Feingold deserves serious consideration for the Presidency.

I was for Clark in '04 and plan to be with him in '08, but Feingold has demonstrated the power of taking strong ethical stands even though "political experts" would characterize them as suicidal. From his limitations on campaign finances, through his early call for a timetable to pull out of Iraq, to his leadership against the Patriot Act, Russ has shown moral courage. I also think he has figured out where the country is heading.
W's speech today demonstrates that he will not change course even when exposed as a law breaker. Now is not the time for temporizers and poll watchers. Now is the time for clarity of thought and devotion to American ideals. So far Feingold has shown himself capable of both. I salute him.

headed for the low teens in the polls, meanwhile, the average temp in many states is well above that.

Even my until--recently-Republican Dad likes him! He's in Wisconsin and likes how Feingold is willing to stand up to the Neocons. I would vote for him.

Wonder what the DLC will do to kill his candidacy.

My top three pics for 2008 are (in no particular order): Kerry, Feingold and Warner. I hope he runs. I <3 Russ!

but I still think he has a bit of baggage that would make it tough for him in the general election. Every candidate is going to have some baggage I guess, so we'll have to wait and see.

This is an honest question. I'm not that familiar with the guy, but so far, he seems very good.

That just means the extreme religious right wing won't vote for him. We love him in WI.

Welcome to DU

The extreme religious rightwing would oppose Jesus Christ for being too liberal. Who cares what they think!

Supposedly.

who volunteered in WI last year and she did say the people seemed very fond of him..

to have a bachelor in the White House again. Only one other person has been president and a bachelor and that was James Buchanan. I think his personal life should be nobody's business. It would be interesting to see what it would be like without a first lady.

Who cares what they think? They are a lost demographic.

Unless there are allegations of womanizing involved.

is currently on his third marriage, having left both his first and his second wives (the first one served with divorce papers while in the hospital for cancer surgery-there's that conservative compassion again!) for the subsequent wife. Then there's Rush Limbaugh and Mr. Ryan and.........oh, wait, those are repubs, I forgot that they don't count!

I'm age appropriate for him - and located in Minnesota - I'm pratcially the girl next door!

Reagan was divorced when he married the former Nancy Davis.

Perhaps skipo is referring to Russ's vote to confirm Roberts to SCOTUS, but this ignores two facts about Russ: he is a maverick and he opposes Alito's nomination.

Let's say that Russ has baggage the size of a small tote bag. Others, like Hillary, have enough baggage to sink the Titanic.

As far as his divorces, who cares? Look at the way the rw loves Rudolph Guiloni. He's been divorced. This isn't a reason to prevent anybody from being elected president, as we can tell by the con's slavish adoration on Reagan. The repukes who aren't divorced are cheating, and we've seen an abundance of evidence in that regard. Newt Gingrich, when his wife was hospitalized for cancer? Spare me...divorce isn't a problem, nor should it be.

I'm not saying that they won't try to make it a problem, but we don't have to let them. All we have to do is point to St. Ronnie, and the other republicans who have been divorced and who have remarried, or stayed single, for that matter. We have to stop being so timid. Screw them.

:toast:

Feingold's MY Choice! :applause:


I'm going to do everything I can to get him some notice here in northern california... HRC thinks she owns this region, because of big donor "Silicon Valley" corporations back both the neo cons and the neo libs. :puke:

We'll see what can be done to set a fire underneath the feet of grassroots in support of Russ Feingold instead.


:kick:

It is sickening how the MSM and the "party insiders" are telling us that Hillary is inevitable. The only thing inevitable about Hillary is our collective heartburns if she is handed the nomination.

I am prepared to voted for a Cheesehead for President!

Jewish, twice divorced and unmarried. Many feel that senators have more of an uphill battle than governors, since they have voting records that are easier to distort. "He voted to raise taxes 5432 times," "He voted against body armor for our troops" and all that crap. A senator hasn't been elected in 40 years or so, *why* is up for debate.

Personally, I hope our next candidate is from a flippable red state. I by no means advocate a crappy candidate just because of the state he is from, but any candidate that would undeniably flip their red homestate gets a bonus point. The fact that Feingold is from WI certainly isn't "baggage" but it would be better, in my opinion, if he was from Ohio or something.

And just so you know, I don't give two craps about anyone's marital history or religion, but it will effect many voters in the general election. Because of that, I think it is worth considering. And it is sad to think a Jewish person, a black person or a woman, would have an uphill battle in the general election, but I do think that is our current state of affairs. America isn't as progressive as I'd like.

Let me just say this:

If the American Population as a whole (a part from the religious *extremists*) won't be looking for someone who can demonstrate a strong, principled record of fighting for clean, accountable and transparent government, someone who is widely known to be deeply concerned about the state of our Constitution, our Civil Liberties, our Treasury and all the other issues that are associated with a progressive platform, then I don't think Feingold's marital status (single/divorced or married) will mean anything at all, because it will essentially demonstrate (to me) that Americans as a whole are even more apathetic to the very real crises we are facing on every issue.

Meaning the kind of road blocks we'll be facing will still not be about Feingold's marital status.

In other words, if Americans don't "get it" by the time a new congress is "elected" - then we as a party and a country, will be in deeper shit than we've been in these past five to ten years.

And all the kings horses, and all the kings men, will not be able to put our humpty dumpty together again, and the "baggage" of Feingold's Single (marital) Status will be the least of our concerns.

As everyone knows, a significant change of guard in Congress in 2006 is imperative in order to move forward (as we must) with investigations and impeachment proceedings (of both Bush and Cheney), followed with criminal prosecutions and convictions (for high crimes and misdemeanors).

If none of this occurs in 2007 - then there won't be much to hang on to, in terms of hope for "taking back our country" , imo.

As far as Feingold's 'Jewish thing' goes, Feingold is a bona-fide Progressive/Social Libertarian, he ain't no Neo Liberal from what i can tell, and i would be stunned to learn if he hung with the same crowd as HRC, if you get my drift. However, I'm sure the researchers will be out in full force as soon as his name hits the radar screen as a presidential contender. ;)

I'm just sayin...

It was Feingold that threatened to filibuster extending PATRIOT if its most onerous provisions, the ones voted on by the House, were allowed to remain. Feingold put a coalition together that defeated Frist's attempts for closure. Feingold also attacked Bush's claims today that he had inherent powers to order spying on Americans.

Here is today's transcript:

CNN LIVE SATURDAY

Aired December 17, 2005 - 12:00 ET

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: He apparently feels, even if he doesn't have authority from the Congress, that he can go ahead and do all this stuff anyway under some inherent power. So, what that really mean if you take his argument all the way is he doesn't even need the USA Patriot Act because he thinks he has some kind of inherent authority to make up the law himself. And I'll tell you something, this president, and no other president, is above the law. And that's exactly what he was just telling us he was.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/17/cst.01.html

CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS

Aired December 17, 2005 - 10:00 ET

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: Well, it's a sad day when the president of the United States is deciding to play politics with our national security. He's trying to justify not being reasonable about the Patriot Act on the ground that somehow this thing's going to expire unless we do it exactly his way. That's not the case and that's not the way any of us feel.

And then he even goes further, as you pointed out, by saying that he authorized these wiretaps even though there was no specific law allowing it. He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this and I'll tell you something, that's just absurd.

There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps. You know, if he needs a wiretap the authority is already there in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. They can ask for a warrant to do that and you know what? Even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of the 72 hours.

So the president is basically saying he runs the war on terror and the Congress and the representatives of the American people don't have to pass laws to allow it. You know what? That's not our system of government. We have a president, not a king, and that's the way he's talking.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/17/smn.03.html

that he was the only senator who opposed it in the first place. That a lone gets my vote.

Democrats have to fight hard to win there. They've won it every time since 1988, but not without a fight, and a lot of money and campaaign visits. Feingold would not have that problem.

Sorry Hillary, I will vote for you, if you are the choice, but your attempt to appeal to the right, has made you quite distasteful to me.

America will never vote for an extremist leftist who would rather expose the country to danger by refusing to allow the government the power to spy on its own citizens for their own protection than take a stand and fight against terrorism and for freedom. :sarcasm:

You are right - he is way too far left. He actually flys coach. (your sarcasm duly noted)

They hate Russ because he opposes the war they love so much.

that other forum where the DLC/NDP Right Wingers live.

too bad the American NDP is on the opposite political spectrum of the Canadian NDP - the difference is almost night and day.

The U.S. could use a Jack Layton.

:yoiks::hide::blush::dilemma::hug:

I use sarcasm too much, and I don't like adding the tag.

