Tuesday, June 27, 2006

"Meet the Press" Roundup

Usually, I don't like to just provide a bunch of links, I like to provide some of my own commentary, but today I don't have a lot of time, and I do have a couple of read-worthy items related to Senator Feingold's "Meet the Press" appearance:

ilya s at RussforPresident.com has a nice post about how new polls indicate that, as hard as it is for the media to accept, Senator Feingold's views on Iraq are quite in line with those of ordinary Americans;

Warren at Iowa for Feingold demolishes the RNC's press release about Senator Feingold's "MTP" interview;

and, finally, at The Huffington Post, the title of Bob Cesca's "Russert Watch" piece for the week? "Come On, People. Admit It. Senator Feingold is the Real Deal for '08". Admit it? Bob, I've been preaching it to anyone who would listen since December of 2004!

But it's a great piece; not only positive on Feingold, it always has the quote: "I also enjoy watching David Broder. He's clearly a smart guy, but whenever he's on -- and feel free to rip me for saying this -- I can't help but to repeat, "Am I not turtley enough for the Turtle Club?" "
I find that very amusing. Sorry.

That's all for this time, until next time...Keep going Forward!


Sunday, June 25, 2006

Meet the Press

I think Senator Feingold did a great job on "Meet the Press" this morning...but, don't take my word for it check out the video or the transcript.

Tim Russert asked Senator Feingold about all the usual topics: Iraq, the censure of the president, Hillary, the 2008 presidential race, and I think Senator Feingold did a great job getting his message across despite Russert's best attempts to trip him up (which is Russert's job, I guess).

Senator Feingold appearance on "Meet the Press" has won a lot of his praise among bloggers for his saying that he will support whoever wins the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut, whether it is Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont...thus saying he will NOT support Lieberman if he loses the primary and runs for election as an Independent. You wouldn't think a Democratic Senator saying he'll support the Democratic nominee for Senate would be newsworthy, but, unfortunately, in this case it is. You can read more about this in Jonathan Singer's post on MyDD.

Obviously the Republican National Committee also thinks that Senator Feingold did a good job, otherwise they wouldn't have felt the need to issue this press release.

Just to point out one, of probably many mistakes in the RNC press release, it claims that: " Sens. Kerry And Feingold Even Asked For Donations To Fund Their "Cut And Run" Campaign...(Sens. Kerry and Feingold, "No Time To Play It Safe," Email, 6/20/06)" Okay, I actually received that email and it focused entirely on getting on getting us to contact our senators to support the Kerry-Feingold Amendment, it never asked for donations. But hey, never let the truth get in the way of a third-rate press release.

That's it for this time...Until next time, keep going Forward!


Saturday, June 24, 2006

A Depressing Vote and an Entertaining Interview

First off: Senator Feingold will be on "Meet the Press" tomorrow morning, so, if anyone reads this between now and the time "Meet the Press" airs in your local area, make sure to check it out! And, in the more likely event that "Meet the Press" has already aired, apparently you can view it on your computer here through the miracle of technology! Neato!

Now, onto the real subjects of the post (as referenced in the title)...

The Kerry-Feingold Amendment: Earlier this week the Senate voted on two amendments to the Defense Appropriations bill related to the Iraq War. One of them, a binding resolution co-sponsored by Senator Feingold and Senator Kerry would have set a timetable for redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 2007. It was defeated by an 83-16 vote: my thanks to the other eleven senators who voted for it: Senators Akaka, Boxer, Durbin, Harkin, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Leahy, Menendez and Wyden.

Perhaps more depressing was the result of the vote on the Levin-Reed Amendment, a non-binding resolution that would have expressed the Senate's desire to see troops redeployed from Iraq but wouldn't have set a timetable...it failed 60-39...not even all the Democrats would support that. Now, I didn't really expect Democrats to unify behind the Kerry-Feingold Amendment, but the fact that they couldn't unite behind a non-binding measure that didn't even include a timetable...it makes me worried about the party's chances in the fall; I fear the party leaders are determined not to have a party position on Iraq, and hope that somehow we can win a majority while ignoring an issue on everybody's mind. And Senator Feingold has said, you'd think that we would have learned from 2002 and 2004 that this strategy won't work.

