Russ Feingold looking at running for Prez 2008

[Leilani]

according to Chuck Todd of the Hotline, on C-Span.

Soon to start traveling the country.

Winning his reelection to the Senate by a comfortable margin, in a red state has him considering the run.

Edited to add: Wisconsin went blue. I'm pretty sure that's what Todd said. Maybe he said heartland.

Sorry for error.

[phaseolus]

1. Wait a sec -- Wisconsin was a blue state

n/t

[Leilani]

3. You're right.

It's 4 AM in Hawaii, & I don't have my brains working yet.

I still believe Todd said red state...he may have said heartland state.

I'll edit my post.

[kentuck]

12. I thought I heard the same....

he said "red state"...That's was my interpretation as I was half-asleep at the time.

[Leilani]

16. Glad I'm not crazy.

Chuck Todd makes lots of mistakes.

[Radical Activist]

37. It went blue, but was a major swing state

WI was very close. Fiengold had a very close race.

[Telly Savalas]

43. Kerry, not Feingold, had a close race in WI

Kerry won by less than a percentage point, whereas Feingold won by 12 percentage points. Granted he had incumbancy working for him, but the fact he could get so many votes from Bush voters suggests a strong ability to win over folks in red areas. On the flip side, his progressive values will motivate the base in blue areas. The guy is the ideal candidate.

[Radical Activist]

48. People thought that was going to be much closer

The polls were a lot tighter than 12 points. I didn't know Feingold finally won by that much, but I'm very glad to hear it. I had a lot of friends from Illinois who went up to WI for Kerry and Feingold and they were equally concerned about both races.

Anyway, my point is that Wisconsin is a swing state, which is a good argument for Feingold if he won it by a wide margin.

[LittleClarkie]

78. There were a decent # of Bush/Feingold voters

because even the Republicans in the area could tell Michels was an idiot. I've had more than one tell me so.

As for Kerry, at least we went more blue than in 2000 (she said proudly -- I helped, dontcha know.)

[Lizzie Borden]

68. WI. is a blue state and Feingold won handily.

[Lefta Dissenter]

2. Hey,

who you callin' red??? :hi: Dem Senators, Governor, and we went for Kerry... I think that classifies us as BLUE!!!

[Leilani]

4. Right you are!

Has been edited for correction.

Sorry for the error.

[Jackpine Radical]

52. But what about that damn Puggy WI legislature?

An' way too many Representatives like Senselessbrenner.

And I haven't seen much of a progressive nature out of Doyle, when it comes down to it.

[zulchzulu]

5. I'd take a bullet for Russ

But it would never happen...Americans don't deserve Russ.

[Leilani]

6. I've always admired him.

More integrity than most 10 politicians put together.

[zulchzulu]

15. What's amazing about Russ Feingold's record

He voted against:
- NAFTA
- WTO
- Patriot Act (only senator)
- IWR

He's:
- Rated 93% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 80% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
- Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: who suck. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-labor voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Russell_Feingold.htm

He's also the poorest Senator...lives in a fairly humble home in Madison, WI.

[Leilani]

18. Amazing isn't it?

A politician who votes his conscience.

A rare breed.

[IrateCitizen]

20. And don't forget, he won in WI by a much bigger margin than Kerry

I'm certain that being a person of principle and conscience had nothing to do with that....

[eallen]

7. Great news.

Feingold always has seemed a straight-shooter to me.

[JNelson6563]

8. I like Feingold!

Great man of integrity. We need lots more just like him.

Julie

[DU9598]

10. Great man

But I don't want to nominate a Senator in 2008. We need a Governor. How is the Wisconsin governor? I don't know much about him.

[zulchzulu]

11. Doyle (WI Governor) is a good guy...but a little dull for Prez gig

He's up for reelection in 2006.

