Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)

Interview With The Fix's Chris Cillizza and The Post's Dan Balz

Let's start with a broad question about the Democratic Party. There's all this talk about what ails the Democratic Party. What do you think the party's situation is these days and what needs to be done about it.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, people are not just thirsty to win. They are tired of losing. It goes beyond that. And I have checked this everywhere a person can check it. I go to every one of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year and hold a town meeting. And pretty soon, it will be my 1,000th listening session.

I've been to about 14 different states across the country, including the deep southern states like Alabama and Florida ... . There is one central theme. People said the same thing. They said when are you guys going to start standing up?

There is this deep sense, especially in the base of the party, that we don't have firm principles or that if we have firm principles, we're not stating them firmly. And it is amazing to hear people, almost as if they've had the same script, saying we are tired of Democrats looking weak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060500236.html

I haven't yet completely made up my mind (and probably won't for another year and a half or so), but just now I really like Fiengold.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

there are only a few politicians who I think care about this country, did anyone catch Feingold on C Span this weekend in New Hampshire, I only caught the end, but Feingold isn't the kind of guy to mince on his words. I am looking forward to 2006 elections before even thinking about 2008, we have some serious house cleaning to do.

house, I have had a hard time with him (but I love the guy).

I want Gore back in the White House, especially after seeing An Inconvenient Truth over the weekend. The man has vision, and he's made of Presidential timber. But I'm still not convinced that he's got enough streetfighter in him. That's one reason I love Feingold - he's taken the lead on censuring Bush, he's been opposed to the USA PATRIOT Act since day one, and he's critical of the invasion of Iraq. He's also pro-gun, which may not sit well with some other DUers, but it's a plus in my book, and it's energized many of my fellow Texans.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if we can get a 2008 ticket with both Gore and Feingold on it in either spot, I'll be happy.

So much more relaxed and approachable - even more presidential - than he had been on the campaign trail.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I would be happy with a Feingold 2008 run.

Or a Gore/Feingold 2008 run....WHAT A TICKET!

Stop holding that picture of Hillary with one hand and take a look at what's simmering in the Democratic grassroots!

Gotta win some red states - Clark can do that, yes he can, and Russ can kick the Senate back into shape.

The Interview Shows Just How Miserably... Our "Leaders" In Congress are Failing to Lead.

Shocking really. We're desperate and our leaders are hiding in their holes. If I could, I'd replace very nearly every Democratic Congressmen with live Democrats selected from the public based on their abilities to write and speak--no need for "political" experience. Indeed, it seems to me that it's our Congresspeople's weakness that they're such careful "political" players. They're afraid.

I believe in the abilities of the more active American citizens (Democrats). Many people who are writing books, running blogs or contributing to them, even speaking on the radio would be terrific Congressmen! Listen, I don't think the job of being a "representative" of the People and casting votes is all that tough of a job. Sure, you have to talk to alot of people and there are any number of extra-curricular which can be helpful to individuals and groups as well as society in general, but the key activities just aren't that hard. What makes the "hard" as they are perceived to be, is all the back-room negotiations and balancing votes to please special interests to get $$$money$$$ to be re-elected. Perhaps we should have term limits so that Congressmen don't waste most of their time trying to finagle donations and other things related to just getting re-elected!

Feingold is so rare there. Someone who actually thinks, listens to the people and has the courage to actually vote accordingly. It's no wonder so few other members of Congress talk to him much--he makes them feel guilty!

If we could, we should elect Democratic replacements--it's just obvious that most--literally most of our Congress members just do not deserve their seat in Congress. We all need to get together and organize some serious protests either local to each Congress member (when they're home), or in Washington. The protests should feature the demand that Congress both do what their constituents tell them and to do their duty as members of Congress (investigate corruption/govermental misbehavior--especially the Bush Administration, as in perform oversight and stand up to abuse of the Constitution!).

We must wake this Congress up! We must forcefully remind our "elite" Congress people that THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. "Representative" being the operative word!

Main Entry: rep·re·sen·ta·tive
Pronunciation: "re-pri-'zen-t&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : serving to represent
2 a : standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority b : of, based on, or constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election
3 : serving as a typical or characteristic example <a representative moviegoer>
4 : of or relating to representation or representationalism

Is there ONE THING that Feingold said about the other Democrats that couldn't be said of him?