An interesting story on Iraq from the Times of London describes a peace proposal that the Iraqi government is going to announce:

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

So, will the Bush Administration denounce the Iraqi plan as "cut and run"? Probably not, considering the U.S. Ambassador helped craft this proposal.

And now for something completely different...

Best Feingold Interview Ever...well, recently: Senator Feingold was interviewed for GQ by Lisa DePaulo. Titled "The Real Maverick" it is definitely worth reading.

Sure, we get the usual questions and answers regarding censuring the president for his illegal wiretapping, but we also learn about the Senator's golf game, his packing habits, and who some of his best friends in the Senate are. Still not interested? Well, here are some of my favorite parts. First, on an issue that will come up more often than it really should:

Let's talk about this twice-divorced thing.


How much of a political liability do you think it will be?

I have no idea. If it is, so be it. That's up to the people to

What's it like to be a single senator?

It's new to me. You sort of end up working a whole lot. Theres a tendency
to let the time get filled up. So Ive been very careful-

So you've become less social?

No, probably more social, in the sense that because you don't have a spouse-see, when you're married, you really feel an obligation to spend all that available time with your spouse if you can. I'm able to spend more time with more people now. I'm reconnecting with a lot of people and old friends.


Um, that's, uh, classified?

Are there women throwing themselves at you?

I certainly wouldn't say that. [smiles] I'm not gonna say that.

You know, there've been some legendary single senators.

Yeah, I know. I'm not aspiring to be in that hall of fame.

Even if I wasn't someone who'd been running a Feingold for President blog since December 2004, I'd have to admire the Senator for answering these questions about a very personal subject with honesty, class, and humor. Unfortunately, that won't stop reporters from continuing to ask questions about his divorces, and it won't stop people from saying it's a reason Senator Feingold couldn't get elected President...but I'm glad to know that Senator Feingold isn't letting that stop him.

And now, for two parts I just found fun:

Have you ever met [Tiger Woods]?

No. I'd love to. He and Bob Dylan. Those are the two I'd love to meet.

I like that because it reminds me of one of my favorite Russ Feingold stories. During his 2004 reelection campaign CSPAN broadcast some of Senator Feingold's debates with Tim Michels. Late one night, I was watching one and, to know more about the candidates as people, they were asked what two CDs they'd take with them if they were driving cross country by themselves. Right away, the first CD Senator Feingold named was Time Out of Mind by Dylan. As a huge Dylan fan and a huge Feingold fan, I really loved this. To make sure I'd remember it, I actually wrote "Russ Feingold chose Time Out of Mind" on the back of an envelope. (This is one of only two times I found something on late night TV important enough to write down...the other was the first time I saw the infomercial for Ron Popeil's Showtime Rotisserie Grill. I thought it was the greatest invention ever and wrote down all the information so my mom could order it. She didn't. I've spent the rest of my life trying to get various relatives to buy one for me.)

I also liked the "Time Out of Mind" choice because it's nice when politicians use questions like that to just let you know a little bit more about them, rather then to pander to some group. The question I most remember from the 2004 Demcocratic Presidential Primary debates is when the candidates were asked to name their favorite song and Joe Lieberman named Bill Clinton's old campaign theme song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" and Dick Gephardt named "Born in the U.S.A." which he was using as a campaign theme song, proving that you don't have to be a Republican to fail to realize that, lyrically, "Born in the U.S.A." is NOT a happy song. Then Howard Dean surprised everyone by naming some Wyclef Jean song his son had played for him recently.

As you can tell, it's a good thing GQ didn't have me interview Senator Feingold, or I would've asked such follow up questions as "What's your favorite song on Time Out of Mind?", "What are your 125 favorite Dylan songs, and why?" and, of course, "Knocked Out Loaded or Down in the Groove?"

So, Senator Feingold's favorite golfer is Tiger Woods, one of his favorite albums is Time Out of Mind and he has said his favorite novel is The Stranger by Albert Camus. I wonder what his favorite TV show is? Based on this amusing exchange from the GQ interview, I'm guessing it's probably not "Friends"...