[Big Al from WI]

21. I think the problem with Senators is that they can be boring

Russ doesn't have that problem- he has a lot of charisma and keeps things simple and honest. When he speaks, you can tell he's not hiding anything from you. Russ isn't a "flip-flopper" on the voting record, either. He's one of the most consistent guys out there, who just votes his beliefs. So all the inherent disadvantages of being a Senator are pretty much null and void with Russ. Now he is Jewish, and some have said that can be a barrier to winning a national election. But isn't either Wolfowitz or Perle Jewish too? And Mehlman is. So come on. I don't think that would be a problem either.

Governor Jim Doyle, on the other hand, would be a terrible presidential candidate. He's a great guy but not a great candidate. Someone said that he's dull- that's an understatement. He makes John Kerry sound like Barack Obama. He also doesn't have any significant accomplishments besides vetoing really stupid right-wing nonsense. Kind of hard to have any accomplishments when Republicans control both houses of the legislature. The biggest reason that Doyle got elected in 2002 is because McCallum was extremely incompetent and managed to tick off just about everyone. He's going to have a heck of a fight in 2006 just to get reelected. His likely opponent is John Gard, the Tom DeLay of the Wisconsin Legislature, or Scott Walker, Mr. "I don't want to print enough ballots for the city of Milwaukee." Congressman Mark Green from the 8th District near Green Bay has also been mentioned as a significantly less wingnut candidate.

[IrateCitizen]

23. The problem with Senators is they have a long legislative record...

... that, due to changing positions over time and the average citizen's unfamiliarity with specifics of the legislative process, can often be used against them (see: John Kerry).

That's a big reason why people with recent experience as chief executives often have an advantage when running for another executive office.

[Big Al from WI]

27. That may still be somewhat valid.

However, if you read my entire post, part of my point was that Russ is probably the most consistent and least changing Senator in the entire Senate, if not the entire history of the Senate. It is also true that Russ has voted for lower taxes more than any other Senator, yes, even the Republicans. This is because he does not go for any pork, ever, and only votes to fund stuff that will actually help everyone. So this is something we could use. Most of Russ's controversial votes are actually right out there in the open already- Patriot Act, Iraq, etc. The only real hidden attack the Republicans would have is that they could say that he has voted for higher taxes X amount of times. Then we counter that really simply by saying, well, he's also voted for lower taxes more than any other Senator.

[LiberalFighter]

42. If they have been in office for longer than 2 terms like Kerry yes

In defense of Feingold.. he will be starting his 2nd term next month.

I don't see Senators getting elected President unless they are extremely outstanding.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. Feingold's 3d term starts next month. He was previously elected in

'92 & '98.

[LiberalFighter]

60. Gee has it been that long?? Didn't think he was starting his 3rd term

[gassed]

26. Don't you think ...

that Gard would make a great opponent? The problem we encountered with Thompson in every election was that a large portion of Wisconsin viewed him as one of their own. His Rah-Rah Wisconsin and "where eagles soar, and Packers score" stuff appealed to a big chunk of this state. Plus..Tommy could come off like a nice guy.

Now Gard, besides insulting virtually everyone in Dane county, isn't a very attractive candidate. He definitely would find it hard to present himself as being "of the people", and he is so openly whinny and mean spirited that it would be difficult to ad supporters outside of the extremists that already love him.


Besides...every union in Wisconsin is just chomping at the bit for Mr. Gard to run for a state office.

[Big Al from WI]

30. Yeah,

I'm just afraid of what would happen if Gard actually won though. If he does get the nomination, at least he is probably out of the Assembly, as I don't think you can run for both offices simultaneously, although I could be wrong.

[gassed]

22. Doyle is...

Tommy Thompson-Lite. Of all of the Dems to run in the last election, he was definitely my last choice. Since taking office he has attempted to balance the budget left him by borrow and spend Thompson solely on the backs of state employees. There have been a significant number of jobs cut throughout state government. You know how it goes...anything but raising taxes.

