrats come forward to state their views -- God forbid they expose your candidate for the fraud she really is.

I'm out. You passed boring long ago. You just keep on partying like it's 1999 while the rest of us try to actually change this country.

[cui bono]

92. I guess you missed this post about Feingold's actions....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=133483&mesg_id=135797

And stand on the sidelines? What are you talking about? How is he standing on the sidelines??? He held hearings on whether it was constitutional for Congress to defund the war. He put forth a resolution to stop funding the war, what he believes in. How is that standing on the sidelines? He's speaking out against the war and against continuing to fund it on every show he can. So I don't know who you're talking about but it sure ain't Russ Feingold.

[SaveElmer]

93. What is the plan for getting it passed...?

Specifically how will he convince 20 Republicans to defund the war?

Anyone can propose legislation...he knows damn well his resolution won't pass without alot of working the system...which he seems not to want to do ...

[cui bono]

94. That's really not a good question. Surely you can do better than that.

Plus jgraz already answered it. You are just a broken record trying to keep progressives down. Are you one of the ones getting paid to post here?

How does anyone get anything passed?

[SaveElmer]

95. No he did not...

This has ZERO chance of passing in the current Senate...I don't think right now it would garner a majority...

How does anyone get anything passed?

You work with your colleagues, build coalitions, compromise...and eventually, hopefully reach your goal...Feingold seems to have no desire to do this...

[cui bono]

96. Yes, he did but you chose to ignore it because all you want to do is criticize

the man who is standing up for what the American people want. Why do you hate the American people?

[SaveElmer]

99. I ignore it because he did not answer the question...

If holding hearings and proposing a bill he knows has no chance of passage is the extent of his plan...then he is not serious...

[cui bono]

102. Okay, if this doesn't satisfy you then I know you're on Hillary's payroll...

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x145032

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said yesterday that the 9/11 Commission bill, slated for floor debate after the continuing resolution that is next up for the Senate, is a “good opportunity” to bring up his proposal for a binding funding cutoff for future deployments to Iraq.

Feingold said he and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the only other Democrat who indicated he would oppose the Reid-backed non-binding resolution, are amassing consensus among anti-war lawmakers: “We’re working very closely together with a number of senators who think we are not going far enough.”

more at:
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Fron...

[SaveElmer]

103. And he knows full well...as does Dodd...

It will go down in flaming defeat...Republicans probably won't even bother with a filibuster...it won't even come close to a majority...

It is not a serious attempt at passage...

[SaveElmer]

104. If you want t o hear the thoughts of a Senator who is actually trying...

To take concrete steps towards stopping escalation...listen to this interview...

It's a long interview, but the question is asked and answered in the first few minutes...

This is how things happen...not a slap dash, flash in the pan, amendment that those proposing it know full well will not pass!!!

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/02/05.php#12321

[jgraz]

97. And make very very sure you don't talk to ANY of the unwashed masses

I'd almost believe cui bono's theory that you're a plant, but I expect the DLC would hire someone with more than one idea.

[SaveElmer]

98. You know...until I get an answer...I will ask the same question...nt

[jgraz]

100. Your question has both been answered and shown to be worthless

At this point, one has to assume that you are feigning cluelessness since no one could actually be this stupid and still manage to operate a computer.

[SaveElmer]

101. Do you seriously think...

That holding a hearing and proposing a bill knowing full well it cannot pass...is a plan?...it's a stunt.

If you believe it is a plan for actually defunding the war...you display a breathtaking, probably willful ignorance of the legislative process.

[cui bono]

106. You are a stunt. And stunted.

[SaveElmer]

107. If you have any interest in how a Senator serious about stopping escalation...

Approaches it...

Listen here...this is how it works

Long interview, but question asked and answered in the first few minutes...

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/02/05.php#12321

[cui bono]

105. Like I said... broken record... you got several answers but say you haven't gotten any...

have fun in your own little world, I'm done with your game playing.

:hi:

[cui bono]

51. What do you propose that has a chance of passing?

The Republics won't even let a non-binding resolution get vote on. I'll take a man of character such as Russ any day. Fuck the watered down bullshit. We've had enough of that. The people will let their reps know they need to start listening to Feingold. It's going to happen.