Okay. Real quick: Jennifer or Angelina?

Jennifer? Jennifer who?

Oh, come on, Senator! Jennifer or Angelina?

Jennifer who?

Aniston. [silence] Oh, God. You don't read the tabloids, do

Can I have a third choice? Can I pick Sharon Stone?

The really sad thing is, if this interview had occurred closer to the 2008 elections, the media would use it as evidence that Senator Feingold is too out of touch with what real people are interested in to be president...After all, Trent Lott has said that it is the duty of all senators to not only watch American Idol, but to vote for it! Senator Feingold really oughta start reading the tabloids if he wants to be president, or at least start watching "Access Hollywood"...

But enough with my digressions and attempts at jokes...read that interview! Then get your friends to read it! Then ask them the Jennifer or Angelina question! Then ask them if they'd vote for Senator Feingold for President! (Or maybe switch the order on the last two...)

New Feingold Blog: There's a nice new Feingold blog out there Central Pennsylvania for Feingold, started by Kris in Centre County, PA! Kris had the wonderful opportunity of seeing Senator Feingold at the Take Back America convention, and was inspired enough to join us in the Feingold blogosphere...so stop on by and say hello!

So, that's all for this time...Until next time, keep going Forward!


Thursday, June 15, 2006

Taking Back America with Russ Feingold

Just a minor update...Yesterday, Senator Feingold spoke at the Campaign for America's Future "Take Back America" Conference in Washington, D.C.

Video of the speech is available here and you can read it here. The speech is about twenty minutes long (well, the video is, you can probably read it quicker...) and Senator Feingold emphasizes the importance of Democrats standing on principle and standing up to the Republicans, especially on the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

Here's one of my favorite parts, which comes towards the end of the speech (as you might guess for the "And so to conclude..."):

And so to conclude, I would urge you, as you go out this year and do all the wonderful things you're going to do in the various venues that you work in, to make the point to people that you care as passionately as anyone about the tragedy of 9/11, you care as passionately as anyone about protecting our kids, that you have your memories of what happened on 9/11 and how it made you feel about your future and your kids' future and your grandchildren's' future.

But as you say that and as you share your own memories with people, make it clear that there is no greater victory for these terrorists than if they can get us out of fear to alter our great system of government. They would have no greater victory than to be able to do that to us. (Applause.) Make the argument -- make the argument based on the fact that the American people want to be focused on making sure that we're not attacked again. They do not want to fear that their own government is doing something inappropriate to them. That's a distraction that makes it harder for us to do this.

I hope that Democrats far and wide will start picking up on that message, and I'm certainly glad Senator Feingold is putting it out there.

At least it got a good reaction at the "Take Back America" Conference. According to the AP:

Some at the audience chanted Run-Russ-Run, and others wore buttons with the same sentiment. The Wisconsin senator is considering a presidential run in 2008.

Many people at the event, put together by the Campaign for America's Future, gave Feingold standing ovations when he said Democrats needed to stand up to the Bush administration on Iraq and on civil liberties issues.

Until next time, keep going Forward!


Monday, June 12, 2006

An Interview and a Straw Poll

Just a little update about, yeah, an interview and a straw poll (sorry I couldn't come up with a more clever title...)

First, the interview. Washington Post reporters Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz are having an "ongoing series of conversations" with potential 2008 presidential candidates, and our man Russ had his turn last week. It's a fairly in depth interview, and below are three of my favorite parts. First, Senator Feingold talks about what he is hearing from Demcocrats around the nation as he travels:

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

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

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

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

So that appears to be the conviction. I don't think people are as concerned about what the exact issues are as this feeling that we don't act like we are ready to govern this country both domestically and also especially ... standing up to the White House with regard to the mistakes and abuses of the post-9/11 era.

So that's what I hear. I'm convinced it is accurate.
I definitely agree with the Senator hear. If the Democrats can't be depended upon to challenege the president when in the opposition, why should people believe that they'd be capable of leading the country if they had a majority in Congress or won control of the White House?

On a similar note, Senator Feingold calls for the Democrats to take a clear stand on the war in Iraq in the midterm elections.

