Censure and the Times.

On March 17, The New York Times ran one of its most ridiculous editorials in recent memory. Entitled "Time for Facts, Not Resolutions," it scolded Senator Russ Feingold for having the temerity to call for censuring Bush. Feingold, whose speech denouncing Bush's NSA lawlessness we ran last month, at least stepped up to the plate, which the other craven Democrats didn't do, except Senators Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer, who endorsed his idea.

But the Times, for its own peculiar reasons, found fault with Feingold.

"The censure proposal is a bad idea," said the Times. "Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now." They don't? In its first paragraph, the Times acknowledged the "lawlessness" of the Bush Administration. But instead of censure, it urged investigation into Bush's "misdeeds and failings."

I'm all for getting to the bottom of Bush's malfeasance, but how much investigation do you need when the President himself has acknowledged that he's been bypassing the FISA court and spying on Americans without a warrant?

"Talk about censure will only distract the public from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks," the Times said. But our elected officials would certainly be earning their paychecks by upholding the Constitution and calling the President to account.

I'd prefer the constitutional remedy of impeachment. And to Feingold's credit, he has said that Bush's flouting of the FISA act is "right in the strike zone of what the Founding Fathers thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors." For understandable reasons, Feingold has chosen the easier route of censure. And remember, twenty-nine Democratic Senators are on record supporting censure of the President: Bill Clinton, that is. If Clinton warranted censure for lying about a private affair, surely Bush's crimes against the Constitution warrant at least the same.

But the Times says the Republicans and the rightwing are using Feingold's effort to make Bush's critics appear unpatriotic and "to change the subject to fairy tales about Democratic leaders trying to impeach Mr. Bush." The editorial bemoaned how "effective" this rightwing strategy was.

I don't believe impeachment is a fairy tale. And I certainly don't believe that Democrats should shy away from it because they're afraid the Republicans will criticize them.

As Lewis Lapham says in Ruth Conniff's wonderful interview with the former Harper's editor this month, "It is this kind of pussyfooting on the part of the Democratic Party that has led us into this morass."

I've been talking up impeachment in unlikely places. In the last month or so, I've been to Omaha, Nebraska, one of the reddest of the red states, and ninety-five people packed into the room that Bruce Johansen had kindly reserved. And I've been to Bradenton, Florida, the home district of Katherine Harris. Sixty-five people came out on a Thursday evening to the funky Fogartyville Cafe to hear me give my rap.

Next, I'll be in Mill Valley, California, on May 5 for another impeachment townhall event. It's at the Throckmorton Theatre, starting at 8:00 p.m. Will Durst will be on stage with me, and Andrea Lewis, one of our contributing writers, will be the emcee. So if you're going to be in the San Francisco area that evening, I'd love to see you. And if you've got friends there, please spread the word. Let's show The New York Times this is no fairy tale.