NationStates Jolt Archive

He's standing up. It's really that simple--he's standing up, and to hell with the pundits and the play-it-safers in DC. Here's an excerpt from his appearance on the Charlie Rose show--the video is available from Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/20.html#a7596). (Where else?)

Shades of October 2002. These are the same pundits, consultants, and spin miesters who said you've gotta vote for the Iraq war or George Bush is going to hang you out to dry and he's gonna show that you don't care about the troops and you don't care about the fight against terrorism.

They pull it every time. And the Democratic insiders in Washington and the consultants fall for it every time. They don't realize that the thing that bugs people about the Democratic party right now is that we don't seem to stand strongly enough for what we believe in.

How can we be afraid at this point, of standing up to a president who has clearly mismanaged this Iraq war, who clearly made one of the largest blunders in American foreign policy history? How can it be that this party wants to stand back and allow this kind of thing to happen?

And then add to that the idea that the president has clearly broken the law --- and a number of Republican senators have effectively admitted that, by saying "you know, we need this program so let's make it legal," --- so they are admitting it's illegal.

The idea that Democrats don't think it's a winning thing to say that we will stand up for the rule of law and for checking abuse of power by the executive --- I just can't believe that Democrats don't think that isn't something, not only that we can win on, but it does, in fact, make the base of our party, which is so important, feel much better about the Democrats. The Republicans care deeply about making the base of their party feels energized. What about the people of our party who believe in the Democratic Party especially because they fight for the American values of standing up for our rights and civil liberties? He's my guy--he ain't perfect, not by a longshot, but he's my guy unless someone better comes along.

I'm down for a street fight. I know that conservatives will come in and give their 'friendly' advice, "blah blah blah to alienated blah blah," "Blah blah this" whatever. Stuff it, really. It's time to brawl.

I'm down for a street fight. I know that conservatives will come in and give their 'friendly' advice, "blah blah blah to alienated blah blah," "Blah blah this" whatever. Stuff it, really. It's time to brawl.
Yep. I don't get why Democratic politicians are afraid to brawl, especially now. It's been my experience that when you have a bully on the ground, you kick him in the nads to make sure he doesn't get up and pound you--you don't cower and hope he leaves once he gets up. The Republicans are hurting right now, and they've been beating up on us congressionally since the early 90s, and even more so since 2001. It's time to win not only this fight, but the next one too, to win thoroughly.

I don't think he has much of a chance of being nominated. The Democrats are most likely going to go for Mark Warner, or someone similar - perhaps Wesley Clark.

I don't think he has much of a chance of being nominated. The Democrats are most likely going to go for Mark Warner, or someone similar - perhaps Wesley Clark.
You may be right, but I'm in the early stages of fan-boy-dom right now.

Russ? President Russ. Nah...

Russ just isn't a Presidential name. We need something British. Like...

President Sir Farnsworth Higgins Manfringesonshire, Esq. III.

Looks promising, and I'm inclined to agree with many of his positions. He answered the questions in a straightforward manner and got his points across efficiently.

I'm so glad I was able to vote for him in the last election. His opponent was a fucking idiot. Why he was picked to run, I have no idea, there were a number of Republican candidates running that actually exhibited a degree of independent thought. The guy they ran against Feingold might as well have been a parrot on Bush's shoulder.

I don't know if he'll make it past the primaries, but if he does, he's got my vote. I've written to him twice and gotten prompt and thoughtful reponses each time, which is more than I can say for my other Senator (Herb Kohl, D) or my Representative (Mark Green, R)

I don't agree with him on every issue, but he has never given me a reason to regret helping him get reelected.

He's standing up. It's really that simple--he's standing up, and to hell with the pundits and the play-it-safers in DC. Here's an excerpt from his appearance on the Charlie Rose show--the video is available from Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/20.html#a7596). (Where else?)

He's my guy--he ain't perfect, not by a longshot, but he's my guy unless someone better comes along.

Nazz, c'mon. He's grandstanding. The guy is jockeying for position against Hillary. That's all his "standing up" is.

The only other thing he's ever done that has been noteworthy is that abortion of a campaign finance law that he and his almost mirror image in the Republican party McCain got passed. How anyone can stand up and scream bloody murder about the Patriot Act destroying our civil rights while being on of the two principle architect's of the most blatant assault on the right to free speech in the last twenty years is just blatant hypocrisy.

Thanks to Feingold, politicians have to spend more time fundraising than they do legislating. Thanks to Feingold, its even harder than it ever was to unseat an incumbent. Thanks to Feingold, a rich self-financing candidate can buy himself whatever office he wants.

And he wants to be President? Thanks, I'll pass. There are better candidates in the Democratic party, like Mark Warner.

Nazz, c'mon. He's grandstanding. The guy is jockeying for position against Hillary. That's all his "standing up" is.

I don't care why he's doing it, it's good that he is, and if he thinks it helps him politically he'll probably do the same later - which is the point of supporting him.

The only other thing he's ever done that has been noteworthy is that abortion of a campaign finance law that he and his almost mirror image in the Republican party McCain got passed. How anyone can stand up and scream bloody murder about the Patriot Act destroying our civil rights while being on of the two principle architect's of the most blatant assault on the right to free speech in the last twenty years is just blatant hypocrisy.

The "right" to bribe politicians is not the same thing as the right to free speech.

I don't care why he's doing it, it's good that he is, and if he thinks it helps him politically he'll probably do the same later - which is the point of supporting him.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any virtue in doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. He can cloak himself in whatever shroud of rhetoric he feels justifies his actions, but his move to censure Bush on the NSA data-mining was pure politics. I'd rather he focus on doing his job in the Senate than posturing for 2008.

