How Many Seats Will Democrats Lose If They Impeach Trump? How Many Seats Will They Lose If They Don't?

In his NY Times column yesterday, Charles Blow came out strongly for impeachment. Of the redacted Mueller report-- I assure you that unlike most Republican members of Congress, that Blow has read it-- he notes that "it is a damning document. Not only does it detail Russian efforts to attack our election to help the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign’s eager acceptance of that help, it paints a picture of Donald Trump as an unethical man with no regard for the rule of law. In this report, we see a president who doesn’t deserve to be president. We see attempts over and over to obstruct justice, which in some cases succeed. The question is: What are we going to do about it?"

Yes, that is the question. "Obstruction of justice is a crime," he reminds his readers. "If Trump committed that crime, he’s a criminal. Are we simply going to allow a criminal to sit in the Oval Office and face no consequence?" We? We can't do much about it besides trying to influence our members of Congress to go for impeachment. If Pelosi and Hoyer bring it up, they would need 118 votes to begin the process. Pelosi knows how to count votes. She's says there aren't that many behind it yet. I believe she could whip her caucus and get the votes, but there are an awful lot of Democrats who will vote with the Republicans against impeachment. You think Pelosi wants a situation where all the progressives and activists decide to not vote for dozens of her incumbents because they voted against impeaching Trump? She doesn't.

Let's look at some of the worst Democrats in the House, freshmen Kenda Horn (Oklahoma City-- R+10), Joe Cunningham (Charleston, South Carolina-- R+10), Jefferson Van Drew (South Jersey-- R+1) and Ben McAdams (Salt Lake City area-- R+13), all of whom have tough reelection races coming up in red or in Van Drew's case, red-leaning, districts. Imagine they voted against impeachment. Let's start with McAdams, a Blue Dog like the other 3, he's tied with Van Drew and Cunningham of having the worst voting record in the House. Of the 269,234 votes cast in his district in 2018, he won 134,964, 694 more than his Republican opponent. He basically got slaughtered in Utah, Juan and Sanpete counties. All his votes came from Salt Lake County where a very significant number of Democrats are extremely progressive and already hating him. In the 2016 Democratic caucus in Salt Lake County, Bernie won 84.9% of the votes. Stop and think about that for un momento. Hillary-- who beat Trump 42.8% to 32.6% in the general election-- only took 14.1% of the vote in that blue county. People have to hold their noses and get drunk before voting for McAdams as is. Do you think they would if he voted against impeachment? Some would. How many wouldn't? More than 694? I think so. In fact I'm 100% positive than way more than 694 Salt Lake County Democrats would come out to vote for Bernie or Elizabeth Warren against Trump and not bother to vote for McAdams.

Do you want me to do this for all 4 of them? It's easy. I do one more-- Kendra Horn. Friends of mine in her district are already saying they won't vote for her in 2020. There were 238,960 people voting in 2018 and she took 121,149 votes (50.7%), 3,338 more votes than her Republican opponent. Nearly all her votes came from Oklahoma City. Pottawatomie and Seminole counties went massively for the Republican. Democrats in Oklahoma County are split between progressives and centrists. Trump beat Hillary in every single county in Oklahoma but she did less horribly in Oklahoma County than anywhere else-- 112,661 votes (41.2%) to Trump's 141,429 (51.7%). Primary time was a pretty even split in the district. This is how Hillary did in each of the 3 counties that make up the district:

• Oklahoma County- 50.1%
• Pottawatomie County- 37.5%
• Seminole County- 39.1%

I can tell you, some of those Bernie supporters-- and some of the Hillary supporters for that matter-- want impeachment more than Bernie does. If Horn votes against it, she'll lose enough of her base to lose the general. Besides, Republicans are already excited about former OK City mayor Mick Cornette and two state senators likely to run, Greg Treat and Stephanie Bice.

