Click to enlarge

One thing I would certainly NOT expect is that anyone would go here[PDF], using the above as a template (or not), and stick that fucker in the mail. I certainly would be shocked if anyone were to alert all their friends and loved ones to behave similarly.

I know, I should find something else to write about already. Anyway, Drum picks up Yglesias’s challenge from this morning, and responds with dithering.

I enjoy my job, but because the Lord has decreed that everyone should hate Monday mornings irrespective of such things, he’s given Cokie Roberts a Monday A.M. segment on NPR where she’s usually found peddling the most egregious bits of conventional wisdom available. Today, though, was an exception and she was saying that maybe — despite all the hand-wringing — Russ Feingold censure motion was politically savvy. After all, she pointed out, though the latest Newsweek poll doesn’t show majority support for censure, the level of support is pretty high (42 percent), the level of support among Republicans is shockingly high (20 percent), and though only 60 percent of Democrats say they’re on board, it’s unlikely that registered Democrats are going to turn away from the party over this issue.

A new era of wisdom was dawning, I thought, and when I got to the office this morning, I read the poll for myself.

But look at what else I found on the Newsweek web site. Here’s a column by Eleanor Clift about how Feingold is terrible and ruining everything. And here’s a column by Jonathan Alter about how Rahm Emmannuel is awesome but Feingold may ruin everything. Honestly, I find the idea that this gambit will influence the midterms significantly one way or the other to be a bit daft — it’s just not that big a deal. So how about a column by someone — anyone — trying to explain why the president does not, in fact, deserve to be censured for his lawbreaking ways? If no members of the Washington Generals faction of American liberalism has a viable argument to that effect, then why not maybe a column or two explaining to readers why they should change their mind and support Feingold?

So why not a column explaining why Feingold should or should not be supported? Drum says:

I’m sure someone can point to an exception somewhere, but so far every single column or news story I’ve read on the subject has been about (a) Feingold the maverick and whether this helps his presidential chances, (b) the disarray his motion has caused in the Democratic party, (c) whether the censure motion was politically smart, or (d) Republican glee that Feingold has shifted attention away from all the things that were hurting them.

A: Yeah, it’s a goodamned shame Hillary didn’t sponsor the resolution. Or in other words, umm, huh? Who made it thus? As if Feingold’s actions happened in some sort of vaccuum. The reason Feingold’s maverickness is at the center of discussion is because cowering democrats have made it so. And who’s feeding these process complaints anyway? Who’s presidential ambitions does it serve to have the army of sensible liberals denouncing Feingold’s selfishness? I gots me some suspicions it’s the geldings in this horserace.

B: Well, gee, who’s fault is that really? Like this is all some giant game of hide and seek, and Feingold totally ruined the game by yelling out. Who’s supposed to be hiding and who’s supposed to be seeking anyway on this issue.Â

C: Well, this post is no exception.

D: Short-lived or no? The story on that is already starting to change. I know I’ve made the point about reality based pinheads before, taking the whole “judiciously observing discernable reality” quote to fideistic levels. But Reality IS NOT static.  Examining your polls and combing through your heady political analysis to discern the reaction at one individual point in time that we call the present without thinking about repercussions and further impacts is, in a word, simple-minded. Expand your mind, man.Â

What is with this subset of liberals who have completely internalized the notion that any scrap for the so called “base” is dangerous? Anyone really think Feingold has imperiled 2006 for the Democrats? Yeah and he retroactively cost the Dems in 2002 and 2004 too. Markos, if he understands one thing, at least he understands that off-year elections are “base” elections, and that engaging Republicans is the only way to defeat them. Â

These risk averse Dems think that by merely having a pulse, voters will gladly rush to them to save them from Republicans. But in reality, voters (including much of the Democratic base) are disillusioned. Why vote for Democrats who haven’t shown an ounce of fight the last six years? What’s the point?

The Alito filibuster was supposed to be a disaster for Democrats. Somehow, their numbers didn’t suffer. Murtha was going to kill Dems by making them “look weak on defense”. But somehow, people seem to agree with him. Now, Feingold’s censure resolution is supposed to be a disaster for Democrats. Yet if that was the case, why are Republicans reacting so virulently against it? Bill Kristol admits the censure motion is hurting Bush. Meanwhile, Brit Humes head exploded at the resolution. Not the action of a man confident that Feingold is hurting the Democratic Party.

Christ, man. Just keep telling me stories about how Feingold failed to give so and so the proper foot-rub before announcing the resolution. Keep perpetuating that beast that you’re decrying. “No one’s talking about the merits of Feingold’s resolution, and so I’m not either, so is it a political winner? It must not be.  And so tut-tut Russ. Tut-tut, little man. Bad form, chap. And so on.” Good God, Go read some fucking white papers. That’s what you’re good at.

