Feingold to fellow Senators: "We can celebrate the Constitution on July 4th and maybe when we come back you'll decide not to tear it up."

The Progressive Patriots Fund has this video up today:

Feingold versus the jaded insiders

Jane Hamsher has a good piece up at FDL contrasting Russ Feingold--who thinks the lesson of the 2006 election was that Americans want us out of Iraq now--with Democratic strategists who peaked a decade ago and who think the lesson of 2006 was to pursue pointless compromises to drag the war out until 2008 for maximum political effect.

A Democratic Party that keeps the Iraq war going simply for the sake of short-term electoral advantage is no better for America than a Republican Party that keeps the Iraq war going for the sake of short-term electoral advantage.

A Democratic Party that can't figure out how to wind down the war in Iraq while keeping its Congressional edge and capturing the White House in the bargain--when two-thirds of independents, 83 percent of Democrats, and 45 percent of Republicans want Congress to reduce funds allocated to the war --evidently isn't as bright as we thought they were when we voted them in last time.

Refresh my memory: Why did all those Democrats get elected last fall?

(Updated below.)

I thought it was to get us out of Iraq the soonest, safest way possible. Guess not:

Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.
Bush, who has already vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition.

Pelosi declares herself "disappointed" (which makes me wonder what she's doing to earn her keep as Speaker), and says she thinks she might vote against it. Well, that's something, I suppose.

Feingold, ahead of the pack and practically talking to himself, as usual, stated early and plainly that he'd vote against the "compromise" bill, with its idle talk of "18 political and legislative benchmarks for the Iraqi government."

Under the President’s Iraq policies, our military has been over-burdened, our national security has been jeopardized, and thousands of Americans have been killed or injured. Despite these realities, and the support of a majority of Americans for ending the President’s open-ended mission in Iraq, congressional leaders now propose a supplemental appropriations bill that does nothing to end this disastrous war. I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history. There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.

[Emphasis added.] Considering Bush is taking steps to double his "surge" in Iraq without congressional approval, why would anyone imagine that "benchmarks" will matter? When the time comes, Bush's people will say they're showing "progress" against the benchmarks, every other expert on the planet will say they're quite obviously not, the media will give it "on the one hand, on the other hand" coverage, and people will actually take Arlen Specter seriously when he says he's "going to get to the bottom of this" and promises that "heads will roll."

I keep looking for some indication that the Dems have some larger strategy, beyond accommodating Bush when he holds his breath and threatens to turn blue. But I'm not seeing it. Reid insists that this supplemental bill is "not a blank check," but it's hard to view it any other way.

(Maha at Mahablog is a little more charitable--a little--arguing that Reid and Pelosi can't do much until they get more pro-war Dems and Republicans on board to rein Bush in, and that, in the meantime, this bill should be voted down. Update: Aravosis at AmericaBlog isn't buying it: He argues--pretty convincingly--that if being accused of defunding the troops is political poison, that ought to be doubly so for Mr. Veto.)

May has not seen much to be proud of from the Democrats: First they folded on another key issue that ushered them into power this term: ethics reform. And they're tied up in immigration (un)reform that no one will be happy with, if it even manages to make it to a vote.

Now they've presented an appropriations bill that appears to all-but-strangle any chance of meaningful change in Iraq policy before Bush leaves office. Vote this dog down.

(Images via Crooks and Liars and the Australian Real Estate Blog.)

Wyden co-sponsors Reid/Feingold

Loaded Orygun brings the good news:

Feingold/Reid is another step forward from the previous Senate vote, and Wyden's cosponsorship is a welcome sign that he intends to stay ahead of the peloton rather than behind it.

More here.

Without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion

I sometimes like to imagine a non-existent moment of testimony from a never-going-to-happen Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. In my reverie, it goes something like this:

Senator: Sir, are you familiar with the phrase "a government of laws, not of men?"

Bush Administration Official: Yes, Senator, I am.

Senator: Can you summarize its meaning for us this morning?

Bush Administration Official: [Covers microphone with hand, whispers with staffer, who begins thumbing through briefing books] Uhm, Senator, I . . .

Senator: Sir, let me see if I can help you out. Doesn't it refer to a form of government under which laws are designed to operate honestly and fairly, regardless of who happens to be in charge of executing and enforcing those laws on any given day?

Bush Administration Official: [Looks sharply at staffer, who stares back, frozen in terror] Senator, to the best of-- [Looks at briefing book for a moment]--Senator, I suppose that is a fair interpretation of the phrase. Yes.

Senator: And do you believe that phrase describes the American system of laws and justice?

Bush Administration Official: [Eyes dart from one Committee member's face to the next, find no safe haven, finally returning to the Senator] Yes, I suppose so.