And so on. So, Pelosi is walking on thin ice-- I love this song and I can't help myself-- and she's screwed no matter what she does-- or doesn't do. Let me get back to Blow for a moment. He writes that his mind is made and he knows all the arguments: "I say impeach him." He lists all the wrong pros and cons though-- the solipsistic, intellectually sloppy ones-- and isn't looking at Pelosi's-- really, the House Democratic caucus'-- dilemma at all. "House Democrats, at least the leadership, are afraid of looking like they have a blood lust and inadvertently increasing Trump’s chances of re-election." But he's compelling:

I worry that inaction enshrines that idea that the American president is above America’s laws. I worry that silent acquiescence bends our democracy toward monarchy, or dictatorship.

As Thomas Paine wrote in 1776, “In America the law is king.” He continued: “For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

Who will we let be king in this country, the president or the law?

You can't argue with any of that. Maybe you can. I can't. Ask yourself this though. Is it worth impeaching Trump-- who won't be found guilt by the Senate-- at the cost of losing the House majority?

So what about censure-- a public reprimand or condemnation? The idea is being bandied about on Capitol Hill now. The Constitution defines impeachment-- and conviction-- powers but doesn't mention censure. Congress adopted a resolution allowing censure-- stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion and either House can do it on their own. In 1834, the Senate censured Andrew Jackson-- although when the Democrats won back the Senate the censure was expunged from the record. In 1842, after the House failed to impeach John Tyler, a select Senate committee censured him. (He may have been a worse president than Trump-- maybe; we'll see-- and after his presidency he led Virginia into secession and then served in the Confederate House of Representatives.) In 1848 the House should have impeached James Polk for starting the Mexican-American War unconstitutionally, but they censured him instead. There was a half-assed attempt to censure Clinton that failed and there have been two censure motions introduced against Trump that have never been voted on, the first buried by Paul Ryan and the second buried by... Nancy Pelosi.

Is censure a viable option to use against Trump? A few congressmen have told me it is and it would pass. I think Trump would laugh it off, but that's better than nothing if they can't get the votes for impeaching him, which I don't think they can.

How Badly Will Trump's Stroll Through The Garden Of Racism Hurt GOP Candidates In 2018?

Yesterday we noted that Randy Bryce is calling on Paul Ryan to lead the House in censuring Trump for his pro-Nazi, pro-KKK remarks. Up top is the video and yesterday 3 of Congress' most serious progressives, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) announced a resolution of censure in the House against Señor Trumpanzee for his remarks at Trumpanzee Tower Tuesday re-asserting earlier comments that "both sides" were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia and excusing the behavior of participants in the 'Unite the Right' rally. Pramila, in announcing the resolution, noted that "not even a week has passed since the tragedy in Charlottesville. But on Tuesday, the president poured salt on the nation’s wounds by defending those who marched with white supremacists. In an unscripted press conference, we saw the real and unfiltered Donald Trump-- the logical endpoint for a man who has consistently trafficked in racism throughout his career. The American people expect their leaders to condemn white supremacy in unambiguous terms. President Trump not only failed at condemning white supremacists and neo-Nazis, he stood up for them-- for that he must be censured. The president’s conduct is un-American and it must stop." The resolution censuring and condemning Trump is set to be introduced on Friday, August 18, when the House is next in pro forma session. This is it:

RESOLUTION
Censuring and condemning President Donald Trump.