Do you think it will hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections not to have a kind of clear consensus position on Iraq?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Definitely. I think people ... thought we were going to win in 2000. People thought we were going to win in 2002. People thought we were going to win in 2004. I think in each case, it was either the inertia that people didn't want to change the president in the middle of a war or concerns that Democrats weren't ready to handle these difficult antiterrorism issues.

If we don't show that we have a strong vision of how to complete that mission, bring the troops home, and refocus in a positive way in the fight against terrorism, I'm afraid people will once again by default, you know, hedge it and maybe allow Republicans to stay in power.

Maybe we would win one House back, ... but then I worry what the impact would be in the 2008 election when it is desperately important that we elect a Democratic president. So I am concerned about it. I think we are drifting completely on the Iraq issue right now. We should be endorsing a reasonable approach for a timetable to bring the troops home or at least redeploy them by the end of 2006. I think it would find great favor with the American people.

A lot of Democrats disagree with Senator Feingold, thinking that becasue of the President's low approval ratings and the general perception of incompetence in the administration and corruption in Congress, the Democrats should be able to win by default, out of disgust with the people in office now. But I think it will be impossible for the party to win without taking a clear stand on the issue that's on everyone's mind. We have to show we have a way to get out of Iraq and focus on fighting terrorism more intelligently and effectively.

And, finally, I like this part:

I've heard a lot of people say -- privately and publicly -- that "Sen. Feingold makes a great candidate ... says what a lot of people are thinking. But governing is about compromise, and we're not sure that he has a compromising bone in his body." How do you answer that?

SEN. FEINGOLD: You know, I don't like blowing my horn. But I think it is fair to say that I'm one of the most experienced legislators in the United States right now. I have been a legislator for almost 25 years, [since] I was 29 years old. I know exactly when to hold them and when to fold them. I've done it hundreds of times, one of the most famous legislation probably of the last 20 years in America, the name that is most associated with major legislation.

... If you think McCain-Feingold is what I wanted it to be in the beginning, that was an excruciating eight-year process of compromise. On occasion, I said to John McCain, "I feel like my arm has been chopped off." It was a very tough process.

We started out with a bill that had to do with public finance -- or free television time and all these other limitations. We ended up with something very important, a bill on soft money. So I would argue I might have more experience with political compromise than just about any other member of the Senate.

I like that part becasue it shows something very important about Senator Feingold that unfortunately gets ignored too often: he's an experienced legislator who is experienced in crafting bipartisan compromises. Sometimes it seems like people think that only moderates know about compromise, that if you are a proud progressive like Senator Feingold, then all you do is standing around, talking about your principles and getting nothing done. The truth is, proud progressives know how to forge the kinds of compromises that bring our country forward.

The Straw Poll: Well, Senator Feingold certainly has the support of the people who've known him the longest and worked with him the closest: the Wisconsin Democrats.

At this past weekend's Wisconsin Democratic Party convention, Senator Feingold was the clear winner in a straw poll conducted by WisPolitics.com:

Russ Feingold 295
Al Gore 55
Hillary Clinton 48
John Edwards 41

Those numbers are out of 548 votes cast, and no other candidate recieved more than 40 votes...and no candidate came within 239 votes of Senator Feingold!

Obviously his fellow Badger State Dems are taking the Senator seriously as a presidential candidate! As ilya at RussforPresident.com says, "Now on to Iowa, New Hampshire and the rest of the country."

Thanks to Mike Schramm, Managing Editor of WisPolitics.com for bringing this to my attention!

That's all...until next time, keep going Forward!


Friday, June 09, 2006

Finally Feingold

Okay, so, first things fist: Why has it been so damned long since I've blogged?

Well it's a funny story. First, I had a major paper due in one of my classes, then I had to study for final exams, then I actually had to take final exams, then I engaged in this insane thing called the law review write-on competition, then I was out of town and without internet access, and then I was starting a new job.

