A Strategy For Censure

by georgia10
Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:16:29 AM PDT

Yesterday's Senate Judiciary hearing on censure marks a turning point in the debate over Presidential accountability. Over at Firedoglake, Christy and others are simmering with disgust over the fact not all committee Democrats attended the hearing. I've witnessed comments throughout the blogosphere expressing outrage that either Democrats didn't show up, or that they have yet to sign on to censure. Obviously, I'm disappointed, but I'd like to shift the focus a bit.

When Senator Feingold first introduced his resolution, Republicans said it was a "gift." Well, it is a gift--for Democrats. It is a bold move destined to fail (sorry folks, the numbers don't lie) but it succeeds in forcing Republicans to defend the indefensible: a failed President who is not trusted by the American people.

While some were focused on the empty chairs in the hearing, I was focused on the tone of the rhetoric on the right. Republicans fiercly defended the President, and in doing so, made some remarkable statements. Take Senator Sessions, who emphatically declared the following:
"Our President is an honest man. A candid man, a strong leader. And the people of America know it."

Now, if Sessions were up for re-elction, that clip would pure gold. Can you imagine the campaign ad? Sessions frothing at the mouth, defending his Dear Leader, followed by a clip of the President saying he's not concerned about bin Laden, or his famous Mission Accomplished speech. Close the ad with "Senator Sessions has spent the last six years rubber-stamping the President's failures. Can we trust his judgment anymore? Can we afford to?" You get the idea.

And that is what we should be extracting from the censure debate. When Republicans launch into their odes to the President, most of us tune out or sit on our hands to refrain from throwing something at the TV. But we should be cataloging every statement lauding the President's trustworthiness, every clip where a Republican praises the President's judgment.

A case study: Mike DeWine. Senator DeWine has been clamoring to distance himself from Bush, embracing a campaign theme of "independence". An all-together predictable approach, given that the President's approval ratings are at all time lows. In the latest WSJ poll, Democrat Sherrod Brown has pulled ahead of DeWine by about nine points. Good news, to be sure, but certainly not enough to calm my nerves about that race.

So how can we use censure to increase Brown's lead in the Ohio race? DeWine, if you recall, has sponsored the "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006", which legalizes the President's illegal conduct. Obviously, DeWine trusts the President. So let him go on record. He should be bombarded with questions about it, over and over again until he is painted into a corner, forced to declare, like Sessions, that he "trusts" the President and that the President has been doing a magnificent job. Cannon-fodder for campaigns, that's what censure can be.

I know it's difficult to focus on the right instead of the left side of the aisle when it comes to censure. But we have just six months to win back six seats in the Senate, and 15 in the House. We should be upset that Democrats have not jumped aboard a clearly appropriate resolution, but we can't let that frustration cloud our singular goal: winning back Congress.

This censure resolution can help us achieve that victory in November. It succeeds in putting Republicans on the defensive, forcing them to go on record as to whether they trust the President and how much they approve of his performance. At a time when vulnerable incumbents are scampering away from Mr. 33%, this censure resolution allows us to grab them by the tail and drag them back to the debate. It provokes over-the-top rhetoric which we can use in our campaigns to solidify them as nothing more than rubber-stamp Republicans unworthy of another term in office.

And if the censure resolution accomplishes that, if it helps us shackle Republicans to the sinking anchor of Bush's Presidency, then Feingold's move will truly be a success--no matter how many Democrats sign on to it.