Whereas on August 11, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, a gathering of white supremacists, including neo-Nazis, Klu Klux Klan (KKK) members, and other alt-Right, white nationalist groups, marched through the streets with torches as part of a coordinated ‘Unite the Right’ rally spewing racism, anti-Semitism, bigotry and hatred;

Whereas on August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, a car driven by James Alex Fields, Jr. rammed into a crowd of counter-protestors, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 20 others;

Whereas President Donald Trump’s immediate public comments rebuked “many sides” for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and failed to specifically condemn the ‘Unite the Right’ rally or cite the white supremacist, neo-Nazi gathering as responsible for actions of domestic terrorism;

Whereas on August 15, 2017 President Donald Trump held a press conference at Trump Tower where he re-asserted that “both sides” were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attempted to create a moral equivalency between white supremacist, KKK, neo-Nazi groups and those counter-protesting the ‘Unite the Right’ rally;

Whereas President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with, and cultivated the influence of, senior advisors and spokespeople who have long histories of promoting white nationalist, alt-Right, racist and anti-Semitic principles and policies within the country;

Whereas President Donald Trump has provided tacit encouragement and little to no denunciation of white supremacist groups and individuals who promote their bigoted, nationalist ideology and policies;

Whereas President Donald Trump has failed to provide adequate condemnation and assure the American people of his resolve to opposing domestic terrorism: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1)   does hereby censure and condemn President Donald Trump for his inadequate response to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, his failure to immediately and specifically name and condemn the white supremacist groups responsible for actions of domestic terrorism, for re-asserting that “both sides” were to blame and excusing the violent behavior of participants in the ‘Unite the Right’ rally, and for employing people with ties to white supremacist movements in the White House, such as Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka; and

(2)   does hereby urge President Donald Trump to fire any and all White House advisors who have urged him to cater to the alt-Right movement in the United States.

I don't expect many-- if any-- Republicans to go along with this. I bet that not one musters the political courage to vote for it. In fact, it's hard it imagine Ryan and McCarthy even allowing it to come to the floor for a vote. Ryan's own statement, for the sake of concerned Wisconsin voters, who have been catching on to him as an enabler of Trump, was that "We must be clear. White supremacy is repulsive. This bigotry is counter to all this country stands for. There can be no moral ambiguity." And he unambiguously refused to name Trump or his regime.

Ryan appointed Steve Stivers (R-OH) to chair the NRCC whose task is to minimize the GOP's 2018 midterm losses. Trump's stroll into the court of public opinion holding hands with the Nazis and KKK probably won't help that effort and Stivers, clearly frustrated, blurted out "I don't understand what's so hard about this. White supremacists and Neo-Nazis are evil and shouldn't be defended." He forgot to mention Trump.

Texas Republican Will Hurd is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in Congress. Hillary won his south Texas 71% Hispanic district last year 49.8% to 46.4%. Unless the DCCC screws it up by nominating another Blue Dog who residents have already shown they do not want, Hurd will lose next year. He urged someone unnamed to "Apologize. Racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism, of any form is unacceptable. And the leader of the free world should be unambiguous about that." Well... "leader of the free world" might be a clue-- could be Angela Merkel-- but many-- too many-- Trump supporters don't have the bandwidth to put something that abstract together.

There's been a lot of chatter that Ohio Governor John Kasich is planning a primary challenge to Trump in 2020 if he hasn't been removed from office by then. He made a nice meme for his Twitter followers:

Little Marco (R-FL) is also eager to figure out how he can worm out from under his pledge to not run for president again until after serving a full 6 year Senate term. He's starting to get antsy about running against Trump too. He found himself in a tweet storm yesterday, which I can't get a screen shot of because he blocked me: "The organizers of events which inspired & led to #charlottesvilleterroristattack are 100% to blame for a number of reasons. They are adherents of an evil ideology which argues certain people are inferior because of race, ethnicity or nation of origin. … These groups today use SAME symbols & same arguments of #Nazi & #KKK, groups responsible for some of worst crimes against humanity ever. Mr. President, you can't allow #WhiteSupremacists to share only part of blame. They support idea which cost nation & world so much pain. The #WhiteSupremacy groups will see being assigned only 50% of blame as a win. We cannot allow this old evil to be resurrected." Little Marco has certainly gone further than most of the Republicans in the Senate.

