Feingold for President - Minnesota

No more lies. The president broke the law.

Monday, March 13, 2006

THE PRESIDENT BROKE THE LAW

This is what leadership looks like I will simply ask for you to watch his speech

The questions now is what will the other democrates do. According to raw story.com some are making space. I believe that we are in a situation where we may have a leader bigger than the party that he is in. If the democrates cannot support a censure they have given up right to expect my vote.

The republicans should vote with as well. I hope they listen though I seriously doubt it.

8 Comments:

  • At 8:36 PM, Blogger Joel said…

    Looks like it isn't just Republicans that are a problem. The AP is running a story quoting Russ saying that "Democrats run and hide" when Bush invokes terrorism. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5686110,00.html
    I'm seeing the end of my rope with the bland, DLC-type Democrats who will not take a stand.

    Joel

     
  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger Joel said…

    The final digits of that odd URL are supposed to be
    -5686110,00.html

    Joel

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Randall said…

    Feingold demonstrated the kind of backbone we need from Democratic leaders. With this, and given his solid record and analytical demeanor, he clearly breaks from the pack. Hilary just lost one supporter and Russ gained another!

     
  • At 5:57 AM, Blogger citizen shelly said…

    Fantastic blog! I'm also from MN and also throwing my weight behind Feingold. Glad to see this growing support for him. (Click on my name for my profile to my blog where I've recently discussed him.)

    I'm going to be promoting him further now that he's stood up to Bush and introduced censure. A LOT of people are fed up with the usual spineless Democrat nonsense.
    I'm bookmarking you now. : )

     
  • At 6:16 AM, Blogger Joel said…

    This is off topic but I've got to share it. What a come-back!
    Joel
    -----------------------

    On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

    At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

    Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

    The room erupted into applause.

     
  • At 6:22 AM, Blogger Joel said…

    It gets worse! from Daily Kos ---

    Can we have investigations NOW?
    by mcjoan
    Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 09:53:05 PM PDT

    On tonight's Countdown, Keith Olbermann had a short segment with GW Law School Professor, Jonathon Turley in which they discussed an upcoming report in U.S. News & World Report that says the White House has used the same justification for warrantless wiretaps to justify physical searches of terror suspects homes and businesses. Here's an unofficial transcript from kossack Chamonix, part of which was posted in vmckimmey's diary:

    Olbermann: (reading from a U.S. News & World Report press release) "Soon after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, lawyers in the White House and the Justice Department argued that the same legal authority that the same legal authority that allowed warrentless electronic surveillance inside the US, could also be used to justify physical searches of terror suspects homes & businesses without court approval."

    Olbermann: Doesn't that send chills down your spine?

    Turley: Well it does. It's horrific, because what that would constitute is to effectively remove the 4th Amendment from the U.S. Constitution and the fact that it was so quick as a suggestion shows the inclinations, unfortunately, of this administration. It treats the Constitution as some legal technicality instead of the thing were trying to fight to protect. Notably, the U.S. News & World Report story says the FBI officals, or some of them apparently, objected... [W]e're seeing a lot of people in the administration with the courage to say "Hold it, this is not what we're supposed to be about. If we're fighting a war, it's a war of self definition and if we start to take whole amendments out of the Constitution in the name of the war on terror-we have to wonder what's left at the end, except victory."

    Olbermann: (reading from the press release) "According to 2 two current and former government officals . . . the Bush administration lawyers presented the arguments to senior FBI officals who expressed strong reservations about their proposal. . . . It could not be determined whether any warrentless physical searches had been carried out under the legal authority cited by the administration, but at least one defense attorney representing a terrorism suspect has alleged that his law office and home may have been searched without a court warrant."

    Joel

     
  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger WestTexasBliss said…

    Feingold is right; now Congress must fulfill its oversight responsibility. A letter to the editor.

     
  • At 9:27 PM, Blogger WestTexasBliss said…

    Republicans release New Ad that Mischaracterizes Feingold's Censure Resolution

    FactCheck.org states, "A GOP radio ad falsely characterizes Sen. Feingold's censure resolution as reprimanding the President for pursuing Al Qaeda"
    ~READ THE FULL STORY~

    Southern Maryland Online

    FactCheck.org

     

Post a Comment

<< Home