The "right" to bribe politicians is not the same thing as the right to free speech.

Bribing politicians has been illegal far longer than BCRA has been on the books. That's not what I'm talking about. Under his law, I can't spend my own money to run TV ads against a candidate for office that I don't like within 90 days of the election. It's my money, and my opinion - if I want to spend it that way, that's my right. At least, it was until Feingold got his way.

He might as well just come out and say "Your civil rights are important, as long as they don't get in the way of me staying in office."

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any virtue in doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. He can cloak himself in whatever shroud of rhetoric he feels justifies his actions, but his move to censure Bush on the NSA data-mining was pure politics.

And you know that how? Furthermore, why does it matter? I don't care whether or not he's "virtuous," I care about what he does.

I'd rather he focus on doing his job in the Senate than posturing for 2008.

I'd rather he make a big deal out of Bush tearing apart the rule of law, whatever his motives, than descend back into quiet meekness like so many of the other Democrats.

Russ? President Russ. Nah...

Russ just isn't a Presidential name. We need something British. Like...

President Sir Farnsworth Higgins Manfringesonshire, Esq. III.
President Fiddlebottoms? :eek: :eek: :eek:

And you know that how? Furthermore, why does it matter? I don't care whether or not he's "virtuous," I care about what he does.

Because if he meant it, he wouldn't have waited to drop this on the Senate while the Dubai Ports business was raging. The timing of his decision and the fact that he failed to inform the Democratic leadership is suspect.

The DP World business was front page news, and it gave Hillary a natural issue because the New York terminals were part of the deal. The NSA issue was old news...blown from the front pages by this flap. He needed to regain the momentum, so he did what he did.

Politicians are politicians, but you no one wants to elect someone who only seems to make his decisions based on what's expedient or what moves his ambition forward. That's what these kind of ploys do - because you know the Republicans are going to nail him on this.

I'd rather he make a big deal out of Bush tearing apart the rule of law, whatever his motives, than descend back into quiet meekness like so many of the other Democrats.

Its not a question of meekness. Its a question of picking your battles. This NSA issue is not a good issue for the Dems to take a stand on. It undermines their efforts to try and shore up their national security credentials and it plays into Bush's hands - he WANTS them to make a big deal about this, because the American people don't have a problem with it.

The claims of Bush "tearing apart the rule of law" is just partisan nonsense.

If I were a Democrat, I'd like to fight Bush on ground of my own choosing where I have the natural advantage. This issue isn't it.

Because if he meant it, he wouldn't have waited to drop this on the Senate while the Dubai Ports business was raging. The timing of his decision and the fact that he failed to inform the Democratic leadership is suspect.

The DP World business was front page news, and it gave Hillary a natural issue because the New York terminals were part of the deal. The NSA issue was old news...blown from the front pages by this flap. He needed to regain the momentum, so he did what he did.

Politicians are politicians, but you no one wants to elect someone who only seems to make his decisions based on what's expedient or what moves his ambition forward. That's what these kind of ploys do - because you know the Republicans are going to nail him on this.



Its not a question of meekness. Its a question of picking your battles. This NSA issue is not a good issue for the Dems to take a stand on. It undermines their efforts to try and shore up their national security credentials and it plays into Bush's hands - he WANTS them to make a big deal about this, because the American people don't have a problem with it.

The claims of Bush "tearing apart the rule of law" is just partisan nonsense.

If I were a Democrat, I'd like to fight Bush on ground of my own choosing where I have the natural advantage. This issue isn't it.
You're refering to this, no?
Seventy-six percent agree that the government "should use wiretaps to listen to telephone calls and read e-mails between suspected terrorists in other countries and some people in the United States," according to a new poll by Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn. And 54 percent believe that such surveillance by the Bush administration has prevented acts of terrorism, while 33 percent do not.
While ignoring the important part of the issue-
But a majority (55 to 42 percent) says snooping on US citizens communicating with individuals abroad should require a court order first. That's the nub of the debate in Congress.
source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0306/p03s03-uspo.html)
That's the issue and I have a problem with it. It's amusing that when looking for this there was a ton of conservative blogs that left that meaty part out in their gloating, just like you did.

- he WANTS them to make a big deal about this, because the American people don't have a problem with it.

Now who's spouting partisan nonsense? That's bullsh*t that "they" don't have a problem with it, and you know it.

The claims of Bush "tearing apart the rule of law" is just partisan nonsense.

ok, so are you stupid, ignorant, insane, or evil?

cause the president himself admitted openly that he violated the law, and that he is still violating the law, and he intends to keep right on violating the law, because his inherent power as the military ruler of this country allows him to do so.

Now who's spouting partisan nonsense? That's bullsh*t that "they" don't have a problem with it, and you know it.

but the media keeps saying that that's true, and so do the republicans. who cares what "reality" says?

I'd rather he focus on doing his job in the Senate than posturing for 2008. "
What delusion of a world do you live in? He isn't a Republican, hell, he isn't even a Republican in Democrat's clothing. What job do you expect him to do? Go out to lunch? They do that.

His job should be to try and straighten out the bullshit blending of Republican and Democrat that is going on. It should be to separate the Democrats from the Republicans. Dean tried to do that and the right-wing Goebbels wanna-bes crucified him for it because the average person is too stupid to do anything but listen to pundits. Some one else has got to do it.

Now who's spouting partisan nonsense? That's bullsh*t that "they" don't have a problem with it, and you know it.

The polling has shown a consistent trend towards Bush's position as the issue was explained to the public. The last polls I saw on this was an Opinion Dynamics (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_011206.pdf) poll from January, that had 58% of Americans saying they believed the President should have the ability to operate the NSA program, while 36% said he should not.