Senator: I'm glad to hear it. Sir, in your testimony today--and, I might add, in your testimony before this Committee on numerous previous occasions--you have asked us to give you unprecedented power to ignore the will of Congress and of the American people, to escape essential Constitutional limitations of the Executive Branch, and to commit acts which are destructive of the fundamental civil liberties enjoyed by Americans, liberties which define our great nation. And you assure us that we may rest comfortably in the expectation that you will not abuse these extraordinary powers, that you will only use them with extreme constitutional caution and only in the most limited and exigent circumstances--that we may rest assured that in giving you these powers we will not soon regret it, because you have given us your word that you would never abuse these powers for personal or partisan advantage. Is that essentially your testimony? Would you say that correctly summarizes your position here today?

Bush Administration Official: I . . . I . . .

Senator: I have good news for you, sir. Because America is the sort of place you've agreed that it is--because it is fundamentally a nation ruled by laws, not men--you are relieved of the burden of offering us your personal assurances on this matter. We have something far better upon which to rely.

No, the guarantee that you will not abuse these powers is not your solemn word that your principles or character would not allow you to do so; it is the fact that the law will swiftly and publicly visit justice upon you if you should attempt it. With that in mind, federal marshals are now passing among you and your staff, distributing subpoenas. I look forward to the pleasure of discussing this matter with you in considerable detail in the near future.

And so on. It's a lovely idyll, isn't it? But then I always wake up.

A year ago, I was finding ample opportunity to mock then-Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter, who as a Bush loyalist made sure that there was no congressional oversight of the Bush administration's lawlessness, yet always professed shock and dismay at each new round of constitutional fast ones by the executive branch.

A year later, Specter's lost the gavel, but, as Glenn Greenwald points out, he's clearly learned nothing (ad viewing required for link):

Now that even Alberto Gonzales' DOJ has acknowledged that the FBI has been violating the law with regard to its NSL powers, there are some important lessons that one can learn, if one is so inclined, about how our country has operated for the last six years. Let us begin with the fact that the Inspector General's Office which issued this report is merely a mid-level subordinate DOJ office that reports to the Attorney General, and its conclusions (particularly its exculpatory ones) are hardly dispositive. The oversight here is not the Report itself. That is just the start. The oversight is the Congressional investigation which must follow to determine the scope of the wrongdoing and what actually motivated it.

But the good little authoritarians who always reflexively embrace every unchecked pronouncement by the Bush administration as though it is the Gospel Truth -- the attribute which is, at its core, the defining one of a mindless authoritarian -- are (consistent with that mindset) now running around shrilly insisting that the Leader did no real wrong, because the DOJ Report said that nothing was really done with malicious intent here. The DOJ has spoken, and that settles that. With this mentality, these reflexive Bush defenders are exhibiting precisely the profound character flaw that has led to all of these abuses in the first place: namely, blind, gullible, cult-like and distinctly un-American trust in the assurances of the Leader without any demands of scrutiny, accountability, corroboration or oversight. […]

As is so often the case, Arlen Specter enables excellent insight into how this mindset functions. With these revelations of the FBI's lawbreaking yesterday, Specter was strutting around making all sorts of dramatic protest noises, acting as though he is some sort of guardian of checks and balances and civil liberties. In fact, as Judiciary Committee Chairman from 2002 until 2006, Specter eagerly enabled a virtually complete dismantling of the system of checks and balances on presidential power, and did so by blindly and timidly relying upon administration assurances that they were acting properly.

The same Specter who now professes such grave concern over the abuse of the NSLs is the very same one who led the fight on behalf of the administration to re-authorize the Patriot Act by stampeding over concerns about, among other things, the potential for abuse of NSLs. On December 12, 2005, Specter wrote this letter (.pdf) to six Senators (including 3 Republicans) who were resisting renewal of the Patriot Act due to concerns about the potential for abuse by the Bush administration of NSLs.

Specter's letter -- written after publication of Barton Gellman's documented expose of NSL abuses in The Washington Post -- emphatically assured those worried Senators that there was absolutely nothing to worry about, because the administration secretly assured the Intelligence Committee that everything was being handled properly, and that settles that […]

(Read the rest of Greenwald's essay. It's also going onto the Reading list in the sidebar.)

Such was life under the gavel of Specter the partisan hack and Bush button man. And yet, even in Democratic hands, the Judiciary Committee may still prefer to be swindled, and to let Senators like Russ Feingold--who warned a year ago that the fix was in--continue to wander in the desert.

Feingold!

Sadly for the Plumed Specter Cave Warbler, his attempts to free the Bush administration from a few more of the remaining Constutional checks on their behavior never made it out of committee.

Forbes.com reported this a few minutes ago:

President Bush's support proved insufficient to push a bill authorizing his warrantless wiretapping program through the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the committee's chairman, said the bill stalled because of election-year obstructionism.