But as Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Rachael Bade reported, the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Department of Justice’s handling of domestic terrorism, has no immediate plans to schedule an investigation into the domestic terrorism in Charlottesville, despite calls from Democrats that just such an investigation is essential. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has no interest in a Charlottesville hearing either. Maybe another one on Hillary's e-mails? "GOP sources suggested it might be too early to tell whether Congress should get involved. And some question what tangible action Congress could take to help the situation, aside from calling public attention to the issue through hearings."

Barbara Lee (D-CA) had some ideas on that Wednesday morning: "We cannot address the dangerous spread of white supremacy in America without first assessing its influence on our nation's highest office," she explained to her constituents in Oakland and Berkley. "Yesterday afternoon, Donald Trump defended the white supremacists who descended upon Charlottesville this past weekend while insisting there was blame 'on both sides.' As disturbing as his comments are, they should come as no surprise. As long as Trump has senior advisors with ties to white nationalist groups, he will never fully condemn racism and bigotry. That's why I wrote a letter to Trump yesterday calling for the removal of three prominent White House aides who are involved with the alt-right: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka. It's time to root out white nationalism at the White House... By placing these three men in his administration, Trump has elevated hate and discrimination to the highest levels of our government. He has signaled to white supremacists that they are no longer a fringe group-- they now have advocates advising the president with their agenda in mind. We have already seen a manifestation of that agenda, from the Muslim ban and a ban on transgender Americans in the military, to raids on immigrant communities and attempts to perpetuate the era of mass incarceration and roll back voting rights. These policies are a result of the far-right extremist ideology held by Trump's top advisors."

John Harwood summed up the predicament the country finds itself in with an essay he penned for CNBC, Trump has a very clear attitude about morality: He doesn't believe in it. "Trump," he wrote, "combines indifference to conventional notions of morality or propriety with disbelief that others would be motivated by them" and noted that the more Trumpanzee "reveals his character, the more he isolates himself from the American mainstream." He was contemptuous of the business leaders who stormed for the exits of his corporate advisory committees and wound up shutting down both committees when it was clear no one would be left except for an embarrassed handful of Nazi and KKK sympathizers.

As president, Trump has emphasized power over morality. Seeking passage of health-care legislation-- which violated his explicit campaign promises-- Trump chided a reluctant GOP senator with a veiled threat.

...When Pope Francis called emphasizing walls over bridge-building "not Christian," Trump ascribed it to political manipulation. The pope, he said, was a "pawn" of Mexico.

Trump touted duplicity in business as a leadership credential, boasting that he once took advantage of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in a real estate deal. "I screwed him," he said. "That's what we should be doing."

Though Trump cast that talent as an asset for the nation, a Fortune magazine review of his business career found this first principle: "He always comes first."

The president's fellow Republicans learned that to their chagrin in 2016, and reached common conclusions about his character.

"A con man," said. Sen. Marco Rubio. "Utterly amoral," said Sen. Ted Cruz.

"Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark," declared Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee. "He's playing the American people for suckers."

Increasing numbers of Americans have reached that conclusion. In a Quinnipiac University poll this month, 62 percent called the president not honest, up from 52 percent last November.

Moreover, 63 percent said Trump does not share their values. That undercuts his ability to lead average Americans, lawmakers, business executives or foreign leaders toward common goals.

"In a president, character is everything," Republican commentator Peggy Noonan has written. "You can't buy courage and decency. You can't rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him."

Paul Ryan too. I hope CNN will pay attention to NARAL's message above. No one wants a CNN infomercial from Paul Ryan. Everyone wants a real, honest-to-goodness debate between him and Randy Bryce. Ryan has ducked accountability long enough and hidden behind the Speakers chair. CNN shouldn't be an enabler. He may not be as crude and senile as Trump, but he's the same kind of putrid, unspeakable garbage that needs to be driven out of this country's political sphere-- and soon. And that starts by exposing him as an empty suit, something Randy Bryce should get an opportunity to do on national television. It's up to CNN.