Honestly, if the Democratic leadership thought they could win with this issue, they'd be using it. But they don't. The only person who brought it up is Feingold, who isn't in the leadership and has presidential ambitions.

ok, so are you stupid, ignorant, insane, or evil?

None of the above. I'm objective, and I don't need to name call in order to prove my points.

cause the president himself admitted openly that he violated the law,

No, he hasn't. What he has said is that he believes that the Courts and Congress, as well as the Constitution, gave him the authority to do what he did. FISA doesn't trump his Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.

and that he is still violating the law, and he intends to keep right on violating the law, because his inherent power as the military ruler of this country allows him to do so.

This is a completely partisan, naive reading of the entire issue.

You guys can attack me because I'm a conservative - I expect that. But let me make a few things clear. I think for myself. I don't blindly follow the administration, and I will call a spade a spade. I believe that I am more than fair in dishing out criticism to both sides of the aisle. But one thing I can't stand is blind partisanship - and that comes from both sides.

What delusion of a world do you live in? He isn't a Republican, hell, he isn't even a Republican in Democrat's clothing. What job do you expect him to do? Go out to lunch? They do that.

The only place the Democrats have any power at all is in the Senate. They can move legislation - there are enough left of center Republicans and mavericks to do that. Instead of grandstanding and getting your name in the headlines (which is all this censure resolution does), he should be working with the leadership to move the party in the right direction. He's not being a team player, and the Dems need all the team players they can get.

His job should be to try and straighten out the bullshit blending of Republican and Democrat that is going on. It should be to separate the Democrats from the Republicans. Dean tried to do that and the right-wing Goebbels wanna-bes crucified him for it because the average person is too stupid to do anything but listen to pundits. Some one else has got to do it.

The two parties are always going to merge in the middle because of the nature of American politics. There's nothing Feingold can do to stop that. You have rabid supporters on both sides of the aisle who will follow the party leadership like lemmings, and 20 percent in the middle who think things through and vote their conscience. Everyone fights over that 20%. That means moderating your tone, because the far left and far right don't appeal to those people - if it did, they'd be 'true-believers' too.

No, he hasn't. What he has said is that he believes that the Courts and Congress, as well as the Constitution, gave him the authority to do what he did. FISA doesn't trump his Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.

he has no constitutional authority to violate the constitution. being the commander-in-chief has absolutely no bearing on anything other than commanding the army and navy. claiming that he gets to violate the law because he is the commander of the military is exactly equal to declaring his administration a military dictatorship.

neither the congress nor the courts have said that what he did was legal, and congress has expressly said that it was illegal. if it was legal, why would the republicans be falling all over themselves to retroactively make it legal?

This is a completely partisan, naive reading of the entire issue.

it's actually just a literal restatement of what has been said and done. he has repeatedly claimed the power to violate the law. and they keep using that military dictatorship line of reasoning for everything.

The two parties are always going to merge in the middle because of the nature of American politics.

the 'middle' is a moving target. and thanks to effective media control by the republicans, it has been trending rightward for decades - but only superficially, as most americans hold positions rather far to the left of the democrats on a wide variety of subjects.

he has no constitutional authority to violate the constitution. being the commander-in-chief has absolutely no bearing on anything other than commanding the army and navy. claiming that he gets to violate the law because he is the commander of the military is exactly equal to declaring his administration a military dictatorship.

Interception of enemy communications has been considered a legitimate tool by every President since George Washington. Being Commander-in-Chief and having an authorization for the use of force against Al-Qaeda can be read as giving him the authority to use every tool available up to and included force in order to stop Al-Qaeda from attacking the country again. This would include intercepting enemy communciations.

You keep saying "violate the law" - we don't know that he did that. No law can supersede the Constitution. If FISA restricts the Presidents lawful authority granted him by the Constitution, the Constitution trumps FISA.

neither the congress nor the courts have said that what he did was legal, and congress has expressly said that it was illegal. if it was legal, why would the republicans be falling all over themselves to retroactively make it legal?

You're wrong. Congress has never stated that what the President did was illegal. There are two competing authorities in this issue - the Constitution and FISA. The Constitution beats FISA. Congress can't pass a law that restricts an authority granted the President in Article 2.

The Republicans AREN'T falling all over themselves to retroactively make it legal. The DEMOCRATS, including Chuck Schumer and Jane Harman are the ones suggesting expressly changing the law to "make it legal". And that's purely a political move, not a substantive one. The President already has the authority to operate the program under his legal theory, so he doesn't need Congress to pass another law. The Democrats want to pass the law because doing so and having Bush sign it would be akin to an admission of guilt that he HAD broke the law - and while it wouldn't hurt him legally, it would be politically damaging.

it's actually just a literal restatement of what has been said and done. he has repeatedly claimed the power to violate the law. and they keep using that military dictatorship line of reasoning for everything.

Again, this is a naive and partisan viewing of the situation. Bush is doing what he believes is necessary to keep the country safe. That's not being a military dictator. If he were doing that, you would be typing this from a jail cell.

the 'middle' is a moving target. and thanks to effective media control by the republicans, it has been trending rightward for decades - but only superficially, as most americans hold positions rather far to the left of the democrats on a wide variety of subjects.

The middle is a moving target, yes, but on most substantive issues, they're not moving that far. No one has effective control over the media except the media. They're neither conservative nor liberal - they're a business. They do what it takes to get ratings, and that generally means they puff up stories that have conflict and sensationalize them to drum up viewers and readers. They'll go after anyone if it sells advertising. This "media is liberal" or "media is conservative" is just a myth. They give the public what they think the public wants to get.

