HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Feingold's Censure AdventureWhat should Democrats do with their Senate bomb-thrower?

By John DickersonPosted Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 6:55 PM ET

Download John Dickerson's weekly political podcast here, or sign up for Slate's free daily podcast on iTunes.

"Selfish," "idiotic," "boneheaded," were some of the first characterizations I heard from Democratic political strategists about Sen. Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program. Why, when Bush was on the ropes, would Feingold want to pick a distracting fight that divides the party and makes it look weak on fighting terrorism? "He is running for the position as the most loathsome person," said one party insider.

RSS

That was one story line: A senator running for president upsets the careful plans of the Democratic leadership in order to pander to the rabid base. But Feingold's attack may be playing differently outside the party's elite circles. For a party that supposedly celebrates its diversity, Democrats sure do have trouble accommodating it. Liberal activists tell it this way: Faced with a man of virtue and rectitude, Democratic leaders jumped behind the couch, hoping they could capitulate quickly so they could get back to appeasing Republicans. Activists cheered when Feingold said, "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low." It looked like the censure battle would turn into a fight about the party as much as a fight about whether the president broke the law.

But, alas for journalists, the factions in the Senate seem to have found their script and toned down the infighting. Feingold did not renew his challenge to his colleagues' manhood in his press conference Thursday morning. Democrats who disagree with Feingold were talking less about how he was helping his presidential primary chances and more about how they share his frustration with incomplete answers from the White House and lackluster oversight by the Republicans in the majority.

Perhaps this will help Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid realize that it's not such a bad thing to have a bomb-thrower around. The firestorm may provide an opportunity for Reid to define what the majority of Democrats in Washington want. It is certainly getting the media to pay attention to the long-limp Senate Dems. Feingold has gathered an audience bigger than any Reid and Co. might have drawn to their dutifully planned events. If Reid and other Democrats want to make the case that the party understands security issues and wants the government to use every tool at its disposal—two things Feingold's critics say are imperiled by his move—then Reid can make that case in front of all of those microphones now pointed at Democrats. Reid can disagree with Feingold on censure while agreeing with him that Bush has exceeded his authority and misrepresented the wiretapping program to the public by saying that no eavesdropping occurred without a warrant.

What Reid shouldn't do is pull a Pelosi: respond to a bomb-thrower with confusion and delay. As the Senate minority leader met with other Democrats and his advisers after Feingold introduced the measure on Monday, they all recognized the press would leap on Feingold's idea the way it had on Rep. John Murtha's call for the quick redeployment of troops in Iraq. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had first opposed Murtha and isolated him, but then several days later said she supported him. It was a twofer: She reanimated the cartoon of the Democratic flip-flopper, while offering no more clarity on the party's position on troops. So, Reid called for calm without endorsing Feingold but also without slapping him down for his unpredictable and untimely move.

The test now is whether Democrats can have it both ways, allowing Feingold to continue agitating while not letting Republicans use him to define the party as weak on terrorism. How will activists react when Democratic leaders return to their preplanned messages on health care, prescription drugs for the elderly, and Iraq without pushing Feingold's charge? On that, the senator from Wisconsin may give his party leaders an assist by declaring an early symbolic victory. "Although I am sincere in wanting to pass this resolution," he said Thursday, "my objective has already been achieved."

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at .

COMMENTS

Remarks From The Fray:

The Democrats are so accustomed to being weak and retiring, they can't even get on top of a president with a 37 percent approval rating and enough scandal to fill the airwaves 24 hours a day.

The Republicans love their own Feingolds, guys like Tom DeLay. The more crazy stuff they say, the better. The party never stops at the GOP.

Which party should we choose to lead the nation? The one full of right wing crackpots who want a return to the Taft administration? Or the party that wants to stand for something, if they could just figure out what?

--Arlington2

(To reply, click here.)

Bush has already been censured by the electorate in the only place it matters, as disclosed by numerous polls, With continued poor approval ratings his solo power is gone. Please explain what a parapraph from 100 self-gratifying adolescent narcissists, saying 'nyaaa, nyaa', adds to this.

--fuser

(To reply, click here.)

While I can understand the frustration on all sides, the Feingold episode, and everything connected to it, highlights the degree to which political thinking has come to be defined by short-term partisan agendas rather than long term strategic thinking. Genuine debate is being diluted.

This vicious cycle is the single biggest threat to this country's long term interests. This is not an exaggeration. It's a trend that is all the more worrying as we enter what, with emerging security threats, globalization, and scary-powerful new technologies, promises to be one of the most turbulent centuries in history.

Partisanship has its place, but if we can't keep our eye on the ball, then America's global advantages, both cultural and economic, will be compromised. I sincerely hope that we will begin to productively debate this nation's future sooner rather than later.

--ChecksNBalances

(To reply, click here.)

The giant sucking sound that accompanied Fiengold's censure propostion was created by the void of courage and common-sense that quickly formed at the core of Democratic party. For me personally, I am now firmly and permenantly disgusted with the reminents of the Democratic party. [...] Does anyone else out there feel that Fiengold's censure movement was the first heart-felt, take-it-to-the-streets, move any DEM has attempted in recent memory?

Russ, I am with you. Bush broke the law, and in contrast to Clinton's personal failure, his fearless flaunting of the law attacks every single American's right to privacy and the fundamental rule-of-law. Tell it like it is baby and let the DEMS enjoy the ditch they dug themselves post 9-11.

--Seawind

(To reply, click here.)

What Senator Feingold did was smart if not genuis. He opened a can of worms that showed where members of his party stand on the issue of President Bush, and how he bends the law to his will. I feel Mr. Feingold pointed out that some of our Democrat leaders are lip service do nothing politicians who are only making noise in a election year. [...] What he did could cause the Democrats who didn't support him look weak in November, and for me that was smart, and maybe the Democrats can flush out these lip service do nothing politicians, and get some real people who want to make a change. [...]

--bruce_maxwell

(To reply, click here.)

(3/17)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES