Forward With Feingold

by Paul Simon Democrat, Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:40:30 PM EST

Most of you probably don't know me. I posted a few comments a couple of months ago but I've pretty much been a lurker here. That's just my natural way to act in online communities. However, those of you who are really into the Feingold for President movement may know me as Dan K. from the Russ Feingold for President blog at http://russfeingold.blogspot.com

Anyhow, what follows is a commentary I posted there today that, with a little encouragement, I decided I should share with people beyond my fellow Feingold fans.

I wrote this as a response to all the commentaries I've read comparing Senator Feingold to previous presidential candidates (most notably Eugene McCarthy, but I've seen him compared to everyone from George McGovern to Howard Dean). Whether those comparisons are positive or negative they bother me because I believe that presidential campaigns should be about the future, not the past. So, this is what I wrote. I think of it as a very brief surrogate stump speech. I call it "Forward with Feingold".

"Forward With Feingold"

I have many normal, obvious reasons for supporting Senator Feingold for President. There are his progressive positions on the issues, from trade to health care to Iraq. There is his willingness to take principled and independent stands-like his lone Senate vote against the PATRIOT Act. There is his straightforward yet affable personality. And then there are the less obvious, and rather strange, reasons I have for supporting Senator Feingold. Here's one: I love his state's motto.

Wisconsin's motto is very direct. It's just one word; it's not even in Latin. It's "Forward." I think that is a beautiful motto. Short, simple, and relevant. I wish I could make it the personal motto of all the politicians and pundits out there. I wish all the talking heads out there were looking forward-and talking about how to bring this country forward.

But sadly, that isn't what I hear. Instead I hear commentators who are always looking backwards insist that 2008 is, in fact, the exact same year as 1968 and Russ Feingold is Eugene McCarty, destined to split the Democratic Party and doom it to defeat in November. Or I hear that 2008 is actually 2004 and Senator Feingold is Howard Dean-a netroots liberal phenomenon destined to burnout and be defeated by someone more electable-who, in November, turns out to be not that electable after all.

Of course, not all of the commentators are constantly looking backwards-some are looking at the present, with incredibly myopic eyes. They can't see beyond the latest piece of conventional wisdom. "Senators can't win the presidency", they repeat, as though it was a natural law. "We must nominate a Southerner!" they insist, as though it was in the Constitution. "And it doesn't matter anyway, because Hillary will get the nomination!" they state with such absolute certainty that they must have traveled into the future and seen it come true.

Why is it that as America stands at the beginning of a new century, we can only think about the past or the present? Why do our political commentators insist on using flawed historical analogies or regurgitating stale, simplistic conventional wisdom? Why limit ourselves to looking backwards or looking at where we are right now? Why not follow the advice of Senator Feingold's state's motto and look forward?

And that is why I support Senator Feingold: because I'm looking forward towards a better future and because I'm willing to work to move America forward. And because I know that Senator Feingold will provide the leadership so that we can go forward.

We can go forward to an America where no one has to live in poverty.

We can go forward to an America where we all have health insurance and all our children can attend quality public schools.

We can go forward to an America that is both secure from terrorism and strong in its commitment to civil liberties.

We can go forward to an America where  the government always works for the public interest, not for the special interests.

I firmly believe that working together we, the people of the United States of America, can move our country and the world forward towards new horizons of opportunity, justice and peace.

Let's go forward together! Let's go forward with Feingold!



Tags: (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 98 Comments :: Post a Comment


Brilliant. (3.00 / 1)

Whole-heartedly recommended.
by craverguy on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:43:15 PM EST

What was Sen. Feingold's position on 1991 Gulf War (none / 0)

Hi Dan K.: good to see your passionate support for Sen. Feingold (I also like him, but he comes behind Dean and Gore in my list :))

There one question that I'd like to find a definitive answer to, and am hoping you (or our resident swift-boater for Feingold, craverguy :)) could shed some light on this, preferably with published sources (or official records, such as WI state senate proceedings)?


Did Sen. Feingold support or oppose The Persian Gulf war in 1991?

Some dKos user with the screen name "jim crow" claims this in connection with this issue. Are you able to confirm/dislodge "jim crow"'s assertions?

thanks
Neo

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Russ Feingold was elected to the Senate in 1992. (none / 0)

So there is absolutely no way of knowing, is there?
by craverguy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

I said "What was Sen. Feingold's POSITION on 1991 Gulf War", not what his vote in the US senate was. I am sure you had a position yourself, and a every state senator also must have had a position, or maybe even an officially stated position (such as floor stmt in the STATE SENATE). My question is what was his POSITION.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As far as I know... (none / 0)

...He never voiced an opinion. His 1992 senate race was about his committment to taking no soft money, cutting pork barrel spending to balance the budget, and remaining connected to his constituents. Please see the garage door promises.

I doubt the Gulf War, which was more or less over by the time he won the primary, ever came up.

by craverguy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True (none / 0)

But we shouldn't kid ourselves-Feingold is probably the most dovish member of the senate today.  This is a good thing, in my mind, but there is an avenue of attack here (for example, he voted against Kosovo, claiming that the war plan was vague (sound familiar) and full of billions of pork).  He also attacked the ramping up of attacks on Iraq during the end of Clinton's term, mainly on War Powers Act complaints.  Of course, attacking Feingold for opposing military action that Clinton initiated has a chance to boomerang back in the Republican canidate face.

He did support the recent Afghanistan invasion, though.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/WhereAreDoves_Congress.html <-Also note my favorite RINO (Ron Paul) gets his two cents in this 1999 article
http://eternal-hope.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/10/223529/443
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7326869/ <-good list of his votes

by Geotpf on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:59:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True (none / 0)

"He did support the recent Afghanistan invasion, though."

I think support for that was pretty much universal. Even Dennis Kucinich voted to invade Afghanistan.

by craverguy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 08:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

It would be impractical for anybody to not support that.  However, I believe that's the only time he's ever been in favor of the use of military force.  This suits me just fine, but could be a potential problem from the wingers.
by Geotpf on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:29:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

I am almost certain that Russ stated that he opposed the '91 Gulf War during the '92 general election campaign during a Q&A session with voters.  Of course, this was after the fact so we don't know what his position was at the time of the vote.

I am not as sure about this part, but I think he also said something to the effect that once we were in, we should have finished the job and taken Saddam Hussein out of power.  

by whodat527 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:51:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

-->I am almost certain that Russ stated that he opposed the '91 Gulf War during the '92 general election campaign during a Q&A session with voters.  Of course, this was after the fact so we don't know what his position was at the time of the vote.

If he really did oppose that war publicly, I really think that Sen.RF should come out and openly declare that he did do so (because, like it or not, it WILL BE made an issue by the right wingers if and when the time arrives), even it means his potential pres. aspirations may suffer as a result. In fact, I expect him to do so.

-->I am not as sure about this part, but I think he also said something to the effect that once we were in, we should have finished the job and taken Saddam Hussein out of power.  

I think that taking-out Saddam in 1991 then was the right thing to do, but to start with, waging a war to redress territorial aggression was also the right thing to do back then.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 09:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (3.00 / 1)

Don't want to pull a Pat Roberston here: I meant taking Saddam out of power :)

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 09:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (3.00 / 1)

Russ Feingold clearly opposed the '91 Gulf War. Here is an excerpt from a Nov 2, 1992 column in the National Review:

"Perhaps most revealing of all was Feingold's shrill opposition to the Persian Gulf War. In the midst of the allied air strikes, Feingold sponsored a resolution calling for unilateral withdrawal. Reflecting a virulent anti-Americanism seldom seen in the halls of state government, his resolution declared that "U.S. military plans may include the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians," and resolved that "U.S. forces begin to withdraw from the Persian Gulf area immediately until their strength and numbers reach their level in the region prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n21_v44/ai_12936559#continue

More Feingold and Iraq - this time courtesy of the Republican Party of Vilas County in Wisconsin:

"State Senator Russ Feingold was not only a co-sponsor, but was also characterized as a "prime mover" behind the Resolution. "In 1991, when he [Feingold] served in the Wisconsin Legislature, he was a co-sponsor and prime mover behind Assembly Joint Resolution 6." (John Nichols, "At The Most, Feingold Is A Mild Maverick," [Madison, WI] Capital Times, February 1, 1999)

"Feingold stated that had he been in the U.S. Senate he would have voted against authorizing war in Iraq." (no source is cited)

http://vilasgop.org/?page=news-article&id=47

by whodat527 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 09:55:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

OOPS!  I found the quote with the the cited source.

"[U.S. Sen. Bob] Kasten voted for the war in the U.S. Senate. Feingold says he would have voted against it . . ." (Jeff Mayers, "Kasten Makes Gulf War An Issue," Wisconsin State Journal, October 29, 1992)

by whodat527 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

wow, that's a definitive find on the 1991 gulf war issue, whodat527. good investigative work.

The NR article is a fascinating read, both positively and negatively reg. the sen.! But I do suspect that Sen.RF will probably pay a serious price in the presidential waters for his opposition to the 1991 gulf war, unfortunately.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:31:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My favorite part of the article: (3.00 / 1)

"If, however, Robert Kasten can't pull it off, then, come January, Paul Wellstone of neighboring Minnesota will have company in the Senate's wacky-left caucus, and Wisconsin will have six years to repent its momentary infatuation."

Thirteen years, one narrow victory, and one landslide win later, here we sit talking about Feingold for President.

by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 01:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (3.00 / 0)

Neo: First off, thanks for your kind words about my diary.

Now, onto your concern...

"If he really did oppose that war publicly, I really think that Sen.RF should come out and openly declare that he did do so (because, like it or not, it WILL BE made an issue by the right wingers if and when the time arrives), even it means his potential pres. aspirations may suffer as a result. In fact, I expect him to do so."

I'm affraid I really don't see the big deal. See, I was 10 years old when the First Gulf War occurred. I'm turning 24 next week. Now, I wouldn't call the First Gulf War ancient history, or even irrelevant, but I don't think it will be a big campaign issue in 2008. It'll be almost two decades in the past.

Yeah, I know, Swift Boat ads, Vietnam is even further in the past, etc. Frankly, I think the fact that Vietnam became an election issue last year was more a failing of the Kerry campaign than anything else. Maybe the Republicans want to live in the past, and yeah, maybe the media will go along with them...and the media's especially likely to go along with them if we don't have anything better to offer them. So let's offer them something better. Let's have a candidate who goes around passionately speaking about a progressive vision for the future.

And I'm not naive. I know the Republicans will still attack us. And we should respond quickly and truthfully. Then we go right back to talking about that progressive vision for the future.

If the Democrats are scared to nominate a candidate that the Republicans might attack for something s/he did in the past, well, let's just forfeit the dang election right now! They'll attack Russ and Hillary and Evan Bayh. They'd attack Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman with equal intensity. So why give in to fears of Republican attacks? Let's support the candidate with the best plan for the future.

In conclusion, I see no reason for Russ to publicly announce his position on something from 14 years ago. It's a (rather unimportant) matter of public record, and I'm sure when the time is right Tim Russert will bring it up on "Meet the Press". Until then, I won't lose sleep over it.

But, hey, if Senator Feingold feels like giving a press conference about his position on the First Gulf War, I'll follow that up with an exciting blog post revealing the name of the girl I had a crush on in 4th Grade...if only I could remember her name!  

 

by Paul Simon Democrat on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold & The War Powers Act (3.00 / 0)

Feingold has mention the War Powers Act several times and he's exactly right. Even in Kosovo and Desert Storm Congress should have been more stringent in clarifying the record as far as a declaration of war.

Congress should also demand answers to the criteria of the Powell Doctrine. Whether it's Clinton or Bush, Democrat or Republican, Congress has a vital role to play in every military action to prevent immoral wars like Iraq.

The problem with both Kosovo and Iraq I was that they were judged successful in hindsight, based on results. You can't commit American troops to war for vague reasons and hope they turn our OK to justify the decision. Our policy on declarations of war is a recipe for engaging in immoral wars.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:40:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed (none / 0)

Kosovo, in particular, should not have worked, given the strict ground rules (no US ground troops) at the start.  But it did.

