The making of a progressive hero? Well, all the ingredients are present: faux populist concern, opportunism disguised as sanctimony, and the continued—and intentional—misrepresentation of the target of his outrage.
And so I give you Russ Feingold: co-author of legislation to make illegal certain political speech of Americans; and now, author of a resolution that will attempt to censure President Bush for following Article II precedent and his mandate as CiC and directing the NSA to listen in on the conversations of our Al Qaeda enemies, using a military asset (the NSA), during wartime.
And the “civil libertarians” and leftists rejoice! This is PATRIOTISM at it’s most brave, they shout! (leaving aside that every single one of Feingold’s charges is utterly bogus and meant to grab him headlines; I mean, is Feingold really attempting to censure the President for “misleading the country” about the existence of a highly classified program? Have we reached such a state of populist arrogance that we are now arguing that the very existence of “highly classified” information that remains highly classified is a crime against the American people?)
I’d write more about this, but why bother? It is self-important grandstanding meant to drive the news cycle and help Feingold among the liberal left Democrats as he prepares a run for the presidency. In fact, the tactic is becoming standard fare for Democrats and politically-motivated organizations of all stripes: insist on “investigations” and hearings, because they are an end in themselves: they create the impression of impropriety while allowing Congress members to engage in base political opportunism.
But enough about that. Having not carefully studied my McCain-Feingold act, I’m not certain how much I’m allowed to say this close to mid-term elections. And I wouldn’t want to run afoul of legislation meant to protect the “fairness” of the political process by compelling me to keep my goddamn opinions to myself.
So: to put this all in bumper sticker form so that we wingnuts can better understand just what is happening here: “Russ Feingold: I’ll decide who gets to talk, not the so-called ‘Constitution’!” Or alternately, “Russ Feingold: Once the Commander in Chief begin listening to our enemies in an effort to thwart the types of attacks previously carried out by cells embedded in our homeland, the terrorists will have already won!”
Up is down. Black is white. Potsie is the Fonz.
****
update: some all-purpose irony ladled up by Atlas Shrugs: “Atlas’ Perch: Feingold, France, ACLU/CAIR, CIA, Spies, Lies by omit, mmmmmGood!”
Russ Feingold: Some speech is more equal than others
Russ Feingold: Defining the Constitution for you since 1992
Standard fare for lefties: Insist that things are investigated and well aired. Can you believe them? The nerve!
Is Potsie or Ralph Malph more the anti-Fonz?
A good article on how to expose anti-Americanism among those who oppose the Patriot Act.
I’m not seeing a downside here, Jeff. If the notion that Bush has broken the law has traction, here’s the chance for those who believe this to be true to stand up and be counted, for good or ill.
Honestly, I think it is a grave miscalculation on the part of the Democrats, which if you think about it, is really all they have in their arsenal these days.
The people did not want Clinton impeached and so he wasn’t (he got to keep his job, you know what I mean). The same is going to be true here, and those cheerleading for it may well pay the price come election day.
Time will tell.
I encourage grave miscalculations. I also encourage principled stands.
The interesting part of this, of course, will be how the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee vote on this. Will it fall apart on party lines, or will it indicate that they really aren’t sure about the legality issue?
Or, (and I think much less likely) will they all vote that they think it was illegal?
If I were Frist I’d rush that censure motion to a vote so damned fast it would scorch the carpet on the Senate floor. Let us see who really means it.
Imagine the pride those that vote “aye” will be able to exhibit. I can see the stirringly patriotic campaign commercials now…
Actus – yeah. right.
We all know this is simply an attempt to show the world how the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body stands up for us all!
It simply couldn’t be a cynical exercise in playing to the Democratic party base. Shocking to think a Senate Democrat would even think of such, much less stoop to doing such.
So we’ll be seeing the complete Barrett Report any day now, right?
Joannie loves Chachi.
Nah, standard fare for lefties is criticize Republicans and offer nothing of positive substance. That’s pretty much all these clowns have anymore.
Yep. Especially highly sensitive, classified national security activities.
TW: Anything to hurt America.
