But Feingold's maneuver isn't just problematic for Hillary in '08. At a time when Democrats were beginning to score points over the ports issue, in one fell swoop, Feingold has put the Democrat Party back on the wrong side of the national security issue. This is the work of either a very selfish politician, or a very naïve one.
Matt Lewis
Weakening our national security is their agenda. Is it yours? Sign the petition to tell the Democrat leaders to stop undermining the War on Terror with cheap political stunts.
Ken Mehlman
Feingold's maneuver Monday was a bit of a Thelma & Louise moment in politics: he slammed the gas pedal to the floor and set Senate Democrats heading straight for the edge of the Grand Canyon. Liberals stood on one side cheering it as an act of heroism, Republicans stood on the other cheering it as a stunt of monumental stupidity and hoping the car would actually catch air. And poor Senate Democrats were left strapped in the vehicle, with eyes bulging and mouths wide open, as they scrambled to find the brake.
Tom Bevans
Complete horseshit. These guys are scared. They know that this is a losing issue if they can't get ahead of the frame. All this bravado is just to bluff the democrats who can be scared into running. And, also as predicted, that's working too. Dianne Feinstein could find her way to introduce a censure for President Clinton, but she can't support this?
As an aside, it's interesting to note that those who supported DiFi's censure bill are many of the same folks who did nothing to stop Alito. Just another reason to get rid of 'em.
Sean-Paul Kelly
But Feinstein and company are idiots, apparently. The reason the republicans are so shit-scared of this is because they know it's a loser for them. The polls are with Feinngold, and even Pat Roberts' home town papers in Kansas are against Bush and the Republicans on this:
Pat Roberts made it clear again last week that he puts loyalty to the Bush administration ahead of everything else, even his responsibilities as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Instead of beginning a probe of President George W. Bush's domestic spying program, as critics demanded, Roberts announced that he'd reached "an accommodation" with the White House - creation of a subcommittee to monitor the operation, just as the Bush administration wanted.
. . . .
Roberts put Bush's re-election ahead of an informed electorate when he delayed phase two of the pre-war intelligence report. He placed loyalty to the Bush administration ahead of Americans' civil liberties when he foiled an investigation of domestic spying.
To Pat Roberts, the Senate Intelligence Committee exists for one reason - to validate the policies of President George W. Bush.
The Hutchinson News
Meanwhile, here's a good question:
When will it be fair to say that Congress has tacitly approved of the President's surveillance program?
Althouse
No comments:
Post a Comment