Feingold Censure Resolution

[rccar328]

Senator Russel Feingold has introduced a resolution to censure President Bush over the NSA wiretapping 'scandal'. Republicans wanted to put it to a quick vote, but Dems backed down, saying the issue hadn't been debated enough. Now it seems that Senate Dems are distancing themselves from Feingold and his resolution, likely because polls have shown that a majority of Americans support the action.

 

Reading between the lines on this, I think it's abundantly clear what Democrats really want to get from this resolution: they want to saturate the media with more anti-Bush sound-bites in an effort to turn more Americans against President Bush and the Republican party.

 

This censure resolution is just like the Murtha anti-war resolution that failed so miserably a few months ago: it's not a real piece of legislation, it's just another opportunity for them to bash Bush, get on camera, and appeal to the conspiracy-theory liberals, making it look like they're being effective against their real enemy, President Bush.

[ET Warrior]

I think the really amazing thing is that the majority of Americans support illegal wiretapping. It just goes to show you how well our government has fostered this state of fear.

[TK-8252]

The democrats are really sucking on this issue. If they go by principle, they should all unite against the illegal wiretapping. If they go by politics, they shouldn't have made it an issue at all.

 

But the problem is that the most of the party is going by politics rather than principle. And those who do go by principle, such as Feingold, suck at explaining what's really wrong with the wiretapping. The American people, sadly, don't care if the government is using their tax money to conduct illegal activities. So if Feingold wants to say that Bush should be censured, he has to explain why illegal wiretapping does more harm than good. He can't just say it's illegal and hope to win anyone over.

 

Let's face it: when Bush and his big government cronies use rhetoric like "terrorist surveillance program" rather than calling it what it really is - illegal wiretapping - it's hard to beat when the American people are clueless as to how the law works. So I say if Feingold can't explain himself better, and can't get the democrats behind him, then **** him.

[toms]

Reading between the lines on this, I think it's abundantly clear what Democrats really want to get from this resolution: they want to saturate the media with more anti-Bush sound-bites in an effort to turn more Americans against President Bush and the Republican party.

 

Erm, isn't that the goal of all political parties at all times? What did you think the goal of political parties was, to work together to make the country a better place? :

[rccar328]

Erm, isn't that the goal of all political parties at all times? What did you think the goal of political parties was, to work together to make the country a better place? :

Well, according to the Democrats, yeah it is...but they've demonstrated quite clearly that their core philosophy says that they can be as divisive as they wish, even while preaching that Republicans should "reach out & be more moderate."

[Kurgan]

I think the really amazing thing is that the majority of Americans support illegal wiretapping. It just goes to show you how well our government has fostered this state of fear.

 

Yeah the two most common reactions I hear when I mention stuff like this to other people are "But I'm a law abiding citizen, I have nothing to hide, so neither should any decent person" and "I suppose you'd rather have terrorists?" That or they act cynical cold-warrior style and say "Well they've been doing this kind of thing forever anyway and they'd still do it no matter what, you can't stop it."

 

We need to bring back the concept of politicians as public SERVANTS who govern with our consent, and are accountable to us. Right now it's more like they scare us into giving them all our money and secrets or some kind of pseudo-divine right status. But I guess if we're all just apathetic, then crooks can stay in office and continue to be crooks looking out only for their own self interest. It's sickening...

[toms]

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people, eh?

[Kurgan]

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people, eh?

 

Reference to pretentious looking comic book movie aside, essentially yes.

 

Though one could argue that only tyrants need fear their people... (or potential rivals in the ranks)

 

Of course such fear could turn to malevolence (see Stalin) or it could turn to benevolence (do the right thing for fear of the people's anger). So it's not a perfect maxim. I guess it's safer than the other way around, since you could argue that those corrupted by power tend to have a greater will to create abuse.