Feingold's resolution

One 2008 presidential hopeful stands up and shows he can lead

The progressive blogosphere is abuzz with support for Sen. Russ Feingold's introduction in the Senate Monday of a resolution to censure the President over his admitted role in illegally ordering the warrantless NSA monitoring of the phones, e-mails, and faxes of Americans, in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA was passed precisely to prevent abuses of power like this; it is easily and rapidly invoked, and Bush has never given a rational explanation as to why he chose to refuse to honor it.

Feingold's action is explicitly directed not just at Senate Republicans, who voted last week in committee not only to refuse to investigate the scandal but instead to try to legitimize it, but also at Senate Democrats, who on this as on so many other issues regarding Bush have failed to stand up and be counted. This measure forces that, which is why -- after cavings in on NSA, Alito, corruption reform, and the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in the last three months alone -- bloggers are so delighted. But it's not just activists on the left.

Is this motion a calculated political move by Feingold? Of course. But it's completely risk-free for him. Even if no other senator signs on, it makes Bush and Senate Republicans look bad, and it separates Feingold from other Senate Democrats, as did his attempted filibuster on PATRIOT. Feingold wants to be elected President in 2008, and to that end he is not only attracting publicity and gaining free media and name recognition, but he is doing something that John Kerry and Al Gore (to pick two random names) did not bother to do before their presidential runs: showing that he can lead, that he will take risky and potentially unpopular actions in service of something he believes is right.

But this is neither risky nor unpopular. On Monday, syndicated liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz, who tends to appeal to a male, red-state Democratic listener more conservative than the audiences of Thom Hartmann or Air America, estimated on air that 90 percent of his listeners would support this. Polls by Zogby -- the only major polling firm that has bothered to ask the question -- have consistently shown that more than half of Americans believe that if Bush broke the law (which he clearly did) he should be impeached. That's a far higher percentage than ever supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and rivals the numbers that wanted to impeach Richard Nixon.

For endless reasons, there is tremendous popular anger and frustration with George Bush. Remarkably, it's taken over five years for any Senate Democrat to try to tap into it. Now, one has -- a 2008 presidential aspirant, no less. The question now falls to other Senate Democrats: which side are you on? And so far, predictably, miserably, no other Democratic senator has announced support for Feingold's measure. Most of them have run like scared rabbits. As usual. Which is exactly why, unless there is a magical transference of Feingoldian backbone to his congressional colleagues, and soon, Democrats are not about to win back either house in 2006. Voters will choose incompetent, corrupt leaders over incompetent, corrupt followers every day of the week.

It's up to Democrats to do what Feingold has: to show that they're not incompetent, they're not corrupt, and most of all, that they stand for something. It might help if the majority of Americans who support Feingold on this did something other than answer polls, post to blogs, or gripe at the dinner table. Call, write, fax, and e-mail senators. Call talk shows. Write letters to editors. Get out on the streets. Be visible. Spread the word that holding the President of the United States accountable for his actions under the law is not only constitutionally mandated, is not only good for the country, but is also good politics. And that regardless of party, if the people currently in Congress won't do their jobs in this respect, they'll be replaced by people who will.

For three months, every legal expert outside the Bush orbit has been repeating the same phrase: "The President broke the law." Finally, someone in the Senate is acting like the phrase means something. The American people, by and large, are with him. Pity that, so far, the rest of his so-called "opposition" party isn't. Perhaps they can be convinced. See more in the Geov Parrish archives.

For notification each time a new Geov Parrish column is published, enter your email address here:

Geov Parrish is a Seattle-based columnist and reporter for Seattle Weekly, In These Times and Eat the State! He writes the daily Straight Shot for WorkingForChange. He can be reached by email at geovlp@earthlink.net -- please indicate whether your comments may be used on WorkingForChange in an upcoming "letters" column.


Voters will choose incompetent, corrupt leaders over incompetent, corrupt followers every day of the week.



(c) 2006, WorkingForChange.com

Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Working Assets, nor is Working Assets responsible for objectionable material accessed via links from this site.