Okay, so that story wasn't funny at all. But it was true, and I hope that's good enough. I consider this blog and working to make Russ Feingold the next president of the United States one of the most important things I do...however, at this point, it isn't always the most urgent thing I have to do. I'd like to promise that I'll never go this long without updating the blog again...but I think a better (and easier to keep) promise would be to stop making promises about how often I can get around to updating this thing.

I'll update it when I can, and when I do, I'll always do my best to make it is informative, intelligent, and entertaining as possible. Rest assured that I continue to believe that Russ Feingold is the best choice for the Democratic Party in 2008. In fact, every time I watch the news I wish I had the time and energy to blog here, because every time I watch the news I am reminded that this party and the nation need a man with the vision, courage, and integrity of Senator Russ Feingold.

Okay, the apology out of the way, let's talk about some of what was going on in the world of Russ since I've been gone...(Warning, this post is long...after all, I'm trying to make up for almost three months of not posting...)

Gay Marriage: On Wednesday the Senate rejected the Republicans latest attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution, once again rejecting the proposed amendment banning gay marriage by a vote of 49-48. While I am grateful to all the senators, Democratic and Republican (yes, seven of them actually voted against it) who helped defeat this amendment, this is a Feingold for President blog so, naturally I have to call attention to the fact that not only did Senator Feingold oppose the amendment, he has taken an even stronger stand for civil rights than the vast majority of his fellow senators, declaring his support for full marriage equality. As this (month old...yeah sorry about the delay, again) article notes:

In a speech here Saturday night to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Senate Democrat Russ Feingold vowed to help defeat the Wisconsin referendum, declaring that marriage "is not always and should not always be between a man and a woman."

Along with his state, Feingold may provide his own case study in the politics of gay marriage. Like most Democrats, he opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage, an amendment that is expected to fail in the Senate next month. But he has gone a significant step further and declared his personal belief that gays and lesbians should be able to marry. He is one of only four U.S. senators - and the only potential 2008 presidential candidate - to do so.

Feingold has surprised even some gay rights advocates by stating his endorsement in such plain and unequivocal language, in contrast to the personal qualms about gay marriage typically voiced by political figures who support civil unions. Along with being honored at Saturday's dinner, the senator drew several standing ovations.
"It goes against a lot of what people were brought up to believe, let's face it," Feingold said in an interview last week. He said he declared his views because he was going to have to vote on the Wisconsin referendum.

"I thought it was best just to say what I really have concluded, that this is really the ultimate civil rights issue, not just a state's rights issue, and that I support gay marriage. If two people care enough about each other that they want to get married, they ought to be able to," he said.

I applaud Senator Feingold for once again ignoring the fear-mongering tactics of the Republicans and taking a bold stance in defense of civil rights. I hope that the people of Wisconsin will follow Senator Feingold's lead, and the state's Progressive heritage, and reject the referendum.

Of related interest: please check out Equality for Feingold, a blog for GLBT supporters of Senator Feingold; Senator Feingold's press release (from April...) announcing his support for marriage equality;, and Senator Feingold's Diary at DailyKos calling the gay marriage ban "A Shameful Political Ploy."

National Intelligence
: Unfortunately, unlike on the gay marriage amendment, the majority of the Senate did not follow Senator Feingold's lead when it came to opposing the confirmation of General Michael Hayden as CIA director, which passed by a vote of 78-15.

Senator Feingold's confirmation votes are always fascinating to observe as he tends to give great deference to the president to choose his own people, much to the chagrin of some of his supporters. Senator Feingold voted for the confirmations of John Ashcroft as Attorney General, Condi Rice as Secretary of State, and John Roberts as Chief Justice. He's certainly no partisan hack when it comes to these votes (or any votes really) and when he opposes a nominee (such as with Attorney General Gonzales and now General Hayden) there's probably a pretty damn good reason for it.