My apologies for any confusion or what not I might have created. :hi:

Elections in a month, right? :h:

The election is Jan. 23.

They lost quite a few close races last time, so hopefully that can be turned around. The polls have the NDP at 20-percentish, but it's pretty hard to project how that'll translate into seats won or lost. I'm pretty optimistic that we can get a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power, although it's far from a sure thing.

on this - except someone said here (was that you?) that the Liberal party is steeped in wide spread corruption, and the NDP is frustrated with the Liberal party refusing to advance the progressive agenda.. (?)

put it in these sound bites, that makes sense.. but i sure the hell hope the neo conservatives won't gain power as a result of this.

i guess when the house has to be cleaned, you run these kinds of risks, but it needed to be done. (?)

Supporting a no-confidence motion and forming a coalition are two radically different things. The NDP wanted assurances from the Liberal Party that they'd not allow any more privatization of health care. The Liberals wouldn't do this, so the NDP pulled the plug.

During campaigns, the Liberals talk a pretty good game, but once they've been handed power they are awfully sluggish in following through with their campaign promises. In the last government the NDP succeeded in getting the Liberals to ditch planned corporate tax cuts and replace them with spending on affordable housing, transit, etc.

The Cons stand very little chance of getting any power. Best case scenario for them is that they win a plurality, but not majority, of seats and form a minority government. Since the 3 other parties are to its left, the Conservative Party would have its hands tied for the most part, and would be lucky to last a year.

What do you about the history of the formation of the Canadian NDP? When it did this get formed - i listened to an NDP official (on our C-Span during the no-confidence vote)and it seemed really very much a populist progressive party, was my impression when discussing these issues like the healthcare matter.

because I'm a Murkin who's only lived here 4 years.

Check out the Wikipedia entry on 'em: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party

I'm still baffled as to why they still call themselves the New Democratic Party, when it's over 40 years old. :shrug:

So you're a compadre transplant... :hi:

the NPD is over 40 years old?

wow.... :wtf:

Progressive Social Libertarians (which Feingold strikes me as) have some common cause with Conservative Libertarians.

Lots of differences true.

But on the basic issue of our Constitution and Civil Liberties - which we do have common cause with Cons. Libs, Feingold's record on that level is outstanding, shining above and beyond all others.

Those two things are considered to be THE crises like no other time in our history, or at least in memory to most people concerned about these matters.

All Americans should be deeply concerned, and Russ Feingold is skilled in communicating exactly what is at issue here, very effectiely I think.

That's going to to be a significant difference between him and any other candidate, imo.

A difference with a huge distinction! ;)

I got a decent amount of Republican respondents saying "Bush/Feingold" when asked who they would vote for.

But then, Feingold's opponent this time was a dweeb. Even several Republicans knew that much.

No hesitation. Kucinich, Conyers, Lee, Jackson Dean. Who am I forgetting? All of these people were always speaking the truth without political calculations. Only Wellstone would deserve it more. Russ all the way! If I had money it would be his.

I'll take Hillary any day over this grandstanding lightweight.

Until then I think the candidate with real substance is Feingold. Its time for a real uniter with integrity, commonsense and a solid backbone. I'm campaigning for Feingold as I did in 2004. He would wrap up the midwest - he is one of us and people recognize it.

She only has to ask one question, "Where you better under Clinton then you are now?"

Feingold can beat any candidate in the midwest. Hillary will be a hard sell in WI for everyplace but Madison and even Madison loves Feingold.

Wait till Chelsea goes to Mad city. The Clintons will beat your boy like drum on his home turf.

say cheese-head..

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/WI/S/01/index.html

Quit making shit up.

can explain that is that he is VERY respected as someone who votes his conscience vs. towing the party line.

She wasn't the president then. Why would it matter what her husband did?

Or are you someone who likes to call him "Billary?" :shrug:

(Besides, she can't win a national general election. You must not know any apolitical swing voters in red or purple states. They won't vote for her because of the job the corporate media and Reich-wing talk show hosts have done on her for 12-16 years).

Feingold doesn't deserve that.

NRA appeaser?

He voted against the stupid symbolic assault weapons ban. Anybody will tell you that the AWB is really flawed legislation and Feingold was right to oppose it. Feingold has supported responsible gun control, including trigger locks and waiting periods. He even voted against preventing lawsuits against gun companies. He is hardly a pawn of the NRA.

You should thank him for voting for Ashcroft. He had a close relationship with John Ashcroft that allowed for several safeguards to be added to the patriot act. While the final bill wasn't good enough for Russ, it can be argued that the patriot act was made much more tolerable by Feingold's working relationship with Ashcroft.

Hillary will beat this Feingold guy in his home state. I bet she beats Warner in every southern state except Virginia and she'll be competitive there. She'll get majorities in large states like California. Pennsylvania and Texas.

All these antiClinton people should quit doing the Republican's work and come back to the light.

You are more than welcome to your opinion but I'm for Feingold all the way and think he could really unite the country for a progressive agenda. Do a legitimate poll in WI and let us know. Bush voters also voted for Feingold in WI - I don't think too many Bush voters would vote for Hillary. However, I will probably support the democratic nominee although I'm glad it is the people who will decide.

this race. She's extremely divisive, carries huge baggage and goddam it? why the fuck does anyone want to advocate another Clinton white house?

Poppy Bush, Bill Clinton, W. Bush Hillary Clinton, next is Jeb Bush.

i'll fight this to my death before i see this a dynasty culture in my country!

Hillary's divisiveness is a strategy, a bad strategy, but deliberate, IMO.

She's decided to relabel herself from the label the Republicans gave her of an ultra-liberal to a centrist. Secondly, she's acting very macho about war to overcompensate for being a woman.

She and her people obviously think this is all necessary, but it's a big gamble.

I think she's deliberately antagonizing "the Michael Moore wing" of the Democratic party. I think she's almost seeking out an open denouncement by anti-war Dems in order to shore up her centrist credentials in the press - in order to finger point that the Dean people and the Cindy Sheehan supporters hate her, so she must be a centrist/moderate.

I have trouble believing that Hillary will pull over the elusive "swing voter", white male independent, unless it's because Bill somehow pulls that vote for her.

Of course, this piss-off-the-activists strategy is super high risk, because she's counting on a sufficient number of uninformed or centrist primary voters to give her the nomination, along with a divided progressive opposition.

THEN, she's counting on all the progressives who voted AGAINST her in the primary to show up (turn out) and vote FOR her in the general election.

This is quite a political game she is playing. It is curious to watch, and I'm less than convinced that she can win it - but a lot will have to do with how well the progressive wing and their candidates unite. I'm hoping that progressives will manage to pull together against her and cause Hillary an upset.

The "assault weapons ban" was certainly better at harassing gun-owning Dems and Indies...

...better at kicking 65 to 80 million gun owners off their butts to vote against Dem candidates...

...better at suckering prominent politicians into making dumbass statements about guns, gun owners, and Federal gun law...

...better at stopping all those drive-by bayonettings in the news every day :eyes:


Outlawing muzzle threads on on lawfully owned civilian rifles with protruding handgrips is just SO much more important than all other issues on the table combined... :sarcasm:

She may very well beat these people in red states in the primaries because she's being pushed as the "inevitable" candidate, but she won't flip any of them in the general election.

I saw it happen in my own red state with Kerry, who was also pushed as the "inevitable" candidate. When Tennesseans voted for Kerry, my local newspaper ran an op-ed a day or two later that basically said that Tennessee Dems had made a mistake in that there was no way Kerry would win the state in a general election. I agreed with this and, of course it ended up as ultimately true.

Tennessee was blue for years, so it's not that the state couldn't turn again. In fact, in the "purple" map that's posted from time to time here, it shows Tennessee as VERY purple. It could turn with the right candidate.

I'm not sure any Democrat last year could have won Tennessee. What we know for sure is that the Republicans would have thrown everything AND the kitchen sink at any of them.

I'm not sure any Democrat last year could have won Tennessee. What we know for sure is that the Republicans would have thrown everything AND the kitchen sink at any of them.

Perhaps you should quit doing the Republican's work.

I would just prefer to support Russ Feingold instead. Does that mean that I should leave the democratic party because I won't support Hillary? Last time I checked, we had these things called primaries for this very reason.

She won't be getting any Liberal votes in the Primary. How do you expect her to win the primary with no liberal votes? It just won't happen my friend.