This is a far different cry from the old days where you had two newspapers in every town, one Democrat and one Republican and everyone knew which was which.

You keep saying "violate the law" - we don't know that he did that. No law can supersede the Constitution. If FISA restricts the Presidents lawful authority granted him by the Constitution, the Constitution trumps FISA.

true or false - fisa is a law
true or false - fisa does not allow the president to do what he did
true or false - the president is not empowered by the constitution to rule an existing law unconstitutional
true or false - the president is not empowered by the constitution to make law


The Republicans AREN'T falling all over themselves to retroactively make it legal. The DEMOCRATS, including Chuck Schumer and Jane Harman are the ones suggesting expressly changing the law to "make it legal".

dewine, snowe, hagel, and graham are democrats? specter is a democrat? cause they seem to be the ones introducing the bills that would legalize it.

Again, this is a naive and partisan viewing of the situation. Bush is doing what he believes is necessary to keep the country safe. That's not being a military dictator. If he were doing that, you would be typing this from a jail cell.

why does the fact that he has declared that laws don't apply to him because he is in charge of the military necessarily require him to already have engaged in mass imprisonment of political opponents?

Because if he meant it, he wouldn't have waited to drop this on the Senate while the Dubai Ports business was raging. The timing of his decision and the fact that he failed to inform the Democratic leadership is suspect.

The "timing" is when the Bush Administration's political credibility on national security issues is low - precisely the correct timing.

The DP World business was front page news, and it gave Hillary a natural issue because the New York terminals were part of the deal. The NSA issue was old news...blown from the front pages by this flap. He needed to regain the momentum, so he did what he did.

It was "old news," but it was important news. It's utterly shameful that people are ignoring it.

Politicians are politicians, but you no one wants to elect someone who only seems to make his decisions based on what's expedient or what moves his ambition forward. That's what these kind of ploys do - because you know the Republicans are going to nail him on this.

If Feingold thinks it's "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties now, and he thought it "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties back when PATRIOT was first passed, my guess is that he'll think it's "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties as president, too. I don't care why he does it - the important thing is that he does do it.

Its not a question of meekness. Its a question of picking your battles. This NSA issue is not a good issue for the Dems to take a stand on. It undermines their efforts to try and shore up their national security credentials and it plays into Bush's hands - he WANTS them to make a big deal about this, because the American people don't have a problem with it.

Nonsense. The American people's reaction to PATRIOT, which comparatively was only a mild restriction on civil liberties, proves the "common sense" that Americans don't care about privacy utterly wrong.

The claims of Bush "tearing apart the rule of law" is just partisan nonsense.

Yeah, because engaging in illegal wiretapping, admitting to it, and declaring that he sees nothing wrong in it is perfectly respectful of the Constitution and of the limits in executive power. :rolleyes:

He's standing up. It's really that simple--he's standing up, and to hell with the pundits and the play-it-safers in DC. Here's an excerpt from his appearance on the Charlie Rose show--the video is available from Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/20.html#a7596). (Where else?)

He's my guy--he ain't perfect, not by a longshot, but he's my guy unless someone better comes along.
I wonder if he isn't a trial balloon(sacrifical lamb) to see if this kind of talk takes hold. Then the Democrats can avoid real issues and just campaign against the incumbent Republicans because they are Republicans like the President.

Reminds me of a South Park episode back in 2000. Whoopi Goldberg was featured and her act consisted of "George Bush is stupid" and "I hate Republicans."

If Feingold thinks it's "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties now, and he thought it "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties back when PATRIOT was first passed, my guess is that he'll think it's "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties as president, too. I don't care why he does it - the important thing is that he does do it.

apparently russ just always finds it 'expedient' to stand up for civil liberties. it's rather impressive, really, given the prevailing standards of the ruling elite. i don't share his belief in the fundamental goodness of representative democracy, but it's nice to watch him come close to calling people counterrevolutionaries. i think his exact term was "pre-1776 mentality".

true or false - fisa is a law
true or false - fisa does not allow the president to do what he did
true or false - the president is not empowered by the constitution to rule an existing law unconstitutional
true or false - the president is not empowered by the constitution to make law

This isn't a true/false scenario. That's dumbing the entire issue down to the absolute lowest level. FISA and the Constitution conflict, FISA and the Afghan War Authorization conflict. The Courts will have to sort this out, but in the meantime, its irresponsible for the President to not use a tool he has to combat domestic terrorism because the law is ambiguous.

There was never a reason to question FISA before 9/11. Now there is. It needs to be addressed and it will be. But to say that what he did was illegal or a violation of the law is a legal conclusion that can't be made at this point.

dewine, snowe, hagel, and graham are democrats? specter is a democrat? cause they seem to be the ones introducing the bills that would legalize it.

They are all Republicans who are either up for reelection or are serving in blue states. When you see names like Frist, Lott, McConnell, and others out there dropping bills, then you can make that argument.

why does the fact that he has declared that laws don't apply to him because he is in charge of the military necessarily require him to already have engaged in mass imprisonment of political opponents?

You're calling him a military despot. If that were the case, why would he stop at "declaring that laws don't apply to him" - why not just throw everyone who disagrees with him in prison and not have to worry about folks like you dogging him every time he makes a move?

The answer is simple - he's not a military despot, he's not claiming the powers of one, and only a completely partisan, everything-he-does-is-wrong view of the world can even hope to seriously make that contention.

The "timing" is when the Bush Administration's political credibility on national security issues is low - precisely the correct timing.

Precisely the correct timing if you're trying to get it back into the news cycle. There was no other reason for bringing this back up at that point.