Here's an opening, though: Feingold picks Clark as VP nom.  They then run a commercial with an interviewer asking Feingold, "Why did you pick Clark?  You opposed the Kosovo war."  Then Feingold responds, "I thought we were asking our troops to do the impossible, under too strict conditions.  Whenever you send troops under an international command, if it be NATO, or the UN, or whathave you (Note:subtle anti-UN comment here without really being so-point being to get libertarians on board), you have to worry if the mission is possible or not.  I thought the mission was impossible-yet Clark managed to do it.  Being able to do the impossible is what I look for in a VP nom."

That's an example I came up with, but Feingold is pretty good at doing the opposite of what Republicans do.  Republicans turn thier enemies perceieved strength into a weakness by attacking them at it.  Feingold can turn his perceived weaknesses into strengths by emphasizing them.  Hence his mentioning his Patriot Act vote in TV ads during the last campaign.  He has nothing to hide.

by Geotpf on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

PSD: that's a cute one about your 4th grade sweetie :) somebody has had the lovebug bite him a tad early, didn't he? :)

see, it is less of a factor for me that the wingnuts will attack, than that I personally find his oppostion to the 1991 gulf war unacceptable: when a country invades and occupies another country (sounds familiar?), subject to a dose of pragmatism, I expect democratic nations of the world, esp. their most powerful member to counter that aggression, period!

sure, i'd of course vote for him in the general election against a Rogue-Republican candidate (as in 2004), but employing our military might where it is appropriate (in kuwait/iraq'91 and kosovo it was appropriate, IMO) is an important factor for me.

Hey, early happy 24th birthday wishes to you! I take it you'll enjoying it with the girl you currently have a crush on and will be posting an exciting blog post about it afterwards :)

Neo

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 01:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. (none / 0)

I personally find the first Gulf War to have been a colossal waste of time and money. The government of Kuwait isn't anymore democratic or humane than Saddam's was, and we put them right back in power as soon as Saddam was gone, so it's not like we were fighting for democracy over there.

The only reason we really cared enough to send troops was that A) Bush wanted higher approval ratings and B) Saddam wasn't going to sell us his oil as cheaply as the Kuwaitis were.

Hardly what I'd call reason to invade a country.

by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 01:12:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. (none / 0)

-->I personally find the first Gulf War to have been a colossal waste of time and money.

very shortsighted, indeed.

because, common sense tells you that Saddam would not have stopped after gobbling up Kuwait, and probably would not have rested until he subsumed most of the arab world, and challenged Israel.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:34:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. (none / 0)

And until he challenged Israel, I still wouldn't have cared, because replacing a collection of tyrants and dictators with one dictator who is dependent on us for aid isn't really changing things much.
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 04:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

"see, it is less of a factor for me that the wingnuts will attack, than that I personally find his oppostion to the 1991 gulf war unacceptable: when a country invades and occupies another country (sounds familiar?), subject to a dose of pragmatism, I expect democratic nations of the world, esp. their most powerful member to counter that aggression, period!"

Well, fair enough. From your previous posts, especially where I was quoting, it seemed like your main concern was that it would be a subject of wingnut attack.

As you could probably tell, I have no strong personal feelings about the First Gulf War. I wasn't old enough to understand it completely when it went on. I remember that my parents opposed it. I remember that a fair number of Democratic senators opposed it. IMO, that's not an unacceptable position. I think it was a more complicated matter than "Saddam's an agressor, we must fight back!" But I'm not an expert in the subject, and honestly it's not a matter of great inteest to me.

Senator Feingold gave a major foreign policy speech in LA a couple of weeks back. You can read it at http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/content/190 I admit I've only had time to skim it, but I find a nice statement of what American foreign policy/security policy could be. Maybe Senator Feingold is too dovish for your taste. That's fine. But he's got some good, serious foreign policy ideas, he's not Dennis Kucinich way out in left field with the Department of Peace.  

Thanks for the birthday wishes. Good night.

by Paul Simon Democrat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 01:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

I recall how Howard Dean inexplicably tried to attack John Kerry's vote against the '91 Gulf War right before the New Hampshire primary.  I think it was completely ineffective - and I supported Dean in 2003 and 2004.

The only Iraq War vote that will matter to Democratic caucus goers and primary voters will be the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.  Unlike virtually all of his potential '08 rivals, Russ Feingold got this one right.  Russ Feingold took a courageous, politically risky stand against the war.  Many of the so-called "experts" were already writing Feingold's political obituary.  Feingold, however, handily defeated Tim Michels by 11 points in 2004 to keep his Senate seat.  

by whodat527 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (none / 0)

-->I recall how Howard Dean inexplicably tried to attack John Kerry's vote against the '91 Gulf War right before the New Hampshire primary.  I think it was completely ineffective

It was ineffective because it was too late, and the only thing people can hear was the scream, I think.

-->The only Iraq War vote that will matter to Democratic caucus goers and primary voters will be the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.  

I am trying to find opinion polls BEFFORE the war began on how many democrats supported it, but I suspect that at least 50-60% of democrats supported the Gulf war back then.

-->Unlike virtually all of his potential '08 rivals, Russ Feingold got this one right.  Russ Feingold took a courageous, politically risky stand against the war.  Many of the so-called "experts" were already writing Feingold's political obituary.

Given that 23 other Dem. senators voter againt the 2003 Iraq invasion, I am not sure that "risky" and "obituary" would be the most accurate words. Here is the complete list of the Dem. senators that voed againt the invasion.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session, Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Counts:    YEAs    77, NAYs    23

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Hmmm, notice Durbin there? I know this is an RF diary, but any quick reactions to Durbin for President, 2008? (don't know if he supported or oppose the gulf war in 1991). Brief Sen. Durbin bio: Sen. RD: 14 yrs in US House and 10 yrs in the US Sen.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Corr. (none / 0)

Durbin: 14 yrs in US House, and 12 yrs (two terms) in the US Senate (thru 2008).