From Senator Feingold's statement in opposition to the Hayden confirmation:

"I voted against the nomination of General Michael Hayden to be Director of the CIA because I am not convinced that the nominee respects the rule of law and Congress's oversight responsibilities. General Hayden is highly experienced and talented. But, as Director of the NSA, General Hayden directed an illegal program that put Americans on American soil under surveillance without the legally required approval of a judge. Having finally been briefed about this program last week, I am more convinced than ever that it is illegal. Our country needs a CIA Director who is committed to fighting terrorism aggressively without breaking the law or infringing on the rights of Americans. General Hayden's role in implementing and publicly defending the warrantless surveillance program does not give me confidence that he is capable of fulfilling this important responsibility.
The stakes are high. Al Qaeda and its affiliates seek to destroy us. We must fight back and we must join this fight together, as a nation. But when Administration officials ignore the law and ignore the other branches of government, it distracts us from fighting our enemies. I am disappointed that the President decided to make such a controversial nomination at this time. While I defer to Presidents in considering nominations to positions in the executive branch, I cannot vote for a nominee whose conduct raises such troubling questions about his adherence to the rule of law."

During the Senate confirmation hearings Intelligence Committee chairman Senator Pat Roberts used his old catchphrase: "I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties. But you have no civil liberties if you are dead."

Now that quote makes me feel like my head is going to explode; and it likely has the same effect on the rest of you. I thought for days about what would be the best thing to say to criticize such a ridiculous quote and the even more ridiculous ideas it stands for. Then I realized Senator Feingold had come up with the perfect response...over four years ago, in the debate on the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001:

"Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America."

Of related interest: The transcript of a great Feingold speech on National Security from the National Press Club ; a good commentary from TomPaine.com on that speech ; and Senator Feingold's statement about the death of al-Zarqawi.

Censure: Yes, it's been a while since Senator Feingold first introduced the idea of censuring President Bush for the domestic wiretapping program. Yes, it's no longer the talk of the town. But that doesn't mean the idea has disappeared and that doesn't mean it is not worth talking about.

The time that passed has proven that at least one of the arguments against the censure resolution was bunk: it did not galvanize support around President Bush...at least it didn't galvanize the support of the between 60 and 70 percent of Americans who continue to disapprove of the way President Bush is doing his job.

When asked by Jonathan Singer at myDD about another of the criticisms of the resolution, that it was all a political ploy by Senator Feingold, the answer reveals yet another reason why Senator Feingold would be a great president:
Feingold: Well, obviously it wasn't a political ploy, and I think most of the people asked in a poll like that don't know who I am. Anybody who knows who I am knows that this is the kind of thing I have been doing throughout my career when I think something's wrong, especially with lawbreaking or possible lawbreaking.

I was the only Democrat to vote to hear the evidence in the Clinton impeachment trial. I was one of the first two Democrats to call for an independent counsel when there were concerns about Democrat President Clinton's campaign finance practices. So I think anybody who really knows me knows that not only was this not political but I would have done this if a Democrat President was making such outrageous assertions about executive power as George Bush is doing.

After the Bush Administration I don't know if there is anything America needs more than a president who understands and respects the limits of executive power.

Of course, the fact that the criticisms of the censure proposal are wrong isn't actually a reason to support it. So, here is the reason I support it, stated as simply as possible: I don't want to have to explain to future generations why, when the president decided he could stop following the law merely because he didn't it like it any more, nobody stood up to tell him he couldn't do that.

So please, if you haven't already, head on over to Senator Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund website you can sign up in support of the censure resolution as a citizen co-sponsor; and then to MoveOn.org you can sign a petition in support of censure that will also be sent to your senators and representatives.

While I wish that Congress would have chosen of it's own accord to stand up and hold the President accountable, at the end of the day the responsibility lies with us, the American people, to demand that Congress take action and tell the President that we will not stand idly by while he breaks the law. I hope that we don't fail in that task. As the distinguished jurist Learned Hand once said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

(And obviously I've been in law school too long if I think quoting Learned Hand somehow magically makes my argument more compelling.)

New websites: Several new Feingold state websites are out there: Wisconsin, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas! Also of note, is RussForge a website for creating and sharing Internet resources for the Feingold movement.

And thus ends the update. See you in another two and a half months! (Kidding, kidding...)

Seriously, my thanks to everybody who read through this post and continues to read this blog. If you made a comment or sent an email in the past couple of months and didn't get a response, I apologize and please send or post it again and I'll get back to you. I really appreciate all the feedback I get.

Until next time, keep going Forward!

Who links to me?