Russ Feingold for President

My new blog

2007-06-15T18:16:00.000-07:00

I finally decided to start a new blog. It's called Still Going Forward and can be found here. I hope anyone who is still visiting here or just stumble across this place will check it out.

Thank you.

So long, and thanks for all the hits...

2006-11-12T20:52:00.000-08:00

As you have probably heard by now, Senator Feingold has decided not to run for President. You can read his statement here and a good article about it here.

As many of you can guess, I'm pretty disappointed by this. As my last real blog post made clear, supporting Russ Feingold wasn't just about the war, or civil liberties, or fair trade, or campaign finance reform, as much as I care about those issues. It was about who Russ Feingold was. Despite being a legislator in the (until last Tuesday!) minority party, he is a leader. He is a man of vision, courage, and integrity.

Simply put, the reason I worked as hard for him as I did wasn't just that I liked his positions. It's becuase I knew that, if elected, he would not let me down. That's a pretty rare quality for a leader. Honestly, in my lifetime I can only think of a few other individuals I could say that about, and they are mostly either dead (Senators Paul Simon and Paul Wellstone, Governor Mel Carnahan) or fictional characters (President Josiah Bartlet, Captain Jean-Luc Picard).

Who's left that's alive and real? No one who might run. Bill Bradley seems to be done with politics. Howard Dean has promised he won't run since he's DNC Chair. Dick Durbin seems to think the other senator from Illinois is better suited for the Oval Office than he is.

So, yeah I'm disappointed. I wanted someone to run who I knew wouldn't let me down.

And I wanted someone who would challenge the conventional wisdom.

I was born nine months after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, and it seems like Reagan has defined the entire political landscape for the whole time I've been alive. Government is bad. Politicians can't be trusted. America can't solve it's domestic problems, so just ignore them. The suffering of your fellow Americans doesn't matter. That's the Reagan-Bush philosophy, and somedays it feels like it's been tacitly accepted by too many Americans.

And when Democrats nominate moderate candidates, they don't challenge that philosophy. Moderate Democrats are definitely better than Republicans, but they aren't going to achieve the goal I want. The goal I want is greater than getting the U.S. out of Iraq. The goal I want is greater than raising the minimum wage. The goal I want is greater than preserving our civil liberties.

What I want to see is a New Progressive Era in American politics. Let's challenge those Reagan-Bush assumptions. Let's get Americans to believe in themselves and their government again. Let's apply all our abilities to solving the problems facing this nation.

So, I can't say I'm excited by the prospect of hearing the Democratic candidates talk about their programs for tax credits for job creation. Yes, that's a good thing...but it's not big enough. And as the great architect Daniel Burnham once said, "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood, and probably will not be themselves realized."

Russ Feingold's campaign would have had the magic that would stir men's blood. Russ Feingold's campaign could have led to a New Progressive Era.

Win or lose, Russ Feingold's campaign would have, in the words of Leo McGarry, "raise[d] the level of public debate in this country, and let that be [it's] legacy."

But it's not to be.

I could say good things about all of the remaining potential 2008 Democratic candidates. And I could say bad things about all of them. Instead, I'll say nothing. For now, I'm just a spectator in that race. Perhaps, somebody will suprise me. Perhaps, the conventional wisdom will still be flouted. I hope so.

So that's pretty much it.

Except for this. The title of this post isn't just because I thought it would be fun to put a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference in here. I mean it.

Thank you to everyone who has read this blog; especially those who read it regularly. It meant so much to me to know I wasn't alone. And especially those who went on to start their own Feingold blogs or sites; especially ilya s., fitzy, and the whole RunRussRun.com steering committee. Thanks to Tony Palmeri and Roger Simon, for giving me the chance to see my name in the paper. And thanks to my friends and family who read this, and were still willing to admit they knew me.

I'm kicking around the idea of maybe starting another political blog. Not for a candidate, just for my thoughts. I might do that after Thanksgiving, or after my finals. I hope you folks will check it out if I do.

So, farewell, fellow Feingold fans. I guess we won't be going Forward with Feingold after all...but I hope you all keep doing whatever you can to move America Forward!

Best Wishes,

Daniel R. Kuehnert

Why Not the Best?: A Rededication

2006-11-09T20:51:00.000-08:00

I’ve been working on this blog for about 23 months now. I haven’t been able to work on it regularly. It’s been difficult to fit in at times, first with my job, and now with law school. But I’ve tried to keep it up, and I’ve encouraged others to start their own Feingold blogs and websites. Now, I want to explain to readers new and old why, exactly, I’ve been blogging in support of a dark horse candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination since December of 2004.

I could begin my story back when I first started the blog. Or earlier than that, back in 1999, when I first heard about Senator Feingold and his campaign finance reform efforts. But I think the story actually begins earlier than that. It begins one day when I was in study hall in high school.

I liked to spend study hall in the library, so if I got bored with my homework I could look at the books. I especially liked looking at the biographies, and one day, I don’t remember when, I came across a paperback copy of Jimmy Carter’s 1976 campaign autobiography: “Why Not the Best?” I don’t know if I ever read the whole book, and I don’t remember much about it, but the title always stuck in my head. I think it is the only question people should ask when choosing their leaders: “Why not the best?”

And that’s why I was disappointed after Election Day 2004, when all the talking heads began chattering about possible 2008 Democratic candidates. They described various candidates in terms of their name recognition, their fundraising, and their perceived electability. But nobody talked about why these potential candidates make be good presidents. Nobody seemed to be asking the question “Why not the best?”

And that’s a problem because no matter how important it may be for obtaining the office, being President of the United States is not about courting big donors. Being President of the United States is not about being all things to all people. Being President of the United States is not about being able to get 50.1% of the vote in a swing state.

Being President of the United States is about vision. It’s about courage. It’s about integrity. It requires the best. And that is why I’ve been blogging in support of Senator Feingold for 23 months. Because he has what it takes to not only be elected president, but to be a great president.

Vision.

Senator Feingold was one of less than two dozen senators who had the vision to vote against going to war in Iraq. And He was the only senator to see the danger in giving President Bush everything he wanted in the PATRIOT Act. Senator Feingold has a vision of an America that protects itself from terrorists while also protecting the liberties that have defined the United States the land of the free.

Senator Feingold had the foresight to oppose corporate-friendly “free trade” agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA that have hurt workers here and in our neighboring countries. And Senator Feingold has a vision of creating a global economy that works for everyone.

As soon as Senator Feingold arrived in Washington, D.C., he saw the stranglehold that big donors and lobbyists had on the political process. And he has constantly worked to fight for campaign finance and lobbying reform. Senator Feingold has a vision of an America where the government works for the public interest, not the special interests.

Courage.

Senator Feingold was alone in the Senate, opposing the PATRIOT Act. He was in a small minority in the Senate, opposing the Iraq War. He was the first senator to propose censuring President Bush because of his illegal wiretapping program. Senator Feingold has not been afraid to stand up to an Administration that is willing to stop at nothing to destroy those who oppose it; as Max Cleland and John Kerry can attest to.

Of course, the pundits wrote Senator Feingold off because of his courage. They thought it was “political suicide” to oppose the PATRIOT Act and the war. Well, Senator Feingold has survived “political suicide” so many times, he must have more lives than a cat. In 2004, Senator Feingold was reelected by his largest margin of victory: the people of Wisconsin know courage when they see it.

And courage doesn’t just mean standing up the Republicans, it requires standing up to members of his own party when he disagrees with them. Senator Feingold angered Tom Daschle as much as George Bush when he stood up to speak out against the PATRIOT Act. Senator Feingold was the only Democratic senator to vote against dismissing the impeachment charges against President Clinton without hearing the evidence first. That move didn’t win him many friends in his own party, but he thought it was the right thing to do…and that leads to…

Integrity.

Senator Feingold has won the respect of his Republican colleagues like Orrin Hatch and John McCain by being a man of integrity; staying true to his word and his principles. In 1998, when he ran for reelection, he refused to let the Democratic Party spend soft money for him, instead following the rules he proposed in a campaign finance bill that had not yet passed. Senator Feingold will not accept a pay raise during his six-year term, instead returning the money to the U.S. Treasury. And that is but one of five promises Senator Feingold made to the people of Wisconsin on his garage door in 1991, and has kept ever since then.

I know that to some people it is not enough that Senator Feingold would be a great president. It is not enough that he is a man of vision, courage and integrity. All they care about is one question: will he win?

I don’t know. I don’t possess a crystal ball, a deck of tarot cards, a time machine, or any other device that allows me to see the future. But I think he can win.

I think he can win because he has been elected to the Senate three-times from the Midwestern swing state of Wisconsin-the most average state in the nation according to a recent study-and he won it in 2004 with a much large percentage of the vote than John Kerry received.

I think he can win because Election Day 2006 saw dozens of victories for Democratic candidates who share Senator Feingold’s values of fighting terrorism while protecting civil liberties; of making the global economy work for everybody; and of making the government work for the public interest, not the special interests.

And I think he can win because I believe Americans are tired of voting out of fear. Republicans win by feeding on our fears of the worst that could happen. But Americans rejected that on Tuesday. Americans want to vote for something, and they want to vote for the best. They want to vote for a man of vision, courage, and integrity who will spend everyday he’s in office working for the public interest.

And that’s why I’ve been running this blog for 23 months.

Because I believe Americans want the best, and I believe it is the duty of the Democratic Party to offer it to them.

And because I still firmly believe, as I wrote over a year ago, 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.

So, once again, I say: Let’s go forward together! Let’s go forward with Feingold!

Run, Russ, Run!: Taking it to the Next Level

2006-11-09T17:15:00.000-08:00

Well, Election Day has come and gone, and what a day it was! I'll blog some more about that soon, and what I think it means for the Feingold for President movement.

Meanwhile, WFRV in Green Bay has a report on Senator Feingold's response to the election:

Sen. Russ Feingold said he's closer to making a decision on a presidential racefollowing this week's congressional elections, but still hasn't decided if theelection results have made him more or less likely to run for president.

Meanwhile, a great group of Feingold for President grassrooters has formed a wonderful new website to help make Senator Feingold's decision a little bit easier. The site is called runrussrun.com. If you want to find out more about it, the initial diary that launched it follows:

Announcing RussForPresident 3.0
by hoose, Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:25:13 AM
EST

There have been a lot of posts in a lot of places mentioning vague developments for the "Draft Russ Feingold" movement in the near future. Well,it's November 9th, we own the Congress, and "Daffy" Donald Rumsfeld is an unpleasant memory. In other words the future is here.

Click here to beat the crowd and sign up at RunRussRun.com.

We're very pleased to announce the launch of RunRussRun.com, which replaces RussForPresident.com as the national headquarters of the Draft Feingold for President movement.

Click here to sign up at RunRussRun.com.

The new site was developed by Internet activists from 16 states and 5 national constituency groups. We looked very carefully at what worked and what didn't in our state-level organizations, our former national site, and previous presidential draft movements. Emerging technology helped us solve most of the problems we saw, emphasize what worked best, and open up what we think is a new kind of site for on-line activism.

Click here to sign up at RunRussRun.com.

RunRussRun.com gives members access to a wide array of services including:a customized activism road map, interaction with other members across the country, and direct access to free tools for building local and state-level groups and activities. It also features up-to-the-minute news from the Feingold for President state and community blogs, discussion forums, and an option to pledge donations to a future Feingold presidential campaign.

The effort to convince Senator Feingold to make a presidential run traces back to December, 2004 when the first Russ Feingold for President blog was started by current Washington University law student Daniel Kuehnert. Since then, the effort has grown to include 16 state blogs and numerous nationwide sites, including RussForPresident.com, which was founded in February 2005 by University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point student Matthew Wallock. Steering Committee member, Minnesota resident and political activist Joel Clemmer, says "The movement has grown tremendously and needs a new face for the final push. Our goal over the next few months is to double our membership and bring at least five more states on line."

Add your voice to the movement: sign up at RunRussRun.com today.

Run, Russ, Run! Let's go Forward with Feingold!

Three Days to Go

2006-11-03T20:50:00.000-08:00

As you probably guessed from the lack of updates, I've found the second year of law school provides no more opportunities for free time (and therefore blogging time) than the first year...actually it seems like less, if that's possible. I wish I had the time over the past few months to update this blog with the latest in Feingold related news, and I hope that in the weeks to come I'll have some exciting Feingold for President stuff to blog about.

But none of that matters now. Now, we only have three days to go until election day 2006, and until that's done 2008 presidential race speculation is definitely on the backburner.

It looks like these midterms will be pretty exciting for the Democrats, but we shouldn't take anything for granted. So, my simple plea is this: spend the next three days doing whatever you can to help Democratic candidates and progressive causes in the upcoming election. If that's giving money, great! If it's volunteering, even better! And if it's just making sure that you and your friends and family get out and vote Democratic on Tuesday, well that's more than enough!

No matter where you are, I'm sure you can find a Democratic cause worth your time. If you still need to find one check out: the Progressive Patriots Fund, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Governors Association.

Let's get out there and win this thing. And let's make it a big win, so we can move this country forward...whether President Bush wants to go there or not.

My irregular and not nearly scheduled Feingold for President blogging will resume after Election Day.

Letter to Molly Ivins

2006-08-01T18:35:00.000-07:00

First off, a little bit of good news: the Progressive Patriots Fund met their fundraising goal and will be able to hire five more Patriot Corps field organizers, increasing the number of campaigns the organizers can help to 20! Thanks to everyone who donated money so this could happen!

Molly Ivins: Molly Ivins is one of the leading liberal columnists in America today, has been one of my favorite political columnists for years now. I especially enjoyed the outrage her columns would generate in the Letters to the Editor in the Chicago Tribune; when I was in Chicago it seemed like nothing upset the Trib's conservative readers more than Molly Ivins and "The Boondocks", which was just one more reason to love them.

Anyway, I was disappointed by this recent column by Ms. Ivins saying that Democrats should run Bill Moyers for president, because all the current potential candidates are centrists who lack spine. (The idea got support from another of my favorite columnists, John Nichols, whom I will always be grateful to for mentioning this blog in a column only days after I created it.)

Now, I admire Bill Moyers but it seems to me that there is already an intelligent, courageous, progressive possible candidate out there: Senator Feingold! And he's already got a growing grassroots movement behind him. So, I wrote this letter to Ms. Ivins. If you feel obliged to writing to her, too, you can do so here. I'll let you know what, if any, response I get to this.

Dear Ms. Ivins,

I’ve been a fan of yours for years, but I was rather confused by your recent column advocating a Bill Moyers for President movement. I am not confused by your admiration for Mr. Moyers, in fact, I share it. However, I question the need for progressive Democrats to toss Mr. Moyers’ hat in the ring when there is already an intelligent, honest, and progressive potential candidate with a growing grassroots movement behind him: Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

You dismiss all the possible Democratic candidates as triangulators and state that “Every single one of them needs spine, needs political courage.” Those statements are flat-out wrong with respect to Senator Feingold. Far from being Republican-lite, Senator Feingold has consistently throughout his fourteen year senate career stood up for civil liberties, universal health care, fair trade agreements, the environment, and damn near every other progressive cause out there. On the issues where he has differed from his progressive supporters (mainly confirmation votes for presidential appointees) it has never been out a need to “triangulate” or “move to the center” but rather because the votes reflected his principles.

And as for needing a spine, I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that Senator Feingold was the lone senator to oppose the USA PATRIOT Act and that he opposed the Iraq War resolution…and that after all that, he won reelection in Wisconsin in 2004 by his largest margin of victory. He was the first senator to introduce a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq and he has been the most consistent critic of the Bush Administration’s abuses of power.

While both Mr. Moyers and Senator Feingold are progressives with reputations for courage and integrity there is one thing Senator Feingold has that Mr. Moyers doesn’t: a network of energized grassroots activists ready to support him. In December 2004 I started a Russ Feingold for President blog. I expected to be alone. I’m not. There are numerous pro-Feingold websites out there, including fifteen state blogs written by Feingold supporters in states ranging from New Jersey to Texas and everywhere in between. Hundreds of people have signed up for Feingold listservs. In the fist half of 2006 Senator Feingold’s PAC raised over two million dollars…62% of that came from individuals giving less than $200 (i.e. average people). Those are just a few reflections of the growing support Senator Feingold has among grassroots Democrats.