I don't recall ANY Democratic senator accusing Russ of being cowed or cautious or spineless when he failed to stand up and lead or give them back up on equally crucial issues.

Like when Kerry went after Bush on Tora Bora and NO SENATOR stood with him. Or when Kerry called for Rumsfeld to be fired and FEW SENATORS would stand with him. The Downing Street Memos couldn't even get the attention of most senators.

So - Russ - what do you think about Senators standing WITH each other on important issues?

against the Patriot Act, one of the few to vote against the Iraq war resolution, the senator who stood alone when he boldly proposed censure of the chimp, and was the first to propose withdrawl from Iraq with a deadline to boot - months before your beknighted John Kerry took that hesitant step forward?

Wow! Feingold really did something to piss you off, eh BLM?


on edit: The distinction of being the first to call for Rumsfeld's resignation belongs to another Wisconsinite - Rep. Dave Obey, D. He sent a letter to the President (and to the media who, at least in Wisconsin made a huge deal out of it - though I seem to recall seeing him on C-SPAN discussing it) calling for Rumsfeld's resignation and enumerating all the brazillion reasons for getting rid of that boat anchor then. Where was John Kerry then....:think:

is looking to be the Dem McCain who he treats more respectfully than any Democrat.

And Feingold and Kerry are only apart on about 2-3% of the Patriot Act, which any Dem president will fix when in office. Feingold was for the same version Kerry wanted, he voted against the FINAL version.

And you fault people for not standing with Feingold on censure, yet you KNOW he never TOLD ANYONE he was doing it - people came out supporting him, including Kerry, who was NOT GIVEN the same courtesy when he wanted the Downing Street Memos investigated and a Judiciary Dem to lead the Alito filibuster with Kennedy.

Now, I could take YOUR tone and say "Where's your precious Feingold on THOSE important matters? Why was he so cautious and hiding then?" But, I don't talk like that.

Feingold showed exactly how much of a "maverick" he is when he hid during the CIA drugrunning issue, and when he sided with McCain on campaign finance reform OVER Kerry and Wellstone's Clean Money, Clean Elections public financing of campaigns bill.

Does Russ know that standing up is a TWO -WAY STREET? Or is that a special gift he gives only to McCain?

When it comes to trying to avoid taking money from special interests and be less beholden to corporate special interests than other Dems.

He avoided telegraphing his move on censure because he knew that the DLC-beholden leadership would try to find a way to shut him down. I still think that the censure move IS the right thing to do. Do you? It is about holding the president accountable.

Ask yourself where other senators were when they were voting on the 1996 Telecommunications Act. You know, the one that both allowed all of this consolidation like Clear Channel, News Corp, etc. that threatens our sense of a free media now, along with an unconstitutional attack on our civil liberties in that bile (The Communications Decency Act)? Russ Feingold voted with only 4 other senators against that act (Patrick Leahy, Paul Wellstone, Paul Simon, and John McCain). Only two of those are still in the Senate now.

Feingold has been the only senator that has CONSISTENTLY stood up for our civil liberties!

He's the only one that is taking on the DLC infestation that's in this party at the appropriate times. He is THE one that's been keeping this president accountable and asking the proper questions on hearings for the supreme court and for reviewing those like Gonzales and Hayden.

my beef is that Feingold attacks other Democrats as cautious when he, also, has acted the samef or much of his career. He was never known for leading tough battles the last 13 years. He sided with Mccain over Kerry and Wellstone, and it doesn't matter what he does personally, it's what he pushes in the public arena that matters for the country.

i don't begrudge Feingold on his choices, but he shouldn't DARE use media perception to attack other Democrats when his own record is far from perfect in that regard.

There are many times he gave little or no backup. You all want that to be forgotten while you complain that he got no backup on his issues?

the Dems would get up off their asses and do something? Russ Feingold is only saying what we on this board have been saying for a while. Let's talk about attacking Democrats, since you seem to be doing it as well. You know, I don't go to the Kerry threads and rag on him or the Clark threads and rag on him. You however seem intent on doing this to what, to make your candidate look better? Cause I have to tell you, it alienates people.