And stand on the sidelines? What are you talking about? How is he standing on the sidelines??? He held hearings on whether it was constitutional for Congress to defund the war. He put forth a resolution to stop funding the war, what he believes in. How is that standing on the sidelines? He's speaking out against the war and against continuing to fund it on every show he can. So I don't know who you're talking about but it sure ain't Russ Feingold.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. No need for a binding resolution, just cut the funding

Funding isn't automatic it has to be passed every year. Democrats could simply refuse to allow any bill on the floor that provides funding for any further military action and only funding to withdraw the troops. Russ has called for cutting the funds.

[SaveElmer]

39. That would not work either...

It is part of the appropriation for the Defense Department (except for emergency funding)...Bush would veto...and Democrats would get the blame for leaving the troops high and dry...everywhere...

Or more likely, Democrats would have to filibuster an amendment to get funding added, with Republicans counting on the support of Lieberman, Ben Nelson...and again be blamed...

There is precious little that can be accomplished in this closely divided Senate without some consensus...and bad mouthing your leadership does not seem to be the way to build consensus among your own party...let alone the 19 members of the opposing party you would need.

In any case I have still heard no plan from Feingold for accomplishing any of this...

[Hippo_Tron]

40. All amendments can be killed in conference committee

I don't understand why this tactic isn't talked about more. The GOP did this all the time last congress and we should be doing it to them. Being in power has its advantages.

And if Democrats get the blame for Bush's veto then I would be screaming for Howard Dean's resignation. The way I see it Bush would be the one denying the troops funding and if we fail to spin it that way (considering he'd be the one vetoing it while we offer conditional funding) then we are pathetic.

[SaveElmer]

42. The Democrats are in control of Congress...

They will be blamed...and if DoD goes without funding for any length of time...Democrats will be blamed...

And frankly, with Lieberman and Nelson, we don't even have a majority to cut off funding, let alone the 60 we would need...assuming all other Democrats stuck together...not sure Jim Webb for example is going to be too keen on ending funding...

This is not going to be accomplished in one fell swoop...the screws are going to have to be applied a bit at a time...the resolution is a good start IMO

[Hippo_Tron]

47. I would be willing to take the risk that congress gets blamed, Russ would as well

We can sit here all day and argue about who would get the blame, but Russ is willing to accept the possibility that doing the right thing may lose us an election and I am too.

It's not grandstanding because he's proposing a real, albeit politically risky, solution.

60 votes ARE NOT required if we use our power to the fullest extent and do not back down. Despite the fact that Jim Webb and Ben Nelson probably wouldn't be willing to cut the funding at all costs, there's no reason that they wouldn't support a conditional funding resolution based on a date certain for pulling out.

I'm fully open to debate about the best way to approach this and I fully agree to the argument that there are some merits to Pelosi/Reid's solution of getting a bipartisan binding resolution, in particular that it's not politically risky and winning elections is important. That being said it has drawbacks as well and those have been demonstrated today when we couldn't even get a non-binding resolution passed.

My point is that if I'm going to acknowledge that Pelosi/Reid have a real solution I wish you would acknowledge that Russ Feingold has a real solution as well and not accuse of him of grandstanding.

[jgraz]

49. The key word is "risk"

To a traditional wet-kleenex centrist, any risk-taking looks like grandstanding because they can't imagine standing on principle when they don't have a guaranteed win.

The fact is that people respect politicians with courage, no matter what their political view are. The more strong, progressive leaders we can get in front of a TV camera, the more voters will see that the Democratic party has people they can trust.

[SaveElmer]

55. I have seen NO Plan of action from Feingold...

"Tie up this place" is not a plan of action...when I see a workable one...I'll pay attention...until then it is just criticism...unwareranted criticism...of fellow Democrats and the leadership!

[jgraz]

70. And you won't see it until you get that cranio-rectal inversion treated

The rest of us figured it out long ago. Please try to keep up.

[SaveElmer]

71. Right...

What time are you due in home room?

[jgraz]

74. Ah riight....too bad we can't all be "adults"

like the enablers who voted for this war. What an adult decision. I guess sometimes the grown-ups just have to save their jobs -- I mean do their jobs -- and send 3000 people to their deaths.