I respect you and Bill Moyers tremendously. I agree with you when you write “I’m damned if I want to go through another presidential primary with everyone trying to figure out who has the best chance to win instead of who’s right. I want to vote for somebody who’s good and brave and who should win.” The thing is, I already believe that there is somebody out there who is good and brave and should win. And can win. And is looking at running. And has a growing grassroots movement behind him.

I hope you’ll take a look at the Feingold for President movement. Check out http://www.russforpresident.com/, the main Feingold for President site, or my own humble blog, http://russfeingold.blogspot.com/. And then I hope you’ll feel that there is a great progressive candidate out there, even without Bill Moyers running. And then I hope you’ll think about using your column to encourage others to help make Russ Feingold the next President of the United States.

Respectfully,

Daniel R. Kuehnert

Russ Roundup for July

2006-07-31T16:15:00.000-07:00

Hey folks, I didn't mean to go through the whole month without another blog entry, but that's just the way it went. It wasn't much easier to fit the blog into my life with my job then it was to fit it in with school. Guess I'll just have to make the time by eliminating something else...eating and sleeping have always struck me as rather pointless...

Anyhow, here's some of the big events from the Month in Russ:

Patriot Corps: Earlier this month Senator Feingold and his Progressive Patriots Fund announced the creation of the Patriot Corps: a group of fifteen field organizers who the Fund will hire, train and send to key races in Wisconsin and throughout the country. Sound like something you'd be interested in doing? If so, the application is here, and they are accepting applications until August 11.

Of course while hiring fifteen field organizers is great, twenty would be even better and the Progressive Patriot Fund has been trying to raise $25,000 by midnight tonight in order to be able to help five more campaigns. While I don't know how many people will read this before midnight, the Fund was within $4,000 of the goal this morning, so if you can, please donate here.

And Speaking of Donations...: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran an interesting article today looking at where the approximately $2 million Senator Feingold has raised this year has come from, and how that differs from other possible Democratic presidential candidates. From the article:

In the first half of 2006, the Wisconsin senator raised 62% of his funds from people giving $200 or less, a much higher share than any other potential candidate.

If you want to see the exact numbers, check out this post by Chris Bowers at MyDD. Here's a summary: the possible candidate with the next highest percentage of small donors? John Kerry with 32%, followed by Wes Clark with 28% and Hillary Clinton with 18%. No one else was in double digits and for several candidates, small donors made up 1% or less of their donors.

So why does this matter? For one thing, it shows who Senator Feingold represents and who wants him to run: he is the candidate of average people who care about the future of the Democratic Party and the country. And it shows that people are willing to invest in Senator Feingold's campaign. As ilya S. at Russforpresident.com wrote:

What Senator Feingold is doing is just great campaign building. People will do things for your campaign if they are invested. They will go out and knock on doors in the freezing cold of Iowa and New Hampshire, they will do mailings at 5 am and Meet Ups at 9 pm. They will do what they can to get you elected because it's not just about the candidate but about the campaign. Great things are on the horizon. The evidence is slowly appearing, but Senator Feingold is exactly right in his word choice. Should Russ decide to run, contributions of time and money will explode. And then we'll have a genuine people powered candidate for 2008.

Health Care: Of course, the reason Senator Feingold is able to attract the small donors is that they know that he is willing to stand up for them on the issues that matter, like health care (which Senator Feingold has described as the number one issue he hears concerns about at his listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties).

Last week, Senator Feingold announced a proposal for a federal program that would help state governments deliver universal health care to their citizens. A fact sheet on the program is here and an article on it is here. From the article:

"The time has come to see if we can get across our ideological differences--which are serious -- and to see if we can at least get off the dime with the idea of pilot projects," Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "I thought it was time basically to break a logjam."

Feingold plans to unveil the legislation at a news conference in Milwaukee today, and introduce it in Congress later this week or early next week. He acknowledged it has little chance of passing this year, but said he wants to have something ready to go when a new Congress takes over next year.

I hope this program passes next year. Of course, that all depends on what kind of Congress we get, but I think Senator Feingold's proposal has a number of attractive features: it takes a first step towards the much needed goal of universal health care, it allows states the opportunity to be creative and try different types of programs while still giving them federal financial support (and as Tennesseans for Feingold noted on July 25: Senator Feingold spelled out the specifics of how to pay for it) . It's practical and creative, and it should pass...and then in the Feingold administration we could final achieve the dream ouniversalal healthcare for all Americans.

The health care proposal is one of a series of domestic policy proposals Senator Feingold will be announcing over the next six months, and I look forward to seeing the rest.

One issue? Hardly: Senator Feingold's health care proposal just makes me more amused by a recent criticism of Senator Feingold that I've seen popping up both in the mainstream media and by bloggers supporting other candidates: that Senator Feingold is a "one issue" candidate. An example can be found on this Hotline blog piece from the end of June.

This criticism is confusing because the people who use it never say what "one issue" they are talking about, and Senator Feingold has been a recognized leader on a number of major issues. And I don't just say this as one of his supporters.

People who aren't obsessed political junkies but follow the news might recognize Feingold as one of the two sponsors of that campaign finance law (what other bill in recently history is as well known by the name of its sponsors?) Or they might recognize Feingold as the one senator who voted against the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001. Or they might recognize him as the first senator to propose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Or they might recognize him as the senator who proposed censuring President Bush for his illegasurveillancece of American citizens.

So please, people who say Senator Feingold is a one issue candidate can you tell me which one issue that is? Is it campaign finance reform? Civil liberties? The war in Iraq? Overreaching by the executive? Or perhaps it's his constant support for fair trade? Or his proposal for universal health care? Since I'm the one blogging in support of Senator Feingold please let me know what the only one issue I care about is; that would really free up a lot of my time.

And one final thought: how many of the possible Democratic candidates besides Senator Feingold are associated in the mind of a generally informed citizen (but not a political junkie) with EVEN one issue?

There's Gore and the environment (he's also been outspoken against the war and the domestisurveillancece programs). John Edwards is making a name for himself by focusing on poverty. Hillary may be remembered for the Clinton Health Care plan, or for her attack on Grand Theft Auto.

I know the other possible candidates care about the issues and have ideas, but right now I can't say there is anyone who people would remember as "The guy who...[whatever]" while there are at least four different issues Senator Feingold might be remembered for.

Iowa: Senator Feingold headed back to the Hawkeye (and First Caucus) State two weeks ago. To read more about it check out the great coverage over at Iowa for Feingold (scroll down to July 16) and Russforpresident.com .

And a poll to vote in: The Racine Journal Times has a poll asking "Should Russ Feingold run for President?" Cast your vote in favor of Russ!

So that's all for this time...hopefully I'll have more later this week.

Until next time, keep going Forward!

Look! My Name's in the Paper!

2006-07-02T16:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the Valley Scene, an alternative newspaper covering the Fox Valley in Wisconsin, hit the stands with a cover story titled "Russ Feingold: the Next President of the United States?" What makes this article different from previous stories about a possible Feingold presidential run? Why, it's the first article to quote me!

Okay, my ego-boost from being interviewed for a newspaper story aside, the article is really good, quoting Feingold netroots activists (myself and ilya from RussforPresident), Wisconsin supporters of Russ, and Wisconsinites who oppose Russ (but admire him for standing by his principles). While I'm a definitely biased here, I think it's one of the best articles about a possible Feingold for President run since the author (Tony Palmeri) interviewed actual Feingold supporters, instead of just quoting political science professors or Democratic strategists and dismissing the grassroots and netroots activists.

Anyhow, the Valley Scene's online edition isn't updated yet, but you can read the article on Tony Palmeri's website and post comments on his blog.

Here is the most interesting part (totally biased opinion):

Ilya’s enthusiasm is shared by Dan Kuehnert, a student at Washington University law school in St. Louis, self described “liberal nerd,” and creator of two pro-Feingold blogs: Russ Feingold For President and Missouri For Feingold. Dan’s been a Feingold fan since following the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill at age 18 in 1999. He says that even when he’s disagreed with Feingold (such as his vote to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General) he “always thought he acted really thoughtfully and followed his own principles.” Like Ed, Dan thinks that Senator Feingold's integrity and intelligence are characteristics we need in a president, and that “he has positions on the issues that are also what America needs: a president who will fight terrorism while protecting civil liberties, a president who will make government cleaner and more accountable, and a president who will make the global economy work for everyone, here and abroad, rather than just the big corporate CEOs.” If Feingold announced a candidacy, Dan would stand out in the freezing weather handing out flyers or knocking on doors, “and Senator Feingold's the only possible candidate I'd do that for.”

So, there ya go. Sometimes I wonder if I should change that "liberal nerd" quote. When I wrote it, I didn't figure anyone would read it. I don't know if my self-deprecating humor translates that well in print. Neither does sarcasm. Which pretty much leaves me with straightforward jokes about guys walking into bars with pigs under their arms...and I'm no good at those.

On the other hand, I have statrted two Feingold for President blogs, so maybe that line is just plain accurate rather than self-deprecating...

And if that paragraph isn't enough for you, you are in luck! Tony gave me premission to post our entire email interview on the blog. So here it goes...

Dan K.: The Tony Palmeri interview (Questions in bold)

*Why did you start a Russ Feingold for President blog?

I started my blog back in December of 2004. I was one of those Democrats who, immediately after Kerry lost, thought "okay, what do we do four years from now?" I read every column and blog I could find about possible Democratic candidates for 2008 and I found them all disappointing: they were either focused on Hillary Clinton and how her nomination is "inevitable" or they promoted possible candidates like Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, or Bill Richardson arguing about their electability: arguing that they can win one or two key states and therefore the election and that is all that matters. And I found it discouraging that none of this dialogue asked what I think is the most important question: Who would make the best president?

I asked myself that question and my answer was Senator Russ Feingold. I got interested in politics again when I was 18, in 1999, and I read about Senator Feingold and Senator McCain and their fight for campaign finance reform; I just found it disgusting how much money went into politics and how hard it was to make even modest change to that. I followed Senator Feingold since then and even when I disagreed with him (such as his vote to confirm Ashcroft) I always thought he acted really thoughtfully and followed his own principles. I think that Senator Feingold's integrity and intelligence are characteristics we need in a president, and I think that he has positions on the issues that are also what America needs: a president who will fight terrorism while protecting civil liberties, a president who will make government cleaner and more accountable, and a president who will make the global economy work for everyone, here and abroad, rather than just the big corporate CEOs.

Anyhow, I knew Senator Feingold was the candidate I wanted to see the Democrats nominate in 2008 and I couldn't find any blogs or websites supporting him, so I decided to start one myself.

*What kind of response have you received?

It's been really amazing. In terms of emails and comments, the positive far out number the negative. But even more exciting are all the other Feingold for President sites that have sprung up: russforpresident.com is a great national site for Feingold supporters to exchange ideas, and there is a project to start blogs for state Feingold supporters in each of the fifty states. So far there are around fifteen, and not just in "blue" states but also in places like South Carolina, Texas, and my state of Missouri.

And it's really surprised me. I thought I'd start a blog about Feingold, no one would read it, I'd forget about it and that's the end of the story. Instead I discovered that there are a LOT of people out there who think Senator Feingold's kind of leadership is what the party and the country need and are willing to work really hard for it, and I love that! It's why I keep going back to my blog, even when it's been hard to because of my job or law school.

*Do you think Feingold can get the Democratic Party nomination?

Yes, but I think he and his supporters will have to work hard for it. We'd be the underdogs going in but I think we could pull it off.

First why I think Senator Feingold can get the nomination: I think his courage and integrity get a lot of respect even from those who disagree with him, and I think everyone wants a president with those attributes. And then there are the issues I mentioned before: fighting terrorism while protecting civil liberties, make government cleaner and more accountable, and making the global economy work for everyone; I think those are issue that the vast majority of Americans, and especially the vast majority of Democrats believe in.

So why would we be underdogs: mainly because the conventional wisdom about Feingold already seems to be forming among the media and Democratic activists: he's not electable. And why is he supposedly unelectable: because he's twice divorced, Jewish, and, worst of all, he's liberal. And I find that really disappointing and kind of insulting to the whole idea of democracy: here's this great guy but we won't support him because we don't think other people will support him. And I think that's the wrong way to look at it, instead I hope that if people think Feingold would make the best president they'll be willing to work to convince others of that. And if people are willing to believe and willing to work, we can get Senator Feingold the nomination and the Presidency.

*If Feingold were to declare his candidacy, what kinds of things might you do for his campaign in addition to running the blog?

Simply put: I'd be willing to do anything his campaign would want me to do. If he runs, I'd take time off law school and go to Iowa or New Hampshire or Wisconsin or wherever the campaign is do whatever kind of work is needed. I'd love to do official blogging for the campaign, or any kind of writing or researching they'd need. But if they just need me to stand out in the freezing weather handing out flyers or knocking on doors, I'd do that. And Senator Feingold's the only possible candidate I'd do that for. If he doesn't run, I might give money to a candidate or do some work in Missouri, but I can't see myself blogging or giving up any significant amount of time for anyone but Feingold in 2008

*Is there anything else you would like to say?

Just to repeat what I wrote earlier in the question if Feingold could get the nomination: to anybody who is reading this and likes Feingold but thinks he might not win, just be willing to believe and willing to work and we can make it happen. The only way we will be able to bring this country forward is if we are willing to work for it.

End of Interview

So, what do you think? Do I have a future as a professional email interview answerer? Is that a profession?

Anyway, thank you to Tony Palmeri for the article, the interview, and allowing me to post it on my site!

Until next time...keep going Forward!

"Meet the Press" Roundup

2006-06-27T21:03:00.000-07:00

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!

Meet the Press

2006-06-25T21:27:00.000-07:00

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!

A Depressing Vote and an Entertaining Interview

2006-06-24T21:36:00.000-07:00

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.

Sure.

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
decide.

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.

Dating?

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
you?

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!

Taking Back America with Russ Feingold

2006-06-15T18:49:00.000-07:00

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!

An Interview and a Straw Poll

2006-06-12T18:18:00.000-07:00

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!

Finally Feingold

2006-06-09T16:26:00.000-07:00

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!

Russ on "The Daily Show" TONIGHT!

2006-03-22T17:01:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone, just in case you haven't heard Senator Feingold will be on the Daily Show tonight at 10 pm (Central Time). If you can't catch it then it will be rerun at midnight and a number of times tomorrow. Also, clips from the interview will be available at the show's website, I'll post a link as soon as they're up.

And in case you were wondering why I hadn't posted on the censure resolution yet it's because I was out of town (and without internet access) for all of last week, and I have been ridiculously busy this week (Oh, the thrills of law school!) Rest assured, I will post something about it soon...Tomorrow at the earliest, Sunday night at the latest.

Have I lost my mind?

2006-03-03T22:28:00.000-08:00

Why am I asking myself the question that's the title of this post? Because I've gone ahead and created another Feingold blog!

Yes, to be a shameless follower of the trend of starting state Feingold blogs, I've started Missouri for Feingold.

Check it out! Then come back here and answer the title question!

Happy Birthday, Senator Feingold!

2006-03-02T21:00:00.000-08:00

A new post, less then a month after the last one...what's the special occasion? Well, today is the 53rd birthday of the Next President of the United States Russell Dana Feingold!

And I'm sure there is nothing Senator Feingold wants more for his birthday than for me to update this blog, so here I am. (And if Senator Feingold is reading this, please remember: it's the thought that counts!)

Of course, for those of you who (unlike me) don't have blogs and do have money you could follow the advice of Jerry Troiano over at New Jersey for Feingold and give Senator Feingold the gift of a contribution to the Progressive Patriots Fund.

After all, Senator Feingold spent his birthday trying to talk his colleagues into standing up for civil liberties and rejecting the bad deal on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

You can read his statement here. Here's the conclusion:

In 2001, we were viciously attacked by terrorists who care nothing for American freedoms and American values. And we as a people came together to fight back, and we are prepared to make great sacrifices to defeat those who would destroy us. But what we will not do, what we cannot do, is destroy our own freedoms in the process.