IF Hillary is nominated (I'm less than convinced) she'll pick one of four: Bayh, Richardson, Warner or Vilsack - for Demographic reasons (though Nelson of FL is an outside possibility). Hillary's ticket will be 100% DLC.

just inspires me to back a bid for Feingold all the more... :hi:

Edwards and Feingold are my favorites, in that order.

Still curious if there may be some surprise candidates - Gore, Durbin, Boxer, Dodd, Daschle, even Gephardt... - I mean, who knows at this point who may throw their hat in the ring?

Last election I volunteered for Edwards and contributed to both Edwards and Clark.

In the end, there will only be room for one anti-Hillary, anti-establishment candidate, and I hope that the most progressive candidates (Feingold, Edwards, Clark, maybe Boxer) don't spread the progressive/non-DLC vote too thin, allowing Hillary to walk away with the nomination. I believe the DLC will exert enough control over their candidates to force many of them out early so that Hillary takes a big slice of the electoral pie and so her veep choice comes off appearing a winner without cutting into her electoral count.

Somehow, I hope Move On or some other progressive organizations utilize their influence in order to narrow the progressive field (a couple of weeks into the primary voting process - after we've seen them campaign a bit and after super Tuesday) to one candidate, before the progressive electoral votes are spread too thin to beat Hillary.

The only centrist Democrat I could think of supporting in the primary is Biden, and he's from Delaware so will have major demographic issues - and will be competing directly against Hillary to displace her before the progressive candidate becomes the anti-Hillary. (I know people on this board love to hate Biden, but I think he's often misrepresented - or tarred so heavily with the bankruptcy bill, which he did not support fully even though his state is the major beneficiary, that the rest of his voting record is dismissed).

If Levin ran, he'd be my guy, but I've seen nothing to suggest he will.

Meanwhile, it's clear that McCain is positioning for a run, and unless Jeb runs, McCain or Frist will be the probable nominee that the Dem will run against, Allen and Romney being the less likely possiblities. The other candidates are running for veep or exposure (Brownback, Giulliani, Patakie, Huckabee).

Most likely, we will need the Democratic candidate best able to beat McCain, and I'm not sure who that is/will be, at this point.

Beyond Hillary's nauseating move to the right (I think strategically she would have been better off seeking to unite all Dems early rather than move to the right - bad strategy - Liebermanesque) I unfortunately think our country will not elect a woman, especially with the Republican turn out Hillary will inspire.

Anyway - here's hoping we end up with a winning progressive ticket! :D

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you can't stand up to thugs like Asscroft, LaPierre, Norquist and Ted Nugent, how can we expect him to stand up to bin Ladin and the Bush crime family when the time is right?

literally, after Bush's 2003 SOTU. She only beat Lieberman to be first jumping up because she's taller.

The Republican's love the Clinton's so much. :think:

which did more harm to my civil liberties than anything Feingold did or failed to do in your small universe.

It's not so much who gets the most votes, it's who counts them.

The Clinton era was a high point in American history and we need to get back to that.

Feigold's just Howard Dean with marital issues.

:crazy:

NGU.

What good are laws if enforcement is corrupt?

...participants are corrupt, huh?

:eyes:

NGU.

If only he'd voted against Ashcroft, the Bush Administration would all be in jail like Hillary insists upon every day!

NGU.

:hide:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

allegedly broke the "forged" documents story regarding Dan Rather.

If it's not, please forgive my question.

It'd seem to fit.

NGU.

Russ. Truly, Russ Feingold is close to the least electable candidate possible. Howard Dean with marital issues

but she is not the definition of "standing up against the Bush crime family."

I don't require democrats to define themselves as anti-Bush, but if you do, then it makes no sense to support Hillary. The fact is, when it comes to "standing up against Bush," there are a lot of dems ahead of her.

at the goddam Clinton Library opening? :spank:

she couldn't stop druling over W enough, it was disgusting. :puke:
Smiling up at him, nodding her head in approval of his dumbass, chimpy moronic remarks. :nuke:

...offering any substance?

Just wondering.

NGU.

NGU.

Feingold believes that the President should appoint the staff he wants, and he believes in gun rights. Perhaps you don't agree with those two principles of his, but that's no cause to dismiss one of the greatest members of the Senate as a "lightweight."

I wholeheartedly disagree with the confirmation of John Ashcroft. But technically he was qualified.

On the gun stuff, I'm starting to agree with the NRA more and more every day. We may need those rifles to fight what is becoming an increasingly more fascist government. Beyond that, I think I agree with Michael Moore's approach of pointing out that Canada has way more guns per-capita than the US yet they have WAAAAY less gun-crime. It's a social issue.

The number one way to reduce gun violence would probably be to get rid of drug prohibition. Drug prohibition has turned our inner cities into war zones (just like prohibition of the 20s). Get rid of the narco profits and you eliminate the associated violence.

He may actually get elected with the help of blue-collar and rural voters, and would neuter the right-wing influence in the NRA , not to mention the right-wing funded, gun-control wedge operatives who claim to be Democrats.

Plenty of political calculation - from all those folks. That's what make them as effective as they are. But that calculation is used to benefit the people, not their own portfolios. THAT's the difference.

And he's got my vote too.

NGU.

I can just hear it from the college gals, don't anything about him, but he sure is handsome!...

If Warner decides not to run Id probably support either Feingold or Edwards... Maybe, Bayh. But Feingold would definitely be on my shorlist.

I'll go Feingold but Warner looks good so far. I think both could win the general election.

:crazy: That's why 2008 will be tough because I think so many great democrats are going to run in 2008 and there will be someone for everyone to support.

from Feingold, and I think you will be very soon ... ;)

Do you know something? Please tell if you do! (Crossing fingers...)

November 3rd 2004. :hi:

I've met him several times and he's really a very cool dude. I'm worried a bit about the divorce thing and the fact he's Jewish. The Repugs will make mince meat of him on those issues (which I don't care about) although he does bite back hard.

Like Kerry, he may be too good to be President... we'll see.

It would be great if he decided to run. :toast:

Both he and Wesley Clark are intelligent independent thinkers with liberal stands on most issues, who are willing to fight for what they believe in. They are both willing to do what they think is right, not just what they think will make them popular, and each has taken some stands that at first glance might confuse some of their backers, but they were principled stands and I respect that.

I am not wavering in my primary support for Wes Clark for 2008, but I acknowledge the many excellent qualities that Feingold has, and I would be proud to work for him if he became our nominee. I won't use this thread to say why I support Wes over Russ, that isn't called for here. Both Clark and Feingold are fine men.

I would be proud to support either one once they got the nomination. The Dems. definitely have some good prospects for 2008 at present.

what happens as this thug that occupies the WH ratchets up the intimidation and lies will tell us a great deal about each of them. Whoever we nominate will have to be courageous enough to stand toe to toe with these character assassins to refute their bogus charges. They will also have to be able to persuade the American people that we Democrats understand the gravity of the security challenges we face but that to abandon our constitution to fear is beneath us as a nation.

It looks like we need to form a Clark/Feingold alliance as Democrats. I've seen MANY Clark supporters who's second choice is Feingold and Feingold supporters who's second choice is Clark.

It looks to me like if Democrats are going to trump the media-pushed Hillary Clinton, the best route to take is to push the only two possible candidates who actually would be on the side of the people. Clark and Feingold are the anti-Hillary - not DLCers Bayh and Warner, who the media are touting as such.

How can Warner or Bayh, who are both DLC, be the anti-Hillary, who is also the DLC. All three are from the same wing of the Democratic Party. :shrug:

i just wanted to avoid getting into a "war" between Feingold supporters and Clark supporters - I think Clark would make an excellent Secretary of Defense - on the other hand, if Clark manages to garner enough popular support for the ticket, my ultimate hope would be for Feingold to lead, and Clark would be second person named - ;)

I really like Feingold's progressive platform.

that you can identify with. That's a big part of why you will find many Clark supporters willing to say positive things about Feingold. If both men decide to run of course there will be debates as to which man would be best to head our 2008 ticket. I am very comfortable with my decision to back Clark, but should he fall short I would be happy with Feingold.

I don't think rivalries of this sort have to get bitter. We can discuss the relative pros and cons of each man, while still respecting both. If I present an argument that in my opinion strongly favors Clark over Feingold, that doesn't have to mean that I am putting Feingold down, and vice versa is true also. And sure Clark would make an excellent Secretary of Defense (though he would need an act of Congress to be eligible- too recent a retirement from military), just like Feingold would make an excellent Secretary of Labor, but that doesn't mean that either position would be the best use of either man's talents for America.