On the bright side. He has been able to deflect some of the lunatic agenda of the state's burgeoning wing-nut assembly. However, if I remember correctly majority leader John Gard, a particularly unpleasant young right wing extremist, will have us voting on one of their little gay marriage amendments in the spring.

If I am not mistaken, the State Elections Board approved a $13 million contract with Accenture to create a voter registration system for Wisconsin. This system would also be responsible for making the final tabulation of votes on election day. So who knows...we could lose our Dem governor, Tammy Baldwin and Russ Feingold the next time that they run for re-election.

[Big Al from WI]

25. Governors have no say in constitutional amendments

Just the legislature and the popular vote. So don't blame that one on Jim. That's why they're trying to do TABOR as a constitutional amendment also.

As for the contract with Accenture, I think that's just the voting list. I don't know where you got the idea that it would actually tabulate the votes. In any case, even the Republicans in the Assembly voted unanimously to ban paperless ballots last session. It didn't come to a vote in the Senate last time because the session ended. So there would always be paper ballots to go back to. If the Republicans tried to block it this time that would look very, very shady seeing as how they are already on record as voting for it. If that happened, then we'd have to get some recalls together before the machines were replaced.

[gassed]

28. This would be where I got it...

Subject: RALLY - NOV 30 - Say No! to the Corporatization of WI's Elections!
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:35:51 -0600
From:
Subject: RALLY - NOV 30 - Say No! to the Corporatization of WI's Elections!

please forward widely . . .

WHAT: Rally to Stop the Corporatization
of our Voter Registration System!

WHEN: 12 o'clock NOON, Nov. 30th, the Tuesday after Thanksgiving

WHERE: Outside the State Elections Board Office, (Capitol Square).
The State Elections Board is in the Risser Justice Building
(17 W. Main, between Anchor Bank and M&I Bank).

SPONSOR: A group of state employees called SAVINGS,
working to stop privatization of our state government.

-------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -

BACKGROUND

* The State Elections Board is about to approve a $13 million contract
with Accenture to create a voter registration system for Wisconsin.
Accenture's system would also be responsible for making the final
tabulation of votes on election day.

* The contract is overpriced, state employees could do the work
much more economically.

* Accenture has a terrible track record of cost overruns, technical flaws,
and mismanagement. They developed the 2004 "felon purge" in Florida
that would have cut likely Democratic voters but illegitimately kept
likely Republican voters on the rolls.

* Accenture designed a system for electronic voting by overseas citizens
that had to be cancelled because it was proven not to be secure.

* Accenture has an on-paper headquarters in Bermuda to avoid paying
taxes in the US.

* The next State Elections Board meeting is Dec. 1st in Brookfield.

[Big Al from WI]

31. I see.

But barring some serious mayhem, we would still not have paperless ballots, and so could at least do recounts.

[rodeodance]

56. no no, please no--we can lose Tammy and Russ F. NO

[LiberalFighter]

40. Check history... How many Senators won election as President without...

any other credentials?

Roosevelt
Senator and Governor

Truman
Senator and Vice President

Eisenhower
War Hero

Kennedy
Senator and War Hero

Johnson
Senator and Vice President

Nixon
Senator and Vice President

Carter
Governor

Reagan
Governor and Actor

Bush
Vice President and CIA

Clinton
Governor

Bush
Governor

[Telly Savalas]

44. What's wrong with nominating a Senator?

Senator Kennedy made a pretty decent candidate in 1960.

[IrateCitizen]

9. As much as I'd love this, I don't think it will happen.

Russ is much too principled to succeed in a national race. As someone said earlier in this thread, Americans don't deserve Russ. Plus, the MSM would never let his kind of truth-telling survive unattacked in a most savage fashion.

[BayCityProgressive]

13. I would love to see a Feingold

candidacy! He has a few integrity points Americans would love. He was the sponsor of campaign election reform, and he was the lone Senator who voted against a wage increase for congress. Also, he doesn't take special interest money.