Without freedom, we are not America. If we don’t preserve our liberties, we cannot win this war, no matter how many terrorists we capture or kill.

That is why the several Senators who have said at one time or another during this debate things like, “Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead” are wrong about America at the most basic level. They do not understand what this country is all about. Theirs is a vision that the founders of this nation, who risked everything for freedom, would categorically reject. And so do the American people.

Americans want to defeat terrorism, and they want the basic character of this country to survive and prosper. They want to empower the government to protect the nation from terrorists, and they want protections against government overreaching and overreacting. They know it might not be easy, but they expect the Congress to figure out how to do it. They don’t want defeatism on either score. They want both security and liberty, and unless we give them both – and we can, if we try – we have failed.

This fight is not over Mr. President. The vote today will not assuage the deep and legitimate concerns that the public has about the Patriot Act. I am convinced that in the end, the government will respond to the people, as it should. We will defeat the terrorists, and we will preserve the freedom and liberty that make this the greatest country on the face of the earth.

Senator Feingold had a bit more company today than in 2001. But not enough: the bill passed 89-10. My appreciation to Senators Akaka, Harkin, Levin, Bingaman, Wyden, Jeffords, Leahy, Murray, and Byrd.

And as someone who grew up in Illinois, I must say I'm very disappointed not to see either Senator Durbin or Senator Obama among those standing with Senator Feingold here.

New State Blogs: But, I guess this PATRIOT Act reauthorization vote, and Senator Feingold's words against it are one more reason why we have to work to put Russ in the White House in 2008! And, fortunately, the number of Feingold blogs continues to grow: a new Ohio for Feingold site is up and so is Mass(achusetts) for Feingold.

Does your state have a Feingold blog? If not, start one! If I can do it, anyone can!

Meetup Roundup: Didn't have a Feingold for President meetup in your town? Well, you can read all about the Iowa City Meetup and the New Brunswick (NJ) Meetup and maybe they'll give you ideas for starting your own. Also, note that Meetup groups have been formed for Denver and East Bay (Oakland, etc) California.

That's all for this time. Hopefully, I'll be able to update again, soon. Until next time, keep going Forward!

Happy Presidents' Day!

2006-02-18T20:49:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, in Madison, Wisconsin, and Los Angeles, California, the first official Russ Feingold for President Meetups will occur; with another taking place in New Brunswick, New Jersey, on Monday. Monday, of course, is Presidents' Day and I can think of no better way to celebrate it than a Russ Feingold for President Meetup, and I wish I had the energy (and St. Louis had the progressive community) that I could have set one up.

Presidents' Day has its origins in George Washington's birthday, which is this Wednesday, so perhaps it is appropriate that I found some inspiration for our Feingold for President movement in this quote from a speech Jane Addams gave in 1903 at a celebration of Washington's Birthday:

What is a great man who has made his mark upon history? Every time, if we think far enough, he is a man who has looked through the confusion of the moment and has seen the moral issue involved; he is a man who has refused to have his sense of justice distorted; he has listened to his conscience until conscience becomes a trumpet call to like-minded men, so that they gather about him and together, with mutual purpose and mutual aid, they make a new period in history.

I don't know if there is a better example in recent American politics of looking through the confusion of the moment and seeing the moral issue involved than Senator Feingold's original lone Senate vote against the PATRIOT Act. And I don't think there is a better description of what is occurring on Feingold blogs and at Feingold Meetups than the part of that quote that I put in bold.

I was skeptical, at first, of the idea of starting Feingold for President Meetups this early, but now I see why they are needed: it's time for like-minded men and women to gather together in their communities and reach out to others there, spreading the word about a man of conscience from Wisconsin who, with our help, could take our country forward to a new period in history.

I look forward to hearing about the Meetups; I'll be there in spirit.

My usual apologies for not posting more often, I hope to post a longer update soon. Of course, I have lots of hopes, not all of them are realized...

(And, to give credit where it is due, I found the Jane Addams speech I quoted in the book Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History collected by William Safire, which my Mom bought me for Christmas and has quickly become one of my favorite books.)

Going Forward in the New Year

2006-01-16T22:05:00.000-08:00

Hello, everybody. My apologies for not posting more recently, I was out of town and without internet access for a few weeks and then spent the past week starting my new semester of law school. I'm gonna try to catch up with the major recent Feingold developments now; and once again I hope that I'll be able to update this site more regularly in the future.

Alito hearings: I'm sad and embarrassed to say that I probably caught about a total of an hour of the Alito hearings last week, and am not really qualified to comment on Senator Feingold's questioning of him. So if you weren't able to see it, check out Joe Pisciotto's coverage of it over at RussForPresident.com.

State Blogs: The number of Feingold for President state blogs doubled since the last time I updated this site...please check out and welcome New York for Feingold, California for Feingold, Feingold for President-Minnesota, and Pacific Northwest for Feingold (covering Washington and Oregon). Unfortunately, it looks like Ohio for Feingold has disappeared, but I'll keep my link to it in hope that it will return. So, if you live in a state not covered by a Feingold blog...what are you waiting for join the fun! Blog for Russ! It's easy to get started (if, admittedly, more difficult to keep up with on a regular basis).

And in an attempt to not be a total hypocrite, I have pondered either starting a Missouri for Feingold site, or, alternatively, changing this into a Missouri for Feingold site; leaning more towards the former than the latter for reasons that are as much sentimental and egotistical as anything else.

But the truth is I'd love it if a Missouri for Feingold site could be a collaborative thing, perhaps with bloggers for all different parts of the state...I don't know, maybe that's too ambitious, but if there is anyone in Missouri and interested email me . And the thoughts of all my readers are welcome on this (and any other) subject.

Also on the Net: Not a state blog, but a really cool idea is over at Irregular Times where they have started a President 2008 section, which is a wiki site which allows users to write and edit the text of the pages. The have sites for all the possible candidates, including our Senator Feingold, and I urge you to check it out and help it grow.

And if you want to help raise money for RussForPresident.com and own some nifty Russ related domain names for yourself, check out this eBay auction; it closes in four days.

Russ on the Road: No, the Feingold news hasn't been confined to the net and some really important hearings I haven't been able to watch. Senator Feingold headed out to New England, traveling to Vermont, to campaign for the great Bernie Sanders, and then to New Hampshire, a state which the political media pays a lot of attention to for some reason or another...

Senator Feingold gave great speeches at both events...and you can see them yourselves through the magic of the internet: Russ and Bernie is here, and the New Hampshire speech is available at C-SPAN .

Russ at home: I thought this story about one of Senator Feingold's more recent listening sessions was great. Other Feingold fans on the web have commented on the article's discussion of a Feingold for President sign in the crowd. That's good; but this was my favorite part:

And when one - and only one - person got up to say that he had voted
for Bush and wanted Feingold to vote to confirm Alito, to work on ending
legalized abortion and to oppose legalization of marriage between homosexuals,
and unhappy murmurs passed through audience, Feingold told everyone to stay
quiet.
"He has a right to say that," Feingold said. "I'll listen."

Huh, being respectful towards people who hold opposing viewpoints...what a truly revolutionary political idea.

Going Forward in the New Year: I didn't even get to do write about half the things I wanted to in this post; sometimes it seems like I have more ideas then I have time to use them when it comes to this site. I hope that will change; the number and enthusiasm of my fellow Feingold supporters on the web-two years before the election- is one of the most beautiful, amazing things I've seen in my short life. I can't wait to go Forward with Feingold in the new year!

And on that note, I thought I'd repost last year's most popular post, so here it is, for old time's sake and to welcome newcomers:

"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!

PATRIOT Act Showdown

2005-12-16T07:01:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone...I really feel like I've been negligent in not posting earlier, but I had my first law school finals, and it was just one of those times where the whole outside world seemed to cease to exist, even our favorite senator. So, now for the news you already now...

PATRIOT Act: The House-Senate conference committee's final compromise on the PATRIOT Act renewal was not much of a compromise but rather abandoned all the reforms Russ and his Senate colleagues passed to improve that act...so now it's filibuster time. The vote on cloture should be later this morning, and according to the AP, Russ has the votes to sustain the filibuster.

Russ has been all over the media as a leading spokesman on the issue, including the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer debating the reauthorization with Senator Jeff Sessions; and blogging about the issue over at TPM's Table for One (the Senator seems to be becoming a more regular blogger than me!) I'm glad that it seems like the Senator's efforts will pay off, at least in defeating the motion for cloture today, and I would like to thank him, Senator Durbin, Senator Salazar, and especially Republican Senators Craig, Sununu, and Murkowski for standing up to the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress, and for standing up for our civil liberties! As Senator Feingold said, this is not a partisan issues, it's an American issue.

Also, as much as we like to talk about Russ' status as the only Senator to oppose to the PATRIOT Act in 2001, it is important note that he had some company: 66 members of the House of Representative opposed the PATRIOT Act originally, and they don't necessarily get the recognition they deserve so here they are:

Baldwin, Barrett, Blumenauer, Bonior, Boucher, Brown (OH), Capuano, Clayton, Conyers, Coyne, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeFazio, DeGette, Dingell, Farr, Filner, Frank, Hastings (FL), Hilliard, Honda, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Meek (FL), George Miller, Mink Mollohan, Nadler, Ney, Oberstar, Olver, Otter, Owens, Pastor, Paul, Payne, Peterson (MN), Rahall, Rivers, Rush, Sabo, Sanchez, Sanders, Schakowsky, Scott, Serrano, Stark, Thompson (MS), Tierney, Udall (CO), Udall (NM),Velazquez, Visclosky, Waters, Watson (CA), Watt (NC), Woolsey, Wu

My appreciation to them all.

Naturally some of the coverage about the PATRIOT Act debate and Russ's role in it have talked about it's impact on the 2008 primaries. I personally think the best summary about this was Schwompa's December 9th post over at Tennesseans for Feingold.

And speaking of state blogs: Yet another great new state blog for Feingold has been created, check out Ohio for Feingold. That makes five state blogs that I know of (New Jersey, Michigan, Tennessee, and Illinois as the others) so we are one tenth of the way to having Feingold supporter blogs in all 50 states! Let's keep going forward with this! Trust me, creating a blog isn't hard (having the time to update it, well, that's another story).

Happy anniversary: This Monday it was one year since my first post here. As far as I know, this was the first Feingold for President website out there; shortly after that DraftRuss.com came out and now there are all those great state sites in addition to the wonderful national efforts of RussForPresident.com and Friends of Feingold. This site is no longer "the" Russ Feingold for President site, as it was back when John Nichols mentioned it in his column a year ago today. And I couldn't be happier about that.

I am so thrilled and excited by the enthusiasm I've seen for Feingold on the netroots...from the state blogs, to his great performances in the MyDD and DailyKos straw polls, to the appreciation shown when Senator Feingold blogs...I find it incredible. When I started this site, I had no idea it would be possible that a year from then Senator Feingold would be considering a presidential bid and that he'd be mentioned as a possible candidate in almost every news story written about him. I would have seriously been happy if I just had a dozen or a hundred regular readers...instead I'm able to play a small role in a great movement, a movement that could help make Russ Feingold the next President of the United States!

I thank everyone who has read this blog, especially everyone who comments or emails me, and most especially everyone who's started their own blog, joined a Feingold yahoo group, made pro-Russ comments on MyDD or DailyKos or done anything else to help this movement.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to get online much over my break, so let me just repeat: Thank You! And let's keep going Forward in the new year!

Big News and a Commentary

2005-12-03T20:54:00.000-08:00

My usual apologies about not updating this blog nearly often enough.

Exciting News: Head on over to RussForPresident.com now, if you haven't in the past few days. Why? Because Senator Feingold will be having a Q and A over there, and you can submit your questions now by heading over there, registering, and posting them on the comments thread. Questions must be in by noon (central time) on Tuesday. This is a great opportunity for us, and a great indication of Senator Feingold's support for internet activism...let's make the most of it!

Some more exciting news over at RussForPresident.com is that the first issue of the "Forward" newsletter is out now...check it out, print it out, and hand it out to friends, family and strangers!

Commentary: Russ is a leader

One of the most frustrating criticisms I've encountered when promoting Senator Feingold around the web as a presidential candidate is that he is not and has never been a governor. That's hard to dispute. He does lack executive experience, but what is so important about executive experience anyway? I've thought about that a bit and realized that while most of the arguments in favor of governors as presidential candidates are fairly superficial (ie: they "communicate better" than senators) there is one very important thing that governors seem to have going for them over senators: leadership. A governor can point at everything good that happened in their state and claim that it is due to their leadership. A senator is only one of 100 people who vote on each bill. Does this mean that there are no leaders in Congress? Or that the only leaders are the committee chairs and others with titles designating them as leaders?

Hardly. Senators have a chance to be leaders every time they have to choose between voting in the best interests of the nation and voting for what is more popular, among Congress or among the country at large. And when faced with those votes Senator Feingold has always chosen to be a leader.

The examples are clear: the PATRIOT Act 99 to 1. The Iraq War Resolution 77 to 23. Senator Feingold had the choice to do what was politically expedient or do what was in the best interest of the country, and he chose the best interest of the country.

And after these votes Senator Feingold did not surrender to the then-majority views, rather he showed his leadership by continuing to work for the causes he believed in. And he got results.

When the PATRIOT Act was up for reauthorization this year, Senator Feingold fought to reform its harshest measures, and he and his Senate colleagues unanimously passed a reauthorization bill that made significant improvements in the act. (Check out this page from the Senator's website for more about the Senate bill's improvements in the PATRIOT Act.) And when the Senate leadership tried to force through a House-Senate "compromise" that would eliminate the reforms that are in the Senate version, Senator Feingold wouldn't stand for it and led a bipartisan group of senators who threatened to filibuster the bill over Thanksgiving weekend. The Senate leadership caved and thanks to Senator Feingold's leadership, this month will see a real debate in the Senate on how to protect America from terrorism while also protecting civil liberties.

Senator Feingold has also led the way in calling for the administration to come forward with a strategy and a timetable for bringing US troops home from Iraq. On June 14 of this year he called for a resolution asking the president to set a timeline for troop withdrawal. On August 17 he suggested a target date of December 31, 2006 for withdrawal. When he made that suggestion, only Barbara Boxer was willing to co-sponsor his resolution; fellow Democrats were openly critical of his suggestion. What a difference a couple of months makes. In mid-November all but five Democratic senators voted in favor of an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill that called upon the President to set a timeline for withdrawing troops. And thanks to the courage of Congressman Jack Murtha, last month saw the beginning of a real debate about US policy in Iraq in both houses of Congress and across the country. I don't hear the Bush Administration talking about a "generational commitment" of US soldiers in Iraq anymore...and if you think the administration doesn't take Russ seriously, check this out.

The PATRIOT Act and Iraq are but two of the issues of the issues where Senator Feingold has been a leader and the rest of the Democrats in congress have finally started following him. Russ has opposed the annual Senate pay raise each year he has been in office, this year the Senate rejected it. Russ opposed corporate friendly "free trade" agreements throughout the 1990s, this year almost all the Democratic senators opposed CAFTA. Russ championed the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate for years before it finally passed in the wake of Enron scandals.

This is important because in the 2008 primary elections all the Democratic candidates will say that they opposed the harsher provisions of the PATRIOT Act, that there were mistakes made in going to war in Iraq, that they think that "free trade should be fair trade." And yes, these are all positions where all Democrats are generally better than Republicans. But all Democrats are not the same.

I don't want the 2008 Democratic nominee to just be someone who says the right things on the campaign trail. I want the 2008 Democratic nominee to be someone with a vision for what is best for America and the courage to work for that vision regardless of the political risks. I want the 2008 Democratic nominee to be a leader.

I want the 2008 Democratic nominee to be Russ Feingold because he has the ability to be the leader that the Democratic Party and the country need.

Request: Can anybody help me find a transcript of Senator Feingold's appearance on "This Week" last week? I missed it, and I had difficulty trying to download the podcast of it.