Feingold votes his conscience, not always the party thing to do, or the popular thing either, but there it is in a nutshell. You don't like it he didn't call for Rumsfield's resignation? Well I like it that he did not vote for the patriot act. You don't like he sided against Kerry and Wellstone? Well I like it that he did not vote for IWR.

Democrats when they are being interviewed.

They haven't gotten back up PLENTY of times and they chose to not attack other Dems publicly for it.

And you made my point - if Feingold doesn't want his own lengthy record of not sticking his neck out for a fight, then he has no business attacking others based on his own priorities.

Fact is that Kerry and Feingold have near the same progressive ratings after 22 and 13 years in the senate. Kerry is left of Feingold on some issues and Feingold is left of Kerry on some.

The difference is what other BATTLES they chose to take on and stick their necks out - Kerry has done that more than anyone in the senate, yet chooses to not point the finger at those who didn't support him, Kennedy chooses not to attack them too - Feingold has a lesser record of battles, but DOES point the finger at those who didn't stand with him.

Why does he find that necessary to do? Shouldn't he stand on his own record WITHOUT attacking other Democrats? Shouldn't a senator's record be solid enough that he wouldn't resort to that tactic? Russ has a solid enough record - he should stand on that alone and quit the media blitz attacking other Democrats.

in it's politics.. To sit on the sidelines while the right falls into the abyss. We all have said it here, so again that is nothing new.. I salute him for saying it...

Why don't you take Kerry's record over to the Kerry thread.. Nobody is disputing him in this thread... But you had to hijack with your Kerry rhetoric, didn't you?

harsh towards other senators when you, yourself, failed to do the same at crucial times.

i don't HAVE to defend Kerry for false slams against other Democrats because he hasn't been making them.

Ever think that Russ could BENEFIT from this advice in the long run? Don't attack other Democrats for not standing with you when there are many instances and issues you failed to stand with them.

I called up Dean's office early in the primary to tell him he was making a mistake attacking other Democrats for the IWR vote when he is on record for supporting the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR. Well - he skated on that for as long as he could because media never picked up on it and then when Gephardt finally hit him during the Iowa debate with his support of Biden-Lugar version of IWR that had essentially the same elements to it he started sputtering to change the subject - it was his weakest moment in any of the debates.

The point is that it might be wise to think ahead - don't attack your fellow Democratic lawmakers on an issue about their characters when they can turn around and hold up a mirror to your record and do it publicly at a time when it REALLY hurts.

I don't think wanting a senator to stop attacking fellow Democrats is such an out of line request. Russ chooses to fawn over Mccain publicly, he can show some courtesy and respect for other Democrats who have stuck their necks out for us time and time again - especially since HE wants appreciation and respect for the battles he takes on now.

I still say he votes and speaks his conscience. Some people have a problem with that in this world of politics, and that is the shame...

he has taken and the numbers of battles while he devalues the stands and the fights of others who have been seriously targeted by BushInc and their coopted media over the years for their many battles.

How does Feingold justify piling on when the record proves they don't deserve it?

I've seen others come down on folks like he and Howard Dean in far more unfriendly fashion than he's taken issue with them. He usually doesn't try to personalize it either. He has problems with not enough action in "principle" with the Dems not doing anything moreso now. I don't think he's trying to single anyone out as a demon like others have of him and Dean.

I think he's basically saying that until we get more people take a chance and take courageous stands like he has, the Democratic Party is going to be stuck in obscurity. And I think many like myself and other Dems agree with him on that, including many of those that put Howard Dean in charge of the DNC.

And I don't think asking people to censure, a president who has arguably committed illegal and unconstitutional acts is an "overrated" action. Not in a Democracy anyway! Just wish more Dems felt like him with that and would get away from their egos and their "safe places" for once and let him lead. They might find that its the ride that will finally get them back into leading the two elected branches of government again.

stop playing the "media" game where Democrats are lumped in as a bunch of ineffective wimps while he alone rises above the rest. The media uses that perception to keep the party down as a whole.