White Power

Here's A Bizarre Mix Of Hyper-Partisan Gun Nonsense From Alabama, Mississippi And The Part-Time Governor Of New Jersey

Outside of Mississippi, not many people know who GOP backbencher Steven Palazzo is. He beat the odious Blue Dog Gene Taylor in southeast Mississippi's deep red district (R+21) and then faded away, except for one ugly incident. His district-- which includes Biloxi, Pascagoula and Gulfport, his hometown-- was devastated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Over 200 people died and dozens are still listed as missing. Hancock, Harrison and Jackson counties looked like war zones and the economic consequences are still barely calculable, tens of billions of dollars just in Palazzo's district. And the federal government stepped up with billions in recovery aid. That's the way it should be. People in New York and California and Illinois pitched in through the federal government to help our brothers and sisters in Mississippi. A year after Palazzo took office Hurricane Sandy hit. It caused over $70 billion in damage and over 70 deaths. New York and New Jersey were hit particularly hard. Palazzo was one of the small handful of radical right hateful confederates to tell the northerns to go screw off. He voted against aid for Sandy victims.

Yesterday Palazzo was back in the news-- this time offering a resolution to censure president Obama for his executive order on guns. Palazzo, who has taken $12,051 from gun groups in his short time in Congress and boasts an "A" from the NRA. "His actions this week to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is just the latest, if not most egregious, violation of the separation of powers found in the United States Constitution." Perhaps Palazzo never read the Second Amendment but there's nothing President Obama ordered that has anything to do with the Second Amendment. Although Congress attempted to censure Nixon and Clinton, I'm pretty sure the only president ever censured was Andrew Jackson.

Above is a piece of an interview Chris Hayes did with a somewhat more extremist colleague of Palazzo's, Alabama's Mo Brooks who works very hard trying to sound like a moron but is no dummy. A crackpot? Yes, but he graduated from Duke in 3 years with a double major and later earned a law degree from the University of Alabama. Sure, Mo's a hate-filled racist throw-back and a Know Nothing xenophobe and he's always saying nutty things-- like Obama is waging a war on whites-- but he's always been an articulate defender of the Second Amendment. The NRA graded him a 93% and the more extremist Gun Owners of America gave him a 100% rating. Conversely, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence named him an NRA lap dog and gave him a ZERO rating. He speaks with some authority about Second Amendment issues. And, while Palazzo worked as a bookkeeper or accountant, Brooks is an actual attorney... with a degree from an accredited law school.

Assuming Hayes didn't get him high in the MSNBC green room before the interview, he made some news Wednesday night when he responded to Hayes' simple question about whether or not he'd favor allowing guns in his work place (which happens to be the U.S. House of Represenatives). Now, recall, that when former Congressman and Gambino crime family thug Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm-- now serving prison time-- proposed the congressmembers be allowed to pack heat on the House floor, John Boehner instructed his staff to make sure he was never left alone with Grimm again under any circumstances. Early in 2011, Grimm told a district newspaper that if congressmen "feel comfortable with that responsibility, then I support them. It could put you in a situation where you can protect yourself... If somebody pulls out a knife to attack you and you draw a gun, they’re likely going to drop it. But you have to be prepared to kill; it’s not for everyone."

It was definitely for him though. He loved playing Mr. Macho man and waving his gun around in crowded places screaming and threatening people. What a guy! What a Republicano! Mo Brooks, who has a concealed carry permit, has a different attitude though. Hayes asked him "Should citizens and Members of Congress be allowed to carry [guns] inside the U.S. Capitol?" Mo, said no. "I do not want citizens coming onto Capitol grounds inside the United States Capitol, into the gallery of the United States Capitol with guns, given the risks that are associated with that..." Watch for yourself up top.