:toast:

:hi:

Feingold the last 24 hours - stunning, just stunning, and he has the gravitas and the history to back it up. Not only that, he had the courage to be the LONE senator to go against this heinous, hideous act. By the way how did they get this 1,000+ page document together so goddamn quick after 9-11? Goddamn, Clark/Feingold orFeingold Clark in 2008! Feingold, I salute you - you've taken my breath away!

P.S. This pretty much steals Mark Warner's post-election "thunder" just a tad, don't you think? Mark who???

P.S. This pretty much steals Mark Warner's post-election "thunder" just a tad, don't you think? Mark who???

God, I hope so. I think Warner was good for Virginia and he's certainly a hundred times better than any Republican, but he has no idea what to do in Iraq and he's too beholden to corporations. Maybe as a VP candidate, he'd be good - with a Feingold or a Clark - who could show him how to help PEOPLE, not corporations.

Again, I don't dislike Warner, I just think the Democratic Party needs to start fighting for people and not corporations. That - and some kick-ass foreign policy creds - would kick some Republican ass in 2006 and 2008, Diebold, Triad, ES&S or not.

Run Russ, Run!!!

but ya know... it doesn't make good politics, does it?

it's like, oh nooooo... please don't call my favorite candidate a cheesehead!

I know it's thing of pride and all that ... but if there's any baggage to shake off, it will be all that fermented cheese!

does Wisconsin have some other Wisconsing thing that Russ can hang his hat on, in a manner of speaking? :think:

:beer:

It's all about Wisconsin pride!

in california - but we don't wear it on our heads <g>

kind of like wearing religion on our sleaves <g> ;)

Only those people were "red diaper babies" ....

not to be confused with the contemporary usage of the term "Red" as in "Red State" .

In today's media environment I don't think he'd remotely get the fair shot he needs. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy will smear him using every dirty, underhanded trick in the book. To win, the Democratic nominee will have to not only fight fire with fire, but also initiate some highly negative campaigns against his/her opponent. I like Feingold, and I'm still undecided in the primary, but I'm damn tired candidates who try to stay "above the fray" and end up losing.

fight the repukes. I agree, he definitely should be considered.

(go to website to access links for more information)

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_death_penalty.html

For several reasons, I oppose the death penalty and have introduced two pieces of legislation that address the issue. In 2005, I introduced S. 122 , the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act, which would abolish the federal death penalty, and in 2003 I introduced S. 132, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, which would place a moratorium on executions by the federal government and encouraged the states to do the same, while a national blue ribbon commission reviews the fairness of the administration of the death penalty.

In January 2000, Illinois placed a moratorium on executions when Governor George Ryan suspended executions and named a blue ribbon commission to review the flaws in the administration of capital punishment in Illinois. I believe Congress and the President should follow former Governor Ryan's lead.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose the death penalty, many Americans agree that our nation's use of the death penalty raises serious fairness concerns. Many innocent people have been sentenced to death row. The federal death penalty has been applied disproportionately to the poor and minorities. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice is currently undertaking a review of racial and geographic disparities in the federal death penalty system. Almost two-thirds of Americans support suspending executions while questions of fairness are addressed.

Since 1973, more than 115 people have been sentenced to death only to be found innocent later and released from death row. There can be no justice when innocent Americans are sentenced to death. For every eight death row inmates actually executed, there has been one condemned prisoner who is later proven innocent. It is all but certain that innocent people are sometimes executed in the U.S. These are mistakes that cannot be undone, and should not be repeated.

The American people demand a system of justice that is consistent with our nation's highest ideals. I believe that addressing questions of fundamental fairness will help us to ensure the kind of justice system that all Americans deserve.

S. 122 - Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act

This bill would abolish the use of the death penalty by the federal government. It directs that any person sentenced to death before the date of enactment shall instead serve a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

S. 132 - National Death Penalty Moratorium Act

This bill would suspend executions by the federal government and encourage states to do the same, while a National Commission on the Death Penalty examines the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the state and federal levels.

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_voting.html


Civil Rights - Voting Rights

I believe that free and fair elections are essential to our democracy. In addition to my legislation on campaign funding, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA), which President George W. Bush signed into law in March 2003, I have supported election reform legislation. In the 107th Congress, I supported the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001, which established federal voting standards and provided needed resources to states and localities to ensure that all Americans have fair and equal access to polling places. I supported the final version of this bill and I will continue to urge Congress to monitor the implementation of this law to be certain that the photo identification requirement will not hamper citizens from casting their votes.

I also believe that full voting representation in Congress for District of Columbia residents is long overdue. That is why I am a strong supporter of the "No Taxation Without Representation Act." I also believe that ex-felons who have paid their debt to society should be allowed to reclaim their right to vote and have supported legislation to do just that.

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_campaign_reform.html

Campaign Finance Reform

It costs too much to run for office, and interests with big money to contribute to candidates or spend on ad campaigns have the inside track to access in Congress. The search for ever-increasing sums of money to finance campaigns dominated by expensive TV advertising has led politicians and both parties to stretch the rules and create new loopholes.

Soft money-unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals- was the biggest loophole, and led to the biggest scandals in the 1996 and 2000 Presidential campaigns. That is why I am pleased that seven years after John McCain and I introduced our campaign finance reform bill, Congress passed our legislation and the President signed it into law. On December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the law against a challenge to its constitutionality.

The success of McCain-Feingold signals a recognition from Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court that the worst abuse in the campaign finance system, unlimited soft money contributions, had simply become too damaging to the credibility of our political parties, and our democracy. By banning those unlimited contributions to the political parties, we have finally begun the process of reclaiming our democratic processes for the American people.

Banning soft money will help to untangle the web of money and influence that has made Congress and the White House so vulnerable to the appearance of corruption for far too long. As we move forward to ensure that this new law is implemented properly, and I work with my colleagues to consider other possible campaign finance reforms, we must build on the momentum of this victory, and continue the vitally important work of restoring the public's trust.

Closing the 527 Loopholes

The McCain-Feingold did not solve all the problems with the campaign finance system, as we saw with the 2004 presidential election. Some groups that were heavily involved in trying to influence that election took the position that they did not have to register as federal political committees and therefore did not have to comply with the contribution limits applicable to such committees. Prohibited by the McCain-Feingold bill from giving large contributions to the political parties, many wealthy donors began to give money to those groups. Even though there is a strong arguement that these so-called 527 groups were violating the federal election laws that pre-existed the McCain-Feingold bill, the FEC took no action to enforce those laws.

This is why in Febuary of 2005 I joined Sen. McCain in introducing S.271, the 527 Reform Act. Our legislation will require all 527s to register as political committees unless they fall into a few narrow exceptions. This bill would also require 527s that engage in activities that affect both federal and state elections pay for those activities with at least 50 percent federal ("hard") money. Finally, contributions to the non-federal accounts of federal political committees would be limited to $25,000 per year. Read a fact sheet on the 527 bill.


The growth of 527s does not represent a failure of the McCain-Feingold bill, but it does illustrate that more needs to be done to protect our political system and legislative process from the undue influence of big money.

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_future_reform.html

The Future of Reform

While the McCain-Feingold bill was a milestone for campaign finance reform, there is much more work to be done. In early 2005 I helped introduce S. 271, the 527 Reform Act. This legislation will require all 527's to register as political committees unless they fall into a number of very narrow exceptions. This bill will help close the current tax loopholes that the FEC has allowed. In July of 2005, I also introduced S.1398, the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Bill. This bill aims to improve the ethical relationship between lobbyists and Members of Congress by curbing the excesses in privately funded trips or gifts for Members of Congress and their staffs.

In 2003, I joined Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in introducing legislation that would reform the presidential public funding system. This bill, S. 1913, the Presidential Funding Act, would have eliminated the current state-by-state spending limits and substantially increased the overall spending limit. It would have also required candidates who receive public funding for the general election to participate in the primary public funding system as well. The public financing system has worked well in the past by reducing the pressure to fundraise and by leveling the playing field between candidates. The Presidential Funding Act will help keep the system viable in future presidential elections.

Many of my campaign finance reform efforts have been directed at undoing the damage done by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) through rulings that have created loopholes in federal election laws, rather than enforcing the true intent of the law. In particular, the soft money loophole was created by FEC rulings in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and was further aggravated by the agency's unwillingness to address the issue in the 90s. Time after time, the FEC has acted as a super legislature, substituting its policy judgments for those of the Congress, and proving that it can no longer meet the challenges of enforcing election laws.

One of the most significant failures of the FEC in recent years was its decision not to address the explosion of so -called 527 groups in the 2004 presidential election. Those organizations, which like most political organizations claim a tax exemption under the section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code because their primary purpose is to influence elections, argued that they did not have to register as federal political committees. I believe that the law requires
groups whose major purpose is to influence federal elections to register as political committees and comply with the contribution limits applicable to such committees.

