I am all for censure. Hell, I think if Bush were a man he would have resigned in shame months ago. But I am also a realist and understand that we the opposition will continue to get nothing done if we keep thinking as individuals instead of as a group. The Republicans have understood this for years. From their leadership to right-wing hate radio to their corner of the blogosphere, they all read from the same script.
Democrats on the other hand act as if they are all a party of one. Mr. Feingold's motion to censure is a fine idea and would have had a terrific impact and been a lovely show of strength if the rest of the Democratic Party knew about it before hand and was already on board. It is ridiculous that, apparently, the first time any other Democrat heard of his idea was when they read it in the paper.
As usual, David Sirota, is absolutely right in saying that Democrats seem more concerned with playing nice than with winning. In an earlier post I wrote that the Republicans "would do whatever it took to take control, while the Democrats had (and still have) an almost British, "That's not cricket, old chap," attitude."
So many Democrats seem to view Republicans like some drunken, abusive stepfather. They hate the bastard, despise how he's abused and duped their poor mother, obsess on seeing him fail, are petrified of his anger -- and yet deep down crave nothing more than a pat on the back from him after they hit a homer in Little League.
So I am thrilled to see strong Senators like Feingold and Kerry taking strong stands against this failed regime. However if they can't organize their own party to follow them, how are voters supposed to believe that they could ever govern?