It's wrong to do it, even if it were true, but, it isn't even CLOSE to being true.

The point about censure is that even with that, he did it on his own WITHOUT consulting anyone - and then excuses it as if he had no trust in the courage of other Democratic senators, that's not leading - I'd like to hear him say he didn't trust their courage to the faces of the truly battered warriors of the senate, like Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Byrd, Leahy, and all the others who have been targeted for much worse over the years than Feingold has ever experienced.

If he feels that way he should DIRECT his attacks to those who deserve it - and leave the IMAGE-TRASHING against the Democratic party to the mediawhores we EXPECT it from.

He does not single anyone out and yes he is saying what we have been saying for a year.. Where is the spine of the Democratic Party? You can say whatever you want, but we the people see and feel the same way.. If he is guilty of speaking the truth, then so be it.. He has to explain why he votes one way and the democratic party votes the other??? I would like to know why too, since I believe he votes the way I would want a Democrat to vote....

You absolutely have a Feingold obsession and it is not healthy for you. I just want to know why you post threads Like This

You don't like it being done to Kerry, but it is ok to do it to Feingold.. Don't work like that... How can anyone take you serious? Don't you understand your own words????

Democratic party.

Attacking me personally all the time is a distraction from the basic point. Feingold is taking a tact that is BAD for the party, and is blatantly FALSE in its broadbrush approach.

Good leaders DON'T DO IT. They bring people along with the strength of their argument, not by attacking them and berating your own team publlcly.

Could you imagine how Feingold would have felt if Kerry berated him and others publicly and on all the blogs for refusing to support a Downing Street Memo investigation?

Would you have said Kerry has spine that Russ and the rest of the Democratic party were too cowed and scared to stand up?

On Alito, we were all EXPECTING Feingold to come out of committee hearings and lead a filibuster. He didn't - but none of us attacked him as a coward for not standing up to Bush, we chalked it up to his history of letting presidents have their nominees. Just as Kerry had a history of working to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq since 1998 to preserve the strength of the UN and its resolution powers. But, who cares about historic context - it's all for political expedience, right?

Is there anything wrong with not wanting senators to berate each other publicly with demonstrably false statements?

Name them please? Bad for the party... This sit on your ass and doing nothing approach is bad for the party... It is going to back-fire on them... Again Feingold explains why he voted one way and everyone else votes the other... When asked, he tells the truth. So tell me about the false statements you refer to please..

Also on Alito, the call for a filibuster came as usual late in the game.. Russ votes his conscience.. He might of voted him to the floor, because he actually believed he deserved a vote.. He voted against Alito though in session.... He also voted to hear evidence against Clinton then voted no to the impeachment.. He looks at all sides of the issue... An actual politician in my book.. That is what all of them should be doing...

Feingold has been berated by his own party when he introduced Censure for the President, a few of them had some words and the rest ran like rabbits.. If that is the kind of government you want, just keep on supporting the do nothing crowd.. Also don't tell me about Kerry trying to bring the troops home, Russ introduced a bill before him to do the same...

He is the kind that stomps out of a Senate Session when he sees the other Senators trying to amend the constitution with an unconstitutional bill... He acts on his conscience, if that is bad, give me more....

This man is not a maverick, he is a truth-teller, a rare bread in this government these days...

charge - WHO REALLY SITS AROUND AND DOES NOTHING? Many senators have put forth important measures and policies, and crafted solid legislation or plans, and the media gives them very little coverage for it at the same time they attack them for having no plans. Basically what you are doing here.

And Kerry submitted the FIRST actual detailed withdrawal plan in Oct. 2005. Russ made a statement in summer of 2005, calling for Dec 2006 withdrawal but attached no plan - military withdrawal plans are not something that's part of his strength, so when Kerry put up his plan, Feingold was supportive of it.

The point that you want to distract from is that MANY SENATORS work at many levels and do not deserve any other senator accusing them of being cowards and not acting from their conscience in CONTRAST to himself when it can EASILY BE PROVEN that he can be ACCUSED of the very same because of his lengthy record of sitting back and not supporting senators standing up for the right thing.