This, of course, would be the appearance where he said that the US is "overdue for a cheesehead president." The bappearancee of this apppearance has to go to Daniel Owen at Oval Office 2008 who titled his story about it "Hail to the Cheese." I seriously think we should consider using that as a slogan.

That's all for this time, until next time, let's keep going Forward!

Three Small Things

2005-11-03T17:33:00.000-08:00

This is a very small update, especially by my standards, but it's stuff I think is worth mentioning:

First, the deadline to submit articles for the "Forward" newsletter described in my previous post has been extended to November 7. Check out RussForPresident.com for more info. Please do it if you have the time.

Second, I updated my links. Gone is the defunct NewPolitics1, up are another Feingold for President site, Friends of Feingold, and the great Wisconsin blog Forward Our Motto.

Third, yesterday my counter passed the 10,000 hits mark. That's not especially significant considering I added it a couple of months after I started the blog; and, also, about 5,000 of those hits are probably me checking to see if I had any new comments. But still, the other 5,000 hits...that's rather impressive. To me at least. So, thank you to all my visitors!

Let's keep going Forward!

"Forward" With Fitzy and Ilya...and YOU!

2005-10-29T22:34:00.000-07:00

Hey everybody, sorry I haven't been around in about a month. To assure anyone out there who may have been worrying I haven't moved to New Zealand or been eaten by llamas or anything like that...and I sure as heck haven't switched to supporting another candidate. I'm still all about going Forward With Feingold!

I'm afraid this law school stuff has been bogging me down. In fact I have a horrible assignment due on Monday, but I figured I've got an extra hour thanks to that whole "fall back" thing, and what better way to spend it than getting back in the blogging spirit?

Now for the main reason I wanted to get a post out today...Ilya at RussForPresident.com and Fitzy at Feingold for Michigan came up with the great idea of writing a newsletter about Senator Feingold and why we support him that we can all print out to give out at progressive events, or just to inform our friends, families, and complete strangers about the great junior senator from Wisconsin. The newsletter is going to be called "Forward" and you can see images of what it looks like now by following the RussForPresident link.

But, you see, there's a problem...it still needs some more articles. As Ilya writes:

But we need YOUR help. We're looking for articles on the Senator's plan in Iraq, his vote against the Patriot Act or any other topic that interests you. Please submit your original submission either in the comments section here, or e-mail it directly to isheyman[at]gmail.com. Below is a screenshot of where we're at right now. This is your chance to get directly involved with the effort and spread the word about Sen. Feingold. Please e-mail your submissions by Monday October 31st. Who knows, perhaps a really good submission will result in a mystery prize?

So if you act now you have the chance to help spread the word about Russ and win a mystery prize? What could make this even more worthwhile? Well, as you may have noticed one of the articles in the newsletter is my own "Forward With Feingold" post...so you also get the chance to see your name, in ink (if you print it out) in the same paper as mine, the great Dan K., friend and hero to one and all! And really, isn't that enough of a prize in and of itself? The answer, of course, would be no.

But this really is a great opportunity to help spread the word about Russ so I urge all of you to write and submit something if you have the time. And you should have the time because of that extra "fall back" hour. So there is no excuse. Go write about Russ now!

Actually I've got a few more things to say...

"Forward With Feingold" Followup: Well, as the above gave some indication of, my "Forward With Feingold" post got a pretty positive response from my fellow Feingold supporters, which I find tremendously flattering as I, of course, have absolutely no idea what I'm doing here. I'm especially honored that my crossposting at MyDD.com was a recommended diary for a couple of days and had an obscenely large number of comments...thankfully none of which were obscene.

A number of Feingold supporters have told me it that it would be a really good slogan for the Draft Feingold effort. Maybe it would be...but in order to be a REALLY good slogan it's got to be out there for there people to see, and that's where you come in. See, really all I can do is write stuff and post it here (and also at MyDD and RussForPresident.com) but you guys post things all across the internet, so if you haven't already, why not help spread the word by adding "Forward With Feingold" or whatever pro-Feingold message you want to your signatures in your emails and on whatever blogs and message boards you post on. And don't forget a link to RussForPresident.com, or the Progressive Patriots Fund or the Senator's home page, so anybody who is curious can find out what the excitement's about.

And, just to go forward with this some more, if anyone has any ideas for graphics that could be used for blogads, website banners, etc., based around the "Forward With Feingold" slogan, I'd love to see them. As you might have guessed from the, uh, "modest" look of my blog, I really can't do much with computers beside get online and type...so I'll need the help of those who can do more if this kind of stuff will ever get done. Mind you, I'm not announcing a contest or anything...mainly because I'm too lazy and cheap to come up with a prize yet...so, for now this just an idea that I've had floating around in my head and decided to let loose.

And for one more, even sillier, idea to throw out there...do we have any songwriters out there looking for a challenge? If so, why not try to write a "Forward With Feingold" song! I, for one, yearn for the days of great presidential campaign songs like "His Grandfather's Hat", "Be Sure That Woodrow Wilson Leads the Band", and "Get on the Raft with Taft", so if you do too, why not get songwritin'...anybody who writes a "Forward With Feingold" song will win...my eternal admiration!

Well it's something.

Seriously, if anybody is interested in any of these "Forward With Feingold" ideas or has any of their own please post a comment or email me. Seriously, nothing more can happen without YOU.

Remembering Paul Wellstone: Tuesday of this past week marked the third anniversary of the tragic death of a hero to many of us and a friend and colleague of Senator Feingold's, the late Senator Paul Wellstone. This is one of those occasions where I feel that others can say things much better than I, so please read Fitzy's post on the subject.

And if you've never read it before, read Senator Feingold's tribute to Senator Wellstone from November of 2002.

Paul fought for justice for children who didn't have enough to eat. He fought for environmental justice, even for the poor side of town. He fought for social justice when it came to access to health care. He fought for economic justice when it came to a fair minimum wage and the ability of working families to protect themselves under the bankruptcy law. And he fought for justice among nations, and for peace. Paul Wellstone was the very embodiment of justice.

And so, Paul Wellstone, here on the Senate floor, there is a whole in our hearts. We will miss you, dear friend.

But we will still look for you. For wherever it is - on this Senate floor, at a political rally, or at a town hall meeting somewhere on a cold, windy day in the heartland of America - whenever someone speaks for justice, Paul Wellstone will be there.

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

Russ and Roberts

2005-09-30T16:38:00.000-07:00

Hey folks, sorry I wasn't able to post more recently. I've either been busy with law school work or too tired to do anything. But now that I finally have enough free time and energy to do something, I'm back and blogging! You know, I hear some of my fellow law students spend their free time going to bars or parties or something, but not me. I devote all my free time to you, the Feingold fans!

You should be honored, of course.

Okay, seriously now, on to the news.

Last Minute Notice: Senator Feingold is on C-SPAN right now (Friday at 6:30 central) giving a speech at the Rockingham County Democratic Party's Eleanor Roosevelt Dinner.

Oh, to make that more interesting, that would be Rockingham County NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Hopefully, this will be replayed later and posted on C-SPAN's website. I'll try to keep you informed on that.

Now on to the big story...

Russ and Roberts: Yesterday, John Roberts was sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. He passed the Senate confirmation vote 78-22. He would have become Chief Justice with or without Russ Feingold's support. It happened to be with Senator Feingold's support.

Am I surprised by this? Somewhat, given the Senator's strong questioning of Roberts in the Judiciary Committee hearings.

Am I disappointed? No. After it became clear that Roberts was going to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, rather then Sandra Day O'Connor, I didn't consider the Roberts confirmation to be that important of a battle. Yes, he is a conservative partisan Republican. So was his predecessor. I don't think Roberts is incompetent, corrupt, or holds legal views that are ridiculously out of the mainstream. I'm not sure how I would have voted if I was a senator, but I don't think there was a really good reason to keep Roberts off the bench. Senator Feingold's statement before the judiciary committee's vote is here. I think it's worth reading.

Does this vote change my opinion of Senator Feingold as a Senator or a possible presidential candidate? Not by one iota.

Somehow, the rest of the liberal blogosphere doesn't quite see it this way. Since the vote in the judiciary committee, I've seen quite a few people refer to Senator Feingold as "yet another spineless Dem kowtowing to the Bush Administration" and have heard that he has committed political suicide as far as his presidential hopes go. More kindly, and quite paradoxically, I've seen the Senator's vote called a political move to help him appeal to moderate voters in the 2008 primaries. (I'm sure many moderate voters are thinking about the 2008 primaries now, and that the Roberts vote is the most important issue to them. And your sarcasm detectors should be going off the charts there.)

So has Senator Feingold become another spineless Dem? Or is he off pandering to the moderates, now that he assume he has his liberal base locked up (in the elections that don't begin for about two and a half years and which he might not even run in)?

No, I'm afraid the there is a simpler explanation. Russ Feingold is just being Russ Feingold.

Maybe that needs some explanation, especially to people who have just recently become interested in Senator Feingold. While it is true that Senator Feingold is, perhaps, the most progressive member of the Senate, he's not just a kneejerk partisan Democrat. He doesn't always do what the base of the party would like him to. He voted to confirm John Ashcroft and Condi Rice, too. And he doesn't always do what the leaders of the party would like him to do. He was one of three Senate Democrats to speak out against Bill Clinton's use of military force in Kosovo. He was also the only Senate Democrat to vote against dismissing the impeachment charges against Clinton without hearing the evidence (after the trial, he found Clinton not guilty.)

It would be fair to say Senator Feingold is a maverick, but he isn't a maverick just for the sake of being one. He is a maverick because he always stays true to his own principles regardless of popular opinion or the party line. While I'm sure he could describe his own principles better than I, I think a very short summary of it would be that he really believes in the Constitution of the United States and the way our system of government is supposed to work. For him, that sometimes means voting for qualified presidential nominees he doesn't agree with at all, rather then turning their confirmation hearings into yet another partisan battle. It also means wanting to hear the evidence in a trial to impeach the President of the United States, even though they're from the same party. Personally, I think this whole "principles before partisanship" thing is a big reason why Senator Feingold would make a great president. I think real political leadership means occasionally doing things that are not popular among members of your own party, or even the population as a whole, because they are in the best interest of the country. Others seem to think that a great political leader is someone who always agrees with them 100% of the time. Those people would be better off not supporting Senator Feingold. And instead casting a write-in for themselves.

That said, I can understand why some of his supporters might be disappointed in Senator Feingold for this vote. All I can say to them is that it is just one vote I don't think it is close to being enough to cancel out all the countless ways in which Senator Feingold has been a leader of the progressive cause. He remains the only Senator to advocate a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq and the only Senator to cast a vote against the PATRIOT Act. He has been fighting against corporate dominated free trade agreements for his entire senate career. And he has one of the best records out there on the environment, health care, women's rights and other progressive causes.

I can understand the visceral desire of some in the liberal blogosphere to treat every vote like it is the most important vote-EVER! And to believe that all Dems who vote the other way are TRAITORS! But, that's simply not true. While I wholeheartedly agree that the Democrats should stand united and fight all the important battles against the Bush Administration, I'm just not sure this was one. Remember that both of Clinton's Supreme Court nominees were confirmed with less than 10 votes against them. I don't think that means that the Republicans were an ineffective opposition.

Finally, remember that in these partisan struggles what goes around comes around. As Senator Feingold noted:

History has shown that control of the White House, and with it the power to shape the courts, never stays for too long with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime.

That's all I have for this week, I'll update when I have the time.

Forward With Feingold

2005-09-11T09:28:00.000-07:00

My apologies for not updating more recently. First, it was a matter of me not having the time; then, after Katrina hit the the gulf coast, blogging about the 2008 presidential election seemed a lot less important. But I found I had something I really wanted to write, and now was as good a time as any to write it.

First Things First: Please, if you can spare anything, make a donation to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Thank you.

Feingold News and Notes: I had originally planned on writing a larger post on Senator Feingold's visit to L.A. in late August and the National Security speech he gave there, but for right now that's not happening. However, a transcript of the Senator's speech is available here at the Progressive Patriots Fund site. I haven't read it all yet myself, but I'm sure it's worth a read.
The front page for the Progressive Patriots Fund also details some of the Senator's efforts to help hurricane victims, most notably his work to ease the restrictions of the harsh new bankruptcy bill that is going into effect in October. It's worth reading about here.

Finally, in less important but exciting news, RussForPresident.com has raised enough money to start running blogads. They had five ads submitted and a very clever vote-through-donations thing to raise the money and determine the favorite ad. I was not able to donate then, but my favorite ad won anyway. ("Pop Quiz" by Jerry Troiano) I'll post the ad here when I remember how to do that. In addition, it is now posted at SmirkingChimp.com and MyLeftWing.com. Way to go RussForPresident folks!

And Now, Our Feature Presentation: Here's what I really needed to write. Since Senator Feingold announced his proposal for a timeline to end U.S. involvement in Iraq a number of columnists across the political spectrum, most notably Pat Buchanan, have compared him to Eugene McCarthy in 1968, and insisted that his anti-war stance will lead to disunity and defeat for the Democrats. Even before that, I've seen Senator Feingold compared to past candidates ranging from Bobby Kennedy to George McGovern to Howard Dean. Sometimes these comparisons are favorable, sometimes they aren't. Either way, they bothered me. This campaign, and all campaigns, need to be about the future, not the past. I thought about just posting an angry, stream of consciousness rant about this, but then I came up with a better idea. What I ended up writing was a commentary-I think of it as a very brief surrogate stump speech-that tied this idea into why I support Senator Feingold.

Here it goes:
"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!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, that's where the speech would have to end because everyone would be throwing rocks at me.

Seriously, I'd really like to know your reactions to what I wrote. Email and comments are always welcome. If you think it's horrible, let me know. If you think it's the greatest piece of political writing since JFK's inaugural address, you are quite delusional, but I would like to hear from you, too!

That's it for now, except for a tip of the hat to the pro-Russ Wisconsin political blog Forward Our Motto for introducing me to the great motto of the state of Wisconsin.

Minor Update

2005-08-26T20:26:00.000-07:00

Hey folks,

Well, I survived my first week of law school. Huzzah!

Looks like Our Man Russ has been making a bit of news this week due to his Iraq withdrawal timetable proposal, his Meet the Press appearance, and his trip to LA. I'll link to some columns and such about those stories on Saturday or Sunday, and offer some of my own commentary too. Right now I'm too tired for all that, but I just wanted to get a little bit of blog business done, so:

Meet the Press: Still don't know what Senator Feingold said in his Meet the Press interview? Well head on over to New Jersey for Feingold, where Jerry Troiano was kind enough to post an mp3 of the interview. Guess this means I don't have to give my wonderfully wacky Gilmore Girls/Russ on MTP/Game One of the World Series tape away to another desperate Feingold fan. That's a relief.

Updated links: I've made some changes on the link list to make it more up to date. Unfortunately, there's been a net change of zero sites. While I've added links for Tennesseans for Feingold and the Feingold for President petition (sign it if you haven't! I command you!) I unfortunately had to say good bye to two links: some months ago 44th President changed from an interesting blog about Democratic contenders for 2008 to a bunch of random junk, I don't know why, but I don't think it's worth linking to now. Also gone was the Russ friendly Badpolitiks blog as its blogger Drew has gone on to better things, mainly running a Congressional campaign. If you know of any sites that should be added to my links, as always, post a comment or send me an email.

Good night, hopefully I'll post some more tomorrow.

Feingold Meets the Press

2005-08-21T20:41:00.000-07:00

What's this? Three posts in a week? Am I overcompensating for not blogging for so long? Or preemptively overcompensating for all the not-blogging I may have to do because of law school? Perhaps. Or maybe it's just been a good week for Feingold fans.

For example, the Senator was on Meet the Press this morning to discuss his Iraq withdrawal plan. I thought about posting a notice about it yesterday night but I figured not many people besides me come here between 11 pm Saturday and 8 am Sunday. I didn't even catch it when it first aired, but I watched it when they replayed it on MSNBC at 9 pm central time. For those who didn't see it, the transcript is available here and a video clip is here, it's the second of the ten clips. And if you are really desperate to see it, I can send one of you the videotape I recorded it on when I was watching it. It also has the season finale of Gilmore Girls and part of Game 1 of last year's World Series, if you really want to see either of those, too.