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

durbin (none / 0)

My understanding is that Durbin isn't interested in higher office (shockingly for a US senator, I know). He was discussed as a VP for Gore back in 2000 and apparently took himself out of the running. He seems to enjoy the relative obscurity and private life he enjoys in IL (especially now that he's overshadowed by Obama).
www.RussForPresident.com
by peacenik23 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I asked for POSITION and NOT his US sen. vote (3.00 / 0)

Those are some valid point you make - especially about Dean.  Did Bush make much of an issue of Kerry's vote against the '91 Gulf War?

About Russ Feingold:

  1. Most of the senators who voted "NAY" were from reliably blue states, were entrenched incumbents (Byrd, Bingaman, Conrad, and Graham) or both.

  2. I don't think any of them barely survived their most recent election by only one or two points the way Feingold did against Mark Neumann in 1998.

  3. And of course, they all voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. The Republicans relentlessly attacked Russ for his "NO" votes on both the PATRIOT ACT and the Iraq War Resolution, calling him soft on terrorists.

I know for a fact that the author of this diary is big Durbin fan.  If Russ decides not to run, I would defintely be receptive to Durbin running.  
by whodat527 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

President Durbin? I love it! Won't happen! (none / 0)

I have nothing but respect and affection for Senator Dick Durbin. He is, indeed, my second favorite member of the US Senate, and I think he is a more than worthy heir to Paul Douglas, Adlai Stevenson III and Paul Simon. (He started in politics as an assistant to Lt. Gov. Paul Simon, in fact.) If Feingold decides not to run for president, Durbin is honestly the only other Democrat I can see myself working my butt off for in 2008 Presidential Primaries. (I like Sen. Obama and Gov. Schweitzer a lot, but I don't think either of them will have enough experience to run in 2008.)

That said, I think whatever presidential or vice presidential aspirations Senator Durbin may have had died when he gave that speech on Gitmo. They died a second time when he apologized for that speech on Gitmo. Now I don't think Senator Durbin's point in that speech was wrong, and Republicans and the media portrayed the speech as being worse than it actually was, but he really should have expressed himself better there.

Now, he's loathed by GOPers for how they interpret what he said, and he's criticized by a lot of Democratic activists for apologizing for it. The man I consider the most reasonable voice in cable news, Keith Olbermann, criticized both Durbin's remarks (based on the premise that Americans should never mention Nazis when referring to other Americans) and his apology (based on the premise that public celebrity apologies should always be mocked).

Now, maybe the fuss over Durbin's remarks in forgotten now. But it will be back with a vengeance if he runs for President. Imagine the GOP candidate saying:

"Dick Durbin is running for President. Dick Durbin thinks he is fit to be commander in chief. How the hell does Dick Durbin expect the young men and women of our fighting forces to obey a commander in chief who has compared them to the minions of Stalin and Hitler?!"

Never mind that that's not what Durbin said, it's still a 100 times more potent attack than "Russ Feingold is a twice-divorced Jew."

Durbin on a presidential ticket, as much as I'd love to see it and would be willing to work for him if he ran and Russ didn't, would open a bad can of worms for the Democrats. It's sad. Durbin deserved better than to be attacked over his remarks. He also deserves better than to go through it all again in 2008.

I hope Senator Durbin can still rise to a higher position in public service. He'd make an awesome Senate (hopefully Majority) Leader, he's smart and tough, and could lead the fight against a GOP president's agenda, or for a Democratic Prez's agenda. Given his legal background, I also think it'd be great to have Attorney General Durbin or US Supreme Court Justice Durbin. He could even do like Adlai III, and leave the Senate to run for Governor of Illinois (hopefully winning, unlike Adlai III).

I love Dick Durbin, but I can't see imagine him being on a future presidental ticket.

As for the First Gulf War:    

On issues, Durbin considers U.S. military involvement in the Persian Gulf as the most difficult he has faced. Before war broke out with Iraq, Durbin sponsored a resolution reminding President Bush that Congress had the authority to act on any military engagement. It was the first of three debated and voted on January 12, four days before U.S. military forces began the air war against Iraq's military machine. Durbin's resolution was approved in the House, 302 to 131. He joined the House Democrats in urging continued economic sanctions over military action on the second resolution, which was defeated with 183 ayes and 250 nays. Scoffers at home say that he went with the Democratic leadership on what essentially was a partisan roll call, but Durbin considers the Iraqi war the most difficult issue of his career. "I spent a lot of sleepless nights remembering the faces of the young men and women I saw at the National Guard send-off here in [Springfield] and the reserves in Decatur," he said. "I carry around with me letters from mothers of kids on the front line in Saudi Arabia. I've met with them, and they've cried and asked me to do what I can to bring their kids home safely .... It is the toughest call a politician has to make."

The vote on the third resolution, authorizing the president to use force, was passed 250 to 183. Durbin said that as soon as the ayes and nays were recorded, he fell in line behind Bush.

"The president prevailed; the national policy was established. I fully support it, and I will make certain we give these men and women the resources to make sure they come home safely as quickly as possible. History will ultimately judge whether that policy decision was right, but we cannot let that debate take away anything from our support of the men and women over there." From: http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii910411.html

So it sounds like, although he wasn't as critical of the war as Wellstone or Feingold, he still voted against the use of force.

by Paul Simon Democrat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 03:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Durbin? I love it! Won't happen! (none / 0)

Durbin for Governor is not a bad idea, esp. if Blagojevich's approval rating continue to tank.

I think that both Sens. Durbin and Feingold ROCK :)

But, twice unfortunately in this case, an opposition to the 1991 gulf war does count rather heavily against a cand. for POTUS/VPOTUS.

thanks for the good discussion, guys.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 03:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

corr. (none / 0)

But, twice unfortunately in this case, to me, an opposition to the 1991 gulf war does count rather heavily against a cand. for POTUS/VPOTUS.

And, the wingnuts will have a field day when it comes to it.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 03:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: corr. (none / 0)

Why? Who cares about something he didn't even vote on 17 years before he ran for president? And the fact is that even if they do bring it up, he can turn it to his favor by pointing out, quite reasonably, in my book, that it proves he's consistent on issues of principle.
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 04:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: corr. (none / 0)

Sorryz Neoliberal, but you just have retrospective views of it. Most of the Democrats opposed it, even the more conservative ones. In fact, it only won 52-47 in the Senate. A few token votes however led it to victory, like Al Gore, (and i'm assuming Dick Shelby too).