The 527 loophole left open by the FEC allowed groups such as the Media Fund and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to finance their ads attacking the presidential candidates in 2004 with unlimited contributions from wealthy donors. Senator McCain and I believe the FEC should have taken steps to reign in these groups. 527s are not a result of or failure of McCain-Feingold - in fact many of them operate in violation of a campaign finance law written decades earlier - but they are contributing to the undue influence of money in politics, and we will work to pass 527 reform in the new Congress.We introduced the 527 Reform Act to force it to do so in the next election cycle. This bill would require most 527s to register as political committees. Donors to federal political committees can contribute no more than $5,000 per year. The bill would also require 527s that engage in activities that affect both federal and state elections to be paid for by at least 50 percent federal money. Finally, contributions to the non-federal accounts of federal political committees would be limited to $25,000 per year.

To address the failures of the FEC, in the 108th Congress, I introduced with Senator McCain S. 1388, the Federal Election Administration Act. Our bill would have replaced the FEC with a new agency, the Federal Election Administration (FEA). Although the reporting and disclosure functions of the FEA would continue much as they do today, the enforcement functions would have been modeled after other successful regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board.

Another area that is ripe for reform is broadcast advertising. In July 2003, I joined with Senator McCain and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) to introduce S. 1497, the Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act. This bill would require broadcast stations to devote a reasonable amount of air time to election programming. It would also direct the FCC to create a system in which candidates and parties would receive vouchers they could use for paid radio or TV advertising time financed by a broadcast spectrum usage fee. Our proposal would allow candidates to leverage their grassroots fundraising and would provide greater campaign resources to candidates without requiring them to become more beholden to special interests.

Finally, in November 2003, I introduced S. 1874, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. This bill would require electronic versions of the campaign finance reports that Senators must file to be made available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast improvement over the current situation, which requires interested members of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of reports, and involves a wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost every campaign has available in electronic format.

God forbid we have someone decent run the country!

(More links:)

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_govt_reform.html

Government Reform

Americans are becoming disenfranchised from their own democratic process; they believe the deck is stacked against them at the voting booth and again in the halls of Congress, where lobbyists, lawmakers, policy experts and a few pundits have created a cozy circle of influence. It's a circle few ordinary citizens can ever hope to enter because our system is stacked against them in many ways.

Since I came to Washington in 1993, I have worked hard to reform our government – to make it more responsive to average people, and less a playground for the wealthy and powerful. In some areas, such as the Senate's gift rules, great strides have been made. In others, particularly campaign finance reform, there is still much work to be done. This work is crucial because without these reforms the Congress cannot hope to command the respect and trust of the American people.

As long as the heavyweight isn't a Senator, fine by me. Even great Senators make bad Presidential candidates.

I'm going to be very hard-pressed to be excited about any of the rest of the contenders I see listed by the corporate media.

While I think Feingold will have the baggage of being Jewish and twice-divorced, which will make it difficult for him to flip some red states (sad, but true) and get swing votes, I could still trust him to do the right thing and I think he would make an excellent statesman (plus, my fiance will look like Feingold when he gets to be Feingold's age. LOL!).

I think Clark would have a better shot flipping some red states because, while very liberal, he is perceived to be moderate. And he's also reasoned, seasoned and could kick Republican ass on the national security and foreign policy issues (Democrats already beat Republicans on most domestic issues among Amercian voters).

However, the rest of the list looks to be a bunch of corporatists (Warner), DLCers (Bayh), opportunists (Edwards) and mealy-mouthed politicians, most of whom (Hillary, Kerry, Biden) have absolutely NO SHOT at flipping any red states or would work for the people upon getting into office.

*sigh*

the rest of the list looks to be a bunch of corporatists (Warner), DLCers (Bayh), opportunists (Edwards) and mealy-mouthed politicians, most of whom (Hillary, Kerry, Biden) have absolutely NO SHOT at flipping any red states or would work for the people upon getting into office.

Hillary is more concerned about porn and violent video games than she is about the porn of the Iraq War or the violence that Bush has inflicted upon our Constitution.

be tossing in his hat on 2008 -- i'd be very surprised - it was extremely expensive -campaign reform is a very serious issue with Feingold - has been working on that since the beginning of his office in the Senate.

side note:

according to wikipedia - 90% of Feingold's donations were from individual donors, none over $60. He has insisted on running his campaigns on a very limited budget and I don't think the corporate media or washington press corp will be appreciative of this kind of campaign "style".. as they were not with Kucinich and others that tried to get in the game in 2004.

Like most of our presidential hopefuls, he is party of the DLC, and that in itself is going to make people on DU upset. But I recommend listening to him and looking at what he has done before you judge. You still may not like him, but he is worth a look. :shrug:

Every candidate is going to have things people on DU disagree with. Feingold voted to confirm Roberts, Kucinch voted for constitutional amendments prohibiting flag desecration, Clark and the School of the Americas, Warner and the DLC. I try to look at the big picture.

I know Warner's record. I've spent half my life in that state and know its politics intimately.

Somewhere else on this thread (I think), I said that I didn't dislike him, but he concerns me in that he has no known position on Iraq and his ties to corporations worry me. I think if Warner spent some time as a VP under a Clark or a Feingold, he might learn how to fight for the average citizens instead of kissing Bilderburging corporations' asses. I think he's smart enough to learn this and probably willing to, as well. It's just that I don't see him pulling away from the corporations without a tad of leadership to show him how.

That said, I don't hate him and would vote for him were he the nominee, but I'd have a reluctant time doing anything more than simply voting for him in a general election. He's just a bit too status quo for me.

in the Senate. I don't think that's anything people will hold against him.

was one of them. He so good on so many other issues, Feingold's votes for Roberts and Asscroft seem really curious to me. I was prepared to write it off as just an odd vote (I don't expect any candidate to voter the way I wish he'd vote on every vote, but I think the CJ Roberts vote will be the one that will be remembered for a generation or more) until I read Feingold's written justification for his vote. It literally couldn't have been any more disingenuous if Karl Rove had written it himself. This vote moved out of Feingold's camp.

if you find it disingenuous, then you must think he voted for Roberts for some other reason than what he wrote here. What reason do you think that is?

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/09/2005929CR.html

<snip>

At the end of the day, I had to ask myself: What kind of Justice does this man aspire to be? An ideologue? A lawyer's lawyer? A great Supreme Court Justice like Justice Jackson, who moved comfortably from the top legal positions in the Department of Justice to a judicial position in which he was more than willing to challenge executive power? A Chief Justice who will go down in history as the leader of a sharp ideological turn to the right, or a consensus builder who is committed to the Court and its role as guarantor of basic freedoms?

I have talked to a number of people who know John Roberts or to people who know people who know John Roberts. Those I have heard from directly or indirectly have seen him develop since 1985 into one of the foremost Supreme Court advocates in the Nation, whose skills and judgment are respected by lawyers from across the ideological spectrum. They don't see him as a champion of one cause, as a narrow ideologue who wants to impose his views on the country. They see him as openminded, respectful, thoughtful, devoted to the law, and truly one of the great legal minds of his time. That carries a great deal of weight with me. And it helps to overcome my frustration with Judge Roberts for not distancing himself from what he wrote in his Reagan-era memos and with the White House for refusing to release relevant documents to the committee.

History has shown that control of the White House, and with it the power to shape the courts, never stays for too long with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime. This is not a matter of deference to the President's choice. It is instead a recognition that the Supreme Court should be open to the very brightest of legal minds on either side of the political spectrum.

The position of Chief Justice demands the very highest scrutiny from the Senate, and the qualifications and abilities of the nominee for this position must shine through. Judge Roberts has the legal skills, the intellect, and the character to be a good Chief Justice, and I hope he fulfills that promise. I wish him well. May his service be a credit not only to the rule of law, but also to the principles of equality and freedom and justice that make this country so great.

"his reputation as a lawyer's lawyer who has no ideological agenda" -- that's bullshit.

"Judge Roberts demonstrated a great respect for precedent and for the importance of stability and settled expectations. His themes of modesty and humility showed appropriate respect for the work of the Justices who have come before him." -- again, complete bullshit

"I was also impressed that Judge Roberts does not seem inclined to try to rein in Congress's power under the commerce clause" -- restricting congressional power under the commerce clause was Robert's number 1 big issue as a judge so Russ's statement is literally 180 degrees from the truth

"Judge Roberts' determination to be a humble and modest judge should lead him to reject efforts to undermine Congress's power to address social and economic problems through national legislation." -- agaion, who's writing Russ's copy and did that person even read a single Roberts opinion?