Now, on to the show: what did you think about Russ's appearance? Please post away about that in the comments.

What did I think about it? Well, thanks for asking! You're so considerate!

I thought it was pretty good, on the whole. I think Senator Feingold tends to do pretty well on TV. I think his best assets on TV are that he comes across as a straight shooter (because he is one), and it's obvious that he's very knowledgeable, and he manages to stick to his point without ever seeming to lose his cool. Throughout the interview there were moments when it was clear that David Gregory (the moderator subbing for Tim Russert) was trying to get the Senator to say something that could be embarrassing or controversial now or in the future. I think for the most part the Senator avoided them (for example, pointing out the difference between what he is proposing and a strict deadline and not falling for that question about if we are more or less safe with Saddam gone.) Generally, I think there is something about his personality/nature that makes him able to usually avoid both the hair-splitting, nuanced Senate talk of John Kerry and the foot-in-mouth disease of Howard Dean (and I love Dr. Dean and think most of his "verbal gaffes" were blown out of proportion, but sometimes he walks into them.)

There is one moment that kind of worries me for the way it could play if Senator Feingold runs for President (though, it would depend on how the war plays out between now and then.) It comes from this exchange:

MR. GREGORY: But it still goes to the bottom line point, which is if the goals are not achieved, if there is still an insurgency, if there is continued sectarian violence, the prospect of civil war, do you then still advocate bringing troops home before their success?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Potentially. There are three different possibilities. One is the success, the very strong success, then we can come home by that date. The second is we get close to success and then we have to have a little more time. A third possibility is that the situation simply has become so inconsistent with our overall goal of fighting terrorists around the world that we may have to say, "Look, we have to come home anyway." But I think we make that assessment in time.

MR.GREGORY: Even if--even if it means effectively...

SEN. FEINGOLD: Potentially.

MR. GREGORY: ...admitting failure?

SEN.FEINGOLD: Yes, because the question here is do we succeed in the fight against al-Qaeda and the extremist elements around the world that are attacking us? That's number one. As important as the Iraqi democracy is and as wonderful as it is that we make progress in that regard, the most important thing is protecting the lives of Americans here and abroad, and if this Iraq operation is inconsistent with that, at some point, we may have to consider leaving. And that's why I'm hoping that we can create a time frame for success and then bringing home our troops.

The bold emphasis is on the part that kind worries me. It's hard to avoid images of some kind of attack ad (from the Republicans or a more hawkish Democratic primary candidate) with a grainy black and white picture of Russ and "FAILURE" in big letters talking about how Russ Feingold doesn't care if US troops fail in their mission, whereas Candidate X supports the war and the troops and believes America will always win and nothing bad will ever happen if s/he's elected.

It's really too early to worry about something like that, especially in an interview that I thought went pretty well, but after what happened to Howard Dean, you've gotta worry. (I'm especially think about how Dean's "the US won't always have the strongest military" quote was spun into "Dean is unfit to be commander in chief.")

Another part I found interesting was his response to Gregory's final question:

MR. GREGORY: Final question: Can an anti-war Democrat be successful in 2008?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I think a Democrat who cares about national security, who gets this right, a Democrat who says, "Look, this administration has lost its way and gotten away from going after those who attacked us on 9/11" and who is willing to say that the Iraq invasion had some problems and that what's going on now is a problem, I think all of that can be part of a winning candidate. But we do have to be strong on national security. We do have to show the American people that Democrats care deeply about protecting American lives. And without that, no, I don't think we can win.

I think this answer was the most clear indication that the Senator Feingold wants to run for President. He knows that Democrats are perceived by voters to be weak on national security and he is determined to counter this image, yet he is unwilling to do what so many Democrats are doing by either embracing the president's policy in Iraq or even trying to out do it (ie: calling for more troops.) In essence he is attempting to do the very difficult task of running for president as a strong progressive Democrat, opposed to the Iraq war, without appearing weak on national security. Can he do it? I don't know, honestly, but it makes me even more interested to see what his upcoming national security speech will say.

I could say more but I need to go to bed, I have classes tomorrow, but I'm anxious to see what others here thought about the MTP interview. Let me know in comments!

Feingold Continues to be Right on Iraq

2005-08-18T19:38:00.000-07:00

Sorry if the title for this post looks like something you'd see on one of the Senator's press releases, but it is the most accurate thing I could think of to describe Today's Big (Feingold) News.

As reported in the Washington Post, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and across the liberal blogosphere Senator Feingold proposed a tentative deadline of December 31, 2006 for having all US troops withdrawn from Iraq.

As the Journal Sentinel wrote:

"The situation is becoming more and more untenable because of a lack of a clear plan to finish the task and leave," said Feingold in a telephone interview while he traveled between listening sessions in northern Wisconsin.

Feingold said he planned to put out a public proposal Thursday on the issue.

The Bush administration and even some critics of the war have argued that setting target dates for the withdrawal of troops would be artificial and embolden insurgents in Iraq.

Feingold said he rejected that argument because he was convinced that the indefinite presence of troops and the lack of a withdrawal plan fueled the insurgency.

Feingold said a deadline for full withdrawal- he proposed Dec. 31, 2006-should be flexible and subject to changing conditions. But he contended that setting even a target date would "help us to undermine the recruiting efforts and unity of the insurgents, encourage Iraq ownership of the transition process "and reassure the American people our Iraq policy is not directionless."

I don't know what more to say, except the man is right. In a saner America his position would be the position of the majority of American politicians, rather than just a very small, very brave minority. A timetable with concrete goals for the reconstruction of Iraq and the withdrawal of US troops would be beneficial to both the United States and Iraq, and I think it is clearly the best possible policy. The alternative of full immediate withdrawal that some would like to see is unrealistic and would be unfair to the Iraqi people, while the Administration's policy of keeping US forces in Iraq indefinitely, without a clear goal, as the insurgency stays bad or gets worse-well, that's not doing anyone any good. Looking at the president's approval ratings, it's certainly not doing him any good.

I sincerely hope the president listens to Senator Feingold and comes forward with some kind of timetable telling us what our goal is in Iraq and giving some estimate of when the mission will truly be accomplished. I also sincerely doubt that there is any chance of him doing that. So the next best thing would be for all the Democrats in Congress to get behind this proposal, and to make it one of the main issues of the 2006 midterm campaign. I'd just like to say that it would be okay for Congressional Democrats who voted for the war to support Senator Feingold's plan now. Many of them were misled, I'd guess most of them thought it would be over by now. I hope they can see that supporting this proposal would be the best thing they could do for our troops and for the Iraqi people: it would be showing them that eventually things will get better, their nightmare will be over, that there is a plan.

OTHER NEWS: Also, if you haven't already: sign the petition encouraging Russ to run for President. And if you just realized this site was still active, check out my Grand Reopening post below. It has some more Feingold news and, I think, some kind of reference to the Olsen Twins. I don't know, it's long so I didn't really read it...

I'll write more this weekend if I have the time.

Grand Reopening!

2005-08-14T21:58:00.000-07:00

Okay, well it's not really that grand, and I guess I never actually shut down the blog or anything, but I do realize it's been about two months since I last posted and around four since I posted with anything approaching regularity. My apologies and thanks to everyone still reading. Hopefully I'll be able to do more regular updates now and I have a couple of thoughts about that kind of blog business, but I'll save that for the end. First, what's really important: the St. Louis Cardinals! Er, no, I mean, Senator Russ Feingold!

Russ Roadtrip Roundup: Senator Feingold is continuing to travel across the country listening to people, helping local Democrats, and (unofficially, of course) raising his profile as a possible presidential candidate. In July the Senator visited Pennsylvania and Tennessee. You can read accounts of those trips on the Progressive Patriots Fund website here. In addition, Jerry Troiano provides an eyewitness account, and some nice pictures, of one of Senator Feingold's Pennsylvania events at here at his New Jersey for Feingold blog, and the July 10th post on the Tennesseans for Feingold blog reports on his speech at the Democracy for Tennessee convention.

Later this month, in just over a week, Senator Feingold will be taking a trip to California, as the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel writes:

Feingold will give speeches at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law on Aug. 22 and to the Town Hall Los Angeles civic group on Aug. 23. The Senate Democrat also will hold a fund-raiser for his political committee and tape a guest appearance on the "Tavis Smiley" show on PBS... His speech to Town Hall Los Angeles, which sponsors a speakers series, will be about the"administration's failure to develop a comprehensive national security strategy in the fight against terrorism," according to an announcement of the trip by his political committee, the Progressive Patriots Fund.

I look forward to hearing what the Senator has to say about national security, it is definitely one of the key areas where the Democrats need to come up with a clear alternative vision for the country. While I appreciate and agree with the Senator's argument for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and his insistence on protecting civil liberties while fighting the war on terror, I'd really like to see him (or any Democrat) put forward a more comprehensive national security program.

Speech subject matter aside, his California trip should prove helpful for both raising money and raising his profile, as it is home to many Democratic activists and donors. I'll be very interested to see the reports on this.

But even more exciting to those of us who hope to see Senator Feingold run for President is his upcoming trip to New Hampshire, his first trip there since 2000. As PoliticsNH reports:

In late September, Feingold will be the featured speaker at the first annualEleanor Roosevelt Dinner held by the Rockingham County Democrats. He will spend at least another day in the Granite State during the visit. He said he was first approached by Manchester Mayor Bob Baines about making a trip. He also plans to hold an event for Baines, who faces re-election this year.
All in all, Feingold said his goals for the trip were to listen to what people were saying and to help local Democrats. "Now I know that when a person comes to New Hampshire people start talking about the presidential race, but really what I plan to do in New Hampshire is really nothing different from what we have been doing in other states," Feingold said.
This year Feingold has visited Alabama and Tennessee.
Feingold's staff said they are beginning to reach out to Democrats in the state to plan events, among them possible a roundtable or a panel."I have found in other states that this dialogue, particularly among progressives, has been very helpful to them and my job was simply to listen and understand," Feingold said.

Well, since Senator Feingold knows that the New Hampshire trip will lead to talk about the presidential race, I'll just repeat the unoriginal but true observation that Senator Feingold could do great in the New Hampshire primary: as a maverick who believes in fiscal responsibility and cleaning up government he will appeal to the independent voters there and his stands on guns and the PATRIOT Act should appeal to the libertarian nature of the "live free or die" state. Yes, I think New Hampshire will like Russ once it gets to know him. Can't wait to hear how this trip goes.

One final thought on the subject of Russ's travels: He should come to Missouri! It's a swing state in the middle of the country where Democrats have been struggling recently. Why, he could even talk at Washington University law school! Just an idea.

Online Petition: An online petition has been started to encourage Senator Feingold to run for President. You can sign it here. I've signed it, even though I'm naturally a bit skeptical about online petitions (I mean, if they worked Karl Rove would be fired and the WB wouldn't have cancelled "Angel"!) But I think it's great as yet another way to show support for the Feingold for President idea.

My Letter From Russ: Now comes the exciting part where I resolve the cliffhanger from the previous post...Did I get a response to my letter from Senator Feingold? Yes. Was it all that exciting? Not really. Just your basic politician thank you note: "Dear Daniel, Thanks for sending me money. I look forward to asking you for more money in the future. Russ" (paraphrased for humorous effect) Guess that's what I get for sending it with a donation to the PAC! I heard that some people got more detailed responses to letters about a possible presidential bid, but I'm guessing maybe they wrote to the Senate office. Feel free to share your own letter to/from Russ experiences in the comments.

Blog Business: Well, if your read this far you must actually kinda like or enjoy this blog, so I'll run by some thoughts I've been having about the future of this blog. I am done with my horrible summer job that made it hard for me to blog, but I'm starting orientation for law school this week, so I can't so how much better my time constraints will be. However, I know that I really like writing the blog and I really believe in the Feingold for President cause, so I was trying to decide if it would be better to update this blog more regularly with smaller updates (maybe just links to articles or other sites with no additional commentary) or do it more irregularly but with longer posts and more of my original commentary, which is kind of what I prefer doing. Of course, maybe it won't really come to a choice between those but still, I'd kinda like to know what the crazy folks who come here would like (and I'm using "crazy folks" as a term of affection there).

Should I update it everyday, every other day, every week, only when there's big news, only when I feel like it? Should I focus on links to other sites and articles or on posting my own thoughts? Should I write shorter posts or longer posts? Should I forget about this Feingold thing entirely and turn it into an Olsen Twins fan site? You can post comments or email me to let me know what you think (or if you have any Feingold news items or links!)

Thanks for the support, I really do appreciate it.

My Letter to Senator Feingold

2005-06-18T19:32:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been talking about it for as long as I've had this blog but I finally went and did it.

I finally wrote a letter to Senator Feingold encouraging him to run. I'll mail it (along with a check) to the Progressive Patriots Fund this Monday. But first I figured that, in a Rod Serling-esque manner, I'd respectfully submit it for your perusal.

But be warned-it is sort of long (over a page long, single spaced)-and contains many things you've probably already read here in some form.

Now read on-if you dare!

Dear Senator Feingold,

I am writing to you today to ask you to run for president of the United States.

This letter does not mark the beginning of my enthusiasm for you as a presidential candidate, but is only the most recent step on a journey I began six months ago- before I even knew you were considering the possibility of running for president. On December 12, 2004 I created a Russ Feingold for President blog at http://russfeingold.blogspot.com.

I admit that I am one of those Democratic political junkies who began thinking about who the party should nominate in 2008 as soon it was clear we had lost in 2004. As I read some of the early speculation about 2008 I felt saddened and disappointed by what I read. It was not that I particularly objected to any of the possible candidates being mentioned but rather that I did not like the reasoning behind the choices. It seemed like everyone’s argument was based on the idea that their candidate had the best chance of winning because they could raise the most money or could win a certain state or could appeal to moderate voters the best. Nobody talked about why their candidate would make the best president. Nobody talked about what the country could become if their candidate won.

I had been thinking about whom I believed would make the best president, and my thoughts always returned to you. For starters, I agreed with you on almost all the major issues, from your signature issue of campaign finance reform, which first brought you to my attention, to your steadfast support for universal health care to your opposition to corporate friendly trade agreements like CAFTA. Even more impressive to me is the attention you pay to important issues that the mainstream media and many politicians are either not interested or willing to cover, such as corporate media consolidation and human rights abuses in Africa.

However, I believe that it takes more than good positions on the issues to be a great president; a president needs to have the strength of character to be a leader on those issues, and it is your character that shows why you would be a great president. Throughout your career in public life you have been a paragon of honesty, integrity and courage. You have shown your personal integrity by keeping those promises you made to the people of Wisconsin on your garage door and you have sought to bring more integrity to the political process through your campaign finance and lobbying reforms. You have also repeatedly shown your courage by standing up for the principles you believe in regardless of the possible political ramifications of your stands-a common thread that unites your vote to confirm John Ashcroft and your lone vote against the PATRIOT Act.

I started my blog because I believe you have the ideas, the intelligence, and the integrity to be a truly great president. I was pleased to discover that I wasn’t alone in this belief-there are a number of other Feingold blogs, as well as email lists and a couple of complete Feingold for President websites. I have heard from supporters of yours from around the country-from New Jersey to California, and from across the political spectrum-from Greens to Republicans. I can tell from this early netroots enthusiasm for you that if you ran for president the campaign wouldn’t be in vain; you can garner the kind of support necessary to be a serious contender for both the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

It is obvious that a presidential campaign is a huge investment for the candidate-financially, physically and emotionally. But I hope you are willing to take those risks because I believe your party and your country need you, your ideas and your values. And I believe you can win. And I believe you would be a great president.

If you decide to enter the race, please let me know what I can do to help you. Here I write my address and telephone number. I ain't posting that here.

Run, Russ, run!

Sincerely,

Daniel K.