Slart, I think it’s Judiciary, not intelligence. And I wouldn’t mistake this vote for a vote’s on its legality. Some Republicans have said this is illegal–Specter said people who made some of the administration’s arguments were “smoking Dutch Cleanser”–but all Republicans will vote no, as will many Democrats. Carl Levin is voting no even though he’s said that Feingold’s correct about the legality.
Look at the torture scandals: McCain clearly recognizes that there’s a problem, but he votes against every single investigation. They won’t cross the President.
What gives you doubts about it’s illegality? Do you think that it might not violate FISA, that the AUMF might have overridden FISA, or that FISA might be unconstitutional? Or is it more than one of these, or a general “too much legalese” sense.
Yes, I just imagine how it is the Left avoids feeling just the tad bit icky when they out-McCarthy McCarthy (and can still scream McCarthy at people who merely criticize them).
Must be nice to go through life with no morals or values. At least it’s convenient.
Are you now or have you ever been a incompetent chimpy mchitlerburton violator of the constitution?
Specter should know.
All of the above. Note that no administration—not even Carter’s—accepted the Constitutionality of FISA.
Please correct me if I am wrong…and I might be, but my understanding of McCain-Feingold and how it might impact your blog Jeff is as follows…
I believe you would at least be the subject of scrutiny or investigation if one of your advertisers was NOT necessarily a political party, but was a perfectly normal and legitimate business. Say, Coca-Cola. If Coca-Cola gives support and contributions to a particular candidate and you take advertising money from COca-Cola you could be losing your right to voice your political opinion on your own blog under McCain-Feingold.
They claim that is just an avenue for Coca-Cola to exceed the campaign contribution restrictions. Instead of money, they create their own webblogs and continue ‘spreading the message’ and ‘advertising’ for the candidate without actually offering funds. So you get shut down.
I do not intend that to be hype or falsehood. I believe it is one of the possible uses of McCain-Feingold that scares some people. And if that is in fact allowable under the act, then it scares me as well.
Not gonna touch the point about the Barrett Report, are you, actus?
“Note that no administrationâ€â€not even Carter’sâ€â€accepted the Constitutionality of FISA. “
Carter signed FISA.
Slart, I’m interested in your response; I think everyone else here is a lost cause.
Both, actually.
Not ruling out the constitutionality issue, but I think that’s mooted by that I don’t think it violates FISA. Don’t make me get more specific than that, because it’s been long enough since I last looked at FISA that I’m going to have to recreate my opinion as I go, which means I’m going to have to reread FISA. I’d almost rather gargle with buzzard puke than do that again.
All of which would suck, if I were making an argument in a court of law, or even making an argument, period.
And while he signed it, said it didn’t apply. And then proceeded to act as if it didn’t.
Perhaps if you can tell me which part of FISA is being violated, I can recall why I don’t think it is.
Which is why I’m interested, primarily. If Feingold’s in the know, either he’s right, or he’s playing this as a political-domination game, right or wrong be damned. In the case of the former, we really should know. In the case of the latter, we really should know.
Katherine
Take a bit of time and peruse NSA FISA Controversy then get back to us on how you believe, without question, that the NSA program is illegal.
Anal-retentive lawyer alert:
Jeff, I think you mean Article II, which gives the president his powers, not I, which gives powers to the Congress.
tw: make, as in “Congress shall make no law” (the first five words of the First Amendment) and there should be a period there.
Look at the torture scandals………
Katherine,
Doesn’t this put you in the “lost cause” category?
Geez, Jeff. There at the end you were channelling The Dane from “Miller’s Crossing.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that. He was a square G.
the base problem with these tactics, is that the dems aren’t doing their job as the “loyal opposition”. they only attack GW on issues which they believe will garner them votes.
On the real issues, like spending, immigration, biotechnology research, the dems are mute.
gutless vote-whoring cowards.
it will be very interseting to see if some dem will take a stand on biotech research with all the lastest stuff on biowarfare and bioterrorism coming out.
Like stem cells?
Wow, in order to save our civil liberties we must trample them into the ground.
Where can I find some of this nuance I keep hearing about?
Love Miller’s Crossing. For the record.
actus, stem cells are part of biotech.