[MsUSA]

14. Only Senator who voted AGAINST the patriot act also.

[LittleClarkie]

79. Hell, the only Senator who actually READ the patriot act

And that's all he had to say in his debates.

Ran a really good positive campaign too. But then he didn't have to worry about the competition much.

[w4rma]

88. He voted against the AWB, also. Feingold is pro-gun.

I agree with Feingold on *every* single issue, hands down.

[IrateCitizen]

17. That's all true, and it works well in a statewide race...

However, and this is where I would actually LOVE to be proven wrong, principles and integrity don't necessarily succeed on a national level, because the personal element of politics is largely removed and replaced with everything going through the 24/7 MSM noise machine.

Americans always say they want politicians of integrity, politicians that are straight shooters. But, when they are presented with such figures, those politicians are either ignored or savaged by the MSM -- and Americans gleefully join in on the bloodletting, tearing down those politicians.

Like I said, I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this, and I'd LOVE to see someone with Russ Feingold's integrity, backbone and committment to REAL American values sitting in the WH. I just happen to think that there are too many things stacked against him from the start.

[B3Nut]

19. Russ is da man

I'd vote for him in a second. Even many Repubs in WI like him because he's dead-on honest. Great guy.

Todd in Madcowville

[Big Al from WI]

24. He's not up for re-election till 2010

So he could still throw his hat in the ring, and at least raise some issues that other candidates can talk about. He comes across a lot better than Kucinich, I can tell you that. If he wins the nomination in a landslide, we're probably on to something. If not, then he can just go back to the Senate like Kerry. One thing though- whoever wins the nomination (assuming it's not Kerry again, or Clark) had better pick Clark as their running mate. Whoever becomes president in 2008 is going to have a hell of a time trying to extricate the US from messes overseas, and Clark would have a wealth of knowledge to do that. I'm not even talking about what he would do politically, but just that his knowledge, in terms of actually running the country, would be vital.

[Lefta Dissenter]

71. Big Al,

You da man! You have that almost right! Clark/Feingold ticket in 2008! Though I still don't think I'm willing to give up Russ as my Senator...

[ulysses]

64. good point.

As someone said earlier in this thread, Americans don't deserve Russ.

Good to have aspirations, though.

How're things, my friend? :hi:

[Lizzie Borden]

69. I agree.

I don't think you can be as principaled as Feingold is and win. But if he runs, I'll work for him.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. It's early to be thinking about candidates for 2008, but

he'd certainly be on my short list.

[Poiuyt]

32. I hope that Russ doesn't run for prez

I love Russ as my senator but I think that's where he should stay. The country needs good senators and I think Russ is one of the best. Some people are better as being legislators rather than executives. He is also one of the few watchdogs that we have in Washington. Everyone else is too afraid to say anything bad about the Republicans. Feingold definitely says what's on his mind and has the country's best interests at heart.

I also think that we in Wisconsin would have a hard time replacing him with another Democrat. There aren't too many Democratic politicians with enough charisma to win over the entire state.

[Big Al from WI]

34. But he's not up for re-election in 2008.

You know what, if we have a President Feingold and have to find a Democrat for his Senate seat, that's a problem I would love to have.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. No offense, but that's a dumb argument...

Unless you don't have confidence that Russ can win. Once he is in the white house, Russ can continue to do the same great things that he does in the Senate. The only difference is that he will have about 1000x the power to do so that he has now.

[Bleacher Creature]

33. Please -- no Senators.

Feingold is an awesome guy who would make a great President. But the simple fact is that Senators have thousands of votes that can be scrutinized and manipulated every which way. That's basically what they did to Kerry. Until the average American understands Senate procedure -- which will be NEVER -- we should really try and stay away from Senators.

[Big Al from WI]

36. As I said earlier,

most of his most controversial votes are also his most famous already. Like I said, the only thing they could even try to get him on is taxes, but if they did that, they'd be doing us a favor, because he's voted for lower taxes more than any other Senator.