There are a dozen more examples.

why do you say it's "bullshit" and "disingenuous" rather than an honest disagreement about Roberts?

and again, if those aren't his real reasons for voting for Roberts, what do you think are his real reasons?

and not backing it up?

One thing I like about Feingold is that he doesn't throw ridiculous hyperbole like that around. He says what he means, he doesn't just spout off on people.

:shrug:

If the Roberts nomination is the only main complaint, I'd say the chances would be good for Feingold should he decide to run.

I enjoyed seeing him with Specter on CNN today--it was very entertaining and revealing.

who had previously supported him, I'd say that was not good for his candidacy.

Don't misunderstand the extent of my disapproval: of course I'd support Feingold in a general election; I'm just no longer looking at him as a viable primary candidate to support. There is much about Feingold I like and admire. If Feingold doesn't throw supreme court watchers under the bus when it comes to the Alito vote, Feingold's vote against Alito may go along way to resolving the bad feelings about his pro-Roberts statements which many regarded as misleading.

have written it. I did not compare Feingold to Rove - I compared the amount of pro-Roberts spin in a Feingold statement to the amount I would expect to see in a Rove-drafted pro-Roberts statement.

Do you not see any difference?

If we were debating Dick Cheney, for example, I might say he's a chickenhawk; perhaps some someone else might argue that he's a moderate: that's the broadest scope of debate that is not disingenuous because if someone comes in and says "Cheney's a pacifist" we would properly say "that's disingenuous" because no one could make such an argument credibly.

I say that Feingold's statement on Roberts was disingenuous because some of the things he said about Roberts were really outside the realm of debate. You could argue that Roberts is an unconscionable judicial activist, or you could perhaps argue that he has some intellectual basis on which to undervalue the last 70 years of judicial decisions regarding the Constitution's commerce clause but you have really left the field of reasonable debate if you say "Roberts does not seem inclined to try to rein in Congress's power under the commerce clause," which Feingold said. Before you disagree, please read his dissenting opinion in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton. Or you could read this analysis on CNN:

"Toad case reveals Roberts as activist -- Opinion goes beyond precedent, would reject species protection

Special to CNN.com

Though he cites U.S. Supreme Court precedents in favor of his view, Roberts ventures into the very kind of judicial activism conservatives most condemn. Ultimately, his dissent is so extreme as to, in effect, reject the protections of the federal Endangered Species Act....The commerce clause sets out one of Congress' enumerated powers -- the power to regulate interstate commerce....The three-judge panel's decision was unanimous -- not surprising because of a D.C. circuit precedent that was directly on point and because such a panel can't overrule circuit precedent. The precedent was the 1997 D.C. circuit decision in National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt. There, the court upheld -- despite a Commerce Clause challenge -- the FWS' determination that construction of a California hospital could not proceed, because it would harm another endangered species, the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. The NAHB decision was directly parallel to Rancho Viejo. Both involved California construction that was affected by a FWS order meant to protect an endangered species. In both cases, the developer said the Endangered Species Act, as applied, went beyond Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Both cases also involved creatures that never travel beyond California's borders.... Roberts' commerce clause view isn't just narrow; it's virtually microscopic. In Roberts' own words, this case was about simply "the taking of a hapless toad" -- not about a developer's project clashing with the survival of an endangered species. But of course, this clash was plainly the context of the toad "taking" -- and no one could have missed that: neither the developer, nor California environmentalists. Ignoring this clash can only be the result of willful blindness -- or the worst kind of lawyerly technicality.... Roberts' context-free view of this issue isn't just ridiculously narrow, it's also disturbingly activist.In his controversial dissent, Roberts isn't just innocuously counseling that the D.C. circuit follow the binding higher-court precedents of Lopez and Morrison, as his opinion suggests. He's counseling that the court go far beyond Lopez and Morrison to forbid any commerce clause goal that isn't itself a commercial purpose.... This view isn't just conservative; it's completely crazy. It utterly de-fangs the Endangered Species Act when it comes to local construction projects affecting species that live only locally -- and, probably, even those species that do not.... A total of eight different, eminent D.C. circuit judges over the years have made clear that they did not think the logic of the Supreme Court's decisions required them to take Roberts' narrow view. Notably among them were three Republican appointees -- including Douglas Ginsburg, an unsuccessful Reagan Supreme Court nominee. Roberts is even more conservative, then, than three of his four Republican-appointee colleagues. And the D.C. circuit's Republican appointees are known for being quite conservative, so this is no small feat. That fact -- along with the logic of this controversial dissent -- provide strong reasons to oppose this nominee. One need not be a liberal to support the preservation of America's precious fauna. After all, three of Roberts' conservative colleagues did just that. Why didn't he?"

<http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/04/hilden.roberts/>

If you want, I can discuss Roberts's decision with you in the context of the last 70 years of judicial interpretations of the commerce clause. He is WAY out of the mainstream. I could have lived with Feingold's vote, but his statement is so wrong as to raise questions about which Feingold staffer wrote tat statement. I'm not exaggerating to say it is misleadingly wrong.

If you want, I can discuss with you why several excerpts from Feingold's statement regarding Roberts are not just wrong, but so far off base as to raise significant questions about the Feingold staffer who put that statement together.

coming through the pike and he had to give this one a pass, as he was a planning a major filibuster on the patriot act, and i suspect even for Alito.

i was disappointed with his vote too, but looking over his record and especially his stand on the patriot act, i think he made a political calculation in giving himself some cover and leverage for future filibusters, without necessarily tipping his hand with the Roberts vote.

that's my opinion and i'm sticking to it... ;)

(it's the only thing that makes sense to me)

It didn't really matter which way he voted, except to establish a record that his vote to confirm was on the evidence put before him, since the Bush Crime family held back all records that were requested - and since Feingold was keenly aware that another nomination assumed to be far worse than Roberts, (taken from Bush's wish list) - that he had keep his powder dry for the next fight, and possibly to filibuster - it seems like a smart political move that in the end had absolutely no impact on THAT decision - but will in a future vote NOT to confirm - which I suspect will be the case on Alito.

He didn't want to give the repukes amunition to attack Feingold for something he damn intends to do in the very near future.

it gives him both the credibility and the cover to take the fight at the most crucial moment.

He's obviously built on that, even though the lone vote on the Patriot Act reauthorization, now he has people on both sides backing him - and he's been able to bring this out to the public fora.

The Roberts vote was a throw away. plain and simple.

Personally, I don't see being divorced or Jewish being any problem at all here in my "red" state of NC, though I may be wrong. NC has plenty of Dems (our governor, most of our executive branch, and our legislature are Dem), and my wife says there is less racism here than in Cambridge, Mass. where she is originally from.

On the flip side of the Feingold/Clark question--this may be hard for people in anti-gun states to grasp, but Clark will carry a LOT of baggage in the South and West due to his very unfortunate attacks on gun-owning nonhunters during the 2004 primaries and since. I remember a soundbite to the effect of, "If you want to own your (guns covered by the Feinstein ban), go join the military!" I didn't know anything about Clark at the time, except that he scared the $#%@! out of me with that line, since half the guns we own could fall into that category. That will come back to haunt him in states where most Dems and indies are gun owners.

Clark would HAVE to sincerely repudiate the Feinstein ban in order to get much traction in the West or South, IMHO. Though his "join the military" comment seems to imply that he didn't understand what the ban actually covered (it didn't have a thing to do with military weapons), so maybe that's a possibility.

He is a hunter himself, and I believe he collects guns so I don't think he would be banning all guns.

Now I confess to you, I don't know a thing about guns, but I think there is a difference between high powered assault weapons and regular old rifles and regular old guns.

last session:



This is my Ruger mini-14. Factory capacity is FIVE rounds. Straight wooden stock straight out of the late 1800's. Uses .223 Remington, the LEAST powerful of all common centerfire rifle calibers. Marketed as an all-purpose rural/farm rifle, and can be used for hunting small game up to coyotes. And, had S.1431/H.R.2038 passed last session, it would have been banned as an "assault weapon" in the United States. Senator Kerry was unfortunately sucked into cosponsoring this legislation in 2004, and it hurt him immensely in pro-gun states, including North Carolina.

Senator Clark was referring to guns covered by the Feinstein ban of 1994, or the more draconian proposals like S.1431/H.R.2038 being pushed by the prohibitionist lobby, rather than to military weapons. Actual assault rifles (used by the military) have been very tightly restricted in this country for 71 years now, under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, and that's not an issue on the table.