Shakespeare’s Sis:

Is it too much to ask, at this point, not why Feingold has introduced a censure resolution without getting permission from his party, but instead why his party didn’t introduce it a long time ago? Is it too much to ask, rather than castigating Feingold for making a bold move without his party’s support, that instead we look at his party and demand to know why their support wasn’t assured?

If saying, “I’m bloody grateful that someone is trying to do something� makes me unsophisticated, shows my simple mind for what it is, that’s fine with me. Call me crude; call me a dullard; call me a radical; call me anything you like. I don’t really give a flying shit. Because if after spending my days immersed in news and politics, my vacant, irrational mind can’t wrap itself around the intricate processes of politics that makes doing nothing the smart thing, and my woefully inadequate powers of perception can’t help me translate what appears to be slack-jawed passivity into the brilliant political strategy it actually is, then the Dems have a real problem on their hands.

Telling me repeatedly what a naïve little fool I am isn’t convincing me. It’s only pissing me off. And, boy, I’m trying to see the folly of my ways. I’m making a concerted effort to understand exactly what the elaborate and clever plan is that I just keep missing. But there’s a whole country of people out there who give it approximately one-billionth of the effort I do, and, as it happens, lots of them support censuring Bush, and none too few of them are wondering what the hell is the problem here. And what that leaves us with is a whole lot of people who apparently just can’t get their insignificant, empty, useless heads around your strategy. So on behalf of we legions of numbskulls, let me just suggest that perhaps your brilliant strategy is simply too brilliant. We’re just too dumb to get the subtle nuances that facilitate an understanding of how inaction=action.

Maybe you’ve got to bring it down a peg. Indulge our small- and literal-mindedness and try action=action.

Conversely, continue to condescend and pat us on the heads and trust that we’ll trust you. Bush has certainly showed us that blind faith in politicians who exhort patience and trust, because they know best, is a great idea.

 Man, I’ve got nothing to add.

Mr Greenwald has the less-pithy take on that Drumstir post:

Kevin’s assurance that Democrats will lose is nice conventional wisdom (and the standard beginning premise for many Democrats), but it’s actually completely baseless. If the public became convinced as part of the debate that is finally happening that the President broke the law and that such law-breaking is intolerable, does Kevin actually think that it’s impossible to find 6 Republican Senators to vote for the Resolution? Congressional Republicans defied Bush on the port deal for only one reason: because public opinion demanded it.

If public opinion begins to move even more than it already has to the view that Bush broke the law, it is far from certain that the Censure Resolution will fail. As I’ve noted many times, polls showed for two consecutive years that the public thought Watergate was a meaningless scandal and Nixon’s popularity remained sky high throughout those years. The arc of that scandal ended up changing only because tenacious politicians and journalists continued to pursue the story and the public finally became educated and angry about it. If Democrats had followed Kevin’s advice in 1972, Richard Nixon would have retired as a popular two-term President.

But even if the Censure Resolution ultimately fails, the rationale for pursuing it is self-evident. Kevin frequently frets about (among other things) the fact that Democrats are perceived as being weak. The reason for that is because Democrats often are weak, precisely when they do things like abandon their own Senators and refuse to take a principled stand against a President who got caught breaking the law.

People like Kevin — who believe that Democrats must “prove” to the country that they can be strong — should most understand the value in having Democrats take a stand regardless of whether they ultimately prevail. Strong and resolute people fight. Weak and spineless people run away from fights — or fight only when their victory is guaranteed in advance. The Democrats have been running away from fights for five years now based on the Kevin Drum theory that fights are only worth fighting if you know in advance that you will win. It is beyond irrational to think that the Democrats are going to look strong by simply crawling away meekly and allowing George Bush to break the law.

Anyone with doubts can just ask themselves: Who appears stronger and more resolute right about now — Russ Feingold or the Democrats described by the Washington Post and New York Times as literally hiding behind each other to avoid reporters and beating a full “retreat”?

There’s a lot more. Read it. It’s solid.

The Drumstir writes:

Everyone wants to know how I feel about Russ Feingold’s motion to censure President Bush over the NSA’s domestic spying program. I’ll give you two and a half answers:

Jesus, everyone? wow. I did think it was kind of odd this morning when we were all standing around the company “water cooler” before the big staff meeting, talking about Feingold’s motion, and everyone was all like, “man I’m just dying to know what Kevin Drum thinks about this.” But not that odd, I guess, the drumstir is a very important figure. A sage even. We all look to him for cues.

First, substantively: Sure, censure away. God knows Bush deserves it.

All right, Kevin! Can I get an “Amen!”?

But! But! But! Ah, But he then goes on to play the political consequences game (you just knew he would), displaying the kind of political shrewdness that could vaunt one to the top of the class of Democratic party strategists. What a level-headed fellow! I sure am glad the Democrats have him to reinforce their own generally agreed upon wisdom concerning political calculation. Cause if there’s one thing the Democrats could use more of, it’s political calculation.