Censure Durbin?

That's what Newt Gingrich is asking the other 99 Senators.

By his statements equating American treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay with the behavior of the evil regimes of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Senator Richard Durbin has dishonored the United States and the entire U.S. Senate. Only by a vote to censure Senator Durbin for his conduct can the U.S. Senate restore its dignity and defend American honor.

Recall that during the impeachment trial, one of the alternatives was censuring President Clinton. It never went anywhere.

I can see why. It's nothing more than saying "naughty naughty, now go and make laws again."

Less severe than expulsion, a censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) does not remove a senator from office. It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate. In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members.

Interestingly, the father of a current sitting US Senator was the last Senator to be censured.

Senator Thomas Dodd a Democrat from Connecticut.

Despite any perceived "psychological effect" that the quoted link might describe, in today's polarized political climate it's not going to do much more than say, "Look! They don't like what he said... CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP!"

Blah blah blah, the same tired liberal tripe.

Censure is not the answer. Neither is resignation.

He's going to run again in 2008. By then it'll all have blown over and forgotten. But that's politics.

Politics Posted by AlexC at June 19, 2005 9:00 PM