"We have seen the incipient stage of filibuster by amendment," the Pennsylvania Republican testily declared as he called off a vote to move his bill to the Senate floor. "Filibuster by speech, filibuster by amendment. Obstructionism."

The target of his ire was Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who spoke against the bill for about a quarter of the panel's two-hour meeting and offered four amendments. Feingold, a possible presidential candidate, said Specter's bill would give the White House too much power to eavesdrop without a warrant in some circumstances.

"The president has basically said: I'll agree to let a court decide if I'm breaking the law if you pass a law first that says I'm not breaking the law," Feingold said. "That won't help re-establish a healthy respect for separation of powers. It will only make matters worse."

Feingold opposes the GOP machine, again, and lives to tell about it--again. The other congressional Dems exchange puzzled looks--could there be some way that his tactics might be expanded, so that the Democrats acting together might increase their power? They would be a party, yes--but they would also be in opposition. A party . . . in opposition. What might we even call that, they wonder aloud? America holds its breath, waiting . . . waiting . . .

Postscript: Was anyone else as amused as I was by Specter's recitation of Feingold's offenses? I didn't think he had that kind of humor in him.

Specter: Special p3 cave-in countdown

(Update: Congressional Republicans hate and fear Feingold's censure motion; Congressional Democrats merely fear it; but Democratic voters--remember them?--think it's a pretty good idea.)

The official countdown clock is started:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has set a hearing for next Friday on the call by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure President Bush for his approval of a program to allow electronic eavesdropping without warrants.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the panel, said he had decided to schedule the session after Mr. Feingold, in a television interview, pressed for hearings on the censure proposal.

This is Part 1 of Specter's trademark two-part M.O.: First he makes some handwringing public statement indicating his concern that this time the Bush administration has gone too far. That the American people won't stand for it. That he's going to get to the bottom of it. That, if they think they can just run roughshod over our constitution and the people, they've got another think coming.

Here's Specter's lock-and-load moment from the censure debate:

"They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it,'' Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview with The Associated Press. ''I think what is going on now without congressional intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong.''

Specter was one of the first Republicans to publicly question the National Security Agency's authority to monitor international calls -- when one party is inside the United States -- without first getting court approval.

(Remember that it was Bush's flouting of the Fourth Amendment and FISA law--and the resolute refusal of the GOP-controlled Congress to exercise its proper oversight function in the matter--that prompted Feingold to introduce the censure motion in the first place.)

Then, in Part 2, Specter collapses like a wet taco and not only allows Bush to get whatever he wants, he uses his position as Judiciary chair to abet it.

Part 2 will come next Friday, when Feingold's censure moment is killed in the Judiciary Committee, in some procedurally nasty fashion.

And that's the thing--here's what will make it a uniquely Specter-rific moment: Specter won't just sit back passively and let it die in the predictable party-line vote. He'll find some way to use his power as committee chair to hand the motion an anvil as it goes over the cliff. Perhaps he will rule all discussion by the Democratic committee members out of order. Perhaps he will simply require that all questions or statements by Democrats must be in pig-Latin, or maybe Esperanto. Perhaps he'll invoke some little-known Senate rule requiring that votes for censure must be written in blood from the still-beating hearts of supporters on the committee.

No one has established precisely why he does this. After all, he certainly doesn't have to go to the bother of all that Capraesque foot-stamping; he could simply fall in line enthusiastically with the worst of the Bush administration's tendencies from the start like, say, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Specter's GOP counterpart on the House Judiciary Committee. Not for Sensenbrenner the wasted motion of feigning bipartisan sympathy.

Perhaps Specter is simply that cynical. It could be.

Or it could be that he genuinely means to do the right thing, but then Karl Rove messengers over to Specter a package--perhaps containing the severed finger of a loved one, or maybe photos of Specter playing bocce with Satan. And a beaten, cowed Specter slinks back inside the fence, secretly hoping that next time--next time!--will be his chance to see justice done.

Either way, it doesn't make much difference. Friday will come and Specter will not only oversee the defeat of the censure motion in committee like the loyal Republican button man that he is; he'll add some gratuitous shiv-in-the-back that will be all his own.

Think I'm wrong? This is Specter, looking ahead to Friday's hearing:

Mr. Specter said his intent was not to use the session as a political forum but to explore issues surrounding the proposed censure. He said he believed the proposal was baseless.

"I am prepared to deal with it," Mr. Specter said. "I am sure not going to sit back and have Feingold spout off."

(Handy decoding hint: When a Republican vows "not to use the session as a political forum," it means "the session will be exclusively for the purpose of saving our partisan political hides.")

The clock is running.

(Update: And while Specter postures and plots, Bush continues his extra-constitutional power grab--you know, the one Specter says is "plain wrong.")