Looking back on the war, there wasn't much point in all in it... Especially since the mission was just to liberate Kuwait, maybe if it was for a real regime change in Iraq (When it would have been popular, before the days of terrorism).

by KainIIIC on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank You (none / 0)

Thanks, craverguy, and everyone who recommended this diary!

I'm amazed and flattered that this became one of the recommended diaries, I was worried that no one would read it, or even worse, those who did would hate it. I'm so glad that's not the case.

Again, thanks a lot, I appreciate all the support!

by Paul Simon Democrat on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank You (none / 0)

"Forward with Feingold" is definitely the best political slogan I've heard in a long while. It has everything: alliteration, memorability, relevance, and the ability to be woven more or less seamlessly into the candidate's stump speech.
by craverguy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank You (none / 0)

Paul Simon Democrat, did you come up with the "Forward with Feingold" slogan?  It seems so obvious, but it works so well.

The GOP will shoot back with:
"Forward with more tax increases."
"Forward with more regulations."
"Forward with abortion on demand."
"Forward with socialized medicine."
"Feingold wants you to forward all your hard earned money to the federal government."

In all seriousness, I think it's a fantastic campaign slogan.  I wish I had thought of it first!

by whodat527 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold's response: (3.00 / 2)

"Forward with balancing the budget."
"Forward with protecting the consumer and the small investor."
"Forward with reproductive freedom."
"Forward with health care for those in need."
"[The Republican] wants you to forward all your money to the corporations he works for."
by craverguy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank You (none / 0)

Well, I THINK I came up with the "Forward with Feingold" slogan! I don't think I've seen it used before on any of the Draft Russ sites. But it seems so obvious I'm worried I might have subconciously plagarized it from somewhere!

"The GOP will shoot back with:
"Forward with more tax increases."
"Forward with more regulations."
"Forward with abortion on demand."
"Forward with socialized medicine."
"Feingold wants you to forward all your hard earned money to the federal government.""

Shhh! Don't tell the GOP what to say!

Oh, never mind, craverguy has the response...

Seriously, thanks for the compliments!

by Paul Simon Democrat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

agreed (none / 0)

RussForPresident.com has just launched ads to promote Senator Feingold. This is a great slogan to move the effort forward. Dan, you helped start this movement and you're still leading the way. Forward with Feingold!
www.RussForPresident.com
by peacenik23 on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 10:21:42 PM EST

I do indeed like it (none / 0)

"Forward with Feingold"

has a great ring to it. And it's no doubt that the person who is "Moving Forward" in the polls is none other than... Feingold!

by KainIIIC on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 11:13:02 PM EST

Who was that masked man? (none / 0)

I couldn't figure out where else to stick this. Meet Dr. Marble.

Marble, who was wearing an old Mr. T "I Pity Da Fool" t-shirt since he was sifting through the wreckage, asked a couple of police officers if he and a friend could walk down to Cheney. They told him Cheney was "looking forward" to talking to "the locals."

"So we grabbed my Canon digital rebel and my Sony videocamera and started walking down the street," Marble wrote. "And then right in front of the destroyed tennis court I used to play on Dick Cheney was giving a pep rally, talking to the press. The Secret Service guys patted us down and waved the wands over us, and then let us pass."

As he stood about 10 feet away from Cheney and his friend and some camera operators from CNN and other media filmed the scene, Marble suddenly yelled, "Go fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney! Go fuck yourself, you asshole!"

Click through to Shakespeare's Sister for the rest of the story.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 09:42:49 AM EST

I loved Paul Simon (none / 0)

I had the opportunity to share a Rice Crispy Treat with him at our small-town Dem HQ when I was out putting up telephone pole signs for him.

What a great senator!
He had such a big heart.

Illinois has had a few good senators in my age.  Durbin is pretty solid, and Obama too.  Can't wait for his presidential run.

by Sam Loomis on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:38:31 AM EST

Re: I loved Paul Simon (none / 0)

That's a great story, Sam!

Unfortunately, even though I've lived my whole life in either Chicago or St. Louis, I never got the chance to see Senator Simon in person. And I was too young to vote for him in any of his campaigns.

But, I chose this user name to honor him beucase I think he represented everything that can be good about the Democrats: he was progressive, honest, and optimistic, and just generally a good person.

And yeah, Durbin and Obama are great heirs to his legacy. Makes me wish I still lived in Illinois, not Missouri!

by Paul Simon Democrat on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:29:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Russ for Veep! (none / 0)

Don't get me wrong, I worked on his campaign last year here in Green Bay, but Russ is a longshot for now.
 He just got divorced for the 2nd time and that could be an issue (never mind Reagan-he was a Republican-(IOKIYAR).  He also has that "Lieberman problem" and anti-semitism is not a thing of the past.  Finally he has a Senate record that would surely be swift-boated.  That is why I think he would make a better Veep candidate.
  Again, don't get me wrong, he is the best thing we have in the Senate now that Sen. Wellstone is gone.  I just think that for now it is unrealistic.
by Tundraman on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 01:36:17 PM EST

Re: Russ for Veep! (none / 0)

"He just got divorced for the 2nd time and that could be an issue"

Only for people who aren't going to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-school prayer Democrat anyway.

"He also has that "Lieberman problem" and anti-semitism is not a thing of the past."

Any party that would deny a man its presidential nomination on the basis of his religion has no business calling itself "the party of the people" and any country that would deny that same man the presidency on the basis of his religion has no business calling itself "the land of the free."

"Finally he has a Senate record that would surely be swift-boated."

Name for please one potential candidate that you think cannot be swift-boated. I guarantee you that I can swift-boat him.

by craverguy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely Not (none / 0)

I want him for president, but he is too great an asset to our country in the senate to give him the do nothing job that is the Veep.  As for your other issues:

  1. Divorce and religion-these are negatives (although they shouldn't be).  However, his religion is actually a positive in the important state of Florida, which balances out any slight nationwide negative that may have.  His divorce may be a problem, but I actually don't think it will matter all that much, not nearly as much as people think.