So, what do you think? I'm a bit of a perfectionist, and if I went with my own instincts I'd never, ever let anyone else read anything I wrote because it couldn't possibly be good enough. But I really want to send a letter to Senator Feingold, so if you guys think this is good enough, I'll go with that.

Personally, I think the first paragraphs were I talk about the blog sound too self important (Look at me! Aren't I great? I started this blog about you!) and then the rest is basically a gushy fan letter. (And I always figured if I wrote a gushy fan letter it would be to Sarah Michelle Gellar, rather than a US Senator.)

Seriously, I wish I could have gone in to more depth about certain issues or been more eloquent about why I think he'd be a good president, but I figure it's most important just to have it done.

So, as I said, what do you think?

No, I'm Not Dead..

2005-05-31T19:25:00.000-07:00

...just in case anyone was wondering.

I'm still alive and I still believe Russ Feingold would be the best choice for President in 2008.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I apologize to my regular visitors (if such people exist) for not posting in the past month. Mostly I was just too exhausted from my job to feel much like posting, but I'm going to try to post at least once a week from now on.

And...I've got some actual exciting Russ Feingold for President in 2008 related news to write about! Senator Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund leadership PAC now has a website out. Check it out here.

It looks like a pretty good site, especially the media center section which features audio or video files for many recent interviews and other media appearances of Senator Feingold's. The site also has news articles on a range of issues that Senator Feingold has spoken out about including the PATRIOT Act, the Bolton nomination, the filibuster deal, and health care.

And, of course, there is a page where you can make contributions to the Fund, which I encourage everyone to do if they can (although, in full disclosure, I haven't made a donation yet. But, hey, I have this site! That counts for something, right?)

Hopefully, I'll have a longer post in the next few days.

Thanks to Jerry Troiano of the New Jersey for Feingold site for making me aware of the Progressive Patriots Fund site.

And thanks to everyone who's still coming here and still believes in the Feingold for President cause.

Feingolds Getting Divorced

2005-04-13T19:25:00.000-07:00

As you've probably already heard, earlier this week Senator Feingold and his wife Mary announced that they are getting divorced. The most in-depth article about this can be found on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's page and I recommend reading it. While the Feingolds have stated that they are splitting amicably and absolutely nothing scandalous has been mentioned in the stories, many pundits and political junkies are saying that this is the end for a possible Feingold for President campaign. Meanwhile, most of my fellow Feingold supporters seem to feel that it doesn't matter, or at least, shouldn't matter.

I agree that, ideally, the Senator's divorce shouldn't affect his presidential chances. Unfortunately, presidential politics is definitely not an ideal world, and honestly I can see why this might make some Democrats less willing to support him in the primary. Skeptics of a Feingold candidacy can now add "recently divorced for the second time" to the list of reasons why Senator Feingold supposedly can't win in red states (along with his being progressive, Jewish and a northerner). In addition, I can understand if people from either party are reluctant to support a divorced candidate after what happened with Jack Ryan in Illinois. The media loves scandals (covering the issues is boring!), divorces are a good place to find scandals, and the media will dig all the way through divorce records trying to find a scandal, and they'll blow everything they find out of proportion. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. So I can understand seeing a candidate with a divorce, especially a recent one, as trouble waiting to happen.

That said, I still support Senator Feingold for President 100%. Why? Well, if you've been following the blog since the beginning, you'll remember that my main reason for supporting him wasn't that he's the most obviously electable candidate: it was that I think he'd be the best President. That hasn't changed. He still has what both America and the Democratic Party needs the most: courage, integrity, and real leadership. He's still capable of putting forward an intelligent, articulate, real alternative to GOP policies. He still has one of the best records in politics in terms of the protecting the environment, standing up for civil liberties, and opposing corporate free trade agreements that are bad for workers here and abroad. He still always puts the public interest ahead of special interests. He'd still be a great candidate and a great president.

I am sad to hear about his divorce, and my thoughts are with the Senator, Mary, and the rest of their family, but it doesn't change my feelings about his ability as a presidential candidate.

Two additional notes:

1. Since this news broke, I've seen a number of people commenting about the number of presidents who never married, or married in the White House, and other historical trivia. Here's one bit I don't think anyone I've seen has mentioned: the Democrats have previously nominated a presidential candidate who got divorced less than four years before the election, Adlai E. Stevenson in 1952.

2. If you are interested in seeing one version of how the modern news media might treat a single US President, you should really see the movie The American President. Great writing (Aaron Sorkin), a great cast, and...the President is from Wisconsin!

Sorry, kind of a silly note, but it's one of my two favorite movies. If you are interested in seeing a movie about a teenager who travels back in time to 1955 and runs into his parents, you should see my other favorite movie, Back to the Future.

Small Update

2005-04-06T19:47:00.000-07:00

Hey folks,

I'm feeling a bit under the weather and I have to work the next two days, so my big "Feingold in Alabama II: The Sequel" Roundup will have to be delayed until the weekend. My apologies.

But I do have some additions to the site today:

First: another Feingold state site is up; check out Fitzy's insightful Feingold for Michigan blog. Looks like Feingold fever is spreading across the Midwest! Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, and now Michigan!

My other new link is Brian's Russ Feingold Archive. As you might have guessed, this is an archive of Russ-related stories, editorials, speeches, and anything else he can find!

In addition, Senator Feingold was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning. For those of you who, like me, missed this it's available on C-SPAN's website here.

Again, let me know if you have any new Feingold links or news!

Great New Links

2005-04-01T16:04:00.000-08:00

Hey everybody, I've been pretty busy recently, so while I've added a number of links in the past month or more, I haven't drawn everybody's attention to them with a post so, here's some sites to check out:

RussForPresident.com is a great new (well, new-ish) national Feingold for President site.

Fox for Feingold is a great, regularly updated site for Feingold news. Don't let the name scare you: it has nothing to do with Fox News!

Also, I've got three state Feingold websites to bring to your attention:

Illinois, the state where I grew up, now has Steve Birenberg's great Feingold for Illinois blog for Feingold supporters in the Land of Lincoln (and Simon, and Durbin, and Obama)

Missouri, where I was born and currently live, has a Missouri for Feingold Yahoo Group started by Seth Jackson. Join and receive occasional emails from me!

Last but not least, Jerry Troiano has started a very impressive New Jersey for Feingold website. I've never been to Jersey, but I am listening to a Springsteen CD as I type this.

Also: I've added a number of links to Feingold CafePress stores. In addition to the DraftRuss and RussForPresident stores, a number of stores that sell merchandise supporting various possible candidates have added Russ stuff to their inventory. Now a CafePress search for Russ Feingold yields a couple of pages of results, as opposed to the three items it got when I first started this site. Russ's 2008 stock has definitely risen in the past four months!

If you have a Feingold site that I'm not currently linking to, please post a comment or email me and I'll give you a "hello" and a link (as Daniel Owen at OvalOffice2008.com says.)

Finally, MSNBC's website has a nice article about Feingold's 2008 possibilities. I don't have time to quote it in much detail here, but I think it's worth checking out: "A Democratic Dark Horse poised to emerge" So, MSNBC has noticed the Feingold for President buzz...any way this could lead to me being a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann? Just being hopeful.

Finally, I have to work (and work extra hours!) the next four days so I probably won't post then, but on my next day off expect another of my trademark long rambling posts on Senator Feingold's return to Alabama!

Feingold talks Iraq, Afghanistan...and Alabama

2005-03-25T15:27:00.000-08:00

There's a great new interview with Senator Feingold up at Wispolitics.com. You can read the whole thing here. In it Senator Feingold discusses his recent trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, his thoughts on some of President Bush's recent appointments, and, of course, his upcoming return to Alabama.

When talking about his trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Senator again emphasized the differences between the current situations in the two nations, and some of the reasons behind them.

Bump: Why do you think there is more instability in Iraq?

Feingold: We had many, many conversations about this, and the sense you got in Afghanistan and what we were told was people of Afghanistan were not only outraged by the Taliban and the presence of al-Qaeda in their country, but that they were just exhausted from the wars they'd been through. They'd not only had the war against Russia, they'd had years of militias fighting for every inch with each other in Kabul; then the Taliban took over and established a brutal regime. They were just plain exhausted and were grateful and welcomed not just the United States but also the whole international community. In other words, they wanted us there.

It's much more complicated in Iraq, where there are certainly people who wanted us there but there are others who are outraged that we are there, who see it as an inappropriate, unilateral American occupation. That doesn't mean it can't succeed, but it makes it much more difficult and you have really two very different enemies. They may or may not be cooperating, but they're two completely dangerous enemies in Iraq. One is this very potent group of these former Ba'athists, the former Saddam Hussein people. They lost their jobs; they lost their power. They're not the suicide bombers typically; they're the ones that just don't like the fact that the Americans came in and put the Shiites in the driver's seat over the Sunnis.

The other group that is more deadly - arguably - the ones that actually do the horrendous suicide bombings are these foreign terrorists, basically allies of al-Qaeda and al-Zarkawi, who have come in there in pretty significant numbers and are using Iraq as the number one training ground for terrorism in the world. It used to be Afghanistan; now it's Iraq. So I think our military people and our policy people are a little confused about who they're really fighting, and I think that's causing problems as well. Sometimes I think they have to end up fighting people who they think are terrorists but they're actually just people who are mad we're there. So it's really quite messy and complicated.

The Senator also reiterated his support for a timetable for US withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Bump: What needs to happen before the occupation can end in Iraq, and what is your best guess for when it will end?

Feingold: Well, I happen to be one that believes we'd all be better off, the Iraqis and the Americans, if we had a timetable established when we say we're going to try to end the occupation. That doesn't have to be absolute; it can have conditions or (be) based on a timeframe when we believe Iraqi troops and police will be properly trained, electricity will be properly restored, oil production (restored). But I think we're making a big mistake by not laying out a vision of when we might leave. That is not only upsetting to American families and makes it difficult to recruit our military here in the United States, but I also think it makes it easier for those who hate us and are against us in Iraq to say, "Hey look, this is an American occupation; they don't have any intention of leaving." It would be very easy for a political candidate to make that his or her theme -- I'll get the Americans out of here -- and I'm worried the elections could be dominated by such a person.

One of the British military leaders admitted to me there -- off the record -- that it would take the winds out of the sails of the insurgents if we had a vision out there for a time we'd get out. And, again, it should be done carefully, it should be done with conditions, it should be done with flexibility. But what I like to say is we set up a timetable to transfer sovereignty, we did it a day early and that worked well. We set up a timetable for elections at the end of January, and we did that. Those things were positive steps. Why wouldn't a vision of when we'd get out of there, along with a proper benchmark for progress, why wouldn't that help? I think it would help, and it would certainly be welcomed by many American people, especially moms and dads of the troops.

I strongly agree with Senator Feingold here, and I think he makes a good case for his position. I think presenting withdrawal timetable that includes conditions and flexibility is the most reasonable option given the current situation in Iraq. Demanding that all the troops are withdrawn NOW without regard to what the current situation is in Iraq is impractical, while not putting forward any timeline for withdrawal is not fair towards the troops, their families, or the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately, as the Senator admits in the interview, ultimately it is the administration that gets to make the policy in this area. Hopefully, they'll take Senator Feingold's advice. But I'm not holding my breath.

Finally, Senator Feingold questions the President's appointments of John Bolton as UN Ambassador and Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank President.

Bump: And what is your reaction to Paul Wolfowitz's nomination for World Bank president?

Feingold: I think it seems like a bizarre choice for the World Bank, just as I am kind of shocked at picking John Bolton (as ambassador to) the United Nations. Why are we picking the people who are perceived as the most hostile and the most aggressive toward other nations to top positions when it's a time, as the Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice) indicated, that we need to reach out and use diplomacy? These people are odd fits, and there are many other good Americans that do their jobs. I realize that Bolton and Wolfowitz have a lot of ability and talent, but I think both their talents would be better used in situations that involve less diplomacy because they're not very diplomatic. In fact, I've been very surprised at their lack of diplomacy

.

Oh yeah: there are also some questions about the Alabama trip, but I'm trying not to write any more about that until it actually happens. So, you'll have to read those for yourself!

Feingold in the News(papers)

2005-03-21T18:34:00.000-08:00

No really big news, but items of interest from two different newspapers.

First, the Birmingham News reports on Senator Feingold's return to Alabama. He'll be taking a three day trip down there during Congress' spring break, starting March 28.

The whole article is here, here's a couple of key paragraphs:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Russell Feingold's fence-mending trip to Butler County has turned into a three-day, multi-city jaunt through Alabama by a potential Democratic candidate for president.

Feingold, a third-term senator from Wisconsin, will be in Greenville on March 28 as the guest of the mayor, who wants to acquaint the senator with the town's finer parts. Mayor Dexter McLendon believes Feingold missed those parts on his last golf outing, at least judging by an article he later wrote that offended people in the city.

While he's in the state, Feingold also has tacked on a couple of days to visit Montgomery and Birmingham, meet with residents and learn about the state's history.

It's an excursion by a high-profile Democrat, known nationally for his work on campaign finance reform, into a region where Democrats admit they've lost ground.

"He is looking forward to the opportunity to learn more about the people of Alabama and to hear what they have to say about how people like him can do a better job reaching out to places like Alabama," said George Aldrich, who managed Feingold's last Senate campaign and is coordinating the Alabama trip. Congress is on spring break.
...
So far there are sessions scheduled with community activists, local Democrats, business groups, religious leaders, elected officials and even a session at UAB dedicated to health care. There will be a news conference, a trolley tour of historic Montgomery, and a meeting with leaders at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The format will be similar to "listening sessions" Feingold has in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year, and there will be no fund-raising, Aldrich said.

Wait a minute...is a potential presidential candidate allowed to have a trip where there's no fundraising? That seems wrong to me...

But seriously, it seems like the Senator has some good events scheduled and I hope this trip is beneficial for Senator Feingold, the Democratic Party, and the people of Alabama. I'll write more about it after it's actually happened.

The other item is from a newspaper from well north of Alabama, the Chicago Tribune had a commentary by Sanford D. Horwitt promoting the presidential chances of Senator Feingold. I'll link to a MyDD diary that posts the whole story, as the Tribune requires registration to see it on their site.
Here's the beginning of the piece:

Edwards? Clinton? Nah, 2008 could be Russ Feingold's year
Sanford D. Horwitt
Published March 20, 2005

The race for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination is already being handicapped and, according to one offshore gaming Web site, the front-runners are former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at 3-2 and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton at 5-2.

But if I were a betting man, I'd consider putting some dough on a 16-1 shot, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

Largely overlooked by national political pundits in the aftermath of the November election was the impressive re-election victory by the John McCain of the Democratic Party. As usual, Feingold campaigned as a straight-talking, risk-taking reformer, and his convincing victory should make him highly appealing to Democrats longing for somebody who not only has a winning track record, but who unabashedly stands for progressive Democratic Party values. This is no wimpy liberal who trims his message to fit supposedly conservative times.

In Wisconsin, while John Kerry barely eked out a win in one of the most hotly contested battleground states, voters were giving Feingold a near-landslide victory, electing him to a third term with 55 percent of the vote. Unlike Kerry, who tried to play it safe from start to finish, Feingold won big after voting against the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts, and having cast the lone vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act.

Feingold carried a mix of rural and small-town counties in the northern deer-hunting country, old Mississippi River communities on the western border and the urban centers of Milwaukee and Madison.

Exit polls also showed Feingold scoring heavily among voters who believed that the most important quality of a candidate was the ability to bring about change.

What Feingold is proving in the politically critical heartland is that there is a market for the old-fashioned politics of reform.
...

I think this is a really good column for getting Senator Feingold's name out there more, and I think it's good that it's in such a major paper as the Tribune. Later on in the column it quotes Senator Feingold speaking at some of his listening sessions in small towns in Wisconsin, which I think does a good job of refuting two of the commonly accepted stereotypes about politicians which could be used as arguments against Feingold in the primaries: the first being that Senators can't communicate with people well, and the second that only Republicans or Southern Democrats can communicate with small town and rural voters.

Senator Feingold is very good at communicating his message to the voters, including small town and rural voters, and the more we can get that information out about him, the less vulnerable the Senator will be to those typical concerns about nominating a northern senator.

