Censuring the President...A stronger DNC?...Local election news

Good Morning!

It is indeed shaping up to be a good morning, for Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is going to introduce a motion before the senate today to censure the 'president' over illegal wiretapping. Some on the left have high hopes that Senator Feingold will run for president himself, and this can only increase his standing and visibility. Naturally, the Repugnicans are accusing the Dems of giving 'aid and comfort to the enemy', and are hiding behind 9/11, as their are wont to do.

WASHINGTON -- A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing to censure President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality.

''The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in US history -- against Andrew Jackson in 1834.

Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee and the majority leader, called the proposal ''a crazy political move" that would weaken the US during wartime.

The five-page resolution to be introduced today contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush contends that his authority as commander in chief as well as a September 2001 congressional authorization to use force in the fight against terrorism gave him the power to authorize the surveillance.

The White House had no immediate response yesterday.

The resolution says the president ''repeatedly misled the public" before the disclosure of the NSA program in December when he indicated that the administration was relying on court orders to wiretap terror suspects inside the United States.

''Congress has to reassert our system of government, and the cleanest and the most efficient way to do that is to censure the president," Feingold said. ''And, hopefully, he will acknowledge that he did something wrong."

The Wisconsin Democrat, considered a presidential contender for 2008, said that he had not discussed censure with other senators but that, based on the criticism leveled at Bush by both Democrats and Republicans, the resolution makes sense.

The president's actions were ''in the strike zone" in terms of being an impeachable offense, Feingold said. The senator questioned whether impeaching Bush and removing him from office would be good for the country.

In the House, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is pushing legislation that would call on the Republican-controlled Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment.

The program granted intelligence officers the power to monitor -- without court approval -- the international calls and e-mails of US residents when those officers suspect terrorism may be involved.

Frist, appearing on ABC's ''This Week," said that he hoped Al Qaeda and other enemies of the US were not listening to the infighting.

''The signal that it sends -- that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief, who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer -- is wrong," Frist said.

A statement from the Republican National Committee said Feingold's proposal shows ''that Democrats are willing to play politics with the most important issue facing the American people."

A longtime critic of the administration, Feingold was the first senator to urge a withdrawal timetable for US troops in Iraq and was the only senator to vote in 2001 against the USA Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers. (Continued)

Meanwhile, DNC Howard Dean has been busy in non-traditional areas of the country, working at the grassroots in the South and Southwest to build back up the party in areas that have been abandoned in favor of the liberal cities of the Northeast....maybe this will make a difference in 2006 and 2008.

ALBUQUERQUE -- When Howard Dean took over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee last February, the selection of the man known for ''the scream" sent chills down the spines of many Democrats in Southern and Western states, where a Dean-injected dose of East Coast liberalism carried the risk of dooming the party for years.

But a year after the crusading former Vermont governor took over the DNC, the party has reacted in some surprising ways. It's the East Coast liberals who are grumbling about Dean's talk-show gaffes and staring at the DNC's near-empty coffers with dismay.

Meanwhile, many Dean skeptics in state Democratic parties -- especially in places like New Mexico, a swing state that voted Republican in the last presidential race -- have been won over. The reason is the millions of dollars Dean has spent rebuilding Democratic organizations in places that haven't seen a coordinated Democratic effort in a long time.

It's a high-risk strategy: Democrats have historically done this kind of grass-roots organizing only in the voter-rich big cities, and right before Election Day. Building the party in rural areas involves spending precious resources long before voters go to the polls.

But as Dean's mini-army of more than 150 DNC-paid operatives have fanned out across the country, many rural and conservative-leaning Democrats are nodding with approval.

''I've never really been a Dean guy," said John Wertheim, chairman of the New Mexico Democratic Party. ''But I've really bought into his program. Is it risky? Sure. But I think it's a darn good investment."

In Albuquerque, four energetic young staff members -- trained by and drawing paychecks from the DNC -- have divvied up the map of New Mexico, a state that was more closely divided than Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

From a cluttered warren of offices tucked into a strip mall, the DNC's new employees are building voter lists, organizing county-level Democratic caucuses, and installing precinct chairmen in rural portions of the state that have voted overwhelmingly Republican in national campaigns.

But Dean's push to rebuild state parties has been costly, and has left the DNC coffers surprisingly bare. He has burned through nearly all the $61 million the party has raised since the beginning of 2005, according to Federal Election Commission data filed last month. That leaves the party with a nest egg of just $6.9 million, virtually all of it left over from the 2004 campaigns.

Though the DNC's fund-raising was up 20 percent last year over 2003 -- the last year that didn't have congressional elections -- the party has brought in far less than the Republican National Committee.

Ken Mehlman, RNC chairman, has already begun amassing a war chest for use in 2006 and 2008 -- it stands at $38.9 million so far -- even as Dean sends huge sums to many states where Democratic prospects appear to be bleak for the foreseeable future. (Continued...)

Lastly this morning, we'll take a brief look at the campaign for governor of Massachusetts. After State AG Tom Reilly spun in a few weeks back, people are starting to notice the other candidates. A question being asked today is "Can Deval Patrick Win?"

A friend at a big metropolitan newspaper e-mailed me the other day. He was thinking about coming to Boston to write a story, but he had a question he wanted answered before committing himself.

''Can Deval Patrick win?"

That seems to be the question that follows Patrick around like a shadow. It was certainly in the air Saturday afternoon, at the Patrick pep rally at Faneuil Hall.

An overflow crowd had assembled to see the candidate. They didn't seem to care how much money he had in the bank or how much less his campaign chest contains than Tom Reilly's. Significantly, not many of them seemed to have been sent by their union or to have been otherwise coerced in the name of Democratic ''unity." Many pointed out that they had never been involved in politics before, at any level.

It was an odd event, in some ways. The long arid stretch between the caucuses and the party convention is not generally seen as a time for a big event, partly because it will be months before anyone casts a vote. Most of the questions Patrick got from the press corps after his appearance were variations on ''What was the point of this?"

To the campaign, the idea was a show of strength, a demonstration that Patrick's support is real and that he could not only pack a hall, he could excite one.

On those terms, it could only be judged a success.

Listeners were treated to Patrick's bio, his journey from the South Side of Chicago to Milton Academy to Harvard. They were exhorted to go out and raise money, and to spread the word about the campaign. They were told, repeatedly, that the political establishment and the media were against them, but had no claim on their loyalty. They were instructed to reject cynicism and embrace hope. They seemed to eat up every word of it. It was a very good performance.

There's some evidence that Patrick's message is catching on. Poll results indicate his campaign is surging, in the sense that more voters know who he is and view him favorably. Reilly's campaign, by contrast, appears stuck in neutral, though that's to be expected, if only given its missteps.

The problem with the obsession -- nearly six months before primary day -- with whether a candidate can win is that it drowns out the campaign itself. (Continued)

So, there you have it. It's another great week for blogging...stay in touch with the news here at Northeast Liberals, and come on by and visit us at Air America Place!