The Pariah of the Senate

When you kow-tow to the executive branch, the Senate kow-tows with you; when you try to uphold the law, you try alone.

Well, almost alone. Aside from Tom Harkin of Iowa, Russ Feingold's move to censure President Bush for his domestic spying program has drawn no support from fellow Dems.

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

Theoretically, however, Feingold is not alone:

Many of Feingold's Democratic colleagues agree that Bush abused his authority with the NSA spying program. And they know liberal Democratic activists are eager to see Bush censured, or worse. But they also know Feingold's maneuver could cost them seats in GOP states.

Republicans, meanwhile, are calling Feingold all manner of names and reveling in the lack of support for his call:

Republicans were grateful for the gift. The office of Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) put a new "daily feature" on its Web site monitoring the censure resolution: "Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0."

Paul Soglin has pointed out Senator Arlen Specter's pansy attitude towards the matter. First Specter expressed his belief that the wiretapping violated the law but now he's excusing it because he believes that Bush acted in good faith. Where are all the conservatives who profess strict constructionism now? Why are they not lecturing Bush on the Rule of Law? Have they gone all post-modern now and decided their ideology is merely a contingency? Personally, I would think that violating the letter of the Constitution would be one of those "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists" kind of moments.