[Bleacher Creature]

38. It's not just his votes on actual bills.

You can literally take every single procedural vote and turn it around on someone. For example, if you vote for a substitute to something, does that mean that you are voting against the underlying bill?

[Telly Savalas]

45. And anybody with an IQ above 75 knows this...

so what's the big deal? The folks that fall for this sort of manipulation of facts are already members of the GOP base.

If you take the case of Sen. Kerry, the only distortions of his record were things that would have been easy to defend against had he made clear rebuttals.

If we run a governor instead of a senator, and they'll just use something besides a voting record as a basis to smear.

[IrateCitizen]

49. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that to be true when the majority of folks out there have no idea even who their Congressional Representatives are?

Most people have absolutely no clue how legislative procedure works, which is essential to understanding how distortions such as those made by Bush's campaign were falsehoods. Telling yourself otherwise is pure folly, IMHO.

[Bleacher Creature]

50. You took the words right out of my mouth. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

51. Yeah, I really believe that.

Anybody with half a brain knows that political attack ads take liberties with the truth. It doesn't take a thorough knowledge of our legislative process to know that politicians are masters of lying and bullshit, and hence you should expect to only see lying and bullshit in a political ad. So if in 2008, the GOP ran some ad saying that Senator Feingold voted to raise taxes 342,210 times, the only people that are going to believe it are people that are predisposed to hating Russ anyway.

Beyond that the key point is, Senate voting record or not, the GOP will find some aspect of our candidates resume to lie about and drag through the mud. Telling yourself otherwise is pure folly, IMHO. So discarding the best person we have for the job purely on the basis of his Senatorial experience is uncalled for.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. You are correct, they certainly used Michael Dukakis' governorship...

To discredit him as a presidential candidate.

[EC]

35. I was actually hoping

this year that Kerry would choose him as his running mate. I love Russ...he's very good for this state. And I just happen to know his sister the Rabbi. But he's a hard worker and very conscience of any money being spent. He's also returned all his pay raises. (although he is known as the poorest Senator)

on edit: He was also very much targeted by the Repukes to get rid of, mostly because of his stance on the Patriot Bill...for 3 + years they were really hitting him hard...didn't do them alot of good, everyone here loves the guy...

[Hippo_Tron]

59. The whole fact that he lives modestly even now is good...

Well, I shouldn't say modestly, because most Americans would kill for a 6 figure salary and free healthcare. But especially when you consider that a senator has to own two homes out of necessity, Russ's financial status is about as modest as it comes for a Washington politician.

[JohnKleeb]

39. I hope he considers it

He's great.

[Finding Rawls]

41. We can only hope n/t

[Quetzal]

46. Feingold is definetly a candiate

this Kucinich voter can rally around.

He not only voted against DOMA, he was the main Senator to fight against the FMA.

[IronLionZion]

47. Feingold for Vice President

He's a way better jew than Holy Joe, but a jew nonetheless, and a senator. This is not the time to run a jewish guy at the top of the ticket, so that rules out my own governor Ed Rendell too. Senators have thousands of votes to spin against them. Kerry and Edwards learned this the hard way.

We need a popular Christian governor, from a battleground state. maybe Mark Warner. Who gives a shit if he's moderate? as long as he appoints good people to offices like attorney general or judges. That'll be way better than what the Republicans are doing.

[Big Al from WI]

62. Wes Clark

Maybe Warner would work too, I don't know. But I think that Clark-Feingold (or Feingold-Clark) would be the best. We are going to have a very big mess to clean up foreign-policy wise. I'm not entirely sure Warner would be able to do it... but Clark would be instant credibility in foreign policy, to a much higher degree than even Kerry had.

[IronLionZion]

74. I love the good General as much as anyone

but he came across as an amateur while campaigning this time. I agree that he is well qualified in foreign policy and military matters, but I'm not so sure he can win.

