My Two Censures Worth
By Thomas Lindaman (03/23/06)
Washington, DC, was abuzz with activity last week when Senator Russ Feingold introduced a bill to censure President George W. Bush. This was a bold move to say the least, one that he had been threatening to do for a while now. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, in a rare showing of political shrewdness, forced a vote on the censure. And when the vote came up…nobody backed Feingold’s resolution.
Ouch.
When the press tried to get Democrats to say why, people who would normally run over elderly people to get in front of a camera didn’t want to be on camera trying to explain why they didn’t support a measure that would have put President Bush on the spot, something these same Democrats have said repeatedly that they wanted. The unfortunate souls who were caught on camera gave a standard “I haven’t researched the matter fully” response. Feingold was understandably upset, blasting the “cowardice” of the Democrat Party.
He has a point. Democrats have become quite adept at making loud accusations against the Bush Administration and then retreating from them when pushed to back up the accusations with action. And more often than not, the accusations being made are ones that don’t stick around too long. Oh, sure, they’ll do their best to keep them going, but most people have already moved on, leaving Democrats screaming at themselves and their allies about the “dumbing down of America” under Bush.
Speaking on behalf of quite a few Americans, I admit we aren’t always the sharpest knives on the Christmas tree (or something like that), but at least we weren’t dumb enough to think censuring President Bush was a good idea. For the uninitiated, a censure is basically an official condemnation of a public official for any reason. If you want to censure Ted Kennedy for drinking his body weight in whiskey, all you need is a majority of Senators to vote for the resolution. In other words, it’s our version of a UN condemnation of Iraq.
Feingold’s censure measure, however, had an interesting twist to it. The reason cited for the censure is that President Bush broke the law and has not been upfront about it. Well, gee, why would the President admit he broke the law to a group of people who wanted him gone since his first Inauguration? But it raises a better question: if Bush broke the law, why didn’t Feingold push for the House to impeach him? The Democrats’ pat answer on this, as voiced by DNC Chairman Howard Dean, is, “We don’t have any power. We’re not in the majority.”
That’s as may be, but it makes an assumption that may not be borne out by the truth. During the Nixon impeachment, some of the people pushing most heavily on Richard Nixon to step down were Republicans. At the risk of sounding like a Republican spin doctor, I think this is because Republicans have a healthy respect for the rule of law. If a Republican breaks the law and it’s proven or can be proven, they don’t waste time in distancing themselves from the criminal party. Compare this to the Clinton impeachment, where most Democrats filed in behind Bill Clinton unerringly without so much as a raised objection. Republicans, for better or for worse, are more willing to eat their own to preserve at least some semblance of integrity.
The ultimate problem with Feingold’s censure motion is that it has no teeth. As any kid will tell you, a punishment is only effective if the person being punished accepts that he or she did something wrong and would be temporarily denied something of value. In Bush’s case, he’s not going to admit he was wrong about anything (mainly because he’s been right far more often than his critics are willing to admit), and the censure isn’t going to deny him anything of value because Bush feels vindicated in his actions. With a simple wave of his hand and a “Whatever,” the censure goes away, except in DNC ads.
Some conservatives groups have called for the censure of Russ Feingold for his censure proposal. I’m against this as much as I’m against the censure of President Bush and for the same reason. Do you honestly think Feingold feels the least bit sorry for what he did? Nope. He’s not going to admit he did anything wrong because in his mind he’s right. And what would be denied of him? Nothing. I’m urging my Republican and Democrat brethren to hold up on the censure stuff for a while because it’s not going to accomplish anything of lasting value. Focus your energies on tackling some real problems this country has.
Like passing a law requiring Dick Cheney’s buddies wear hunter orange face paint when going hunting with the Vice President.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Thomas Lindaman
