Currently on CSpan: Presidential Censure 10:00 AM EST

Senate panel set to consider bid to censure Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House counsel John Dean, who helped push President Richard Nixon from office during the Watergate scandal three decades ago, heads to Capitol Hill on Friday to back an uphill attempt to censure President George W. Bush.

Dean, author of a book about Bush titled "Worse than Watergate," was to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of a resolution to rebuke Bush for a domestic spying program introduced secretly after the September 11 attacks.

Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), a Wisconsin Democrat, introduced the resolution earlier this month.

He argues that the program, which allows eavesdropping on international telephone calls and e-mails involving Americans when one party is suspected of links with terrorism, violates the law because it is conducted without court warrants.

Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, contends there are no grounds for censure, but has agreed to hold the hearing to debate the matter.

"I think that there's absolutely no merit in it, and that the hearing will expose it because of the president's broad (constitutional) authority," Specter said.

Feingold's censure resolution has rallied the support of a number of liberal groups, but it has also galvanized conservatives in support of the embattled war-time president.

Republicans have dismissed the resolution as a political stunt, while many Democrats have distanced themselves from it as they jockey for position for the November congressional elections.

So far, just two of Feingold's 43 fellow Senate Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, have co-sponsored his resolution.

Full article :::here:::

Even though I like John Zogby, his polls do have a little bias that may more favorably inflates Democratic numbers in polls according to some critics of his methodology. The Rasmussen daily polls tend to be a little more accurate in my view due to a different methodology. Although both polls certainly indicate genuine national trends.

Democrats are within striking range in many state races or in the lead. But Republicans are certainly not in any blow-out position nationally as of yet. In 2004, Republican numbers were close enough that after the Osama Bin Laden tape in late October, Democratic numbers chilled and Republicans won a number of critical races including the presidency by very close numbers.

Democrats still need to do more to capitalize off of the disatisfaction with Bush and the Republican leadership. In individual races, most polls seem to indicate no real Democratic trend as of yet that I've seen. Many voters are still treating individual races as individual races where Iraq, Jack Abramoff, FEMA, etc. have so far failed to move most local races and the individual personalities and issues are still the dominate factor in the voter choices.

Whether the strong antiBush trend will translate into more votes at the ballot box in November is a good question. But so far little evidence exists of the massive rejection of Republicans like after Watergate in the 1974 elections, or the massive loss of Democrats in the house during the Clinton Administration in the off-year elections.

PROGRESSIVE VALUES

Here's more support for the 50-state canvass, courtesy of Hotline on Call:

Dean has one supremely important new ally who, when he goes public, will almost certainly help with donors. In late February, Dean traveled to Harlem and sat down with former President Bill Clinton, often said to be privately disparaging of Dean.

But as Dean walked Clinton through his 50-state capacity-building project, Clinton became a convert. He vowed to help Dean win the attention of donors.

I feel that Democrats must drive home the value of the vote.

And I feel that close scrutiny of all voting machines needs to continue. I think it would be wise to have cameras set up in all voting areas (like in convenience stores!) to make sure no tampering took place while voting was going on. The only people who could object to this would be people who would want to mess with the machines.

Pushing for paper ballots is the only way to go, however. Sending out ballots to registered voters is not only economical but smart.

A post at Kos about Howard Dean's emphasis on small donors, welcoming Bill Clinton's support, but emphasizing small donors and the 50 state stategy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/31/155239/375

PaulShooson -

I'd never pretend to understand polling methodologies, but I suppose one way to assess their efficacy is to compare what they predict to what actually happened. In the past two presidential cycles, Zogs has absolutely nailed the result. They had FLA too close to call in 2000, and the only flaw in their results in 04 was Ohio. I attribute that to the likelihood that their methodology did not include access to the Republican-written source code in the Ohio ballot tabulating machines. Otherwise I'm sure they would have called that state for Bush instead of Kerry. In fact, I remember clearly that Zogby himself issued a long statement standing by his polling methods, despite the "wrong call" in Ohio.