Feingold Campaign Registers Domain Names

2005-03-18T20:11:00.000-08:00

As you may have heard, Senator Feingold's Senate campaign has registered a couple of 2008 campaign domain names. The Wisconsin State Journal reports:

With rampant speculation on whether U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., will run for president in 2008, his Senate campaign made a few notable recent moves. It registered the domain name for the Web site www.russfeingold08.com as well as the .org and .net versions. And, no, he's not facing re-election to the Senate that year.

"We saw so many sites being snapped up out there that we reserved a few sites," says George Aldrich, Feingold's past campaign manager. He notes that many sites, such as www.russforpresident.com, seeking to draft Feingold, are already taken and some already have content. Others are parked by supporters in case Feingold decides to run.

One question Aldrich can't answer is why the campaign let www.russfeingold.com lapse earlier this year. Perhaps an oversight.

Daniel S. at The Kentucky Democrat notes that Feingold's campaign also registered FeingoldForPrsident08.com.

This is definitely yet another sign that the Senator is seriously thinking about a presidential run. But we shouldn't get too excited yet: for starters, many politicians register domain names just to keep their options open and to make sure they aren't taken up by their opponents for attack purposes.

And even if Senator Feingold forms an exploratory committee or officially announces as a candidate that doesn't mean our work is done-it's just beginning! Some candidates have formed exploratory committees and then decided not to run (Paul Wellstone in 2000) and some have gotten in the race and then dropped out before the first votes are cast because of lack of money/supporters (Elizabeth Dole and Bob Graham, to name two.)

So, here's some things to do (if you haven't already) to encourage the Senator to run and make sure his campaign is successful:

1. Make a contribution to his Progressive Patriots Fund. Unfortunately, money is still considered the most important sign of support in politics (until the voting, anyway).

2. Write the Senator a letter encouraging him to run. You could kill two birds with one stone by sending a letter with a check to the Progressive Patriots Fund! Regardless, make sure to include all your contact information and let him know that you'd be willing to do volunteer work for his campaign.

3. Get in touch with other Feingold supporters by joining the Yahoo group, and the forums at DraftRuss.com and RussforPresident.com Together we'll be even more effective and able to come up with even more ways to encourage and support the Senator.

For example, if I'd run this by some other folks, I'm sure I'd have more than three suggestions right now! But that's enough for now...I still haven't done the first two myself!

But, getting back to the initial topic of the post, I have one other contribution I can make to Senator Feingold: If his campaign wants the russfeingold.blogspot.com website, I'll gladly turn it over to them. With one condition...if Senator Feingold is elected President, he'll make me Secretary of Labor.

Come on, it's the same deal President Clinton made with Robert Reich! Look it up!

Feingold Blogs!

2005-03-13T15:54:00.000-08:00

No, not a story about blogs that support Senator Feingold-though wouldn't that be a great idea for a story?-but something even more exciting: a blog post written by Senator Feingold. It was originally posted at MyDD.

In the post Senator Feingold responds to fears that a recent court ruling stating that the FEC needed to establish rules regarding campaign activity on the Internet could lead to a "crackdown" on blogging and that posting a link to a campaign site could be considered a campaign contribution.

Here is Senator Feingold's post in its entirety (with some parts highlighted in bold by me), my comments follow at the end. On a side note I apologize for not posting about this sooner-I started a new job this week and so my life was rather exhausting.

Blogs Don't Need Big Government
by Senator Russ Feingold

My kids often tease me about the time I pre-heated a toaster before putting some bread in to toast it. I deny it. I still maintain to this day that I DO know how to use a toaster, but I also admit to some not-so-brilliant moments with technology, if you can consider a toaster technology. But, today, even my kids would have to pause to give me a pat on the back for this first ever "Russ Feingold Blog Post."

I am enjoying reading many blogs, and am fascinated by their immediate reporting that is covering the important issues of the day. Many of the positive comments I have been lucky enough to read about my work relate to the fact that I was the only member of the U.S. Senate to oppose the USA PATRIOT Act. That experience taught me a lot, but one thing I learned for certain is that millions of ordinary citizens support efforts to make sure the government doesn't try to take more power than it needs. Resisting overreaching by the federal government is appropriate and, yes, even patriotic. I feel very strongly about this, and have made constitutional issues in general, and First Amendment issues in particular, one of the central focuses of my work in the U.S. Senate.

While the days of campus protests are not the same today as when I was in college, many people don't realize that campus protests are going on every day, all over the country, when thinking people, from all different states, generations, and ethnicities are drawn more and more to participate and exercise their First Amendment rights in an exciting venue: the Internet in general and blogs in particular.

As one of the main authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, also known as BCRA, it is particularly difficult to hear the mistaken belief that the law was somehow an attack on our cherished First Amendment rights. It is not. The law was found to be constitutional and it accomplished what we wanted it to do without infringing on First Amendment rights: stopping Members of Congress from soliciting enormous campaign contributions from monied interests; and reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations. Despite the naysayers, and despite shamefully poor and often deliberately harmful interpretations of this law by the agency charged with enforcing campaign finance law, the Federal Election Commission, McCain-Feingold worked in the 2004 election.

McCain-Feingold and the blogs both had a positive impact on the 2004 election and many people don't realize how similar their impact truly was. Both the blogs and BCRA empowered average citizens. By channeling the power of average citizens to speak out on the Internet, the blogs revitalized the political process last year. In the same way, the power of small contributions was greatly increased by BCRA, and someone who could only send $5 or $50 to a political party has become a sought-after donor. Many parts of BCRA were handled irresponsibly by the FEC, and bloggers are understandably concerned that some members of the FEC may again try to cause trouble by overreaching in the area of free speech on the Internet.

So while I generally agree with the recent decision from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly requiring the FEC to redo its rules relating to political communication on the Internet, I am also concerned that the FEC will again create unnecessary concern and confusion. Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision was not a result of problems with BCRA. It was a result of poorly drafted FEC regulations that were challenged in court.

The FEC must tread carefully in the area of political communications on the Internet. Political news and commentary on the Internet are important, even vital, to our democracy, and becoming more so. For starters, the FEC should provide adequate protection for legitimate online journalists. Online journalists should be treated the same as other legitimate broadcast media, newspapers, etc. and, at this point, I don't see any reason why the FEC shouldn't include legitimate online journalists and bloggers in the "media exemption" rule.

The definitions and rules relating to "coordinated activity" should be clarified, so legitimate bloggers and journalists alike don't have to worry about vague rules for legitimate activity. Certainly linking to campaign websites, quoting from or republishing campaign materials and even providing a link for donations to a candidate, if done without compensation, should not cause a blogger to be deemed to have made a contribution to a campaign or trigger reporting requirements.

Also, the FEC should generally exempt independent, unpaid political activity by bloggers on the Internet. We must let this town square, which has added a significant dimension to our political process, continue to flourish. When the FEC issues a proposal on this issue later this month, rest assured that I will be reviewing it carefully and offering detailed comments.

At a time in the country when we need free and open discourse, when the Senate is rubber stamping a bankruptcy bill which hurts those who have no power, when the country is involved in a war with no timetable for an exit strategy, we must be able to speak our minds without fear of recrimination from the government.

I applaud Senator Feingold for going on to the blogs to get his opinion out on this, and I think his position is a sound one. The FEC should establish clear rules regarding the ways official campaigns use the Internet, and if bloggers are paid for promoting a candidate this should be disclosed-but otherwise there is no reason the FEC should regulate the activities of blogs. Certainly the idea of considering quoting campaign materials or providing a link to be an in-kind contribution is ridiculous.

Almost as important as the Senator's position on FEC regulation of the Internet, is his understanding of how campaign finance reform and the blogs ultimately promote the same goal: the increased involvement of average citizens in politics. A lot of politicians still don't see the Internet as anything more than another way to raise money; they want to copy the Internet success of the Dean campaign but don't realize that it's success was as much about empowering people and getting them politically involved in other ways as in getting them to give money. I think that this post by Senator Feingold is proof that he understands that the Internet can be about getting people involved in politics in a way that goes beyond giving money. And that bodes well for a possible presidential campaign.

On a less serious note: so, the Senator enjoys reading many blogs? Do you think this is one of them? I doubt it, though I'd bet someone from his office checked it out after the John Nichols column.

But hey, this blog has gotten over 800 hits in the past two and a half weeks, I know some of them aren't just me.

Remembering Sylvia Feingold

2005-03-07T20:27:00.000-08:00

The Janesville Gazette, the Senator's hometown paper, ran a nice article remembering the Senator's mother, Sylvia Feingold.

Here's the beginning of it, you can read the rest here

Every time David Feingold ate a piece of pie that wasn't baked by his mother, he apologized to her.

"How dare you,'' she lovingly scolded him.

Sylvia Feingold was loved and respected by her family and friends for many of her admirable traits.

She spoke four languages in addition to English-French, German, Italian and Spanish-enjoyed word games and cooking, the arts, learning, traveling and politics.

Sylvia, 86, died Wednesday of cancer at her Janesville home where she had lived since 1948.

"My mother was a wonderful woman who imparted a deep love for life to everyone she knew,'' Sen. Russ Feingold said in a prepared statement. He was traveling Thursday and not available to talk to a reporter.

"Everybody would go crazy for her pies,'' David said, explaining that cooking gave Sylvia great joy.

Sad News

2005-03-03T20:48:00.000-08:00

Some sad news from the Madison Capital Times: Sylvia Feingold, Senator Feingold's mother, passed away on Wednesday.

Here's the whole article:

Sylvia Feingold, the mother of U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, died Wednesday at age 86.

Mrs. Feingold died at the family's home in Janesville after a brief illness, according to friends of the family.

In a prepared statement, Feingold said his mother "was a wonderful woman who imparted a deep love for life to everyone she knew."

Funeral arrangements are pending. In lieu of flowers, the family is asking that contributions be sent in her memory to two charities.

A scholarship named in Mrs. Feingold's honor helps students who are learning foreign languages. Contributions to the Sylvia Feingold Scholarship Fund may be sent in care of David Feingold, Feingold and Associates, 20 E. Milwaukee St., Janesville, WI 53545.

The family also asked that donations be sent to Beth Hillel Temple, 6050 8th Ave., Kenosha, WI 53143.

I offer my deepest condolences to Senator Feingold, the rest of the Feingold family, and everyone else who knew and loved Sylvia Feingold. They'll all be in my thoughts.

Feingold and the Death Penalty

2005-03-01T20:38:00.000-08:00

The death penalty is likely to be a subject of conversation across the country this week as a result of the Supreme Court's decision to outlaw the death penalty for juvenile offenders. While not a subject directly related to the possibility of Russ Feingold running for President in 2008, I think it is worth mentioning here because of Senator Feingold's record as one of the most adamant death penalty foes in Congress

Here is the Senator's statement on the Court's decision:

I applaud the Supreme Court's ruling that juvenile executions are unconstitutional. In the past few years, we have taken important strides toward fairness and justice in the administration of the death penalty, and this decision is another step in the right direction. The continued use of the death penalty in any case, however, stands in stark contrast to the principles of justice, liberty, and equality on which our nation was founded. This nation's system of justice should be held to the highest standard, and it is far past time for Congress to reexamine the continued use of the death penalty.

I agree with the Senator and I believe that his unequivocal opposition to the death penalty is yet another example of his courage. Ultimately, I believe opposition to the death penalty is a moral issue. When it comes down to it, the main reason for the death penalty is revenge, and I do not believe the government should be in the revenge business. The government should represent the best, not the worst, instincts of the American people.

That said, the death penalty is not one of the top issues I vote on; fair trade, universal health care, the environment, education, and corporate accountability are all more important priorities. And I think that's the way it is for most people on both sides of the issue. I don't think that the Democrats will lose if they nominate an anti-death penalty candidate as long as they put forward a solid, consistent message on other issues. I also believe voters would respect a candidate who is straight-forward about being totally opposed to the death penalty rather then one who tries to equivocate (i.e. "I was opposed to it, but then I realized that it must be used against the really, really bad guys.")

I think Senator Feingold can win the presidency without yielding in his opposition to the death penalty, and I know he won't yield.

For more on the Senator's views on this issue, check out this page from his Senate website.

Feingold Returns from Iraq Trip

2005-02-26T20:51:00.000-08:00

As you may have known, Senator Feingold was part of a Senate delegation that visited Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tunisia during the past week. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has a good article about the trip including Senator Feingold's thoughts on the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Below, I've quoted some of the more interesting parts of the article, but you should definitely read the whole thing.

Just back from a tour of Iraq and Afghanistan, Senate Democrat Russ Feingold said Friday he continues to view the ultimate success of the U.S. mission in Iraq as "dicey" and said the contrast with progress and security in Afghanistan is "striking."

"I am very concerned whether this situation (in Iraq) is moving in the right direction. It is very much in doubt in my view," said Feingold, who said the success of the recent Iraqi elections was "being exaggerated to some extent to the exclusion of many of the problems that remain."...

Feingold praised the U.S. troops he met with for showing "incredible courage and resolve."

But noting the severe constraints on the senators' movements in Iraq, Feingold said, "The fact that we were in that kind of a lockdown was one of the most important lessons" of the trip, emblematic of the security threats and lack of stability.

Other senators on the trip who had visited Iraq in 2003 said the security situation was markedly different this time, with much less freedom of movement and a far more fortified environment in Baghdad. ...

Feingold contended before the war that invading Iraq would not advance the fight against terrorism, and he has argued since then that ensuing events have validated his position.

Feingold said he also differs with the senators he traveled with over how to approach future U.S. troop withdrawals. While his colleagues oppose a timetable for getting out, Feingold said he believes a "timetable with conditions and flexibility is the way to go."

He argued that by laying out the path for withdrawal, the U.S. would help defuse the presence of American troops as a political issue for anti-American Iraqis. ...

Feingold said he was "heartened" about Afghanistan as a result of the trip, citing the attitudes of Afghanis toward the U.S. presence and the security situation.

Like Senator Feingold, I was opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning. I believe that Iraq didn't pose a serious threat to the United States at the time and that it had no real connection to terrorism. I think the case can definitely be made that the war in Iraq has made things worse in terms of terrorism by providing the terrorists with motivation, new recruits, and a new theater of activity.

I agree with the Senator about the benefits of having a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

I was really interested by the Senator's positive comments on Afghanistan; honestly, you don't hear much about Afghanistan in the media much more, but what I remember hearing wasn't very positive, although not as negative as the situation in Iraq.

A final detail from the article that I thought was really interesting is that Senator Feingold was the only member of the delegation who isn't on the Armed Services Committee and who voted against the war, and that he was invited to join the delegation by it's leader-Senator John McCain.

Feingold Birthday Event Coming Up

2005-02-26T18:26:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Ben Masel for bringing this for my attention:

Senator Russ Feingold's Annual Birthday Event
3/6/2005
10:30 a.m.

Club Majestic,
115 King Street,
Madison.

Co-Host: $1,000 Sponsor: $500 Friend: $250
Suggested Contribution: $52/person
Please RSVP to Lenee Kruse at 608-831-7877 or
kruse@russfeingold.org
Payable to: The Feingold Senate Committee
P.O. Box 620062
Middleton, WI 53562-0062

I believe the $52 suggested contribution is in honor of it being the Senator's 52nd birthday. It's still a bit too much for me, and I don't live in Wisconsin anyway, but I'll wish the Senator an early happy birthday!

Are you a Progressive Patriot?

2005-02-23T16:13:00.000-08:00

Or, at least, someone who'd like to see Russ Feingold spread his message across the country, support like-minded candidates and possibly run for President?

Well, then, if you have some money to spare for a good political cause, you might be interested in donating to Senator Feingold's leadership PAC, the Progressive Patriot Fund. Here's the information on how-to; thanks to Jerry Toriano for posting it in the comments section:

If you are interested in mailing a contribution, please make checks payable to:
Progressive Patriots Fund
Attn: PJ McCann
P.O. Box 628008
Middleton, WI 53562

If you are interested in making a credit card contribution you have a few options:

1. You can send an email to pjmccann@comcast.net with your phone number--they will call you and take down the information.

