The Individualist: Censoring Censure

Posted by Joe Rivett on 03.29.2006

I like Russ Feingold but I don't like his idea...

It took me about a week to come up with an opinion on Senator Russ Feingold's motion for a censure vote. A censure would basically force the president to apologize. Of course this all stems from the president sidestepping the FISA court.

Many of the pundits believe Feingold is trying to offer "red meat" to his liberal base to be the candidate for the Left. Normally I would agree but Feingold is a different type of politician. If he really cared about making politically calculated decisions, he probably would not have been the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He appears to be a senator who focuses on principle rather than politics. I think Feingold is honestly annoyed that Bush did not follow his job description of enforcing the laws.

I am not happy that Bush sidestepped the FISA law. A couple weeks ago I wrote a column why Bush should not be impeached. My thesis was that impeachment would only help Bush, rally his base, and make people feel sorry for him. I think this argument applies to censure as well.

Censuring Bush will send a signal to dissatisfied Republicans that if the Democrats take over, they are going to focus more on Bush than actual legislation. While some Republicans are not happy with Bush, they will rally around their leader just as many rallied around Clinton over impeachment.

Bush's ratings are in the mid 30s. The ratings are there because of incompetence and I think that is what bothers me about Bush more than the FISA fiasco. I simply don't have faith that Bush can effectively lead this country. The response to Hurricane Katrina showed me that his administration cannot handle a disaster. Frankly, if Bush is to be censured, it should be for lying to Americans about not knowing that a levee could break. Frankly, if Bush is to be censured, it should be for overstating the threat of Saddam Hussein. Frankly, if Bush is to be censured, it should be for wanting war as a first resort instead of a last resort. There are so many things this man has done wrong to my country. Last on my list is trying to protect Americans by listening in on the phone conversations of terrorists.

The Democrats have great momentum. They have Bush's approval ratings in the toilet. They are looking great in the generic Congressional ballot. They are almost certain to take back the House and at least a few seats in the Senate. Do they really want to blow it all for censure? Do they want to throw a bone to the discouraged Republicans.

Another reason why I don't like this measure is that it reinforces the notion that the Democrats have little to offer legislatively. Feingold is actually one of the few senators that offer new ideas, however, many Americans feel the Democrats do not give clear alternatives to Bush.

I want an environmental alternative. I want an alternative tax policy. I want an alternative war plan, (that they can all agree on). I don't want the president saying that he is sorry.

Another problem the Democrats have is on the issue of National Security. While the American people are starting the see that the Republicans are not always right, they have yet to embrace the Democrats on security. If the Democrats are going to be successful in 2006, they need to make the election about domestic policy. Bringing up censure will put the Republicans on a playing field they are far more comfortable on. Karl Rove said that the goal is to make the theme of 2006 national security. Even he knows they can't win on domestic policy.

I applaud Feingold for not taking the extreme position of impeachment. I think what he wants in sensible in some regards. Yet, I do not believe this is beneficial for the Party or the country. Bush is clearly incompetent. The Democrats should continue to let him self-destruct.

The other topic I wanted to briefly discuss is the Ted Kennedy/John McCain proposal on immigration. Want bothers me the most about the bill is that it forces immigrants to learn English. I have one question and I would love to hear read some of your emails on this because I can't understand why the hell so many people give two shits if some 40 year old Mexican farmer speaks English. Hell, native born children do not have very good English skills.

Don't believe me, go to Myspace. It can get really annoying to hear, Mr. Rivett, how do you spell 'use' (This coming from a tenth grader). Very few people have high English skills anymore. If we are going to force immigrants to speak good English then do we tell Southerners to stop saying y'all? Do we tell Snoop Dogg to change it to Snoop Dog and stop fo shizzeling nizzles? Do we force Bush to take a public speaking course?

Does the 40 year old Mexican need to know great English to pick vegetables? That farmer may have kids who will attend public school, watch TV, and assimilate just like every other immigrant group that has come to the US. If we force low skill/low educated immigrants to learn English and go to school, then they may start taking real jobs. When my students say that immigrants are taking jobs, I normally explain that is why you go to college so you don't have to compete with the majority of them.

Instead of worrying about immigrants knowing English, maybe we should worry about the English skills of our children and *gasp* ourselves.