You can't change the record of 13 years in the senate. And Russ cannot change the lengthy records of Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Durbin, Boxer, Harkin and others just to make himself out to be braver and better than they are.

What false statements.. Do you think I am the only one who feels this way about the Democratic Party? Read the other threads on this page.

Also read this

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/06/04/20060427.html

<snip>

In June 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. Senator to offer a resolution calling on the President to offer a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. When the President failed to provide any suggestion of when U.S. forces would redeploy, Feingold jumpstarted the issue by suggesting the end of 2006 as a target date. In November 2005, 40 Senators voted in support of an amendment including language crafted by Feingold that called for a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

</snip>

also included Kerry's points from his plan in that November vote.- surely you remember that Senate floor statement where he entered his plan? Murtha came out a few days later with his reversal on the Iraq war.

And it still remains that you don't maximize YOUR contributions and MINIMIZE the work of others and call it leading.

If Russ is so right and so UNIQUELY courageous, then he should go up to Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Boxer, Harkin, Durbin, Byrd and other Dem senators and confront them - to their faces tell them that they have been acting out of cowardice and lack of principled beliefs while HE HAS BEEN UNIQUE IN HIS PRINCIPLED STANCES AND FIGHTS.

you? What does he say exactly that is so offending? Why won't you answer the question about the false statements you claim he has made?

Why didn't the other Senators vote no to the patriot act? Why won't the other senators get on board with the Censure motion? Why do they back away from the important issues? Why did some Senators vote for IWR while others did not?

I gave you my reference about the war resolution, all I have from you is your opinion... I am not saying that other Senators have not made contributions and yes they have spoken up, and fought at times, what I am saying is that Feingold does it consistently and tackles the issues other Senators shy away from...

How long have you been watching politics?

Read the congressional record of Feingold's last 13 years in the senate - are you going to sit there and tell us that he consistently took on issues other senators shy away from? Read THEIR Records from their years of service. Feingold has been consistent in SPEAKING UP for only a few years, He never chose major fights in the past, and RARELY provided any muscled back up to the battles taken on by other Democrats.

I will leave you to that - because the records speak for themselves. I don't HAVE to use opinion. But, my opinion based on the records is that Feingold has taken on SOME battles and recently has begun harshly criticizing other Democrats publicly, for not giving him the backup in the last year that he REFUSED TO GIVE THEM on so many of their battles - the difference is that THEY didn't attack him for it and didn't attack the Democratic lawmakers as a whole as cowards.

the important issues of the day... The most important, the Iraq War which my son fights in... I can't support anyone who voted for it, no matter what their reason were... I support his vote against the Patriot Act, I do not believe we should give up our rights for security... I support the censure of the President for breaking the law by wire-tapping innocent Americans inside the USA.. I support equal rights for all as Russ states very clearly.

I admire his courage and his willingness to speak forthright... It is that simple for me....

AGAINST members of his own party when the very same accusations can be made against him for his inactions over the years. The difference is that nobody called him out on his choice to be low-key and stay away away from the battles.

Feingold didn't think the Downing Street Memos were important, didn't support Kerry's call to fire Rumsfeld in any demonstrable way, and those issues are a crucial part of the Iraq debate. And Feingold supported 89% of the Patriot Act while other senators supported 90% of the Patriot Act and voted for it - they aren't that far apart and the next Dem president will change the Patriot Act to reflect the differences.

And to show added perspective - The Supreme Court will be a more permanent fixture in the decades to come than the current version of the Patriot Act.

do this to bolster your candidate... I have many questions about Kerry, but I don't go to his threads and post them..

You still have not mentioned these broad sweeping statements and I am not impressed by anything you have said thus far so I will say so long...


Good luck to you and your candidate....

are in the article about Russ and his recent speeches. All you have to do is read the original post in the thread. Read his speech and answers to the National Press Club. He swipes at Dems and praises Mccain in that one.

I don't care if you have problems with Kerry if they are based on his actual record - I don't like that he voted for the TelCom Bill.

But I do put everything he says and does in historical context and I do the same with Feingold.

Cherrypicking is wrong if anyne does it - Russ has been doing it alot lately.

Where's your precious Feingold on THOSE important matters. It's your tone, not mine. But I guess we all project sometimes.

