An always-shrewd reader writes:
"Here’s a question: this weekend Fox’s Beltway Boys helpfully explained how the Dems need this to be a "referendum election," and that the GOP is determined to make it a "choice election." OK, so far so good.
So how does the censure talk cut? If you happened to see Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday today, he had a contrary view on this. He seemed to think that all the censure talk ultimately hurts the GOP because, over time, it starts to seem less radical. He should know: in 1998 he played a key role in moving the Lewinsky story from Drudge to ABC’s This Week when he forced it on the air during a now infamous round-table appearance.
Once it became OK to talk about, well, it started to seem less radical, less fringe-like. It became just another mainstream question. Everyone had to declare either for or against, and then defend their position.
Now, censure will never happen because it lacks the votes. We all know that. As an actual outcome it is a nonstarter.
Still, let’s take a hypothetical congressional election: two candidates get asked in a town-hall meeting about censure. Even if both the Republican and the Democratic candidate declare that they are not in favor of censure, the Republican is still obliged to frame his answer as at least a partial defense of the President, while the Democrat can sound moderate by declining to endorse censure while still offering a strong critique of Bush. That sounds a lot like "referendum election" to me.
My first reaction to Feingold was that it was bad politics. But now I’m not so sure. Kristol may be on to something.."
My paper led Sunday morning with an impeachment story by Sarah Baxter. Maybe the meme has legs; and I should reconsider, as my reader has, the wisdom of Feingold’s move.
The Dish 