  2. His voting record-he doesn't have a Swift Boat problem, in that he doesn't vote in a wishy washy way, like most senators do.  He never "Voted for the 87 billion dollars before he voted against it"-and he's too smart to even say something that stupid even if he had.

by Geotpf on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely Yes (none / 0)

--> "I want him for president, but he is too great an asset to our country in the senate to give him the do nothing job that is the Veep."

That is an incredibly short-sighted statement to make. The VP can shape EVERY SINGLE initiative (legislation, budgets, advice and consent in important prec. decisions, you name it) that comes out of the whitehouse, if he chooses to do so. A good VP can infact be a damn powerful force, and can become the second most powerful official in the country, if he wants and works to be one.

I second Tundraman's view that Sen.RF would make a great Veep, and then would be the natural choice for president there after.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely Yes (3.00 / 1)

On the other hand, if the VP gets picked solely as a sop for the left, he spends the next four to eight years playing golf and smiling for the cameras.

Meanwhile, if he had been in the Senate, he could have been spearheading the fight for campaign finance reform, universal health care, and the elimination of poverty.

by craverguy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The VP job has two duties attached to it by law (none / 0)

  1. Breaking ties in the senate.
  2. Replacing the president if he becomes unable or unwilling to serve.

That's it.  Now, the position can be a good public voice, if the president chooses to let the VP do so.  If not, the veep attends funerals and diplomatic events and that's it.  The post has no actual power to it under the consitution.  If Feingold didn't have a fairly powerful job already, that would be different.  But make no mistake about it-the Vice President is a demotion for a sitting Senator, especially a three term one.  Now, many senators are more than willing to take such a demotion, mainly because they are then set up for a shot at the big job in four or eight years.

In any case, this discussion is moot-I can not see Feingold accepting a VP nomination in any case.  I believe he would see it as a demotion, too.  The only way I can see him accepting it is if he decides that his presence will significangly help whoever is at the top of the ticket win (and more than any other person as VP nom)-he is quite loyal to the party.

by Geotpf on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

Doesn't matter what the "strict constructionist" view of a VP is, because in reality, he/she can make a tremendous amount of difference. If the Prez. trusts him, VP can literally write the whole admin. agenda (as you can see from Darth Cheney's antithetic engagement in this present rogue administration).

-->But make no mistake about it-the Vice President is a demotion for a sitting Senator

I strongly disagree. It's one senator out of 100 who in any event gets to play a real role only if his party has the majority. On the other hand, an engaged VP can closely influence everything that comes out of the WH(say, a budget) and everything that gets signed or vetoed in the whitehouse.

-->In any case, this discussion is moot-I can not see Feingold accepting a VP nomination in any case.  I believe he would see it as a demotion, too.  The only way I can see him accepting it is if he decides that his presence will significangly help whoever is at the top of the ticket win (and more than any other person as VP nom)-he is quite loyal to the party.

I am not sure that the good senator would consider it a demotion (sure, it'd far more desirable to be the big cheese). If I get to meet him, and I'll try to do so, I'll definitely ask him this question :)

I genuinely do think that this "VP in 2008, and Prez in 2016" would be a great move for Sen. Feingold, as the current marital issue could become moot by then, as people will be able to relate to him directlty as their Veep, and he may remarry and have a stable marriage to present to the american public by 2016. Trust me, matrimonial stability of their president will be a factor to many people; rightwing spinners will make sure that it is, even otherwise (unless their own guy/gal has had two or more divorces) :(

Remember that, to win, any dem. candidate will have to win over a substantial number of non-liberals and non-democrats, and at present, only Carl Rove seems to have a number on the independents. To expect a non-liberally oriented voter to totally ignore a recent double-divorce is disengenuous, IMO.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 08:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

"If the Prez. trusts him, VP can literally write the whole admin. agenda"

And if the president just picked the VP to sew up the midwest and keep the liberals in his corner, he has zero power once they win the election.

"I strongly disagree. It's one senator out of 100 who in any event gets to play a real role only if his party has the majority. On the other hand, an engaged VP can closely influence everything that comes out of the WH(say, a budget) and everything that gets signed or vetoed in the whitehouse."

Your whole argument seems to be predicated on the idea that hypothetical-VP Feingold will have the same relationship with the hypothetical-President as Gore had with Clinton. That's a rare thing. In fact, usually it works out to be the opposite. To whit, when President Eisenhower was asked in 1960 to name a decision Vice President Nixon had been responsible for during the administration, he replied: "Give me a week and I might think of something."

"I am not sure that the good senator would consider it a demotion"

He would if his job description suddenly changed from "writing and passing the laws of the land" to "sitting on a dais and banging a little gavel every so often."

"Trust me, matrimonial stability of their president will be a factor to many people;"

I continue to maintain that that is crap. Nobody cares about his marital status, except for the members of the Religious Right, who are already against him because he's liberal and non-Christian.

"(unless their own guy/gal has had two or more divorces)"

Try Newt's three and one each for Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain, all of them the result of adultery.

"To expect a non-liberally oriented voter to totally ignore a recent double-divorce is disengenuous, IMO."

To expect intelligent people to pick a president based on it is insulting.

by craverguy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

-->"To expect a non-liberally oriented voter to totally ignore a recent double-divorce is disengenuous, IMO."

To expect intelligent people to pick a president based on it is insulting.

I am not interested in saying too much about this, but to most people, these things do matter.
for instance, Clinton would have lost in 1992, it became an established fact that he was an adulterer by then (sure, he may have won in 2000 even after the monica affair was established, but by then he had racked up 8 years of incredible economic success).

that's a good one from Ike on Nixon :)

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

I think we can all get behind the idea that there's a difference between getting a divorce and being an adulterer.
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:32:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe that... (none / 0)

...he is on quite friendly terms with both of his ex-wives (or soon-to-be-I don't know if the second divorce is final yet).
by Geotpf on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

I don't care about either, quite frankly.
by v2aggie2 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 02:02:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

It's not the divorce part.