The 1994 "assault weapon" bait-and-switch covered all CIVILIAN firearms holding over 10 rounds (like my wife's 9mm, or the handgun your local police officer carries on her hip), as well as civilian self-loaders having two or more features Dianne Feinstein didn't like (like a rifle stock with a protruding handgrip). For an overview of what the ban did and did not cover, see this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=114449&mesg_id=114449">here.

Half the guns my wife and I own would fall under the S.1431/H.R.2038 definition of an "assault weapon," and several of them also meet the less draconian definition embodied in the 1994 law. Which, as I said, is why Clark's statement scared the crap out of me.

FWIW, no one I know of is concerned that the neoprohibitionist lobby wants to ban all guns. It's the professed intent to ban popular nonhunting style guns (defensive style handguns, modern looking rifles) that's the problem, since the vast majority of us gun owners (4 out of 5) don't hunt. I live in a fairly rural portion of NC, and every single gun owner I know personally (including my wife!) owns guns that Feinstein et al advocated banning in 2000 and 2004.


:hi: BTW, good to see someone else from NC! I live on the east coast, an hour or so from Atlantic Beach.

He's the rare Dem with brass cojones all year 'round, not just when it's politically necessary.

:patriot::dem: Draft Feingold in '08!:dem::patriot:

make a great President and that "Business as usual" would be over and out if he was ever elected. That being said, I don't believe that the "powers-that-be" will ever give Feingold a chance, just like Wes Clark most likely has no chance.

One only has to follow the media manipulation and the polls generated by Polling corporate companies to understand what our future holds in store....and it ain't no short twice divorced Jewish bachelor Senator who is outspoken and non calculative nor is it an intellectual liberal 4 star General.

Although I find that both of these individuals would be the best thing that could ever happen to America, I am becoming very pessimistic that either of these forward intellectual leading thinkers will ever be allowed anywhere close to the White House under any circumstances. Sure, some might want to hope that We the People could get them there....but witnessing on a daily basis the kind of powerful influence our media and those working behind the scenes have.....I won't be holding my breath for either a Feingold nor a Clark presidency...and it's a damn damn shame. 2008 will be "Business as Usual".....and the revolution WILL NOT be televised then or at any other time!

I disagree. He has a lot of great credentials and seems to represent the Dem party very well. He's an outspoken moderate who knows government.

The Dem party has been restructuring itself and fortifying itself on a state-to-state basis. This next primary, when it finally happens, will be very different from the last.

Feingold is straight in line with Democratic values and he has been RIGHT all along. HE was right about the Iraq War, he was right on the Patriot act, he was right on NAFTA.

I really like Wes Clark. But Wes is still convinced that Free Trade is the way to go. It is proving to be disastrous. The Free Traders still believe that the Chinese living standards will rise to US levels. I think the idea that a people without voting rights could improve their lot is ridiculous. ?One might as well argue that you should have bought lots of cotton in the 1850s in order to improve the conditions of slaves. All you achieve is the enrichment the slavemasters.

Trade is good so long as you provision it with the promises of improvement. Take for example the Cambodian model that provided REAL fair trade. That was a success because we gave preferential treatment to Cambodia in return for fair labor conditions. The experiment is now being killed because Congress will not renew Camodia's import quotas. CAFTA (exploitation) is a much higher priority for the Republican Congress.

Feingold is the guy who is spot on. He understands the destructive nature of pure un-regulated trade. Good capitalism is a game in which there are rules for ethical conduct and those rules are enforced by refs (government regulators). Unregulated capitalism is the playground for unsrupulous men who do everything they can to avoid competition. It's like a basketball game without rules. It devolves in fist-fights and meelees. Pretty soon the basketball team that does best on the court is the one with the biggest guns.

flesh out more his current thinking on "free trade", but I think you unfairly characterize his views here.

When you say: "Trade is good so long as you provision it with the promises of improvement. Take for example the Cambodian model that provided REAL fair trade. That was a success because we gave preferential treatment to Cambodia in return for fair labor conditions..." I think Clark would agree with that. He has favored the need for strict labor and environmental agreements of a sort that would torpedo most of the current so called "free trade" agreements. Clark doesn't get covered much on this, but he has a continuing keen concern over the rise of China in the world as it will directly economically impact America if matters continue the way they have. He does NOT think that all is swell and dandy with it. I noticed even during the 2004 campaign that Clark's positions regarding trade took on nuance and depth, in directions that I personally favored, since I share your concern. I think a lot of that had to do with his very late entry into the race. He spoke in very broad terms about several issues initially mostly pulled from the Clinton Administration play book, but as he turned his attention to each and fleshed out his own platform, in every case I found his resulting modifications to be more progressive.

But I agree with your concern. It is definitely an issue I want potential candidates to address in some detail if they want to become President, and how they answer matters a great deal.

Perhaps Clark believes the same way I do but expresses it differently.

But I am absoluetly convinced that until you're ready to annul these agreements, the other parties will not be willing to amend. They're making too much money off of it.

If you promise to stop trading if they don't fix the agreements, they will take you seriously. If you beg them for changes, but keep trading anyway, they will stall and leave you holding your dick in your hand.

Russ Feingold and Wes Clark are both for "Fair Trade", but neither is against "trade" althogether.

Both are for vast systematic changes and for stricter regulations within our trade agreements.

Both believe that strict Enviromental regulations and truly Fair Labor standards are key to ensuring "sound" and "equitable" trade.

Feingold has had a chance as a senator to vote to illustrate his stance, Wes Clark has not....

Clark doesn't seem ready to smash WTO and NAFTA if they cannot fix the agreements. Unless your ready to stop the arrangement, the arrangement will not change.

PLUS, Clark has been doing business in China. That signals to me that Clark is all to ready to exploit Chinese labor just like Nike or any other company exploiting cheap as shit labor.

Until we tell the Chinese that we'll stop trading with them, nothing will change. Our jobs will keep on flowing to the oppressed people of China under fascist (they're not communists anymore) rule.

Sorry, I think Clark is just one of those economists who insist that globalization is inevitable and hence must be hastened. I would take him in a heartbeat over Bush. And he still ranks up their on my list of guys. But Feingold has been consistent since the beginning in seeing through the bullshit argument in NAFTA, WTO, etc... Trade does NOT necessarily mean better living conditions. Only the political empowerment of labor can accomplish this.

But Feingold has been consistent since the beginning in seeing through the bullshit argument in NAFTA, WTO, etc... Trade does NOT necessarily mean better living conditions. Only the political empowerment of labor can accomplish this.


:applause:

if your support of Clark rests on pretending he shares Feingold's committed opposition to globalization, then it rests on a shaky foundation.

But so was Dick Gephardt. You have to look at the whole package. Clark's position for Fair Trade is fairly similar to Feingold, but Feingold has been a real leader regarding it, more outspoken and probably more overall radical concerning it. It is one of the things that does endear Feingold to me. I only get upset when people don't give Clark credit for his actual position and instead throw him blindly into a pro Free Trade camp. Like I said above, I would expect Clark to speak more about this if he runs again.

I like Clark, and I liked Bill Clinton. But there is a valid debate within the democratic party about trade, and Clinton and Clark are on one side, and Feingold and Gephardt are on the other. I don't think it does any good for Clark/Clinton supporters to pretend they are on the Feingold/Gephardt side.

As I posted above, I think those differences were becoming clearer as the 04 campaign proceeded and Clark got the time to sketch out the details of his personal stands on issues. I agree that there is a valid debate within the party, and the debate should get louder. Clinton (either and/or both), along with Gore, were deeply and personally involved in developing the Free Trade position of the Clinton Administration. They are personally invested in it (Gore may no longer be, I don't know). Clark wasn't. His overall views on the need for fair frameworks for all types of international cooperation, along with his often expressed concern about the development of the Chinese competition under the current rules in play, lend credence to Clark not being wed to Clinton Administration policies. Again, I admire Feingold's positions. I want to hear more from Clark on this, he has not been pushing the Clinton side either. My reference to Gephardt was only that we will be choosing someone to run based on a multitude of factors. Gephardt was great on Fair Trade, but lacking in some other important ways.

I don't "pretend" that Clark and Feingold are interchangeable when it comes to the trade issue.....and yes, I agree that Feingold has been very outspoken and his votes have consistently illustrated his position against free trade.....

that being said, I will stand with what I wrote previously, which only stated that .....

Russ Feingold and Wes Clark are both for "Fair Trade", but neither is against "trade" althogether.