Bush is the bio-luddite-in-chief, and the “bioethics” council (including Francis Fukuyama) is his inspiration.
If some dem had enough savy they could promote a whole, “Bush is leaving us unprotected to bioterrorism and biowarfare AND pandemics BECAUSE OF THE RELIGION” schtick.
but they won’t.
because that might loose them votes.
What’s the rumpus?
Cordially…
P.S. Actus: you were called out on the Barrett redactions. So what’s your reaction?
Take a bit of time and peruse NSA FISA Controversy then get back to us on how you believe, without question, that the NSA program is illegal.
Don’t bother, Katherine:
Here ya go, Darleen-
START HERE
I think Katherine knows a thing or two about law, Darleen.
For instance, here.
OTOH, the letter that the yoga instructor above linked to contains the word (in one form or another) “wiretap” at least two dozen times, which betrays a deep misunderstanding of either “wiretap” or what NSA is actually doing.
In fact, I’ve seen the word “wiretap” appear in so many places and uttered by so many people who ought to know better that I’ve begun to suspect that either the word has been redefined or everything I think I know about what the NSA is doing is wrong. The alternative is that some very smart and some very prominent politicians (note that this doesn’t imply anything about the non-emptiness of the intersection of the two sets) who ought to know are a bunch of ditzes.
some very smart lawyers, shoulda read.
You think dems aren’t talking about stem cells?
I’d love to have a special counsel appointed for the bush spying. So sure, just like Barret. But maybe with more of a Ken Starr type budget.
And so I give you Russ Feingold: co-author of legislation to make illegal certain political speech of Americans; and now, author of a resolution that will attempt to censure President Bush for following Article II precedent and his mandate as CiC and directing the NSA to listen in on the conversations of our Al Qaeda enemies, using a military asset (the NSA), during wartime.
Tsk, tsk, Jeff. Yes, McCain-Feingold is an abomination and affront to the First Amendment. But let’s not overlook that it *is* McCain-Feingold. Both of those guys are starry-eyed idealists, who co-sponsored bad legislation driven by the best of motives.
FISA is a law. Really. And it applies, on its face, during time of war, when the president “listens in” on the conversations of our enemies. Bush is violating that law by not securing the required warrants, and admits he is doing so.
Thus, in this case, the starry-eyed idealist Russ Feingold is correct. As is his GOP sidekick, Mr. McCain, who has said he doesn’t think that what Bush is doing is legal.
Slart
Yes, I caught the “wiretapping” verbage and I suspect it was deliberate as most lay people recognize the word and conjure up in their minds the unmarked van outside Aunt Betsy’s house containing two grim men in headphones listening to Aunt B discussing Desperate Housewives and Rev. Playfaire’s nosehair with Miz Velma.
How dare they!
‘course, let’s not discuss spiritual kin-folk of John Walker Lindh using a series of cell phones calling known or suspected al Qaeda members overseas… no, can’t have THAT image arise in the little people.
Starry-eyed idealists???
You mean that it wasn’t a self-serving Incumbent Protection Act in order to shut down and shut up all those upstarts who refuse to Know What’s Good For Them and leave the
dictatinggoverning to their obvious betters?I’ll vote Hillary in ‘08 and let the country see what’s she’s really about before I vote McCain.
::::spit::::
Let’s just consider the portion of FISA that defines “Electronic Surveillance”, shall we? Potential pitfalls for those claiming that Bush definitely broke the law lie in:
IANAL, to be clear, but given that it’s definitely not wire communications, and given that all four “Electronic Surveillance” definitions arguably do not apply, I’m not sure where FISA is even relevant.
BECAUSE OF SAINT JUDE!
Slart
I think it will follow strict party lines, and I think that it will be found that the president did not break the law, regardless of whether he did or not. There is historical precedent for this. Although, to be fair, I am not a lawyer so there may be aspects I am overlooking.
Funny as a crutch, Jeff.
Russ Feingold:
Congress…Shall…Make…No…Law…
for me to poop on!
Well, since Liberalism was consumed by Secular Marxists, the Democrat party has nothing left to do but impose a totalitarian agenda.