Feingold's "plan" is just fine with me and man others on this board. Your problem with his actions is that he shows up your candidate for what she is: a cowardly, calculating drone who's only interested in her own political ambitions.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

79. HA!

...man I have wanted to say that for years. :D

[jgraz]

81. Geez what kept you?

It only took me a few hours. :evilgrin:

[Hippo_Tron]

78. "Tie up the place" is not his plan

Tieing up the place would be to stop all Senate business until the Senate agrees to pull out of Iraq and Feingold is not doing that.

His plan of only offering a resolution for funding that has strings attached and refusing to allow any proposal that doesn't have strings attached is his plan. It is fully within our ability to do this when we are in power. It does, however, require that we take the risk of losing the next election and the risk that the GOP is actually sadistic enough to let the troops go without funding.

Furthermore, there are other ways that we could force strings attached Iraq Funding if the GOP filibusters the resolution. Attach it to a completely unrelated bill that the Republicans would otherwise vote for.

[jgraz]

48. Yes, by all means let's cowtow to the right-wing Dems

But god forbid a left-winger should threaten to vote against a Dem proposal. That would just be grandstanding.

[SaveElmer]

56. No plan of action...just criticism...

All we get from Feingold...when he comes up with a workable plan other than "tie this place" up...I'll pay attention...until then his criticism is meaningless and unwarranted...

[cui bono]

53. Yeah, and you probably thought that about Dems voting for the IWR

and look how that turned out. The ones who didn't vote for it are sitting pretty. The ones who did have to explain themselves.

You have to live by your convictions and do it with passion. God I sound like Tony Robbins right now. I better go make sure I haven't grown giant, bright white teeth.

[SaveElmer]

57. If you do a search...

You will see that I think those that voted for the IWR were largely doing their job, and their vote was not unreasonable given the evidence at the time...

When Feingold comes up with a viable plan other than "tie this place up"...I'll listen...until then it is just meaningless criticism

[jgraz]

68. "those that voted for the IWR were largely doing their job"

Yep, they were Good Germans all the way. Criticism is "meaningless". Just be quiet and "do your job". Give this monster of a president more power because that will "get things done".

Ignorance is strength...freedom is slavery...we've always been at war with Eurasia.


It must be terrifying to see this party leave you and your collaborators in the dust.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

83. "...largley doing their job"???

Wow, which of these is part a Sentor's job?

1) Being too stupid to figure out the true nature of "the evidence" against Saddam Hussein?

2) Being too cowardly to vote "no" on a bad resolution because of how you will be painted?

3) Being too political because you are thinking of running for President in the future and don't want a "no" vote to become an election issue?

Because all of the Democrats who voted for the resolution were operating under one of the three above options. And, call me silly, but I don't think any of those reasons could for a second be called, "doing their job". :eyes:

[jgraz]

84. It's totally part of your job if you're a DLC Dem

Remember who their employers are (hint: it ain't us).

[SaveElmer]

86. ...

1) Being too stupid to figure out the true nature of "the evidence" against Saddam Hussein?

Virtually every Senator...including opponents...believed Iraq had or was obtaining WMD's...go look at their statements

Being too cowardly to vote "no" on a bad resolution because of how you will be painted?

Interesting you would call Max Cleland a coward

Being too political because you are thinking of running for President in the future and don't want a "no" vote to become an election issue?

Provide a shred of proof...you can't...it's just the catch all criticism that you can bandy about that everyone believes...and for which you do not have to provide evidence!!!

Because all of the Democrats who voted for the resolution were operating under one of the three above options. And, call me silly, but I don't think any of those reasons could for a second be called, "doing their job".

Wrong

[cui bono]

91. They absolutely were NOT doing their job. Their job is to uphold the constitution

which gives them the power to declare war and they outsourced that to numbnuts.

[cui bono]

85. Just what I thought. There were a ton of people who knew that "evidence"

was cooked, anyone who claims they thought they had evidence to abdicate their responsibility as the body of government that has the power to declare war and give THIS pRESIDENT that power is not qualified to be president.

There was no immediate danger. No reason why Congress shouldn't have been the ones to declare or not declare war.

[SaveElmer]

87. ...

