Keep hassling Allard and Salazar!
Everyone I know who emailed Democratic Senator Ken Salazar to ask him to support the censure of President Bush got the same response. "I believe that warrantless spying on Americans is extremely serious. I also believe that Congress must insist on collecting all of the facts about any warrantless spying program and thoroughly accounting for precisely what actions were taken by the Administration before considering other action. Censure of an American president has occurred only once in our history, back in the early days of our Republic, when Andrew Jackson was President."
And everyone I know who contacted Republican Senator Wayne Allard also got the same response. "Eat my shorts." (OK, maybe he didn't say it. But I swear I heard him say it under his breath.)
Don't stop calling! Ask Salazar exactly what information he is waiting for. And point out that censure is actually a pretty mild punishment for someone who breaks the law.
And everyone I know who contacted Republican Senator Wayne Allard also got the same response. "Eat my shorts." (OK, maybe he didn't say it. But I swear I heard him say it under his breath.)
Don't stop calling! Ask Salazar exactly what information he is waiting for. And point out that censure is actually a pretty mild punishment for someone who breaks the law.
10 Comments:
I agree that the President at the very least deserves to be censured. I personally would prefer impeachment and indictment. However, just like attempts to block Supreme Court nominees, its just a gesture as long as the Republicans are in charge of both houses. I wish all the energy being put into these noble but futile petitions would be put into coming up with a positive concise meassage about what Dems will do for YOU and into getting any Dem with a chance and a pulse elected. Until we change the headcount, what else really matters? If a Dem has a better chance in a moderate district by not signing on to censure, I say, don't. It's not as if signing will lead to censure in the real worl here and now. Once again, ask yourself; are you better off with Salazar, whose votes are somtimes irritating, or are you better off running someone too liberal to win statewide and electing another rubber stamp Allard clone? Once Dems have a majority in congress, they will be much more willing and able to DO what we can only make STATEMENTS about now. And please remember another thing about Salazar. If it weren't for him, the Republicans would have been able to do just what they did in Texas and we wouldn't be looking at a competitive 7th. It would be another safe Republican seat. To me, the strong possibility of another Dem congressman is a lot more valuable than any "statement". Remember how much good all those passionate petitions to stop the Supreme Court did us? Does it really amount to anything more than a tantrum without the headcount to back it up? Those in favor of censure measure somewhere in the 40s percent-wise. We've already got that. We need more. We can only get more by being FOR stuff. I would suggest being FOR competent accountable government and foreign policy based on real world facts, not somebodies ivory tower theory.
You're right. Censureship is just a gesture. I guess we should demand impeachment.
Seriously, this is a moral issue. How can we continue to support a Senator whose response to lawbreakers is to refuse to even censure them?
It is not a matter of Senators "refusing" to censure the President. They are grown-ups. They can count. It is a matter of exactly the same circular firing squad tactics that have brought us to a situation in which our continual electoral losses, caused more by our own smug cluelessness than by Republican dirty tricks, have resulted in one party power for the Republicans. Indulging in moral outrage is a nice hobby and healthy for venting purposes but it is no way to get us out from under the Republican majority in both houses and Republican ownership of our entire three branch government. Electing more Dems is so obviously the first priority here I can't believe it needs to be explained. Are we serious about taking back congress so we can do more than whine, threaten and sign petitions or would we rather posture about how morally superior we are? At this point, putting our main focus on pounding our chests to demand censure or impeachment or even a real, meaningful investigation, all of which we know will never happen under this congress, is pretty much threatening to hold our breath until we turn blue. And what's so morally superior about wasting time, money and energy on tactics that don't improve our ability to win back power when winning back power is the only way to defeat the people who are destroying our country? If we are serious about our opposition to this regime's despicable policies and assault on our constitution we should, instead, be pouring ALL of our energy into winning in November. I hope we won't be throwing that away in order to attack each other for lack of "purity". I hope we'll be sticking together and turning our attention to a unifying POSITIVE message so people feel that we offer a better alternative. EVERYBODY has ALREADY heard ALL about what we're against and who we are against and why we're against them. If you spend any time talking to people who are not very political, don't pay much attention most of the time, or who are moderate independents you'll hear how SICK they are of hearing nothing but how much we hate this administration , even though they mostly AGREE! And those people are in the MAJORITY. We don't need more symbolic statements. We need to stop just talking to each other, preaching to the choir about how royally pissed off we are about everything. We NEED TO reach out to people who are reachable and WIN. That's why more liberal Dems are realizing they need to support Ritter here in Colorado. Well, guess what, it's a similar situation nation wide.
