Betsy's Page
Russ Feingold wants to introduce a censure motion against President Bush because of the warrantless wiretapping. This makes sense for Feingold. He has a history of opposing the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. But the Republicans are certainly lucky if this becomes the story for the next week or so. Instead of all the focus being on Republicans who are criticizing Bush and separating themselves from the President, you'll see all the wavering on the Democratic side of the aisle. If you're a Democratic hopeful for 2008, do you want to come out censuring the President for an action that he took with the advice of his legal advisers and which he informed Senate leaders about? An action that a great many people throughout the country support? Most Americans don't seem to upset at the idea of listening in on conversations between someone in this country that is communicating with an Al Qaeda operative outside the country. And, from what this lay person has gathered from reading about it, the legal opinion is not as clearcut that this is a "high crime and misdemeanor" as Feingold would have us believe. In 2002, the special review court for FISA said in its opinion in In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001,
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have
decided the issue, held that the President did have
inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to
obtain foreign intelligence information.
Politically, it will be fun, as Josh Gerstein writes to see how 2008 candidates come down on Feingold's proposal.
<<< Mr. Feingold's proposal to censure Mr. Bush, which drew no immediate support from other lawmakers, seems to have little prospect of passing through the Senate or the House, both of which are under Republican control. However, it could step up pressure on prominent Democratic figures to accede to liberal activists who are intensifying their calls for stronger rhetoric and action against Mr. Bush.
"It's a problem for the Democrats more than the president or the Republicans, is the irony of the thing," a political analyst at George Washington University, Stephen Hess, said in an interview yesterday. "It forces a lot of Democrats, notably Hillary, to a position where, is she going to pander, is she going to get her back up and resist it, or is she just going to ignore it?" he said. "It's hard to ignore it."
Whether or not Mr. Feingold's proposal ever gets to a vote, some activists indicated yesterday that they will demand that Democratic senators make clear their stance on the question.
"It goes without saying, though, that there better damn well be 44 co-sponsors on Feingold's resolution," a user called Georgia10 posted on the popular left-wing blog DailyKos.com within minutes of Mr. Feingold's television appearance.
One Democratic political organizer, Joseph Trippi, told The New York Sun that Mr. Feingold's call will require some response from other contenders for the 2008 nomination.
"Regardless of the public opposition and of how many people roll their eyes, this is pretty serious stuff," Mr. Trippi said. "I think it's going to have an effect on the rest of the field."
Mr. Trippi said he thought Mr. Feingold's motivations were sincere and consistent with his long track record in favor of civil liberties. The senator is already popular among online activists, sometimes called the "netroots," and will gain ground with his latest move, the analyst said. >>>
The so-called liberal netroots might get all upset at candidates who refuse to sign on to Feingold's measure, but is that necessarily a move that would play well among the general public where presidential elections are waged and won? I sincerely doubt it.
betsyspage.blogspot.com
72.14.203.104
nysun.com |