Every Democratic Yes vote made it CRYSTAL clear this was a vote to pressure Iraq to get inspectors in. Every Democratic YES vote decried the theory of preemption...and every Democratic YES vote warned against an invasion of Iraq without international and UN support...

Success at eliminating WMD's in Iraq had only been accomplished at the point of a gun...and in fact the IWR was working when Bush cut inspections short...this is a Bush war...not a Democratic war...

[cui bono]

90. I'm not saying this is not Bush's war. But all those in Congress who voted

for the IWR abdicated their responsibilities by giving over their power to Bush. And why? There was no immediate danger. There was no reason, even if they thought he had WMD, to not keep their power to declare war. They wimped out and they knew exactly who they were giving their power to, an arrogant fool. There is no excuse. And there is no way someone who gives away their constitutional power about something like that to someone like that should hold the highest position of power with the responsibility to "protect and uphold the constitution". They've already shown they cannot or will not do it.

[slipslidingaway]

23. C&L video, Feingold on Countdown

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/05/feingold-bashes-both-parties-over-iraq/

[omega minimo]

26. I'm votin' for that guy

:patriot:

[proud patriot]

29. He's not the only one

I'm pretty disappointed myself .


Democracy is at Stake gosh darn it :grr:

[Divine Discontent]

37. oh goodness he rocks!

this is great to hear! this war is ungodly, imho, as a Christian, and that's me speaking for me, why I am offended by it. It's great so many of us are standing up, and we need great men like Feingold to keep speaking! thank you Russ!!!

[faithnotgreed]

50. most definitely kicking

[Solly Mack]

54. People in the killing zone don't get the chance to play it safe

So while craven politicians fear losing their gravy train connection, people are dying horrible deaths...and these same politicians too afraid of losing their job want me to understand their "risks" - as if anything they might lose in any way compares to what those doing the dying are losing.

People are dying for the lies and crimes of the American government. I have no sympathy for anyone in America's government.

[dogday]

60. A real American Hero in the Senate

Please Russ, change your mind and run for the presidency....

[mmonk]

61. The ultimate irony of "playing it safe" may well be

erosion of support or apathy towards the democratic nominee in 08. It only takes a small percentage of a loss of votes to sway an election. Shine the light of truth for all to see, and IMO the dems will be stronger, not weaker.

[PhilipShore]

62. Unfortunately --- the only alternative is to vote the Republican/Democrats out....

of office.

They got voted in -- during and after the Reagan era -- by being anti-liberal.

Fortunately, the the corruption of the Reagan Republicans, Abramoff, Libby is coming to light --- and the Republicans and Republican/Democrats that followed the philosophy of these bozos --will be voted out of office like, like many were in the 2006 elections.

And/or to not vote for any more in the future.

Voting Dean as chair of the DNC -- was the start of the shift of power from the Center right Dems to the liberal Dems.

As with all things liberal --- liberals mostly win, and as has been proven in the 2006 election --- the DLC groupies are losers.

[bigtree]

63. they killed his amendment along with the one he says isn't tough enough

what the hell does he expect the other Democrats to do when he can't even get his own bill to the floor?

This crap about Democrats not being tough enough is just talk until someone can figure how to get SOMETHING past the republican opposition.

A bill which is filibustered, no matter how 'binding' or 'tough' isn't any better than any other proposal caught in the gridlock. It's as ineffective as anything and amounts to nothing but talk in the end.

I'm surprised Feingold would try and pretend he has the lock on virtue in that body. or cares to act against Bush any more than the rest who've been trying to craft a bipartisan compromise. I don't know how he thinks it's alright for our soldiers to wait until he gets his way on his proposal. It amounts to NOTHING if he ends up in his own corner without any support or vehicle to enact his ideas which would overcome the certain republican opposition.

[dogday]

64. It is not about Democrats being tough enough

It is about them playing it safe...

Trying to hold the middle ground and make everyone happy... Doing that gets nothing accomplished...

[bigtree]

89. the effect of a binding resolution passed with just Democratic support

would be the same as the non-binding one, only the latter would pass if given a chance to get to the floor and would stand without a presidential signature.

A binding bill, without republican support, would receive a certain veto, "accomplishing nothing."

