Gordon Smith: will he censure the president?
Kari Chisholm
Lots of stuff out there about our good friend, the well-dressed not-a-moderate Gordon Smith.
Late last week, Gordon Smith told FOX News that he thought the Democrats were engaging in "political theater" when they held the all-night debate on ending the war. Parroting the GOP talking points while voting with the Democrats, he's clearly trying to have it both ways.
"Clearly this was more about theater than getting votes. There was some big speeches and a lot of small actors in the end... Because of the unnecessary tactics like staying up all night, it hardened [Republicans]."
On Sunday's Meet the Press, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) wondered aloud whether Smith would join him in censuring the president -- a "moderate" step on impeachment.
SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, there’s a lot of sentiment in the country, even the polls show it, for actually impeaching the president and the vice president. I think that they have committed impeachable offenses with regard to this terrorist surveillance program and making up their own program.What I am proposing is a moderate course, not tying up the Senate and the House with an impeachment trial, but simply passing resolutions that make sure that the historical record shows the way they have weakened our country, weakened our country militarily and against al-Qaeda, and weakened our country’s fundamental document, the Constitution. I think that’s a reasonable course and does not get in the way of our normal work. But the American people are outraged at the way they’ve been treated. They are outraged at the dishonesty that they have been subjected to. The American people—we deserve better than the way we’ve been treated, and somehow this has to be reflected. ...
MR. RUSSERT: Will it get any Republican support?
SEN. FEINGOLD: We’ll find out. You know, I think this might be an opportunity for some Republicans who may be uncomfortable with taking steps such as impeachment to say, you know, somehow we have to reflect the fact that so much of this has gone wrong.
Take, for example, Gordon Smith, who actually said on the floor of the Senate that this Iraq situation may be—have criminal elements. He actually said the word criminal. This is an opportunity for people to say let’s at least reflect on the record the fact that something terrible has happened here. This administration has weakened America in a way that is frightful at one of the most important times when we need to be strong. And we as a Congress have to reflect this tragedy.
Nevermind, of course, that Smith has taken back the word "criminal". He'd rather use "insane". And definitely nevermind that he says he realized it was insane six months before he spoke out. How many Americans died before the 2006 election convinced him that his political career was at stake?
Of course, all of this is losing Smith lots of his friends on the right. At RINO Watch, they had a poll up recently asking folks whether Smith should be re-elected - with the responses broken out by party. 54% of the respondents were Republicans who said No, he shouldn't be re-elected. (Admittedly, the sample was tiny and blog surveys are unscientific anyway. Nonetheless, there's at least some grumpiness in his base.)
Finally, over at Middle Earth Journal, blogger Ron Beas is taking the Oregonian to task for its coverage of Gordon Smith.
It would seem that Senator Gordon Smith can't please anyone but the Oregonian. A few weeks ago we saw the Oregonian discuss the Cheney/Rove fish kill for Gordon Smith without once mentioning Gordon Smith. A week and a half later they were all over Gordon's support for an Iraq withdrawal bill that everyone knew had no chance of passage - a safe bill. This morning they are once again pushing Mr Smith's "independence". ...Sorry, but Smith's change of heart is all about saving his own political hide. He may not be a moderate but he is a politician that knows which way the wind is blowing. He also knows that his friends at the Oregonian will be there to help him push his faux moderate credentials.
Right on, Ron. Right on.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:54 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
Let me get this straight: Smith was a COSPONSOR of Reed/Levin, but he thought it went overboard to attempt to shut off a filibuster of it? He couldn't have better telegraphed his insincerity in sponsoring the bill than if he'd made a sign saying "Just for political show; don't take me seriously." As one of the people who spoke on the floor (I believe), is he calling himself a "small actor?"
12:56 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
As for censure, it's a copout on Feingold's part. If he believes the actions are criminal, then it's inappropriate to simply adopt a censure motion that effectively does nothing.
On another tip, Rep. Conyers said over the weekend that with three more cosponsors for impeachment, he will open those proceedings. Frankly, Oregon should be able to provide four all on its own. And OR voters should be asking them to do so.