It was "old news," but it was important news. It's utterly shameful that people are ignoring it.

They're not ignoring it. They just don't think its the end of the world as so many naysayers do.

If Feingold thinks it's "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties now, and he thought it "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties back when PATRIOT was first passed, my guess is that he'll think it's "expedient" to stand up for civil liberties as president, too. I don't care why he does it - the important thing is that he does do it.

He only stands up for those civil liberties that don't impede him staying in office. He had no problems restricting our freedom of expression when it came to political advertising and speech, but he thinks its horrible that the government have the same ability to combat terrorism as it has to combat drug trafficking?

I don't understand how you can give him a pass because he wants to protect your library records, but thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to join with a bunch of like-minded people to support or oppose candidates for office you agree or disagree with. That is much more damaging to our civil liberties than anything Patriot Act has or could possibly be misused to do.

Nonsense. The American people's reaction to PATRIOT, which comparatively was only a mild restriction on civil liberties, proves the "common sense" that Americans don't care about privacy utterly wrong.

The Patriot Act was reauthorized, despite Feingold's attempts to stop it. People are concerned about their civil liberties, as they ought to be, but they also apparently are more discerning than the Senator when it comes to figuring out what the true threat to our liberties really is.

Yeah, because engaging in illegal wiretapping, admitting to it, and declaring that he sees nothing wrong in it is perfectly respectful of the Constitution and of the limits in executive power. :rolleyes:

Read my other posts in this thread. The only people who have come to the conclusion that this was "illegal wiretapping" are those on the left who refuse to realize that there are more wrinkles to this issue than a true/false scenario.

This isn't a true/false scenario.

i'll take that as an admission that the president clearly violated the law. game over.

in order to make your statement, "You keep saying 'violate the law' - we don't know that he did that", true your only hope was to have at least one of my true/false statements be false. there are no other options.


FISA and the Constitution conflict

indeed, fisa as written allows a bit too much power into the hands of the president already.

You're calling him a military despot. If that were the case, why would he stop at "declaring that laws don't apply to him" - why not just throw everyone who disagrees with him in prison and not have to worry about folks like you dogging him every time he makes a move?

no. not entirely a despot. just a dictator. but he's working on it.

as for his reasons for not just locking us all up already, it's probably one of convinience. we aren't really much of a threat, so why bother?

The Patriot Act was reauthorized, despite Feingold's attempts to stop it. People are concerned about their civil liberties, as they ought to be, but they also apparently are more discerning than the Senator when it comes to figuring out what the true threat to our liberties really is.

people /= the ruling elite

The only place the Democrats have any power at all is in the Senate. They can move legislation - there are enough left of center Republicans and mavericks to do that. Instead of grandstanding and getting your name in the headlines (which is all this censure resolution does), he should be working with the leadership to move the party in the right direction. He's not being a team player, and the Dems need all the team players they can get.
No, they don't. The Democrat team is playing pussy, we are like the Republicans on all the flash point issues, but we arn't Republicans. They don't need team players, they need people who go out and say "Fuck this, let's be Democrats, not Republican-lite."


The two parties are always going to merge in the middle because of the nature of American politics.
Which is what kind of defense?

There's nothing Feingold can do to stop that.
Point being what? You don't like what he is doing so he should stop?

You have rabid supporters on both sides of the aisle who will follow the party leadership like lemmings, and 20 percent in the middle who think things through and vote their conscience. Everyone fights over that 20%. That means moderating your tone, because the far left and far right don't appeal to those people - if it did, they'd be 'true-believers' too.
You also seem to suffer from a delusion there. There is no not-far right. They all team together around flashpoint issues to stir up their base. The rightwing is not trying to appeal to the middle because they don't have to. They rally around their unshakable base. The Democrats completely ignore trying to rally any sort of unshakable base and go "Hey, we are like the Republicans, but not Republicans.. uh, vote for us!"

You guys can attack me because I'm a conservative - I expect that. But let me make a few things clear. I think for myself.
Which is of course why you arn't.

i'll take that as an admission that the president clearly violated the law. game over.

No, I'm not saying that he clearly violated the law. I'm saying that the Constitution and the FISA law conflict. You can't say he's "violating the law", if the law itself is unconstitutional.

Don't try and put words into my mouth. This issue isn't black and white, and you're trying to make it out to be.

in order to make your statement, "You keep saying 'violate the law' - we don't know that he did that", true your only hope was to have at least one of my true/false statements be false. there are no other options.

No, that's not the case. If FISA unconstitutionally restricts the President's Constitutional authority, then its invalid.

True or False - George Bush went to Yale and Harvard
True or False - Yale and Harvard are two of the best schools in America
True or False - People who graduate from Yale and Harvard are smart

You have to answer all of those true, because they are. Even the dumbest person who graduated from Yale and Harvard would be considered smart. So under this little box, you have to admit that George Bush is smart.

We can both play these little games, and they get you nowhere.

indeed, fisa as written allows a bit too much power into the hands of the president already.

All I can do is shake my head when I read this.

no. not entirely a despot. just a dictator. but he's working on it.

Ditto to my above comment. This kind of rhetoric is completely worthless. Bush isn't close to being either a despot or a dictator. If he's still President on January 21, 2009, then you can tell me I was wrong.

as for his reasons for not just locking us all up already, it's probably one of convinience. we aren't really much of a threat, so why bother?

Stalin had people killed who weren't really much of a threat. He did it because he could. Come off it. Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of things to criticize Bush for, you don't need to make things up.

people /= the ruling elite

I disagree.