Now Brooks isn't-- and likely never will-- run for president, at least not of this country. But, Chris Christie is. With a campaign weeks away from disintegrating-- the latest CBS poll of Iowa Republicans shows him tied for 9th place with 1% and that same CBS poll has him behind Trumpf (32%), Cruz (14%) and Rubio (13%) for 4th place in New Hampshire, the basket all his eggs are in. If he loses there in a month, it's back to New Jersey, where his approval rating is an astounding 31%. One of the reasons New Jersey independents and even some confused Democrats liked him is because he seemed independent enough to buck the GOP and back an assault weapons ban in 1995, going so far as to point out that the Republicans opposing the ban were "dangerous," "crazy" and "radical." He campaigned against a concealed carry law in 2009. Now that he's trying to win votes in a GOP national primary, he wants to be included in that list of the dangerous, crazy and radical. Christie was on Fox with Sean Hannity Wednesday to say he's changed his mind, claiming he was just a child-- a 460 pound, 32 year old child.

Obama didn't propose anything remotely confiscatory. The right-wing Chicago Tribune noted this week that Obama was unable to get Congress to pass background checks-- despite 91% approval from the public.

If you can't get Congress to change the laws, you can do nothing-- or you can look for how to apply those laws in ways that are more sensible but within the letter and spirit of their text. Obama has elected to do the latter.

...Federal law requires a dealer's license for anyone "who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." The idea behind that language was to exempt individuals who make only occasional sales, as many ordinary gun owners do.

But some people use the exclusion to evade the clear intent of the law. A study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that "high-volume sellers posted 29 percent of the gun ads listed by private sellers." On one popular online site, it found, 1 out of every 30 potential purchasers had criminal records.

...The change would fall short of the universal requirement Obama urged Congress to enact, but it would expand the number of sales triggering background checks, creating a new hurdle for felons seeking guns. It would also curb a clear abuse of the law by unscrupulous or careless sellers.

Republican presidential candidates accuse the president of overstepping his legal authority. "This is going to be another illegal executive action, which I'm sure will be rejected by the courts," said Chris Christie. Jeb Bush said Obama would be using "executive powers that he doesn't have."

But the charge doesn't stick. This step appears to be a reasonable adjustment of regulations in order to fulfill the purpose of an existing statute. In November, a group of 23 law professors signed a letter saying, "Executive action to ensure robust enforcement of the law-- including issuing clarifying guidance and directing comprehensive enforcement of federal gun laws-- is entirely compatible with the will of Congress and the president's constitutional authority."

It's not a cure-all-- just a rational attempt to make it harder for people who are barred from owning guns to buy guns. And it's long overdue.

But that isn't how hyper-partisan sociopaths like Steve Palazzo see it. He and his confederates just want to tear the nation apart and could care less how many families are devastated in the process. The NRA was too scared to go on prime time TV with the president for a discussion about his actions. Instead they're busy raising money by lying to the fools who take them seriously that Obama is grabbing their guns. Sick people, with a lot of blood on their hands-- and in Paul Ryan's case, a lot of blood money in his bank account. Ryan has taken more money from the NRA and other gun groups than anyone else currently in the House of Representatives.

You probably already read President Obama's OpEd in last night's NY Times. There was a paragraph that especially piqued my interest:

Even as I continue to take every action possible as president, I will also take every action I can as a citizen. I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform. And if the 90 percent of Americans who do support common-sense gun reforms join me, we will elect the leadership we deserve.

