CENSURE OR NOT TO CENSURE - FEINGOLD'S FOLLY - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

Senator Russ Feingold, (D WI), has submitted a measure before the United States Senate to censure President Bush over the terrorist surveillance program or as the left and the media falsely call it, "domestic spying." On Friday the Senate began hearings on Feingold's measure and just in case you did not notice the media has ignored for the most part the hearings and the majority of Feingold's party is treating this as a red headed step child. So why post a commentary on a subject that is somewhat being ignored ? I have come to the conclusion that there are only three possible reasons other than Feingold's Presidential aspirations that would cause this censure measure when everyone believes that it has no possibility of passing. First, even with only the hearings the stigma of censure can be tagged to the President in an election year regardless of the outcome of the measure. Second, with the process of censuring taking place again in an election year many Senators might distance themselves from Bush and as such limit his capability of pressing his second term agenda because of weak support in the Senate thus making him a three year lame duck President. Thirdly, if by some miracle the Democrats get control of the House and Senate in November, ( which is highly unlikely though they believe that the country is buying their snow job) , then a censure member would pave the way for impeachment on the same false charges. This ridiculous measure that should have never been allowed to gain any momentum now has the stigma of Senate hearings which though viewed non-news worthy and with little attention given by the public can give Bush some trouble with members of the Republican Party especially those seeking re-election. How much if any damage it does to his Presidency remains to be seen but it again focuses attention by the left on the false notion by the left that Bush has broken the law and lied, which is a nail they have been trying to hang their hat on since he took office.

To better understand what censure is we need to take a brief look at historical examples of the measure and its place in government. The Constitution provides only one provision for dealing with Presidential misconduct and that is impeachment which is instigated by the House and tried by the Senate for, "high crimes and misdemeanors." Though there have been rumblings in Washington and elsewhere about impeachment it is not being seriously considered for it requires evidence of violation of the law and the evidence of the surveillance program, the war in Iraq and the supposed lies during the Iraq build up prove that the President has not violated any law and has acted in the authority he has as President/Commander in Chief and authority given him by Congress. Censure on the other hand does not require evidence of violation of the law as it is a procedural rule in Congress to reel in Senators or Representatives who are abusing their position or stepping over their bounds. Basically it is a parliamentary punishment for being a , "bad boy." Those in Congress take it seriously because with censure the member loses his political power, privileges and responsibilities and usually his seat in Congress in the next election. An example of censure is the case of Senator Joe McCarthy, ironically also from Wisconsin who in the early fifties began hearings to purge the nation of communist influence. Though started with good intentions McCarthy began abusing his position and bringing anyone before Senate hearings that he deemed a communist whether the evidence was there or not. Fear of being called before McCarthy held two Presidents, Truman and Eisenhower, captive in their conduct of national affairs because of weighing the impact of their policies in light of the hearings and virtually all of the Congress was afraid to act on anything because of the stigma of being labeled communist because of, " McCarthyism." Eventually public out cry and media attention by Edward R. Murrow brought about Senate censure of McCarthy and the end of his inquisition and his political career. In 1834 Andrew Jackson, the seventh President was censured by the Whig Party as a political ploy for vetoing the extension of the Bank of the United States. This censure had a back lash with the voters taking the Whigs out of the majority and placing Jackson's Democrat Party in the majority who then expunged the censure from the record.

What impact then will the politically motivated censure measure and hearings of the President have on his Presidency ? On Friday John Dean former Presidential Advisor to Richard Nixon and convicted in the Watergate cover up testified before the Senate hearings. The purpose behind this of course was to attempt to make a comparison of Bush to Nixon which is absurd since Nixon did violate the law and Bush has not. Whenever the left has attempted to accuse Bush of violating the law they dust off the cob webs of John Dean and bring him forward for hearings. His testimony then falls into oblivion as will that on Friday but gives the left their desired sound bite with the former Nixon felon. The full impact on Bush greatly depends on the back bone of the Republican majority, the President has not violated any law and how they respond to the false accusations will greatly determine the impact. If they choose to distance themselves from him because of the, "stigma, " then it could hamper his agenda. Those who distance themselves because of fear of losing an election should reconsider. Bush is still the best fund raiser in the Republican Party and is very effective in a campaign. Additionally though the left leaning bias in polls shows Bush with low ratings and as a whole this liberal rhetoric has not damaged his overall popularity with the public. The left has yet to find any true accusations that can be proven because the President legally used the authority given him by the Constitution in performing the duties of his office and protecting this nation. If this censure nonsense is further pursued it will cause a back lash at the polls for Republicans who distance themselves and for Democrats who use it as and angry attack against Bush. It also further proves that the left will use anything at their disposal to undermine this President and attempt to destroy his Presidency regardless of the consequences. Whether the stigma of censure will be used in the fall as campaign season begins in earnest remains to be seen. With the back lash possibilities it will not surprise me to see the Democrats try and tag Bush with the stigma. Democrats have a notorious habit of shooting themselves in the foot when election time comes around because they still believe that back room politics, anger, political destruction campaigns and character attacks win elections though it has placed and kept them in the minority where they belong. So to the leadership on the left my message is to attack away and watch your minority status continue!

Ken Taylor