No, I'm not saying that he clearly violated the law. I'm saying that the Constitution and the FISA law conflict. You can't say he's "violating the law", if the law itself is unconstitutional.

and yet it would still be a law. and the president doesn't have the ability to declare existing law unconstitutional, nor to make up new law. it really is fucking black and white.

If FISA unconstitutionally restricts the President's Constitutional authority, then its invalid.

which can only be decided when the body that constitutionally gets to make that call does so - until then, it is the law. bush is not that body. bush never took the issue to either of the bodies that could have constitutionally dealt with the situation. therefore, bush broke the law. and when called on it, he claimed that laws don't apply to him, and that all power ultimately rests in his hands. neither of which are at all constitutionally supportable.

this really is quite simple.

True or False - George Bush went to Yale and Harvard
True or False - Yale and Harvard are two of the best schools in America
True or False - People who graduate from Yale and Harvard are smart

You have to answer all of those true, because they are. Even the dumbest person who graduated from Yale and Harvard would be considered smart. So under this little box, you have to admit that George Bush is smart.

the third one is false.

No, they don't. The Democrat team is playing pussy, we are like the Republicans on all the flash point issues, but we arn't Republicans. They don't need team players, they need people who go out and say "Fuck this, let's be Democrats, not Republican-lite."

Being "Democrats" hasn't gotten them elected. Before they can stop doing all of things you dislike about the Republicans, they've got to be in control.

Which is what kind of defense?

Its not a defense. I'm simply explaining how things work.

Point being what? You don't like what he is doing so he should stop?

My point is that Feingold is no better than any of the other folks who are running for President right now. They are doing what is in their own personal best interests, not what is in their party or their country's best interests.

You also seem to suffer from a delusion there. There is no not-far right. They all team together around flashpoint issues to stir up their base. The rightwing is not trying to appeal to the middle because they don't have to. They rally around their unshakable base. The Democrats completely ignore trying to rally any sort of unshakable base and go "Hey, we are like the Republicans, but not Republicans.. uh, vote for us!"

I'm not suffering from any kinds of delusions. I'm simply not blinded by partisanship and stereotypical labels. I am a conservative but I certainly am not far right and differ with the party and with folks who share some of my ideology on quite a few issues. That doesn't make me less part of the "right". The right-wing doesn't appeal to the middle - you're right. And the left-wing doesn't appeal to the middle either. The middle decides on issues one at a time, and they pick and choose who has the better plan. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have unshakable bases. To claim they don't is to ignore a fundamental principle of party politics.

Democrat does not always equal liberal. Republican does not always equal conservative. The Democrats have a much more fractured base than the Republicans do because they still have a number of conservatives and they are a force within the party. Liberal Republicans are exceedingly rare, so they don't wield as much force. That's the reality.

Which is of course why you arn't.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying I'm not thinking for myself (which is untrue) or that I'm not a conservative (which I've heard before, but disagree with).

I disagree.

then insane it is. that answers that question.

and yet it would still be a law. and the president doesn't have the ability to declare existing law unconstitutional, nor to make up new law. it really is fucking black and white.

No, it wouldn't still be a law. The Alien and Sedition Acts are not law now. The President doesn't have a line item veto anymore. When a law is ruled invalid, its as if it doesn't exist.

The President isn't declaring the existing law unconstitutional. He's saying that it conflicts with his authority granted by the Constitution and he is exercising that authority. He didn't make a new law. He used what he believed was already on the books since the Constitution was ratified.

It ISN'T "fucking black and white". If it were, we wouldn't need courts at all.

which can only be decided when the body that constitutionally gets to make that call does so - until then, it is the law.

No "body" is consitutionally given the right to declare a law unconstitutional. That's something that the Courts have interpreted as part of their authority.

bush is not that body. bush never took the issue to either of the bodies that could have constitutionally dealt with the situation. therefore, bush broke the law.

That's a completely illogical and irrational conclusion to jump to. Bush is the embodiment of the executive. His job is to execute the laws. When there are two laws that conflict, how can he execute both? He can't. He either chooses one, or he does neither. In this situation he chose one. Whether or not he made the right choice will be determined by the courts. But he didn't "break the law".

and when called on it, he claimed that laws don't apply to him, and that all power ultimately rests in his hands. neither of which are at all constitutionally supportable.

He didn't claim that "laws don't apply to him" - that's absurd. He's said time and time again that no one is above the law. Where do you people get this nonsense?

the third one is false.

Prove it.

then insane it is. that answers that question.

Feel free to name call when you can't argue constructively.

If you thing there is a "ruling elite" in this country, than you know nothing about politics and governance. If the Dubai Ports issue didn't demonstrate the power of the people when it comes to crafting policy, nothing has.

Being "Democrats" hasn't gotten them elected.
It did when they were being Democrats.

Before they can stop doing all of things you dislike about the Republicans, they've got to be in control.
Or they can take a stand against it, whether or not that has any effect.

Its not a defense. I'm simply explaining how things work.
Fromt an admittedly biased source.

I'm not suffering from any kinds of delusions. I'm simply not blinded by partisanship and stereotypical labels.
You certainly are suffering from a delusion.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have unshakable bases.
The left has no unshakable base because they don't pander to the ignorant, stubborn, and extremists.

The Democrats have a much more fractured base than the Republicans do because they still have a number of conservatives and they are a force within the party.
Contradictory to your former paragraph.

It did when they were being Democrats.

Like when? And what exactly does it mean "to be a Democrat"?

Or they can take a stand against it, whether or not that has any effect.

I don't have a problem with him taking a stand. He can do that in the Senate whenever he wants to. But grandstanding and throwing out these kinds of bogus censure resolutions does nothing to move the debate or advance the process. It's purely personal politics writ large.