Jul 23, '07
Since Gordo hasn't publicly announced his plans for the August recess, I have to believe he may be visiting Baghdad yet again. He must think that 130 degrees there is better than the heat he'll get if he shows his face in public in Oregon.
Jul 23, '07
Let's remember that if you try to go to Gordon Smith's office to ask a question about the war, his staff will have you arrested. Even if you are a senior citizen and a grandmother - they will call the police.
That's serious. You cannot go to your Senator's office with a question the staff doesn't like or you will be arrested.
THAT'S how Gordon Smith feels about it. When push comes to shove, support Bush and the war.
Jul 23, '07
Censure is not a "moderate" comprimise of action against Bush. It is a "conservative" comprimise. A truly moderate action against Bush would be impeachment. If we really wanted to get radical we would have him tried as a war criminal in the Hague.
Impeachment is justice. Justice is the only course of action here to be taken. To do otherwise would be to betray the very foundation of what is left of our democracy.
Jul 23, '07
Maybe it is just the warm muggy weather making me grumpy, but is anybody else getting burned out and turned off talking about "censure" and all the other symbolic but ineffective acts that Congress is considering? Who cares!
If the current administration (including their friend Gordo) has taught us anything by now, it is that they don't give a damn about civility, tradition, respect, or polite discourse. Raw and absolute power is the only thing that they respect. In the absence of impeachment, which appears to be impossible, the ONLY raw and absolute power Congress has over these folks is the power of the purse. But so far, I have not seen anybody in Congress willing to cut off funding as a tool to force the administration to the bargaining table. Unfortunately, because so many members of the middle and upper classes (including me) have their noses deep in the government's feed trough, the idea of Congress actually shutting off the flow of government money in order to assert control over the administration is a very unlikely possibility. What is more important? Is it receiving your next student loan subsidy, crop subsidy, light-rail subsidy, small business administration loan subsidy, or national park campground subsidy, or is it more important to bring a corrupt administration to its knees?
In my grumpy opinion, the rest of this stuff, including all night vigils, "censure" debates, etc. is nothing but meaningless BS. Do people actually think that Mr. Cheney is quivering in his bunker over the prospect that he or his boss might be "censured"? I think not.
Jul 23, '07
It was interesting that Smith was the only Republican Feingold mentioned when asked if he might get GOP support for censure. I had forgotten that Smith had backed away from his "strong, principle" (new) anti-war stand. Clearly Feingold has forgotten too. Will the voters remember?
3:50 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
Not a lot to say on Smith that wasn't mentioned in the initial post. But to TJ's comment: "As for censure, it's a copout on Feingold's part," I gotta say, in comparison to what?
I find it hard to reserve the harshest language for the one Senator who is trying to hold Bush accountable.
3:54 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
In comparison to acting on the evidence he believes is there, and encouraging the House to uphold its duty to investigate crimes against the Constitution? The duty is not to obtain a conviction; it is to exercise oversight and hold the executive accountable for potential high crimes and misdemeanors.
Jul 23, '07
Jeff: But to TJ's comment: "As for censure, it's a copout on Feingold's part," I gotta say, in comparison to what?
TJ: In comparison to acting on the evidence he believes is there, and encouraging the House to uphold its duty
I understood Feingold's comment to be a great return on the spin that Russert was trying to put on his resolution. It occurred to me that by pushing for censure (and the hearings and findings that would come with it) Feingold is in fact putting pressure on the House to do it's duty.
Why are Bernie Sanders and Peter DeFazio sitting on their hands? The least (and i mean very least) they could do is co-sponsor the Kucinich bill to impeach Cheney.
Jul 23, '07
I believe that the US House has the votes to proceed with an Impeachment. Whether or not it gets through the Senate is doubtful. But the point here is to Impeach in the name of doing their oversite duty. Conviction in the Senate is another matter. We can cross that bridge when we get to it.
Jul 23, '07
Please, don't make me take Gordo's side. Last weeks all-nighter hosted by the Democrats was pure political theater, and not even good theater at that. What a joke.
