A friend of mine on the Hill tells me that there are discussions going on at the staff level -- both members' staff and committee staffers -- to pass a motion of censure against George W. Bush.

Never in 230 years of the Republic has a president more richly deserved impeachment than George W. Bush. Yet, nothing in the official record indicates that.

There is a genuine and compelling need for an indelible statement on the record that unconstitutional and extra-constitutional antics by the Executive branch -- or any other part of the government -- are unacceptable in our democracy.

Congress must ensure that this Administration's attempts to establish an "imperial presidency" do not become precedent for future administrations.

A Motion of Censure would make that minimal necessary statement. A censure motion would require a debate on the Bush Administration's justifications and its management of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its treatment of detainees, including the use of `rendition' and ignoring standards of human rights long practiced in the civilized world, and on its authorization for illegal wiretapping.

It is possible, in view of overwhelming public opinion, that some Republicans might even support a censure resolution. But if they wish to go on the record in support of Bush, by all means, lets get them on the record.

Sadly, our Democratic Congress blinked when they had the opportunity to impeach Bush but I am glad to hear they are at least considering the idea of a Motion to Censure.

It is important that the record reflects what a majority of Americans have long known -- George W. Bush ran a shameful, criminal administration that made a mockery of our Constitution and the fundamental principles of American government.

There's more...

A RARE, TIMELY OPPORTUNITY FOR PROGRESSIVES

This one has dropped from the sky into The Nation's lap. As if by design, the Baker-Hamilton bi-partisan panel has announced that it will "release a report next week that is expected to reject both a large U.S. troop increase and a quick U.S. withdrawl (from Iraq)."

The timing for progressives to strike a meaningful blow for the country could not have been more propitious... especially in view of the content of two of the most recent Nation editorials ("The Odd Attack on Dean" and "A Progressive Beat").

There's more...

Senator Lieberman straddled a wall
Senator Lieberman had a big fall
All the queen's henchmen
And all the queen's men
Couldn't put Joseph together again.

Bill Clinton went to Connecticut and spoke at a Lieberman fund-raiser. A slew of Centrist (DLC) Democratic Senators endorsed Lieberman; some made personal appearances with him. A majority of Connecticut newspapers supported Lieberman. There was a huge amount of political capital invested in this all-out effort to lock up a Lieberman nomination. Mark it down as a capital (political) loss.

The Clintons just did not get it... and still don't. (The Centrists don't even acknowledge that they lost.) Moreover, it's common knowledge that all of the nationwide polls report strong anti-war sentiment, (E.J. Dionne: "Something happened in Connecticut that went well beyond the blogosphere.")

Is there something the public knows that the Clintons either don't know or will not face?

There's more...

Five weeks ago, when Senator Feingold introduced his resolution to censure President Bush, the pundit class universally agreed with the official White House talking point that Feingold had introduced the resolution for political reasons relating to 2008. Polls quickly came out that supposedly showed the public agreeing that Senator Feingold's move was for political advantage, rather than because he actually believed in what he was doing. Fro example, look at the ABC News Poll on the subject ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 6-9, 2006. N=1,027 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Do you think Feingold is calling for censuring Bush mainly to use the issue for political advantage, or mainly because he believes it is the right thing to do?"
Political advantage: 56%
Right Thing to do: 35%
Both: 4%
Unsure 4% : The most amazing thing about these polls was that 95% of the country suddenly had an opinion about the mental motivations of a man with 33% national name recognition. Of course the two-thirds of the public who had never heard of Feingold was going to think that his motivations were political. First, the pundits all told them that his motivations were political. Second the public assumes that the motivations of every politician they have never heard of are political. Any poll asking this sort of question should have restricted itself to people who actually know who senator Feingold is. I bet that would have skewed a lot more toward the "right thing to do" answer.

Apart from the ramifications this incident had, and will continue to have, on the national media narrative surrounding Senator Feingold, perhaps the most important revelation of the censure battle was just how little almost everyone in Washington thinks the progressive base matters. When Bush does something for his conservative base, according to established news outlets he does it because he believes in whatever he is doing. When a Democrat does something that will appeal to the progressive base, well, that has to be for political purposes. Of course, even among Democrats in the Senate, who almost universally agreed that Feingold was acting for his own benefit, very few of them signed on to Feingold's censure resolution in order to reap that supposed benefit themselves. As far as I know, only Boxer, Harkin, and Leahy made public statements in support of the resolution, and they all deserve credit for doing so. Menendez and Kerry made some noise about it, but to date I do not think they have actually followed through.

Given this, my question to the remaining Democratic Senators is as follows. If you think that Senator Feingold was acting in order to gain favor and political benefit within the progressive base, then why didn't you sign on to his resolution in order to gain that same favor and benefit? The answer, as far as I can tell, must be that most Democrats in Washington do not view the support of the Democratic, progressive base as actually carrying with it much benefit at all. To them, the progressive base apparently does not matter, and does not wield political power of any value. The constant refrain, no matter how far ahead we are among independents, is that we must continue to target independents always, and independents only. It is a frustrating, overly simplistic, and linear view of politics.

There's more...

The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg this week became some of the first traditional media outlets to ask intelligent questions surrounding calls for the censure of President Bush. The wording of the poll reads as follows:

Q40. As you may also know, a U.S. Senator has valled for a Senate resolution to censure George W. Bush, which is a formal expression of disapproval, but does not carry any legal consequences. The Senator claims it was illegal for Bush to authorize government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant. What do you think? Do you think that George W. Bush should be censured by the Senate for this, or not?

Yes, censure 46
No, don't censure 45

Rather than framing the question exactly as Bush administration spin would dictate -- i.e. performing electronic surveillance of terrorists -- the LA Times and Bloomberg ask a much more sensible question that actually gets to the root of the issue. And when the question is correctly worded, a small plurality of Americans agree with Senator Russell Feingold that the President should be censured. So much for the theory maintained by Fox News pundits and certain Democratic consultants that the Feingold's move would be the bane of his party...

There's more...