It appears that Frist must have been reading Major John’s earlier post.
“Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, moments ago, made a unanimous consent motion that the Senate vote on the resolution tonight. Maryland Democrat Paul Sarbanes rose to object to the motion. Frist then motioned to vote on the resolution again tomorrow. Sarbanes objected, saying no vote should take place on the resolution until Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had cleared the timing.”
Wow! I almost forget how great this blog is when I have to do things like pay the bills and don’t have the time to visit very often. Once again, thank you Jeff.
I find it absolutely amazing that those on the “Left” think that what I went through in school ( 50’s – 60″) is now considered “torture”. What the fuck guys? Does “torture” now mean that anything but a Chateau-briand dinner washed down with Cristal is torture? I LOVE the left!!!! The logic KILLS me!
Let me guess. If I disagree with you, then I am a serial torturer JUST BY OPENING MY MOUTH! I mean, how stupid can I get by supporting America over Fascists who would pull my fingernails out and rape and kill my family because my beard is too scraggly? Actus, you guys got it down, man!
We don’t need that fuckin’ oil! Jesus! We could literally fill Arizona with solar panels and ALMOST have enough power to to supply L.A., as long as the sun was shining. So what’s holding us back? It wouldn’t be the COST, would it?
What an idiot I am for thinking that markets should be left alone!
How silly of me to think that people might not want to pay two or three times the price for consumer goods that we do now. How much would my computer cost if it were made from Saffron oil? Oh! I guess it doesn’t matter because I always have at least two or three times more money than I need to pay my bills. I suppose that you do, too, actus.
I am humiliated that I didn’t know that America was left here by God (or whatever), and the white people came and jumped on the finite pile of money that was waiting at Plymouth Rock. Then they bought all the good houses and said: “If you’re black, queer, transexual, lesbian, etc., or just too stupid to understand that “cool” is what it’s all about – YOU’RE OUTTA HERE!!
We ALL know that anybody who can pay their own bills is a dickhead, and needs to have their money confiscated so that the REAL humans can buy some good pot.
You know, I just don’t have the patience for this ( I am quite old – sorta), so I guess I’m just going to have to leave the REAL explanation to actus and his eighth grade cohorts.
C’mon, you guys. You got it down. Please enlighten us, OK? We are dying to hear from the Prophets Of The Junior High.
Logic is out – getting laid is in, so please pass on your brilliance to those of us who understand that we are all responsible for ourselves. It’s just so “passe”, and I need to know why all of us “losers” have a
problem with “music(?)” that is all about “cocks”, “cunts” “blow jobs” and blowing away the pigs. You dig, actus? Why don’t you tell us about maturity? I guess I just don’t get it…
(Jeff _ do I owe you any money for hogging so much bandwidth? It feels good though)
Redaction! My god. It’s redaction. Redaction.
Have you once or have you ever read the National Review, you dirty racist? I have here in my hand a photo of you with Sam Alito and Dick Cheney in hunting gear.
Redaction sounds like a commie porn site. Hot redaction.
“Miller’s Crossing” is the best plotted American movie of the last 20 years.
…..and Peter, Paul and Mary’s Cocks, Cunts, and Blowjobs is still the best album ever made.
I bet if Actus hears just 3 bars of Hold My Sack While You Suck Me Sally he’ll be humming it all day
PUN ALERT!
Hummingbirds are cool little suckers.
Fuss Rheingold.
In Scene 4, Alberich seeks to censure Wotan . . .
“Potsie is the Fonz.”
Wonder why this was coffee-out-the-nose funny. It was. Thanks, Jeff.
Does anyone actually know whether the definition of US person has been fulfilled in any of the cases?
As a former Democrat, who believes that a strong, sane, coherent, responsible, pro-American Democratic Party [or second political party], in the long run, is necessary for a healthy America, I mourn the present lack of leadership in the Democrats. They have reduced themselves to being headline-grabbing pests rather than being responsible leaders interested in protecting Americans and leading the free world. This is tragic and eventually will be bad for Republicans.
Evon, I think that you are correct. A good two party system needs two SANE parties, not a competition on who is to get into the loony bin first.
The political climate sure has gone south.