Fromt an admittedly biased source.

Experience is the best source, and I don't think it can be considered biased. But if you want to argue that, feel free.

You certainly are suffering from a delusion.

Have I called anyone a name? Have I said that liberals are dumb or that conservatives are smarter than everyone else? Have I said anything that makes you think I'm merely a demagogue and spouting off what Rush Limbaugh said today? No. I don't toss around labels and I don't back Bush on every little issue because he's the President.

I am attacking Feingold here because he is grandstanding. I felt the same way about the Congressional Republicans during the impeachment process for Clinton. I said the same way when Jean Schmidt was making stupid remarks about John Murtha on the floor of the House.

If you think I'm being blindly partisan, point out what I've said so I can correct it.

[qote]The left has no unshakable base because they don't pander to the ignorant, stubborn, and extremists.[/quote]

I disagree. Both sides have ignorant, stubborn, extreme elements, and both get pandered to.

Contradictory to your former paragraph.

No, its not. The Democrats have a fractured base, but they have a base nonetheless. Some of the base is liberal. Some of it is southern conservative Democrat. Some of it is anti-Bush. Some of it is anti-war. Some of it is pro-women's rights. In order to keep all the Democrats voting Democrat they can't afford to alienate portions of their base to stay ideologically pure. But each party has a hardcore, unshakable portion that will vote D or R no matter what anyone says or does in the party.

People get blinded by the fact that neither party is purely liberal or purely conservative. We've only got two parties in this country, so there are alot of different ideologies wrapped up in both of those tents.

but the media keeps saying that that's true, and so do the republicans. who cares what "reality" says?
Ah, ya got me. I forgot how many people suffer from religious mindsets. :(

The polling has shown a consistent trend towards Bush's position as the issue was explained to the public. The last polls I saw on this was an Opinion Dynamics (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_011206.pdf) poll from January, that had 58% of Americans saying they believed the President should have the ability to operate the NSA program, while 36% said he should not.

Honestly, if the Democratic leadership thought they could win with this issue, they'd be using it. But they don't. The only person who brought it up is Feingold, who isn't in the leadership and has presidential ambitions.
Well, i think it's better that you qualify your statement to reflect the fractured allegiance of this country's populace. Your post implied a non-existent encompassing factor. That's why i posted it - it's misleading.

Feingold sounds good to me. He's a hell of a lot better than Hillary "New Deal" Clinton (and I mean New Deal as in New Deal Democrat's social conservativism) or Wesley "Look, I'm a target!" Clark.

He actually has a backbone (are you sure he's actually a democrat? :p )

Feingold is quite possibly the best active American politican period. I suspect that if Al Gore gets back in the game, Feingold gets bumped back down to 2nd.

Nazz, c'mon. He's grandstanding.Um, no. There's not a grandstanding bone in Feingold's body. If anything, he's exhibiting a fair amount of frustration with his fellow Senators who have shown time and again that they are more than willing to give to get along. And who seem to be willing to castigate Bush, but do nothing substantively about it. He's also demonstrating his bone-deep distrust of a president, who, Feingold feels, plays fast and loose with the Constitution and truth.

You're calling him [Bush] a military despot. If that were the case, why would he stop at "declaring that laws don't apply to him" - why not just throw everyone who disagrees with him in prison and not have to worry about folks like you dogging him every time he makes a move?Let's give him time. There's room in Gitmo (or any one of the other black sites). At this point, Bush doesn't have to be a militarydespot, neocons and other conservatives drunk with power are quite happy to do his shit work for him.

He only stands up for those civil liberties that don't impede him staying in office. He had no problems restricting our freedom of expression when it came to political advertising and speech, but he thinks its horrible that the government have the same ability to combat terrorism as it has to combat drug trafficking?Let's do be clear you are referring to the Campaign Finance Reform Act. And what was the situation before passage? For one thing, it was a lot easier for corporate PACs to buy their president of choice, and to do so with little oversight. Campaign finance reform isn't about prohibiting freedom of expression. It is all about getting a handle on the buying and selling of candidates. And no, it's not perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

Read my other posts in this thread. The only people who have come to the conclusion that this was "illegal wiretapping" are those on the left who refuse to realize that there are more wrinkles to this issue than a true/false scenario.And a train load or two of constitutional scholars. But don't let that impact your world view.

Um, no. There's not a grandstanding bone in Feingold's body. If anything, he's exhibiting a fair amount of frustration with his fellow Senators who have shown time and again that they are more than willing to give to get along. And who seem to be willing to castigate Bush, but do nothing substantively about it. He's also demonstrating his bone-deep distrust of a president, who, Feingold feels, plays fast and loose with the Constitution and truth.

Um, yes. There was absolutely no legitimate policy reason for him to bring this censure resolution up. There has been no legal determination that what Bush did was improper.

I agree that he's exhibiting frustration, but the frustration had more to do with the fact that the Dubai Ports deal pushed the Patriot Act and the NSA data-mining off the front page and those were two of his issues, and the ports deal was not.

He's a Senator, but he's also part of a team. He can accomplish a lot on his own, but if he wants to convince the rest of the party to do something about Bush, the last thing he should be doing is putting them on the spot by announcing on a Sunday talk show that he's going to try and censure the President.

Let's give him time. There's room in Gitmo (or any one of the other black sites). At this point, Bush doesn't have to be a militarydespot, neocons and other conservatives drunk with power are quite happy to do his shit work for him.

It amuses me that people still use the term neocon.

