Centerfield

Feingold's Censure Motion

If there is any politician that truly makes me think about the issues and consider my positions, it is the junior Senator from Wisconsin. This is for two reasons.

First, there is probably no U.S. Senator that I have more respect for. Feingold is fearless. He has shown time and time again that he was elected to do what is right, not carry the flag for the Democratic Party. His votes to confirm John Ashcroft and John Roberts, and to move the impeachment articles to the floor on Bill Clinton, to me, are evidence of a man that has no problem with leading even if it makes him unpopular with his friends. Feingold has challenged progressives to think about balancing the budget in moral terms, arguing that leaving future generations with debt is simply wrong. He has backed it up with a record that no one in the U.S. Senate can better on fiscal matters, again often breaking with his party to do so. He has done more than pay lip service to campaign finance reform, and has imposed the limits he proposes on himself. One time it almost cost him an election.

Second, there is no elected official that at times I radically agree with and other times I adamantly oppose. On the environment, campaign finance reform, the budget, gun control (Feingold is a member of the NRA), the death penalty, poverty, and civil liberties, I am with Russ. On free-trade, defense, the Patriot Act, and the war in Iraq, I have often thought there is nobody that has been more wrong. This isn't necessarily out of total disagreement with Feingold's positions on these issues, but his methods.

For example, I do believe we should not send our troops into war without knowing how they are going to get out, but I don't believe that Congress and politics should determine that. Also, I agree with Feingold that there are serious issues with the Patriot Act that borderline threaten our civil liberties, but I do not think the right action to take was to vote against a bill that provided much needed support to the Homeland Security community at a time when our country had just been attacked. I would have, however, supported Feingold's recent efforts to block permanent approval of the Patriot Act because I see no reason why frequent congressional review and approval of any law is a bad thing.

Now Feingold has done this.

Last weekend I attended a training session in my community as a member of the Commission on Children and Youth and the Teen Action Committee, appointed by the local County Commissioners. The purpose of the training was to teach local youth, many of whom are disadvantaged, to lead and become more active in the world surrounding them. Politics came up frequently, and I picked up on an angry vibe regarding this President that was different than what we sometimes read in the blogosphere. One asked me if I thought the President cared about his country. This was real, it was human, and these young people did an incredible job expressing their point of view and backing it up. I had a clear understanding of where they were coming from.

I bring this up because I have looked at this Presidency differently in recent months than I ever have before, probably due to the fact that I am as unhappy with the President now than I have ever been. This is directly related to the wire tapping issue because it goes to the core of my problem... It isn't necessarily the vision but the approach, and more importantly, the arrogance.

When the wire tapping story broke my first reaction was to wonder why anyone would have a problem with spying on an individual linked to Al Qaeda. I thought that the President was taking action that was consistent with the findings of the 9/11 commission by creating new approaches to implementing a spy program without having to go through the court created by a FISA law that by all accounts was enacted in a time where current technologies and threats were far from reality. The President pointed to Constitutional war powers, an argument that individuals like Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and John McCain, from his own party, have outright disagreed with or at least seriously questioned.

I am not arguing whether or not Bush broke the law, whether or not FISA is even applicable, or if spying on Americans is right or wrong. We have gone over that enough. However, this issue is just another in the long line of evidence that his administration is awful at managing public policy and dealing with political realities, which has given legs to the argument, true or not, that they believe they are above the law. Did they really not think this story would break or that the FISA argument would come up?

The administration did the right thing by going to Congressional leaders, but it's approach should not have been to implement the spy program, but rather to discuss what was the proper method of doing so considering all unintended consequences, opposing arguments, and possible legalities. Rather, they told Congress we are going ahead with this, if you have any concerns get back to us, knowing that scare tactics regarding terrorism and 9/11 have been very effective and easy to fall back on in times of political strife. In other words, with little in regards to process, the President of the United States began spying on American citizens, which in some cases lead to imprisonment.

If there is any requirement of our legal system it is that we must take every step available and necessary to protect the rights of the innocent. The Bush administration didn't meet the criteria in this American's opinion. Did they break the law? I don't know, I am not a lawyer.

Feingold's move to censure the President for breaking the law is the wrong step to take because there has been no court case, no evidence filed, and no ruling that the administration acted illegally. For those who feel adamantly that Bush did in fact break the law, there are steps that can be taken. Furthermore, censuring the President doesn't fix the problem. The Senator would be advised to look at more progressive approaches, such as reviewing, amending, and updating FISA, taking into account the change in times and ensuring that right procedural steps are implemented in the future, balancing the government's ability to protect the American people while not trampling on their civil liberties.

It is well known that Russ wants to be President, and by all accounts he is a long shot to win the nomination. One could argue that a more pragmatic approach on this issue would be less sexy to the base, and that a censure motion will get a future candidate quality national face time, while rallying the loyal blue troops. Maybe that is his purpose, maybe not, but my impression of Feingold is that he doesn't make decisions unless he feels it is the right thing to do.

Regardless of whether or not you specifically agree with his proposed timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq and his recent move to censure the President, Feingold has properly asked what kind of Presidential leadership we want in this country. A question, considering recent events, that I think needs to be thoroughly debated before 2008.

I probably will not support a candidate before the primaries are over; waiting to see where the cards fall and not particularly fond of either side right now, but the Democratic Party can do worse than the honorable Senator from Wisconsin. Russ Feingold would make a great American President.