[dogday]

108. No it would not... It sends the message, it unites

the party, and says that the party is firm on seeking a resolution to end this war...

[bigtree]

109. the party IS firm. we don't need unity as much as we need an effective legislative vehicle.

I don't see how a bill passed which faces a certain veto accomplishes anything but a protest. It may well come to that. But, I don't see how that route is so superior than the sense of the Senate, which would stand without a presidential signature as a measure of how the Senate feels about Bush's escalation.

Anyway, the leadership has said all along that the non-binding resolution is just a first step. All of the caterwauling about binding legislation is silly since the republicans seem intent on blocking EVERYTHING by filibuster, preventing bills from even reaching the floor for debate. It's clear that Democrats will have to do more as they have said, but to trash this effort seems so self-defeating as we are actively using their opposition to the bipartisan bill to highlight republicans' refusal to follow the mandate of the Americans who voted in the last election. It's presently the ONLY vehicle which has advanced to the point where it could be rejected.

Legislators like Feingold haven't yet come up with a way to get under their obstruction and move his initiative forward. That's not just an abstraction. It represents an failure for Feingold as much as the obstruction the Democratic leadership is receiving on their resolution represents a failure for their efforts.

[dogday]

110. Bullshit

Half the Dems are DNC and are not taking the course you said... I don't know how you lay this at Feingold's feet.. There are a good many Democrats who will not commit to the ending of this war...

[bigtree]

111. first of all, I'm not going to come here to be cursed at. I'm as committed as anyone to this

My point is that Feingold is castigating the leadership for weakness and timidity, but his own proposal - even if it got EVERY Democratic vote, overcame the certain filibuster and cloture votes, and got to the WH for a signature, Bush would veto it. Folks who support Feingold's approach and other strident approaches say, 'fine, let them filibuster and veto', but the effect of all of that would be a vetoed bill without enough republican votes to overturn the veto. That's as much as a failure as this impasse over the non binding bill. I don't really know what Feingold is proposing that our leadership isn't already doing or intends to do.

Here's Reid:

“You can run but you can’t hide,” Mr. Reid told his Republican colleagues on the floor. “We are going to debate Iraq.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said that “time was tenuous” and that he would not guarantee that Democrats would try again to bring up the resolution. He did promise that there would be more clashes over Iraq policy as the Senate turned to measures like the president’s request for $100 billion in emergency Iraq spending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/washington/06cong.html?bl=&ei=5087%0A&en=c801393758b8ad51&ex=1170910800&pagewanted=print

[dogday]

112. I still say it is a bunch of poo

If the Democrats were ALL united in stopping this war, then I would give it up on some of your points. But I know they are all not, so this is mute... Feingold is the best of all of them in the way he has stood up for the American people's rights and to end this war.... The fact that he can't get the support of the Democrats just tells me what I need to know... They are not all on-board with ending the war.

As far as the cursing, well my little ole bullshit is nothing compared to some of the postings I have seen.... This is DU and it takes all kinds....

[bigtree]

113. dogday

I'm firmly on YOUR side, fighting for you. Everyday.

[dogday]

114. Ah man, I know...

I just want this freaking war to end before my Son goes back again... He is getting married in March and who knows if he will even get to do that.... Why can't all the Democrats get behind this issue and shove it down the repugs throat? That is all I want... Is that too much to as for?

I am just a Mad Mom at the Iraq war...

[bigtree]

115. It's not too much to ask for. It's coming.

Hopefully we can get this done quickly without burning our own tails in the process. I think either proposition will be a tough, long haul.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Politics as usual. "Triangulation" is smarter. Too bad about the dead.

Feingold has strayed out of nice safe corral set up by the fundraisers.

[goodhue]

69. me too

but sadly not surprised

[Jacobin]

77. One of the VERY FEW courageous members of the senate

I love this man. He has been right about Iraqnam from the very start. He has been consistent and honest, and has not had to tie himself into a pretzel about Iraq.

I wish he could be our nominee for president.

:toast:

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Feingold Just Hates Powerful Women

Ya think?

[jgraz]

82. Yeah, but he's pretty clean for a Jewish guy

And articulate.

Plus, I've seen his house. 2500 sq ft, tops.

[rodeodance]

88. Frankly, Russ, so am I.