Both are for vast systematic changes and for stricter regulations within our trade agreements.

Both believe that strict Enviromental regulations and truly Fair Labor standards are key to ensuring "sound" and "equitable" trade.

I am not "against" Feingold, and I agree very much that his trade approach is one that I support. At the same time, I also believe that Clark is headed in the right direction with his views on trade. So I don't have to pit one against the other on this one issue.

But even more profoundly, I am not sure either one has a chance....and it is a Warner or a Bayh who will be handed the Democratic nomination from the Powers-that-be...who are not about to choose Clark or Feingold as "the Candidate". That's just what's in my bones....

He stood up AGAINST this STUPID war. I don't care if he's single. Look who's in office and he can't run the country AT ALL. Russ Feingold is a strong person and stands up for what's right.


START THE REVOLUTION!!!!

Just kidding (of course).

I like Russ as a Senator and Dennis as a Congressman, but I don't either is very electable.

Also, what's up with Feingold's history of caving in to clearly unacceptable * appointments (Asscroft, CJ Roberts, etc.)? Will he throw us under the bus (again) with Alito?

I have been a supporter of the idea of Feingold running for President for awhile now. I am upset about his vote on the Roberts confirmation, but he has stood up on many other issues.

http://www.russforpresident.com/

"If at some point people say, 'Hey, we think you ought to run for president' (and) it's a serious thing, I'm going to listen. I would only run if I honestly believed that I was the guy that really could win, that I was the person who was the best candidate to run" - Russ Feingold

Unless Kucinich enters the race, I suspect Feingold will be my first choice. Too bad so many will reflexively and incorrectly label him unelectable.

that said, i know you're right, but i'd like to think that collectively we could defeat the dlc with a "popular uprising" , (in a manner of speaking of course) - it's unreal what's been going on in Washington, and the DP "leadership".

considering what's going on in washington and on the floor of the Senate right now... went over to talking points memo a few hours ago, didn't see any new blogs from him...

just wondering if anyone knows?

this is becoming a duel, Feingold vs. Bush.

http://www.canofun.com/blog/viddate.asp

:applause:

Feingold was excellent, i wished he had more of the podium, he gave way to much deference to Levin. (I'm mad at Levin right now, can ya tell?)

And people don't seem to realize that the acceleration of corporate farms could end up leading to a serious food shortage in America.

I believe Unless Al Gore Gets In the race the primary's will be between
Liberal/Progressive:Russ Feingold
Moderates:John Kerry,John Edwards,Bill Richardson,Mark Warner
Centrists:Hilary,Joe Biden,Evan Bayh

After much thought I have decided Unless Gore runs I will be supporting Feingold for the Nomination.

He Is Pro Choice,Anti Death Penalty

Voted Against NAFTA,and The Telecommunications Bill

Voted Against No Chile Left Behind,and the Bush Tax Cuts

Only senator to vote against the Patriot Act

Only senator who Is running to vote against the Iraq war resolution

First to call on Iraq withdraw date

Lead fight to keep the Patriot Act from being renewed

Yes he did vote for Ashcroft,and Roberts but he seems posed to oppose Alito.

Feingold appears strong when speaking,and Is calling out Bush on Spying

Feingold can keep the Kerry states In the General Election,and gives us a chance at winning In Iowa,Missouri,and Ohio(Ok I know Kerry may have actually truly won It In 2004 but I mean getting votes that they can't suppress)

Feingold Is the closet to Dean,and will speak for Democrats while Hilary Is still kissing up to him on Iraq,and Is taking the chance that Liberals will vote for her while she supports Flag burning ban,and cozies up to other right wingers and Ignores our health Care problems.

Mccain may very well be the nominee of the Republicans. Who can beat him or Guillani Hilary or Feingold who Is a true Democrat,and Is a reformer who can appeal to Independents and possibly some moderate Republicans. Hilary Is not Bill Clinton. She should not get the nomination because she Is his wife.

I like his game. He'd be a good president.

can he win?

well, if those who shall not be named doesn't do anything to sabatogue his campaign..(should he decide to run for sure) and if those who shall not be named doesn't hijack his campaign platform (like Kerry did with Dean in Iowa, and New Hampshire) i think Feingold could stand a decent chance.

The problem for Feingold, is that he runs a clean money campaign princples, which is extremely restrictive.

In a fair and just world, Feingold could win handily no question. But in our real world of corruption and Multi Nationals buying off candidates by the millions - we've got an uphill to overcome.

it is possible..... ;)

... without doing you know what.

whoring!

it almost seems (by today's standards) too unrealistic for a lack of a better term... self imposed caps on total funding, over 90% of contributions $60 or less from individual sources (citizen constituents) limited television advertising (of course with limited funding).

By contemporary presidential campaign spending standards, the odds are drastically stacked up against Feingold in a successful run for the office.

But that is precisely the kind of candidate most American's would support and elect, if given their "druthers".

It would seem to me that grassroots democratic activists have a bonafide true American Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Champion and "electable candidate" Americans Left, Right and Center would and could elect... all we have to do is help him break through the sound barrier of the Corporate Right Wing Media as well as break through the locked in corporate elite system the Democratic Party has locked into place, preventing people like Feingold from rising to the "top" of the party ticket.

if only because he's got BALLS BIGGER THAN WATERMELONS.

More Democrats need courage like that.

People from all sides are FED UP with party hacks and there are a number of people who vote pragmatically, ie not for the person or out of some neurotic need to "belong" to one side or another... but out of some sense of what would be best for the country. It used to be common for people to vote dem for some things, repub for other-- just to "keep the balance." That's fallen by the wayside lately due to the extreme polarization of our country... but I think a lot of people are really getting sick of the ugliness.

I do believe many of these people-- the so called reagan democrats, the republican moderates-- have now seen the excesses of single party government are ripe for voting democrat-- and more specifically, for a good honorable respected strong plain-speaking candidate. We've got to give them someone they can vote FOR. Not merely "against."

In last Wis. election 10% of the voters voted for both Feingold AND Bush. That says it all! He is widely respected here as someone who votes his conscience, speaks clearly and unequivocably, and who isn't owned by anyone. I think he is virtually smear proof because of his directness. As he told his last opponent who tried to smear him for not voting for the patriot act, "I voted against it because I READ it."

Also my reading of the zeitgeist is based partially on the fact that the TVshow "commander in Chief" is no. 1 new show on TV. This features an independent president, a woman, who transcends party divisions. Shes a vp who gets to power when the president dies. Because she assumes she will not be re-electable she is free to do what she honestly think what is right for the country instead of the partisan games.

I gotta say... all this fretting about "electability" bothers me. Lets get the best possible person, lets do it for honor, let's do it for history. Ironically, I think the fact that Russ is so principled and honest and doesn't craft his message to match what he thinks the poll numbers are saying... is exactly the thing that makes him so attractive as a candidate. In other words, his supposed "inelectability" is what makes him so electable! Kinda zen-like, isn't it?

(Disclaimer:I've never watched the whole show)

I think "Commander in Chief" is a Hollywood effort to improve the American comfort level with the idea of a woman president, before Hillary runs.

Even though I'm not pro-Hillary, I think it's a good thing when tv promotes minorities. I think Will and Grace probably did more for gay rights than 100 or maybe 1000 marches, by improving the level of acceptance of gays among tv viewers. Likewise, the Jeffersons did a lot, long ago, to shift the populace' perceptions of African Americans from that of impoverished underclass towards an idea of a Black middle or upper-middle class. The idea was a step toward creating the reality.

But yes, I think "Commander in Chief" is deliberately aimed at normalizing the idea of a woman president among the viewing population - and someone, when it was merely an concept, a brainstorm, knew it was a pro-Hillary idea.

I also wonder about the Jimmy Smits role on West Wing as an effort towards improving the national comfort level with a Hispanic President, (think Richardson), although I tend to believe West Wing is more plot driven - wanting to play out a run of a Religious Latino Texas Dem against a Secular pro-business California Pub. (BTW, just read that the actor playing Leo McGary is dead - wonder how far they were with filming the show and how this will affect the future of West Wing - how they might rewrite and refilm to adjust the plot - perhaps Sam Seaborn for veep?)

Anyway - I think Hillary supporters are behind "Comander in Chief" and it will not help Russ, or anyone not-Hillary. They are hoping life will imitate art.

Agree about fretting about electability - didn't work out that well with Kerry (electability is unpredictable) and I think Edwards, Clark and Gephardt would have in fact been more electable in the General Election (and maybe Dean too, though I don't know - maybe he was ahead of his time).