It's the being single part.

People like first ladies for whatever reason.

by v2aggie2 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 02:04:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

Yes, but how many people do you know would really get into the voting booth, be about to check the box next to a guy's name, then stay their hand because it suddenly occurred to them that the candidate isn't married?
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 02:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

you should differentiate b/w a garden variety position and presidency on this point. There exists a personal connection (good or bad) in most people's mind to their president ("My president"/"not MY president" phenomenon). Papa George lost in 1992 not only because there was a recession, but also because he was percieved as being "out of touch", and hence lost that connection to the people, and Bubba was a master of making that connection (as v2aggie2 will attest to, right, v2a2?).

Yes, they will remember a presidential candidate's marital status in the polling booth.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

Now that you mention it, the divorce rate in this country is 51%, so being divorced actually puts Feingold in touch with a majority of the adult population.
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 04:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

-->Now that you mention it, the divorce rate in this country is 51%, so being divorced actually puts Feingold in touch with a majority of the adult population.

Good one, craverguy :) But, that 51% figure is apparently disputable.

in any case, I am sure that the percentage of people divorced twice is well below majority (may be 15-20%? do you have any stats on this?) :)

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 04:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

Whichever one it is, I am highly skeptical of Feingold's divorce disconnecting him from the people.

If you'd look at history, the way he actually got elected in the first place was his connection to the people of Wisconsin. (E.g., listening sessions, raising money mainly from Wisconsinites, living in Wisconsin, etc.)

I find it very hard to believe that the majority of the people in this country will be unable to connect with a candidate who has a morgatge on his house and sends his children to public school.

by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 04:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Russ 1st Senate race (none / 0)

By the time Feingold took the primary, the incumbent, Bob Kasten, had been cast as a blathering drunk. I was the defacto campaign manager for his Primary opponent, Roger Faulkner. While Roger only occasionally referred to Kasten's repeated stops for drunk driving, I was all over talk radio for months with the tale of how Kasten had claimed Congressional Immunity when pulled over trying to enter the DC Beltway on an exit ramp.

Another choice moment, during the Grenada invasion.

A group of 50 headed up to his district office, local TV reporters in tow, demanding to speak to the Senator.

Told "The senator can't come to the phone right now, he's on the floor," I replied "That's okay, we'll wait 'til he's sober." The clip ran Statewide.



Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:47:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ 1st Senate race (none / 0)

As I'm sure Ted Kennedy could tell you, having a reputation as a raging alcoholic and frequent drunk-driver in no way guarantees that you'll lose your re-election campaign.
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:30:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even his fellow Republicans (none / 0)

considered him a dim bulb.

As a 1st time Candidate, spending a little over $2,000, Roger topped 20% in the Republican Primary, with few of his votes coming from Madison, where our natural base was going to several contested Dem Primaries.



Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

different era (none / 0)

By 1992, habitual drunk driving carried a greater stigma than in 1969.

Plus, on radio, I always pronounced it "dronnnk." An order  of magnitude past drunk.



Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: different era (none / 0)

In the 1990s, there was a book out called Inside Congress that took Kennedy to town for drunk driving in front of the Capitol Building as recently in the late 1980s.
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

Wisconsin is one thing -- he has one opponent basically.

He will have a lot more opponents in 2008 if he runs -- and 49 more states (+DC) to worry about.

by v2aggie2 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

In 1992, when he ran for Wisconsin's senate seat, his two opponents in the primary were a local businessman and the congressman for the biggest district in the state. They were both millionaires and they both had a hell of a lot more name recognition than Feingold, who spent most of the primary campaign in the single digits.

He won the primary with 70% of the vote.

I don't think running for president is going to be so tough.

by craverguy on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 12:34:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

I'm not saying he can't win.
I'm just saying that some people won't vote for a single guy.

I didn't say it was rational.

by v2aggie2 on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 10:18:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

I don't, but I'm not everybody -- by a longshot.
It will be a 1st impression, not a last one.

Look, the media gave Dean grief for not having his wife on the campaign trail.  So what are they going to say about a guy who has no potential 1st lady.

I like Feingold, and he should run for President if he feels that it is the right thing to do.  
But to say that his single status is no factor makes no sense.  People have made decisions on far less.

by v2aggie2 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 11:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

"Look, the media gave Dean grief for not having his wife on the campaign trail.  So what are they going to say about a guy who has no potential 1st lady."

If we backed off from every guy we thought might get grief from the media for stuff that doesn't matter, we'd never have a nominee.

by craverguy on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 12:35:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The VP job has two duties attached to it by la (none / 0)

Who said anything about backing off of Feingold?
I pick my candidate in 2008 based on the issues.

I'm just saying that everything is an issue in some way.

by v2aggie2 on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 10:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Swiftboating" Russ... ha (none / 0)

His last opponent tried that, with the Patriot Act vote. Boomerang!


Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Depends with whom. (none / 0)

A President willing to give him wide responsibilities, perhaps.

If there's to be a Dem President with an authoritarian streak, I want Russ available to shoot down bad proposals from his Senate seat. if there's a dem president without that streak, might not Russ mke a better Attorney General than VP?



Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:46:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I want Spitzer for Attorney General (none / 0)

(Of course, he would only have been governor of NY for two years by then, so...)

Besides, the whole point here is to get Feingold in as president so we don't have "a Dem President with an authoritarian streak".  I think you are referring to the VP slot, though, which is my point-the country is better off having him in the senate than the VP.

Look, there is no downside to Feingold running for president-at this point, he would be very timid to not to try.  And Russ is most certainly not timid.  For one thing, he is not up for re-election until 2010, so there isn't that whole Lieberman-run-for-two-jobs-at-the-same-time problem.  If he loses the nom, but does well, he sets himself up for next time, especially if a Rep wins.  If he wins the nom and loses the race, he' stick around as senator.  But personally, I can't see him losing either, frankly.  He's Dean with a clue and organization and ability to stay on message.

by Geotpf on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 12:40:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I want Spitzer for Attorney General (none / 0)

-->He's Dean with a clue

slipping in a bit of slam-a-Dean there, aren't we?