Second, I guess everyone is out to get Kerry if you say so. If you'll notice, you were the one with a boner here intent on bashing Feingold and promoting Kerry as you hijacked the thread for your own pet candidate. As I said, you clearly have a problem with Feingold. You are the only one I see posting snarky comments on Feingold threads with no evidence to support your critique. (In the spirit of your posts, I'd like to remind you that you were the one grousing around in a recent thread demanding evidence to support my opinion - does your hypocrisy know no bounds?)

Thirdly, we are all clamboring for some sign of leadership in DC. If we don't support it in whomever displays it - even Lieberman for Pete's sake - if we don't encourage it to flourish, will it ever? Or do you think Kerry is the only one whose posturings on leadership should get praise around here?

And lastly, the reality is there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. You've apparently made your decision on who to support in 2008. The rest of us are still trying to decide. As part of that process we can nit pick the minutest detail of each candidate's voting record, speeches, actions and lack thereof til death do us part and get nowhere. Don't you think it would be a much more productive conversation to consider their strengths along with their weaknesses, compare and contrast their public history, consider the opus of their works rather than one etude?

Judging by your posts, it would seem you don't.

Truthfully, I have not made a decision on who I'm supporting. I like Feingold but I'm selfish and would prefer to keep him in Wisconsin. I like a half-dozen others over the rest. I won't make that final decision until I've heard from them all. You've made it passionately apparent who you're supporting. If I made my decisions about presidential candidates as you have about Feingold, I would have crossed Kerry off my list of possibles long ago. But you may yet persuade me to your way of thinking.

Perhaps you ought to consider avoiding the Feingold threads until the rest of us have made our decisions. We wouldn't want you having a coronary before the primary - or scaring people away from Kerry with your virulent posts.

i've always liked Feingold for most of his votes - It's his tactic of attacking other Democrats recently that I don't care for and object because he is not being honest. He faults other Democrats while letting himself off the hook for acting the VERY SAME WAY on important issues.

And I think what bothers his supporters is that they know I'm speaking the truth. Feingold can not HONESTLY say that he has acted differently in his career and even recently when he refused back up on the DSM.

We just don't see it, because it's done behind closed doors and the influence peddling tries to push Dems like Feingold into corners. We've had a "do nothing" Democratic Party that has done too little for too long because too many haven't done enough to counter the influence of the DLC. Now we have people like Howard Dean and Russell Feingold that have spoken up and sometimes tried to confront this influence. I don't fault them for it, without really knowing what goes on behind the scenes. It's really hard to tell if the problem rests with folks like Feingold and Dean, or within the Democratic Party leadership that are standing in the way of a cooperative strategy that confronts the Republicans. I'm inclined to believe the latter, with the problems we've had with the Alito fillibuster, and other votes, the Hayden confirmation, etc. where we've not had a very effective opposition party. It might take some contentiousness to stir things up.

Put it this way, I don't think that Feingold is motivated by "grandstanding" in these efforts. I do think he's trying to do something out of principle and to do the right thing to represent the wishes and benefits of his constituents, which is more than I can say for many other Dems including a certain one in the Senate who I'll be voting against tomorrow in the primary here.

It's why many Dems dislike them. Who wants to go that same route and play that game?

Russ would be better off STICKING with those Dems who know their way through the minefields in his own party than featuring himself as a lone maverick out to distance himself from the others. That tactic didn't work in the long run for Mccain, and it's going to work even less for Russ, because, he is, after all, still a Democrat.

It will work in the press for a bit - just enough to let him THINK it's effective for him, then it will turn around and bite him in the ass - the only real protection you get is MUTUAL PROTECTION from your OWN.

Thank you for the exact words of what I have been thinking? :hi:

Call it like I do..."a bunch of milquetoast, limp dicks".

We have some candidates that are promising...but of course we save our "courage" for people within our own party (Hackett).

Sherrod, if you're reading this, I'm pulling for you...but if you lose, take up basket weaving...'cause your political life will be over.

I'm still a huge Al Gore guy, and I think he would come back better than ever, but I could gladly put my support behind Feingold, one of the true good ones up there.