Guess he wasn't so wrong.

By the way - is anyone out there as nervous as I about how quickly Santorum is eating up the distance between him and the DLC/Chuck Schumer/Ed Rendell-annointed, anti-abortion, DLC candidate?

Just one more reason to despise the goddamned Democratic Leadership Council.

We continue the battle here in Red Idaho. I think the 50-state strategy is having an effect, even in this Republican stronghold. Many discouraged voters are beginning to sound as though they believe that their votes CAN count. I fel confident that we are seeing cracks in the one-party vice that has gripped our state for many years.

If the pollster is republican you can bet, dollars to doughnuts, that he is intentionally, phonying up the results in order to give the illusion that the republicans are doing better than they are.
Only democratic pollsters can be trusted; historically, it's been proven again and again.

The voting machines have been rigged so many times in the past it is not funny. This is the only hope that the republicans have to avoid a sweep in both the house and the senate. The manufacturers of these machines need to be grilled to glean what they know, and their political orientation should be kept in mind. There must be a system of checks and balances in order to insure that they don't "jimmyrig" the electronic voting machines. They love to fix these machines in midterm elections.

Those aren't close enough to prevent the Diebold machines we are dependent on from ruining another election. Democrats better wake up from playing patty cake and realize 9/11 was an inside job. These guys are crazy opponents and 53% to 46% or whatever isn't goibng to cut it.

Don't get too happy about this.

Our worst enemy is ourselves and this awful election system we have in place thanks to Diebold et al...

Whatever happened to the slogan "better dead than red," which was, ironically, invented by the fascists themselves?

We HAVE to have Rapid Response to things like this new video out by the RNC, again linking terrorists to 9/11 !

http://www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com/#33106

We have to have some Great bumper stickers and ads coming up. Like "Don't Get Duped Again, Vote Democratic", and the latest one out there, "Enough is Enough, Vote Democratic".

Buy those and pass them out if you are in a Red State especially. Let THAT be your donation.
We Can do this people, we just need to do it SMART !

Via Dailykos:

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS [.pdf doc]

1. Don't feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don't want to be told what's wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They're not looking for the diagnosis - they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on "solutions" will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don't like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it's time for a change. They're looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don't want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they'd be Republicans.

4. Don't tell me what's wrong with America unless you can tell me what you're going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don't already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won't sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,' they complained. Tell us what you're going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It's also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion - yes passion - is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn't generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

Note: concerning #7, I disagree to an extent. I think Iraq and National Security are areas where "middle America" felt Democrats were weak - and turned to Bush for protection. Democrats have to demonstrate they have "a pair" with which to protect our country, while also communicating an intelligent and workable exit strategy for our troops.

That along with education, healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy independence. Dems need to demonstrate they can multi-task, that they can juggle more than the so-called "liberal" issues. The country no longer needs a Mommy Party of nurturers - the country needs direction, alternatives, leadership and - most of all - hope.

People want a shift in perception. They're searching for it, ready for it. Hopefully the Democratic Party will be the catalyst.

::

> In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference
> between Democrats and Republicans.

There's a big difference in whom the money comes from and to whom it goes. There's also a big difference in the size of the deficit and assuming responsibility for it.

> Democrats have to demonstrate they have "a pair" with which to
> protect our country ...

A pair of hemispheres, yes. Something for which Republicans substitute devious cunning, which stems from the reptilian portions of their brains.

> The country no longer needs a Mommy Party of nurturers -
> the country needs direction, alternatives, leadership and -
> most of all - hope.

The country needs both. You don't recover from "compassionate" conservatism by indulging in "compassionate" neo-"liberalism."

'Had Enough?' Logo

Unfortunately, I can't post the image itself here but here's a link to a 'Had Enough?' Logo that I put together. People are free to use it.

I've linked our copy to the DNC Action Page though obviously people are free to link to anything they feel will best get the job done.