[EC]

82. Oh, I don't know

I went to see him speak, and thought he did very well...So did everyone else in the room and there were over 500 there, I'd say.

[zacho]

66. There's one thing I want in our 2008 nominee

And that is for them to have acomplished something in their political careers. Feingold tops the list and I have few ideological qualms with him. If he runs he will most likely earn my NH primary vote (if I'm in a liberal mood). Doyle, Bredensen, Clark, and Warner (and most likely Harry Reid) also have acomplished something big and I'd consider them too.

[Telly Savalas]

67. We don't need the votes of anti-semite scum.

We can win without the bastards, so it doesn't matter whether or not our candidate is Jewish.

[IronLionZion]

76. We'd all like to believe that, but

remember that religion played a huge part in the last 2 elections. American people are stupid. I'm sorry but it's true. You and I could care less, but religion is a big issue for a lot of voters, especially in a war on muslim terrorists.

Hell, I was thrilled that the Dems nominated a Catholic like me, even though I voted for a Protestant in the primaries, because we all have a subconsious bias towards supporting someone like ourselves.

[Telly Savalas]

81. The GOP will have to make a hard left turn...

for religion to be on the top 100 list of important differences between their candidate and Senator Feingold. Someone who would be influenced by his religion is somebody that already has a long laundry list of reasons not to vote for him.

Anybody that would let the fact Feingold is Jewish affect their vote is a bigot. The Democrats are about fighting bigotry, not pandering to it.

By the way, in the 1960 election, a lot of folks were skeptical about the ability of a Catholic to win, and we all know how that turned out.

[Tinoire]

80. I think people could give a rat's ass about his religion

if his politics are what we on the Left are looking for. If we have Democratic voters who care about someone's religion then maybe, hmmm, they're in the wrong party :shrug: I'm willing to do without them to re-attract the right kind of people with whom we have natural alliances.

I would never have voted for Lieberman because he's a Likud-loving neo-con. Feingold on the other hand is a real mensch and he'd get my vote in a heart-beat.

Q: Why is the DLC dominating?

Feingold: I think it's because the Democratic Party decided that corporatizing was a way to help with fundraising, especially in an era of soft money. It allowed the Democratic Party, in their view, to blunt some of the issues, like trade, that were causing problems with, frankly, the larger moneyed interests. And the ultimate example of that was the coronation of Gore in Los Angeles. That convention was a corporate trade show. It was nothing like the Democratic conventions of the past. So I see the DLC as, to some extent, taking the soul away from the Democratic Party. And I see the DLC as having sold American workers down the river. I oppose GATT, and NAFTA, and all the things Clinton and Gore were for. When we lose our commitment to opposing something as manifestly wrong as the death penalty, I'm very uncomfortable with that.

(snip)

Q: Many progressive issues are popular ones, like the minimum wage and health care.

Feingold: I do think there would be a receptivity to somebody who campaigned in a straightforward, cohesive way, supporting an increase in the minimum wage, being for universal health care for all Americans, and opposing trade agreements like NAFTA.
Health care is still the number-one issue out there. Someone who seizes it, I think, will do very well in an election. Let's face it: Clinton's two big issues were the middle class tax cut, which he dropped, wisely, at the time to help reduce the deficit, and health care. That's what he ran on.


(snip)

Q: What about the current crisis in Israel and Palestine, which just seems so despairing? What is your position?

Feingold: Well, I have long believed that Israel should seek to give up the so-called Occupied Territories in return for security, and that a Palestinian state should be established. I have felt that way all my life. I think it is unreasonable to ask the Israelis to do this in a context where there is no guarantee at all that suicide bombers will be controlled. Even though Ariel
Sharon would've been my last choice for prime minister, I do agree with his spokesman who said given what has happened in the last few weeks that Israel is, in fact, on the front line of terrorism. I think that is true. But that doesn't mean that the Palestinian people themselves don't deserve self-determination and a state. They do. So the tragedy right now is that the people who are running the show are the very conservative elements in Israel along with the scariest people on the Palestinian side who, quite frankly, are big fans of bin Laden.