Let's not forget that the so-called "progressive netroots" exists (and you're here pitching Sen.RF :)) primarily because of Dean's courageous and bold campaign on 2004.



Netroots for Howard Dean @ MyDD.com


CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 01:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like Dean (none / 0)

However, he sometimes speaks before he thinks.  He turns off some of middle America.

Feingold doesn't do that.

by Geotpf on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 04:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like Dean (2.00 / 1)

-->However, he sometimes speaks before he thinks.

when you have to speak for every goddamn Democrat that doesn't speak up, yes, sometimes there will be slips of tongue.

-->Feingold doesn't do that.
good for Sen.RF. But, he has also not created millions of grassroots, netroots, voices, which Dean did, and which may eventually benefit Sen.RF, politically speaking, more than they did/will Dean.

Gov. Dean is a noble human being, doing noble deeds. Please stop critiquing him, except for constructive purposes, and even that in an appropriate manner and context.

thanks, Neo.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 04:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh (none / 0)

My only point here is Feingold is a Dean that can't be "Screamed".  I can not see Feingold ever getting into a situation where he would open himself up for an attack like that.  He has an amazingly good "camera sense", if you will, something that Dean and many other good men lack at times-and that many not-so-good men have (which allows them to win elections).  Finding somebody who is on guard for that type of things at all times (like Feingold)-yet is also an excellent man and right on almost all the issues is quite rare indeed.

Another way to put it: Feingold just took a very daring and contraversal stand with his Iraqi pull out proposal.  Many people on both sides of the isle said things against the position.  But nobody has attacked Feingold personally.  Nobody this side of Little Green Footballs has called him a traitor, a liberal hippie, reckless, or whatever.  There's an opening that for many other people would be taken.  But there's something about Feingold's personality that discourages this line of attack against him.

by Geotpf on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 07:34:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

I don't really want to make this a protracted thread either, but from the article dugup by whodat527 (link), Sen. RF may  not as cool a head as you might be inclined to think:

.. and tells of the time he stormed out of the Democratic caucus because he didn't like the idea of cutting taxes. "He is like a petulant little kid," says another Democratic state senator.
..

But Sen. Feingold does have an awesome and disarming smile :)

And for some reason, his call for pullout didn't register on the national radar screen, and within a few days, Katrina hit, and the war took a back seat to the immediate catastrophy unfolding. True, others may have taken more of a beating, but since things didn't really register, we don't know for sure that RF will not either. See, the wingnuts attack when and where it starts to matter.

All on all, from what I have gathered here, Sen. Feingold comes across as a picture perfect Liberal vis-a-vis a progressive (a term less clearly defined, but I use the perfectly functional "Dean scale" of progressiveness to measure politicians with :)), based on his opposition to the 1991 iraq war, the kosovo war, and NAFTA. While I admire him more today for his liberal principles, and his sincere and steadfast adherence to them, I am less inclined to support him for POTUS'2008 today than I was yesterday, because I'd prefer a progressive head-of-the-ticket in 2008.

thanks, and have a pleasant night.

Neo

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

I like how you take the accusations of the National Review, which referred to Paul Wellstone as a member of the "wacky left," seriously. I like how all of the really bad personal stuff came from anonymous sources. And if it's true, why hasn't anyone heard about Feingold's terrible temper since his election? Surely Michels or Neumann would have thrown it at him.
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

The article purportedly quotes another Democratic state senator: ".. says another Democratic state senator." Now, the NR author could be lying, but I'd say that that's quite unlikely since some Sen.RF's staffer would've taken them to task for it.

So, I did NOT "take the accusations of the National Review", but rather took their their claimed quote.

Note also that, in all fairness to RF, I edited out the first part of that sentence, where that claimed Dem. st. sen. gives his own home-baked opinion on RF, but instead I only quoted the "stormed out" part. because, it is an event that either happened as claimed, or didn't happen (in which case NR would be guilty of and liable for deliberate misinformation).

Nor did I or am I inferring that RF has "terrible temper" based on that event. I only said that this event would indicate that he may not be as cool a head as "geotpf" was suggesting. There is a difference.

that's that.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 10:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

All I'm saying is that if Russ Feingold is really "like a petulant little kid" and really does things like storming out of caucus meetings (which might not necessarily be so bad, since we don't know exactly what was said at the alleged meeting), wouldn't someone else have said something by now? A colleague? A former staffer? His ex-wife? I think if he was really like that, there'd be more evidence than one anonymous state senator.
by craverguy on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 10:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like Dean (none / 0)

However, he sometimes speaks before he thinks.

On the other hand, that very quality also turns on alot of middle America as well.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 05:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whom did Sen. Feingold endorse in 2004? (none / 0)

Did Sen. Feingold endorse any candidate at some point during the 2004 pres. primaries (before Kerry locked up the nomination)? If so, whom?

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:30:11 PM EST

Re: Whom did Sen. Feingold endorse in 2004? (none / 0)

"While I admire him more today for his liberal principles, and his sincere and steadfast adherence to them, I am less inclined to support him for POTUS'2008 today than I was yesterday, because I'd prefer a progressive head-of-the-ticket in 2008."

I'm not following you there.  Russ Feingold is not a progressive in your book?

Russ officially stayed neutral in the 2004 primaries. He said nice things about Howard Dean when Dean was the front-runner, and he praised John Kerry after his Iowa and New Hampshire victories.

In the 2000 primary season, Bill Bradley tried to secure an endorsement from Senator Feingold.  Russ also sat this one out by staying neutral.

by whodat527 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whom did Sen. Feingold endorse in 2004? (none / 0)

-->I'm not following you there.  Russ Feingold is not a progressive in your book?

My opinion now is that he fits the "liberal" label essentially perfectly.

Since liberal and progressive do overlap a good deal, he is progressive over that intersection.

The three positions/votes I listed, namely Iraq91/Kosovo/NAFTA, are the reasons I'd put him in the liberal category as against in the progressive category. Of course others can draw their own views on what they'd call progressive (but progressive is not a carbon copy of liberal, certainly), but this is my take.

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!
by NeoLiberal on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whom did Sen. Feingold endorse in 2004? (none / 0)