At the height of Nixon's Watergate scandal in 1974, U.S. Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn., voiced the taboo question: What did the president know and when did he know it? Of the multiple parallels between Bush's NSA scandal and Nixon's Watergate affair, brave and honest leadership from Congress, as demonstrated by Baker, does not make the list. The one exception is, of course, is Wisc. Senator Russ Feingold. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing March 31 on Feingold's call to censure the president for authorizing a program of eavesdropping without warrants. At the hearing, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean testified that a call to censure Nixon some 33 years ago would have been a godsend.\ Dean advised senators to assert authority to curb the president's abuse of power.
""We have entered a period where a president is pushing the envelope [and] is actually defying the Congress,"" Dean said at the hearing. Feingold's second witness, former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, warned against the president's runaway claims of constitutional authority. In response, Republicans resumed status quo scorn of Feingold, while Democrats, though ideologically sympathetic to Feingold, defected to the right.
The lack of strong support for censure among Democrats lies partly in the balance, or lack thereof, in Congressional power. Unlike the Democratic Congress in 1972, Republicans control both houses in 2006, insulating the president from censure, much less impeachment. The majority mandate that allowed Democrats to sweep Nixon out of office by 1974 now lies in the hands of Republicans.
In order for the Nixon-Bush comparison to come full circle and result in impeachment, Democrats should focus on gaining a majority in at least one House. To accomplish this, Democrats up for re-election in 2006 should remain moderate on the censure proposal but avoid disparaging Feingold, whose political savvy they underestimate.
As a potential 2008 presidential candidate, experts equate Feingold's censure proposal with political suicide for his party and bid for the White House. Party leaders fear that moderate swing voters will view Feingold's censure proposal as another alienating swing to the left.
However, if the majority of Democrats pander to swing voters (which they inevitably will) and regain power (fingers crossed), party ideology as a whole will remain moderate. In this respect, the decision to call for censure indicates Feingold's political savoir-faire.
The latest Pew Institute report stated that ""President Bush's approval rating has hit a new low [33 percent] and his image for honesty and effectiveness has been damaged."" The report went on to explain that by a 10 percent margin, the public preferred the way Congressional Democrats handled the Dubai ports issue, as compared to Republicans. The public's disillusionment with the GOP and president will provide Democrats with the fuel to reclaim the majority in Congress and in turn, grant them the mandate to finally pursue censure.
For Feingold, this sequence of events may prove the key to the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. As the lame duck falls from favor, voters may seek to nominate the man who demanded honesty at an unpopular time—Russ Feingold.
The censure hearing last Friday drew on distinct Watergate-NSA similarities. Both scandals involved unpopular wars, unconstitutional assertions of power, document leaks, senior administration scandals and aggressive denials. Most importantly, both scandals required one man to ask the difficult questions.
According to ABC historical data, Nixon resigned with a public approval of 24 percent. Compare that to Bush's plummeting 33 percent and the likelihood of a Feingold-led Democratic resurgence becomes evermore clear. The momentum that swept Nixon out of office relied on his opposition in Congress and the one man who dared to question Nixon's abuse of power, and so the fate of Bush lies in the revival of Democrats under the leadership of Feingold.
Jill Klosterman is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science. We value your feedback. Please send comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.\