Q: There is absolutely no defense for these suicide bombings. But I have to believe that Sharon isn't helping anyone's cause by attacking Arafat the way he is.

Feingold: I don't know what he thinks he's accomplishing by this image of Arafat holed up in this building. I don't get it. If there is some rationale, I'd love to hear it. I don't think it's helpful.
Q: And the Israeli military seems to be taking steps that are going to sow resentment among Palestinians for another generation.
Feingold: That's true. But they're in a terrible dilemma. I don't know how you explain to your families that you're going to sit back and twiddle your thumbs while suicide bombers strap bombs to themselves and kill your kids. Who would put up with that?
I believe that the Israelis and the Palestinians, by and large, want peace, they each want their own country, and they want to get along, and they are going to get along. I know it sounds unbelievable, but I know enough about this, having been there, that these are sophisticated people. It's not like in Pakistan, where people have been told about Jews for a thousand years but don't know any. The Palestinians know the Jews. And the Jews know the Palestinians. And they know they're not really different. And they know they are from the same background. And they know if they coordinated that they could be an economic success and a real basis for a rebirth in the Middle East.

(snip)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Politicians/Russ_Feingold.html
http://www.progressive.org/May%202002/intv0502.html

[lojasmo]

53. I would work hard for Russ...

Unlike most of the senators (In fact, all of them) Hell, most of our current senators will NEVER get my vote.

[rodeodance]

55. I want him to stay in BLUE Wisconsin and help keep it BLUE!!

selfish, I know, but.......

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Even if Russ didn't win his candidacy would get pages in the history books

But I think that he may have a damn good shot. Politics is all about reaction. Americans will soon be reacting to the most right wing regime this country has ever seen. In four years it will be time for America to elect the president with the most integrity in history (except maybe Thomas Jefferson).

[HuckleB]

63. I'll volunteer for him, that's for sure.

[latteromden]

65. That's the best news I've heard since "Dean for DNC chair" came up, but

he'll be destroyed for his vote against a military pay raise in 1999; "Russ Feingold doesn't support our troops!" "*collective gasp*" Unless he takes it on (because he obviously had some reasoning behind the vote or he wouldn't have done it) and confronts it early and often, unlike Kerry and his 87 billion vote.

[erpowers]

70. This Makes Me Happy

I really think he should run in 2008. I like some of his stances, especially the fact that he stood up against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution.

[LimpingLib]

72. Finally a "Democratic Presidential Candidate in 08" I can vote for!

Most of the names people throw around here for 2008 are candidates I wouldnt vote for in the primary or general.While neither Feingold nore anybody else has me even close to locked up (Ill wait for their ISSUE positions thank you)at least I am hearing a name that should warrent our consideration for once.

The only "electable" candidate to me is one who represents the best aspirations of our nation and runs an issue based campaign.

Here we might have a rare opportunity to nominate somebody who represents progressive values and can communicates his HEART FELT views to the nation. Notice I did NOT say communicates his "poll tested" views nor did I say "elite propagated figure head" views or "ego driven"..."attractive resume" crapola.

I promised others in the party that I will only vote for candidates based on issue positions from now on. I always keep my word. No longer will I watch the foreign policy elites and corperations convince a bunch of shitty primary voters who is the "electable candidate" in the primary then vote for the same old DLC (or crypto-DLC) stuff.We have to take a stand this upcoming generation , we wasted the entire last generation nominating the same tired old poll driven crap.And lost nearly every time.

Feingold could be a rare oportunity in that he is going to be tough to paint as an "unelectable" crackpot or somebody who "lacks charisma....bla bla bla" or some "*fill insult here*" type of goofball.

