Fanning the political flames

SCORCHED EARTH tactics usually don't leave winners. They leave destroyers and destroyed.

But some Democrats are playing with fire.

Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, is calling for the censure of President Bush, specifically concerning Bush's wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant.

Is Feingold's resolution motivated by pure political self-interest? He is a probable Democratic presidential candidate trying to stake his claim to the political left. Or is it principle? Feingold is the only US senator who opposed the original Patriot Act, and he voted against authorizing war with Iraq.

Either way, it creates a dilemma for Democrats.

Whipping up white-hot partisan frenzy wins adoration from lefty bloggers. But by the tenets of conventional political wisdom, it is a risky general election strategy. It also ignores this political reality: the president will never again be on an election ballot. Republicans in Congress will, as will a crop of Republican presidential candidates whose last name is not Bush. Shouldn't they, not Bush, be the Democrats' focus? Those in Congress can be held accountable in 2006 and 2008. At this point, Bush answers to the history books, not to voters on Election Day.

Current polls and surveys show people think as little of Bush as they do of Congress. Democrats in Congress should be thinking of ways to change that political reality. They need to increase their own favorability ratings at the expense of the opposition. Handing the opposition a weapon to use against Democrats is counterproductive, to say the least. But censure, and even impeachment, are seductive.

At this point, Democrats in Congress appear to understand the danger of pouring kerosene on the politics of Iraq and national security. Democrats thinking about running for president are another story.

In the Senate, Feingold has been on his own.

In the House, 29 of 201 Democrats have signed on to a resolution from Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, that demands a special committee to investigate the Bush administration's ''manipulation of prewar intelligence," among other things, and advise whether there are ''grounds for possible impeachment."

Only three of 10 US House members from Massachusetts signed on to it. They are Michael E. Capuano of Somerville, John. F. Tierney of Salem, and John W. Olver of Amherst.

Representative James P. McGovern of Worcester called the resolution ''tempting," but concluded that it distracts from the party's goals of winning House and Senate races in the fall. Representative Barney Frank says, ''This is an understandable emotional response from people who are very angry. But why do we want to energize George Bush's people?"

Democrats with presidential aspirations are happy to energize the right, because that also energizes the left. It also helps them tap into money, headlines, and rabid supporters. ''It's very important for them to know we'll fight for their beliefs," John Edwards, the former US senator who was John Kerry's running mate, told the Globe.

Important to whom? It is important to candidates like Kerry and Edwards, because bowing to the left helps them in Democratic primary circles -- just as bowing to the right helps Mitt Romney gain credibility with GOP activists. It amounts to the short-term, feel-good politics of immediate self-interest. Does it help Democrats win in 2006? Will it win back the White House in 2008? No one knows. In the meantime, how long can Democrats such as Senator Hillary Clinton of New York resist the pressure?

A political survey done by American Research Group is helping the left make its case. It is based on 1,100 telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide from March 13-15. Of those surveyed, 46 percent said they favored censuring Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans without obtaining court orders; 44 percent opposed and 10 percent were undecided. On impeachment, 42 percent favored a vote to impeach; 29 percent opposed and 9 percent were undecided.

The survey is particularly interesting when responses from independents are analyzed. On the censure question, 42 percent said they favored it; 47 percent opposed. On the impeachment question, 47percent favored it; 40 percent opposed.

It all adds fuel to the flames swirling around the White House. There is danger for the GOP, but also for Democrats: Will those flames consume those who fan them, too?

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.