President Obama has raised an awful lot of money for the DCCC, which continues spending it to recruit and elect NRA-loving candidates. Last cycle, for example, Minnesota Blue Dog Collin Peterson would have been a goner for sure had not his buddy Steve Israel wasted $4,000,000 in DCCC money to reelect someone who votes with the GOP on nearly everything-- this week Peterson was the only Democrat to vote to repeal Obamacare and to defund Planned Parenthood-- and is a 100% NRA fanatic and opposes exactly what President Obama is arguing for. Now that Israel is heading towards the trash heap of history, will the DCCC finally stop wasting money on Peterson and others like him, incumbents who play footsie with the NRA like Henry Cuellar, and recruits who still back the NRA or who have suddenly "converted" after years of NRA fealty, like Darren Soto in Florida, John Oceguera in Nevada and Ted "NRA A+" Strickland, who wants to retire as a U.S. Senator from Ohio. Strickland's opponent is Cincinnati City Councilman PG Sittenfeld, who has been hammering both Strickland and the incumbent Republican, Rob Portman, another NRA shill, about the same themes Obama is talking about. If President Obama wants to send a message he's serious about this stuff, he can drop a couple of grand into P.G.'s Blue America account. I'll let you know if he does.

WILL CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS CENSURE DIANNE FEINSTEIN?

There is no way to recall a senator. They're in for 6 years unless they start get caught committing criminal acts. Feinstein has successfully dodged accountability for her pattern of criminality-- mostly involving enriching herself through her husband's shady businesses and war profiteering. (She still is.) As Glenn Greenwald pointed out so eloquently in Salon on Saturday, "Among California Democrats, a grand total of 9% approve of Feinstein's beloved President; 90% disapprove. Obviously, nothing could be less relevant to Feinstein than the views of her constituents, but still, the disparity between what they believe and what she is doing is just striking, even for the Beltway." Even with Republicans in the mix, Bush's job approval rating in California is only 28%. And yet Feinstein has been the lynch pin of one policy success after another in his venal, toxic agenda.

Isn't it time someone start the process of holding Feinstein accountable to voters for her egregious misbehavior? A subtext of the dinner I went to Saturday night was an airing of grievances among progressives about Feinstein's pronounced reactionary bent. Our gentle host, Rick Jacobs, also happens to be the head of the Courage Campaign. And the Courage Campaign is launching a grassroots move today to censure California's senior senator.

The first shot was fired this morning by Max Follmer over at the Huffington Post, breaking the news that a coalition of progressive Democrats will ask the California Democratic Party to censure Feinstein at its executive board meeting this weekend.

The move comes as Feinstein again finds herself under fire for saying Thursday that she now supports granting legal immunity to telecom companies that shared customer email and phone messages with the federal government as part of the warrantless surveillance program.

"Dianne Feinstein does not listen to the people of California," said Rick Jacobs, president of the Courage Campaign, a progressive organization in California. "She supports George Bush's agenda time after time."

...East Bay For Democracy, a chartered Democratic Club outside San Francisco, will introduce the censure motion on Saturday at the state party's executive board meeting in Anaheim. The Governing Board of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party and the Progressive Democrats of America are also backing the measure.

In addition to her move to back Mukasey, critics have lashed out at her decision last month to vote to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Southwick's
opponents charged that his record on the bench in Mississippi demonstrated that he was both racist and homophobic. The Congressional Black Caucus, Human Rights Campaign and People for the American Way opposed his nomination.

The censure resolution faces an uphill battle. In order to be considered by the full executive board, it must first make it through the party's resolutions committee, which must approve the text unanimously.

The text of the resolution is below:

Whereas Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to support the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as United States Attorney General, thereby elevating to the highest position in law enforcement a man who refused to renounce the right of the President to resort to torture and who refused to recognize waterboarding as a form of torture, and by this action Senator Feinstein failed to oppose President Bush and failed to stand for the ideals of the Democratic Party, which abhors torture and stands firmly against its use by the United States at all times and places; and

Whereas Senator Feinstein voted to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit despite his clear record of racism and gender discrimination, thus failing to stand firmly with the Democratic Party, which supports gender equality and opposes racism in any of its manifestations; and

Whereas these examples are far from the only instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has failed to support the policies and principles of our party

Therefore be it resolved that the California Democratic Party expresses its disappointment at, and censure of, Senator Feinstein for ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials.

Please go sign the Courage Campaign censure petition and read more about the case Californian's have against the West Coast version of Joe Lieberman.