(PRETENDING this is 2008 , which IT ISNT)I also ask members of our party who want to do the elites work for them by saying stuff like "he is right on issues but this guy cant win" to impress me and vote for him anyway. Its time we "take a chance" just to piss the elites off ....FOR ONCE get a backbone people (grow some pubic hairs men!!)!!!!! (end of pretending this is 2008 and we know what issues candidates will take so I can lower myself to the "we must win win win at all costs" idiots who frankly are the people who constantly cause us to loose every time)

[FrenchieCat]

73. Way better than

Biden running, that's for sure.

Still don't know if a Senator running will make us winners.

Still don't know if being the only one voting against the Patriot Act would actually be a plus in a general election. I can imagine the Republicans showing examples of how the Patriot Act has helped fight terrorism.....and how, it wouldn't have happened if Russ would have had his way. I can see that vote being turned against him in a similar way that the Voting against the 87 billion dollars was against Kerry. There were so many "national security" experienced Senators who voted FOR the Patriot Act until it really does make him the "odd man out". The more I think about it, the less I feel comfy to think that the Repugs would have that to work with......among other votes, I am sure....them and their media whores.

Further, I don't know if Russ has real Foreign Policy/National Security chops....I don't have enough info about him to know that.

I do like the fact that Russ is principled and has shown courage...that's a big plus over other candidates (except the General who is honesty, principle and courage personafide). Because Russ has votes that can be twisted, I don't know if his "principled" stances would necessarily jive with general election voters, although they would with the Democratic crowd.

So for now, I will reserve judgement.....cause I want to win a general election...not just a Democratic primary. That's one of the problems we had last time with Democrats who wanted Dean and Kucinich....and I know that the media certainly didn't help us analyze who could win a general election all throughout the primaries. Guess that they didn't really want us to think that far.

[Big Al from WI]

83. Two things

First, I also see Russ's perceived weakness on Foreign Policy issues, and that's why I suggested that if he were to be nominated, he should choose Wes Clark to be his running mate.

Second, people have talked about how it's a bad idea to run a Senator for President, but the GOP may do the same thing, with Frist, McCain, Hagel, or Santorum. Giuliani's stock is dropping by the day now, and if Jeb Bush runs, even the Republicans might be on "Bush Overload."

[Hippo_Tron]

84. By letting them win on the Patriot Act issue is where Democrats fail

The Republicans have scared the public into thinking that the Patriot Act is absolutley necessary to prevent another 9/11. What we need to scare the shit out of the public by telling the TRUTH about the Patriot Act, that the government can use it to detain people without trial or due process. We need to make people scared of the government coming into their homes and kidnapping them and sending them to GITMO, because that CAN happen under the Patriot Act.

[zulchzulu]

75. MP3 of Russ Feingold in Madison endorsing Kerry at Demo Unity Rally

http://www.kerrysupport.com/media/Russ-Madison.mp3

If you haven't heard Russ, here's a rare recording. His take on the IWR and Patriot Act are funny.

[Lone Pawn]

77. A northern senator?

Sign me up!

[Cocoa]

85. if he runs, then he's my guy

I can't think of dem candidate I'd like better than Russ. :toast:

[fujiyama]

86. I'd feel obligated to vote for him

He'd likely get my vote in the primaries. His vote against the PATRIOT Act took a lot of courage. Political courage counts and I'm glad the people of WI appreciate it. After all, he got the most votes in any statewide election this year in WI (beat his opponent by ~10 points).

If he doesn't get the top spot, he'd definetely be worth considering for VP. What I see with Fiengold is a rare sincerity not found in most politicians.

[Comicstripper]

87. GO RUSS GO!

I hope this is true. He'd be a great candidate.
Not a "liberal elitist," but almost certainly the most liberal senator. He has appeal to rural/suburban voters because he's from Wisconsin. He's a great speaker, doesn't go back on his word. Listening sessions.
God, we need Russ Feingold.