I just disagree. The Republicans have been successful in convincing people they are the party of moral values. If Democrats don't even have the backbone to give a tame slap on the wrist to lawbreakers, how can we ever claim to be tough on crime or ethical in any sense of the word?
Feingold in '08.
If you think Feingold has a snowball's chance in hell of actually BEING president than I give up! Besides, you seem to be willing to support Ritter. I don't suppose you think HE would support censure or impeachment. I don't hear him calling on our Senators to do any such thing. If it's OK to look to a certain degree of expedience in our decision to support anti-choice moderate Ritter, why be so much harder on our Senators? A Governor Ritter could actually veto bills affecting our lives, where a Democratic Senator's call to censure right now cannot possibly result in ANYTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENING AT ALL so, if anything , you should feel a higher moral obligation to withhold support from Ritter. I want a Democratic congress and, in 2008, a Democratic President. If you want to join the old loser's circular firing squad, fire away, have fun. But at least be consistent and rail against Ritter,too. And which of YOUR favorite Democratic congressional candidates has stood up and said "If I were in the Senate, I'd call for censure and I urge our Senators to do so?" My guess is none. So does that mean you're going to go with a third party instead? The calls to censure, to impeach, Barbara Boxers silly petition demanding that Rumsfeld come up with a plan (yeah, that'll happen); it was fun but it's time for grown-ups to forget the feel good fun and games and switch to election mode. And we actually have a very good chance of adding at least one congressman in the 7th, only because of Ken Salazar. In my book a good shot at another congressional seat is worth more than a "statement". Give the guy a break, at least the same break you're giving every other silent-on-censure Colorado Dem.
The difference is that I simply disagree with Ritter. That I can accept. Good people can look at the same issue and come to different conclusions.
But allowing the powerful in this country is the same thing as throwing out the Constitution and electing a king. It's un-American. It's wrong.
Also, f.sage, you make it sound like I am waging some anti-Salazar campaign. It is our obligation as citizens to tell our elected officials how we feel about the issues. To make sure that the only voices they hear aren't the ones of the lobbyists. To abdicate that responsibility would be unpatriotic. Only 31 percent of Coloradans believe Bish's program was lawful. The rest of us need to make sure Salazar and Allard know how we feel.
I have told both my Senators how I feel. I've also signed petitions and written letters to the editor demanding Allard apologize for equating Feingold's call for justice to treason and pointing out that Feingold is doing exactly what patriots in our system are supposed to do. I'm just saying that, having made sure our elected officials know where we stand, the MAIN focus has to turn away from symbolic opposition to concrete opposition. Calling on a Republican majority to do things we know they won't do is symbolic. Focusing on kicking the bums out so that WE are the majority and can do more than put up SYMBOLIC resistance is the only REAL WORLD way to unseat King George. Obviously we need to first neutralize him with a congress that will do its duty and conduct real oversight, provide a real counter-balance to his power and prevent him from getting more of his pet conservatives on the Supreme Court. The Dems in congress will be only too happy to do this when they have the head count. Then we need to make sure 2008 is the end of the Republican hold on the White House. That's all I'm saying. Prioritize. That's probably why none of the local Dem candidates that you DO approve of are going out of their way to make public calls for a Bush censure. They are much more focused on getting elected, as they should be. You're the one who called it a weak slap on the wrist. Well, I think we have more important things to do than to get so excited over weak slaps!
F.Sage is right. It's important to make our voices heard, but it is equally, if not more important to get out and work! That's the only way to be sure we have a majority so that justice can be achieved. Let's all re-dedicate ourselves every day to putting Angie, Bill, Jay and either Ed, Herb or Peggy in Congress, and equally as importantly, keeping our majority in the State House and putting Mr. Ritter in the Governor's Mansion. Then, have a party, take a deep breath and on to 2008.
Thanks Leftfielder06,
And lets all go to our precinct caucuses this Tuesday, info at Party websites and many other Dem sites, and have an even better turn out than in 2004 which was the best in many years. While we were asleep in the 90s the Republican fundamentalist right was taking over at the grassroots level. Now we're awake and we need to get involved or stay involved as the case may be, even though it's not a Presidential year. In fact, it's even more important now since we're stuck with this guy for two more years to elect a strong opposition. Food for thought: Liberal columnist E. J. Dionne has a very interesting column in today's Sunday Denver Post (3/19).
Post a Comment
<< Home