Let's do be clear you are referring to the Campaign Finance Reform Act. And what was the situation before passage? For one thing, it was a lot easier for corporate PACs to buy their president of choice, and to do so with little oversight. Campaign finance reform isn't about prohibiting freedom of expression. It is all about getting a handle on the buying and selling of candidates. And no, it's not perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

Uh, no. And yes, I am referring the the Bipartisan Camaign Reform Act, but corporate PACs have always been able to provide money to candidates, just like labor PACs could. BCRA really didn't affect political action committees at all. It mainly focused on soft money, which was direct corporate and labor money, not money through PACs, and it was given to the parties, not the individual candidates. There was plenty of oversight before.

BCRA basically made it impossible for groups like labor unions, corporations, citizen groups, etc. to run advertising advocating for or against a candidate in an election. That is all about prohibiting the freedom of expression. They didn't like that the NRA or Emily's List could dump a ton of cash into advertising in a race that mattered to them - that's crap. Everyone should have a right to participate in the political process, in any way they see fit.

The idea that campaign contributions equate to buying and selling of candidates is just uninformed nonsense. For everyone on one side of an issue contributing, there's someone on the other side doing the same thing.

BCRA was a step back when it comes to American civil liberties, and it was certainly a step back when it comes to furthering our democracy. Money is like water, it will find every crack. The 2004 election proved that.

And a train load or two of constitutional scholars. But don't let that impact your world view.

I won't, because the opinion of a train load or two of constitutional scholars doesn't mean a hill of beans unless they're wearing a a robe and work over on 1st Street.

The argument that it hasn't gone through the courts so is no crime is similar to the argument that you can drive 60mph through a playground zone and if you're never charged, nobody can say you've committed a crime. Technically true, but most people understand it to be a semantic game at best.

The president is obligated to act within the laws of the land. Congress' granting of him the rights to go to war does not render any part of the law null and void. Otherwise, your interpretation would confer upon the President the power to suspend the operation of Congress and the Courts if he thought their continued operation would hinder national security. Clearly this is false.

Where the laws conflict, the President is under the obligation to obey both until such time as the conflict is resolved. This can be done either through the court system, or through congress passing an amendment or another law. In neither case can it be legally done at the President's discretion. Until one or the other of those two events happen, when he acts against one law, even if it is in support of another, it is *still* a violation of the law and thus illegal.

The argument that it hasn't gone through the courts so is no crime is similar to the argument that you can drive 60mph through a playground zone and if you're never charged, nobody can say you've committed a crime. Technically true, but most people understand it to be a semantic game at best.

The president is obligated to act within the laws of the land. Congress' granting of him the rights to go to war does not render any part of the law null and void. Otherwise, your interpretation would confer upon the President the power to suspend the operation of Congress and the Courts if he thought their continued operation would hinder national security. Clearly this is false.

Where the laws conflict, the President is under the obligation to obey both until such time as the conflict is resolved. This can be done either through the court system, or through congress passing an amendment or another law. In neither case can it be legally done at the President's discretion. Until one or the other of those two events happen, when he acts against one law, even if it is in support of another, it is *still* a violation of the law and thus illegal.

now that's just crazy talk. if the president says that it is part of his inherent constitutional power as leader of the military to do whatever he pleases, then we have to accept that as true. obviously.

Read my other posts in this thread. The only people who have come to the conclusion that this was "illegal wiretapping" are those on the left who refuse to realize that there are more wrinkles to this issue than a true/false scenario.

I did. I have heard that particular argument before. I think it is absurd. It basically means that Bush can designate anyone to be an "enemy" and disregard legality in dealing with them - that is, he can tear apart the rule of law.

It gives him the power of a military dictator.

It gives him the power of a military dictator.

"but if that were true then *insert red herring here*!"

Um, yes. There was absolutely no legitimate policy reason for him to bring this censure resolution up. There has been no legal determination that what Bush did was improper.
Of course there hasn't when you live down the Neocon rabbit hole and things are legalized ex posto facto.

As much as I think Feingold is the best Democratic candidate possible, he won't get there in this lifetime.

The US isn't ready for a Jewish president. It just won't happen in this Christian country yet. He doesn't flaunt it, and doesn't deny it. I just doesn't come up. In a presidential election, it certainly will--it came up a bit with Lieberman, and that was for only the vice-president.

Even John Kennedy had issues, and he was just Catholic (you know, the original Christian religion?).

I wouldn't mind seeing what he could do (thought we disagree on a great number of things)--at least he wouldn't constantly be throwing the military at other countries....

There was absolutely no legitimate policy reason for him to bring this censure resolution up. No reason? Are Beltway insiders so completely incapable of recognizing an honest politician when they see one that they must ascribe their own rationale to one's actions?

... the frustration had more to do with the fact that the Dubai Ports deal pushed the Patriot Act and the NSA data-mining off the front page...And that frustration is resonating with a lot of people. Fancy that, a Senator who is in touch with the concerns of the country. Once again you ascribe the values of a party who can seem to only get one thing right (winning elections) to a man who has other priorities. Feingold has said any number of times that he is quite happy being in the Senate. His (potential) candidacy is not one of ambition, but one of concern and honest-to-god disgust with the way things are being run.

It amuses me that people still use the term neocon. Really, why? It continues to be an adequate description of the jackals that have taken control of the Republican party.

Everyone should have a right to participate in the political process, in any way they see fit. Hmm, like making sure their toadies are operating the voting machines? *cough*Ohio*cough*

... the opinion of a train load or two of constitutional scholars doesn't mean a hill of beans unless they're wearing a a robe and work over on 1st Street.Your (earlier) insistance, however, that the only people opining that warrantless wire-tapping of citizens are from the left is utter nonsense.