Hot Dog! We’re Going To Get A Censure Vote In The Senate!
The left-side of the blogosphere is ratcheting up the pressure on the Democrats in the Senate to support Russ Feingold’s censure motion and it’s having an affect:
“Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has become the third U.S. senator to back a move to censure President Bush over the warrantless wiretapping program. She joins Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Boxer’s office said she would support the measure.
“Senator Boxer has said she would vote for the Feingold resolution,” Boxer press secretary Natalie Ravitz told RAW STORY.
..Harkin told Roll Call “I think it makes sense. … Quite frankly, I think we ought to have a full-fledged debate on this.”
I sooooooo agree with Harkin! We desperately need to have a “full-fledged debate” on the floor of the Senate about this issue. Then, the Democrats can argue that Bush should be censured for protecting America and Republicans can respond by pointing out things like this (from a Dick Morris column back in December of 2005):
“Equally irresponsible is the criticism Democrats are leveling at President Bush for his use of National Security Agency wiretaps to catch terrorists. Before Clinton and Schumer criticize this policy, they’d do well to reflect on the fact that the Brooklyn Bridge might well be rubble, with thousands dead, if Bush did not use these wiretaps.
In 2002, the feds (presumably the NSA) picked up random cellphone chatter using the words “Brooklyn Bridge” (which apparently didn’t translate well into Arabic). They notified the New York Police Department, which flooded the bridge with cops. Then the feds overheard a phone call in which a man said things were “too hot” on the bridge to pull off an operation. Later, an interrogation of a terrorist allowed by the Patriot Act led cops to the doorstep of this would-be bridge bomber. (His plans would definitely have brought down the bridge, NYPD sources told me.)”
How’s this for a line: “The Democrats want to censure George Bush for saving the Brooklyn Bridge.” Sounds pretty good to me! How about this line from George Bush: “No matter what the Democrats say, I will never apologize for defending this country!” Oh yeah, that’s beautiful!
The good news is that Tom Harkin and I are both probably going to get our wish. Here’s what Bill Frist had to say in an interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday:
“Well, there are two things, and this gets down then, in sort of the mechanics of the Senate. I can got out and just leader to leader say if you’re ready to vote on this, I’m ready. Let’s do it right now. Well, that didn’t work. Then I tried a little bit different time, and that didn’t work. I can continue trying that, which I do, and as you see us talking on the floor as we’re moving around between votes. And then the other thing that I’ve done is referred it to committee. And when it goes to committee, there is this process of a markup of the resolution itself. And it’s been referred to committee now, and that week of March 27th, it should be coming out of committee, in which case it can be taken directly to the floor.”
Translation: we’re going to get a vote and when we do get that vote, folks, the GOP should jump on the Democrats like they’re a pogo stick. The Democrats have been, thanks to Russ Feingold, foolish enough to reveal part of their agenda for the next two years to the America people: it’s censure and impeachment.
Do Americans really want the Democrats undermining our security by spending the next two years launching trumped-up charge after charge at the President in an effort to impeach him, so that a bunch of wackos on the left who think Bush is Hitler will be happy? That’s the Democratic agenda and it doesn’t measure up very well to the Republican agenda, which is to allow George Bush to continue to aggessively fight to protect America. Let’s put these two agendas out there and see which one Americans prefer in the 2006 elections.