So long as the true blue crowd has transparent jokers like Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Durbin, Feinstein and Boxer fronting the outfit, don't expect to be taken at all seriously by the average American voter. Hate to break it to you, but your party is not viewed a whole lot more favorably overall than are the lowly Republicans at the moment, which should be cause for concern. It's a sad state of affairs when as much as I disapprove of Necons, Democrats still generally represent a less favorable alternative. As I see it, were on the fast track to those dark, dreary days of malaise, circa 1979. Both the oval office and congress are in dire need of an enema.
Jul 23, '07
as much as I disapprove of Necons, Democrats still generally represent a less favorable alternative.
Part of me wants to court your vote a little bit, Thesbian, see if we can't persuade you to vote for a Democrat over Smith in '08. But if you think that the Dems are a "less favorable" alternative as compared to the neocons, then you really need to support Smith.
If you want to prolong the war, then you need to return the GOP to the majority in Congress and make sure they keep control of the White House as well. Sure the Dems have the majority for the moment, but not a large enough majority in the Senate to act on behalf of their own plans or rectify Bush's mistakes. With only a 51/49 majority in the Senate, they can't even realize the desire of the majority of Americans to bring the troops home safely, sooner rather than later.
So you see, Thesbian, even though yours is the minority view, your will is being expressed by the minority Republicans in the Senate. Without a 3/5 vote to move legislation forward or a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto, you will continue to get your way.
It has come close at times. The Democrats were almost able to present the President with a bill that would simply give our troops as much time at home as they spend deployed. If you want to make the possibility of such silly legislation even more remote, then by all means, you NEED to vote Republican.
Jul 23, '07
I got two words for you, Thom: Ron Paul
5:05 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
Last I saw, Congressional Democrats were 10 points ahead of Congressional Republicans. And polling released today indicates by 2 to 1, respondents want Congress to take control of when the war ends, not the President.
Jul 23, '07
Censure would be a good move politically because Senators and Representatives would have to go on record as to whether or not they support W's criminal activities. This could be a powerful talking point for progressive Dems in 2008. It would also have the advantage over impeachment that it would not tie up the Congress for very long. Sure, it's symbolic, but symbols can sometimes influence elections.
7:41 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
Civics 101 tells us that the Senate cannot initiate articles of impeachment. If Senator Feingold wants to introduce a bill/motion to censure the pResident, then fine. I support that.
I also think that it's Nancy Pelosi's job, and the Democrats in the House to begin impeachment proceedings whether or not they think they have the votes in the Senate to convict or not. I'm not sure if everyone has heard the Bill Moyers piece on impeachment that was done recently, but it's worth the time to listen to. You won't hear John Nichols and Bruce Fein agree on too many things. Impeachment is one of them, because of its importance to the integrity of our nation.
And no, Gordon Smith will not, if given the opportunity, vote to censure the President.
7:43 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
sorry, bad link:
Bill Moyers' piece on impeachment.
Shoulda used the "preview" button...
8:20 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
Thespian's obviously a dittohead, but his comment is instructive, since he's essentially parroting back what we hear often in the MSM. But is he right--was the all-nighter a stunt? Actually, no.
Behold:
If you follow that link I included, it will show you an accompanying graph projecting 158 filibusters from the minority for this session. Since 1962, the highest ever used has been 58; under the GOP, the number will treble.
For those drinking the kool-aid of the right (excluding, obviously, even arch-conservatives like Lott), this will just seem like good politics; the rest of us recognize that it's further evidence of the GOP's disdain for the democratic process.
9:20 p.m.
Jul 23, '07
Oregonlive is reporting that, no, Smith will not support censure.
Jul 23, '07
If the censure resolution is articulated well, vulnerable Republicans will have a hard time justifying why they couldn't even be bothered to disapprove of illegal wire tapping not to mention a presidential power grab so broad, we have Bush legislating from the Oval Office through signing statements which defy congressional intent and executive orders which shred the Constitution.
Jul 24, '07
Oregonlive is reporting that, no, Smith will not support censure.
<h2>I am reporting that Wyden will not support censure.</h2>