| Advertisement |
|
Local Guides
|
|
|
DEMOCRATS TOO SCARED TO SUPPORT FEINGOLD?
|
by
Sarah Veale
March 30 - April 5, 2006 |
|
It seems fitting that Russell Feingold would attempt to censure
George Bush just as party loyalists get ready to cast their votes in
the mid–term primaries. But with a Republican majority in both
the House and the Senate, many are wondering what Feingold is
thinking—including top Democrats.
When it comes to talking about the renegade Senator’s
resolution, prominent Dems are remaining tight–lipped on an
issue which is integral to keeping an increasingly rogue president
accountable.
At the heart of the resolution is whether or not George Bush
illegally ordered wiretapping of US citizens. Bush maintains his
moves were okay, having been given the go ahead to secretly
monitor citizens after September 11. However, Feingold believes
those privileges were distinctly related to 9/11 alone and, when it
comes to domestic eavesdropping, the president has gone too
far.
“FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] makes it a crime
to wiretap Americans on US soil without the requisite warrants,
and the president has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans
on US soil,” Feingold said in his speech to congress. “The
president has broken that law, and that alone is unacceptable.”
Democrats may have no trouble booing the president during
the State of the Union, but the only ones talking about the
resolution are Republicans, circulating talking points like cab
chits at a White House dinner. Painting Feingold as an opportunist
looking to score cheap political points, they counter that his
resolution has nothing to do with any impropriety at the highest
level of government; rather, it’s about gearing up for a 2008
presidential bid.
However, those familiar with his track record think
differently. “He’s often dissented from the rest of his own party
and gone his own way. Sometimes he’s been the only one voting
against something, so he has that history,” states George
Breckenridge, professor of political science at McMaster
University. “I think that what he’s doing is entirely genuine. I think
he feels very deeply that the president broke the law and is
asserting executive power that he shouldn’t have and that this is
a danger to the public.”
Considering the Democratic minority in both the House and
the Senate, it’s beyond ambitious of Feingold to think he could
garner the kind of support this resolution would need to be
successful, even if all Democrats were on board, which they
aren’t. While they may agree with him about Bush’s alleged abuse
of powers privately, most are having difficulty moving beyond “no
comment” when confronted by the press.
So if Democrats previously couldn’t quit chirping about the
president’s shortcomings before Feingold’s big stand, why are
they so silent now? With hopes of picking up seats this November,
few in the party are willing to support this resolution fearing
backlash at the ballot box.
“They don’t think this strategy will work, they think it’s too
extreme and they’re worried it would increase sympathy for the
president,” reasons Breckenridge about the blue silence on the
Hill. “Things are looking very bad for the Republicans in all kinds
of ways and the president’s popularity is down, so the Democrats
are very hopeful [about the elections] and they don’t want
somebody like him changing the subject.”
Is it even about censure, then? Given the Senate math and
the unpopularity of this resolution, it seems Feingold is taking a
stand with a stillborn resolution. That said, the controversial
move is bringing attention to an important issue that could
increase public opposition to the Bush Administration. Like most
radical stances, Feingold’s pie–in–the–sky motion may never
happen, but it could take on a more benign form, such as more
recognition for the current investigation of Bush’s conduct.
Compared to a dramatic move like censure, an investigation
seems tame, even justified. But to Republicans, scared for any
more dirt to be made public, public interest in an investigation
could be even more damaging than a formal condemnation by
Congress.
Regardless of what happens, for Feingold to formally
criticize a sitting president whose favourite drink is power takes
steel cajones—resolve the rest of the Democratic Party lacks. By
meeting his measure with dead air, the party simply illustrates
just how beaten down (and scared) they’ve become. Dems may
not have his back, but the situation on the Hill says a whole lot
about Feingold, and in what order he ranks principles and
politics. V
|
Share on
 |
No comments yet... be the first! |
|