2. You can call PJ McCann's cell at 301-706-3363 or call the Progressive Patriots Fund office at 608-831-1308 and speak to Cole.

3. You can fill out this Contribution Form and fax it to the office at 608-831-1348

4. You can fill out the Contribution Form and email it to: pjmccann@comcast.net

I hope some of you will donate-I'm gonna try to give something, and I'm pretty poor right now! But, unfortunately, in politics, money is still more important than rambling, infrequently updated weblogs. Which is a shame, because in a world where the opposite is true, I'd be George Soros!

Feingold establishes PAC, and other news

2005-02-18T23:28:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody. First off, I'm sorry for not updating sooner. Sometimes I'm busy and sometimes I'm lazy and either way the blog doesn't get updated. But I'm trying to do better, and I thank everybody who comes here for their support.

Now, onto the not-that-new news: an article in the Appleton Post-Crescent about the Senator's appearance on "Q&A" includes this interesting detail:

Feingold filed a document with the Federal Election Commission on Jan. 21 establishing the Progressive Patriots PAC. This leadership committee, soon to be renamed the Progressive Patriot Fund, will finance his travel around the country as he gauges public interest in his possible candidacy. The committee already has received between $2,000 and $5,000 in contributions, according to George Aldrich, who managed Feingold's Senate campaign last year.

Of course, establishing a leadership PAC like this is always described as one of the signs of someone who's considering a presidential run. I like the "Progressive Patriot" name-lots of Republicans would like us to believe that's an oxymoron, I'm glad to see Senator Feingold standing up to them. It's also a reminder of the PATRIOT Act and the Senator's lonely, principled vote on that.

Also, WisPolitics.com has an interview with the Senator up. No particular parts I want to quote, but it includes Senator Feingold's thoughts on the State of the Union, his ideas for health care and Iraq, and of course, he's asked about 2008 and gives the standard answer we could all probably repeat by heart. But, seriously, it's worth reading.

My thanks to Larry (whodat527) for bringing those articles to my attention!

Finally, a bit more recently, there was an article in the Sheboygan Press asking area residents what they thought about their Senator running for President, and the results were, frankly, shocking. Apparently, Democrats like the idea, and Republicans not so much! Who'da thunk it! Still, it's a good read. I especially liked this part:

Whatever Feingold's interests are, he's a long shot for the Democratic presidential nomination against major players such as New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, and last year's nominees, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. John Edwards, Zylman said.

"But Jimmy Carter came in below the radar and developed a grassroots network that helped him capture New Hampshire and it kept on going," Zylman said.

"Everyone said Bill Clinton wasn't going to make it either," Squire said. "You don't decide not to run because of your competition."

Feingold is no stranger to the underdog title, Squire said. When Feingold first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, he beat primary opponents James Moody and Joseph Checota. Following that, Feingold defeated incumbent Robert Kasten.

"He wasn't supposed to beat Kasten in the general election or Moody and Checota in the primary," Squire said.

Feingold will definitely be an underdog in the presidential race, but he knows how to win from that position by effectively communicating his message and cultivating the grassroots.

Feingold Reelection Ad Wins Award

2005-02-09T20:19:00.000-08:00

No big news, but this was just an interesting tidbit I found on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's website under the heading "Awards in Business:

Communication
Eichenbaum/Associates' commercial "Morph" for U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) won top honors in the television category at the 2005 Pollie Awards.

I just think that's good news because, as much as we may wish it didn't, advertising plays a major role in politics, and clever ads have been important to progressive triumphs like the election and reelection of Senator Feingold and the late Paul Wellstone.

You can watch-or if your computer is horribly old and slow like mine, read transcripts of-the "Morph" ad, as well as all the rest of Senator Feingold's 2004 ads, and a few older ones, here at his reelection website.

I'm sure that'll be entertaining and educational for those of you with good computers!

"Q&A" Comments

2005-02-07T15:41:00.000-08:00

Well, yesterday I probably gave C-SPAN the highest ratings its ever had against the Super Bowl, when I watched Senator Feingold's "Q&A" interview when it first aired at 7 central. And it was worth it. For those who didn't see it, check out the transcript and video here.

Senator Feingold did a great job-intelligent and affable, as always. Lamb asked a lot of campaign finance related questions, and Senator Feingold did a good job pointing that McCain-Feingold, while imperfect, did get senators and congressmen out of the business of asking for huge soft money contributions. But it wasn't all campaign finance-we also learned that the Senator's younger sister was the first female rabbi in Wisconsin and that a guy named Henry Janes went around the country in the 19th century founding cities called Janesville-including the Senator's hometown.

And, of course, 2008 was brought up. The Senator gave his standard answer, but Brian Lamb briefly showed the draftruss.org website. Go C-SPAN!

Here are my two favorite parts of the interview:

LAMB: We get calls all the time on our call-in show that, people will say, this is a Christian nation.

Does that bother you when you hear that?

FEINGOLD: I don't like that. I don't think that's right. It's certainly one of the things it is, is a Christian nation. But it's also Jewish and Buddhist and Islamic, and for those who don't have, follow an organized religion.

One of the reasons that I believe so passionately in our Constitution, in our system of government, and in particular in the Bill of Rights, is that I do believe that the separation of church and state are essential for the freedom and the comfort of those of us who are minorities- those of us whose grandparents or great-grandparents came here to get away from religious persecution. That is fundamental to me and to my family.

And so, if it ever comes to the point where people say, well, you know, really this is a just a Christian nation, and others really are second-class citizens, that is not the America that I believe in. And I will fight to stop efforts to do that.

As an agnostic, I'm glad to see someone in Congress who understands and respects separation of church and state. Many of our founding fathers had views that offended the religious orthodoxy of their day, and they left God out of the Constitution for a reason. Thanks Senator Feingold, for reminding us that we're all Americans, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof.

But here's the more important question, when looking at 2008:

LAMB: What's a progressive?

FEINGOLD: In Wisconsin, a progressive is somebody who believes firmly in individual rights, who believes that government should be used only when appropriate- not automatically, but where appropriate- to help solve our problems.

For example, if older people are inappropriately going to nursing homes prematurely, a Progressive says, maybe there's a way we can create a home and community-based program that will help balance that. That's a Wisconsin progressive.

But a Wisconsin progressive is also very pro-small business and pro-farmer. And also, tough as nails on spending.

Wisconsin progressives believe that if you want to do something, you should figure out a way to pay for it. So at the same time- so at the same time that I'm a person who is considered Progressive- sometimes called a Liberal- I also am known as one of the top one or two deficit hawks in the whole Senate.

I am the toughest on unnecessary spending. The Concord Coalition has put me on their honor roll. Because that's how we look at it in Wisconsin.

It doesn't matter what your political views are, you've got to pay the bills. You can't run up debts. That isn't about ideology, that's about good government.

And that's really the heart of Wisconsin progressivism. It's about clean, good government. And part of clean, good government in my view is not running up huge bills.

Am I the only one who thinks that's a message that will appeal to people across the nation, not just in Wisconsin?

Please read or see the whole interview!

Sure, you COULD watch the Super Bowl...

2005-02-05T23:26:00.000-08:00

...but do you really want to spend your time watching a football game, when you have a rare opportunity to watch a primetime in-depth interview with Senator Russ Feingold?

Yep, tomorrow at 8 pm Eastern (7 Central) Russ Feingold will be the guest on CSPAN's new interview program "Q&A"! The program is rerun at 11 pm Eastern (10 Central), if you don't want to miss any of the game.

Information on "Q&A" and Senator Feingold's appearance can be found here. Thanks to LeftistIndependent for reminding me of this appearance.

Also, check out the Feingold in 2008 images created by Andrew over at the Badpolitiks blog.

The Curse of the Senators?!?

2005-02-04T20:09:00.000-08:00

No, this isn't about the old Washington baseball team that was famous for being "first in war, first in peace, and last in the American League", rather its about the most banal argument I've seen against a Feingold candidacy...and a Biden, Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Boxer, McCain, Frist, et al., candidacy.

You see, senators don't win the presidency. Pundits on all forms of media remind whomever listens that JFK was the last person to become President directly from the Senate, and that he and Warren G. Harding are the only two senators to be elected President. And the only non-incumbent Democrats to win the presidency since JFK were both governors.

"Don't you see it?", they say. "Senators don't win! Governors do! If the Democrats nominate a senator they will lose! Don't encourage a senator to run!" That argument does not, as its proponents insist, show that they have some astute knowledge of history or politics. Rather, it shows that they have the ability to look facts up in an almanac and then jump to conclusions based on those facts. If those facts convince you that Senators can't be elected president, then you must have thought that Bush would lose this year because the Redskins lost their last home game before the election. Seriously, it's the same thing.

Imagine the year is 1988. You are a Republican. You must be horrified at the thought that George H.W. Bush is gonna be your party's nominee. Doesn't anybody realize that an incumbent vice president hasn't been elected to the top job in 150 years?! Don't they remember that Nixon lost in 1960?! Now you know how we ended up with the glorious presidency of Michael Dukakis. Incumbent vice presidents just don't win.

What's that? Bush won in '88? But what about the history? Oh, so that was just a really silly argument that had nothing to do with reality? Same with the anti-senator argument.

But there are legitimate arguments for why governors do better than senators, right? Senators always represent the inside the beltway establishment, whereas governors are reformers who challenge the status quo, right? Like when the great reformer, Texas Governor George W. Bush upset the establishment candidate, the ultimate insider Senator John McCain?

But governors connect better with people, right? Yeah, I think Mike Dukakis connected better with people than John or Bobby Kennedy, don't you?

Yes, I know those examples are silly. They are meant to be. But I have a serious point: don't stereotype a politician based on the office they hold.

Yes, it's true that senators can have their records used against them. So can governors. Ask Mike Dukakis.

So, if senators are electable why have all the ones to reach the general election since JFK lost? (I'm not gonna bring primary candidates into this, lots of governors and former governors have lost in the primaries.) Well, perhaps Bob Dole lost because ran against a popular, charismatic incumbent president. Perhaps Barry Goldwater and George McGovern lost because they were associated with ideological extremists. As for John Kerry-well, there are a couple hundred theories on that.

As I said in my first post here I can't guarantee that Senator Feingold will run, will get the nomination, or will win. But I think he is the best choice for progressive reformers in the Democratic Party. He's a good man and would be a good president. I can understand why some Democrats could have doubts about him, and I can appreciate intelligent debate on the subject. But I don't appreciate him and his fellow 99 members of what was once called The World's Greatest Deliberative Body being dismissed with the banal bit of conventional wisdom that "senators don't get elected president!"

I don't believe in conventional wisdom. If I did, I never would have started this blog.

Great Feingold Article from the Journal-Sentinel

2005-02-04T19:40:00.000-08:00

A new article from the Journal-Sentinel came out today in which Senator Feingold talks at length about his current plans and the possibility of him as a 2008 presidential candidate. Check it out here. One of the more interesting details:

Feingold is in the process of setting up what is known as a leadership PAC, or political action committee, a common vehicle for potential national candidates to make campaign donations and fund travel.

In the aftermath of his re-election, he has maintained a campaign staff of five in Wisconsin, including two fund-raisers. He ended 2004 with about $460,000 left over in campaign money.

So, in case you couldn't already tell...he's definitely serious about it.

This article's been commented on at a number of sites already, I can't think of much new to say now. But I think that Ficus (that's Chuck, right?) over at the official draftruss.org blog said it best (Chuck's comments are in bold):

"If at some point people say, 'Hey, we think you ought to run for president' (and) it's a serious thing, I'm going to listen. I would only run if I honestly believed that I was the guy that really could win, that I was the person who was the best candidate to run," said Feingold, who sat down Wednesday at a reporter's request to talk about the Democratic Party and the 2008 presidential contest.

We are the "some people" he is talking about. You are the "some people" he's talking about. Please send him a letter of encouragement, or get ahold of us. It's 2005, but we're building a movement here.

Yep; he's looking for encouragement-let's give it to him!

I haven't written a letter yet, but I'll work on it this weekend and post it on the blog when it's done.

Feingold Buzz in the Blogosphere

2005-01-31T21:11:00.000-08:00

Looks like the Senator's trip to Florida has led to more speculation about his presidential ambitions and prospects around the net:

The Florida article was the subject of discussion at Daily Kos, and also led Tim Tagaris at the Swing State Project to wonder about Feingold's presidential chances.

Meanwhile, Chris Bowers at MyDD.com listed the ten Democrats he sees as most likely to run in 2008, and in his tentative cattle call he listed Senator Feingold as third most likely to get the nomination, after Hillary Clinton and John Edwards! It's just one man's opinion, but I'll take it!

Finally, conservative Corey at newpolitics1.com did a power ranking of the who he sees as the 50 most likely Democratic candidates, and Feingold is seventh. Not bad.

In fact, all of this Feingold buzz is very good; we've got the beginnings of a great netroots campaign that could make Russ Feingold the next President of the United States! Let's keep it going!

EDIT: Also, Ron Gunzburger at politics1.com talks about Feingold's Florida trip. Ron got to meet Russ and have his picture taken with him...lucky guy!

Feingold in Florida

2005-01-29T19:24:00.000-08:00

Looks like Senator Feingold headed south again last week, going to Daytona Beach, Florida. The Daytona Beach News-Journal reported on a speech he gave. Among the highlights:

In Bush's first term, Feingold opposed the president's policies on the Iraq war, USA Patriot Act, Medicare reform, education policy, environmental regulation and abortion rights. He made clear he was leaving his own presidential options open after a club member asked if he plans to run.

For now, Feingold said, he wants to be "part of the process" of identifying a candidate likely to succeed George W. Bush in 2008. That involves helping to create "national organizations of people to make that happen," he said.

A decision to run hinges on "whether I feel I'll be the best candidate to win," he said, adding, "I'm not going to even worry about that right now."

I also like this comment of the Senator's:

Club member Al Smith, a local physician and registered Democrat, asked Feingold if "the party can stand another liberal from the Northeast (as a candidate) and still survive as a party?"
Feingold replied that the country is looking for a candidate they can feel connected to, whether liberal or conservative.

I think that's true. I don't think that many people really felt strongly that John Kerry's positions were too liberal, I think Kerry had a hard time putting his positions forward in a way that connected with people. I liked Kerry, but I never felt that connected to him.

Of course, as a Midwesterner, I think there is a big difference between nominating a liberal from the northeast and a liberal from the Midwest. But that's just my bias.

Thanks to Daniel S. for posting this story at The Kentucky Democrat, or else I might not have found it!

Talkin' John Ashcroft Confirmation Vote Blues

2005-01-26T16:15:00.000-08:00

Actually, I'll also be talkin' about Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales, I just saw a chance for a tribute to an old Bob Dylan song title, so I had to take it.

As you all probably know, four years ago Senator Feingold voted to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Since then I have seen a number of Democrats online declare they'd never vote for Feingold for President because of that vote. To those Democrats I respectfully ask: "Are you freakin' kidding me?!" Sorry, I don't believe in one issue voting, so one vote seven years ago (from 2008) voting makes no sense to me.

Senator Feingold has repeatedly stated that he believes a president deserves to have his cabinet nominees confirmed regardless of ideology as long as they are capable of doing the job. This is different from judicial nominees, as Senator Feingold explains in this great 2002 Progressive Magazine interview:

Q: Any regrets on your Ashcroft vote?
Feingold: No. It was the right vote. When the President picks someone who is his ideological soul mate, that's his right, in my reading of "advise and consent." I do think, though, the more you get up the ladder, when someone is no longer accountable to the President, and more importantly, will stay in office after the President, the standard gets tougher and tougher.
Q: You mean for judges?
Feingold: Well, first, independent commissioners. People whose terms go for five years or longer, like FCC commissioners. That's a higher standard. Then district judges, who are appointed for a lifetime but can be overruled. Then Court of Appeals judges. They're not the highest level, but they're almost the final word. And then, of course, the Supreme Court.

I was not pleased by Ashcroft's confirmation but after thinking about it I came to understand and appreciate Senator Feingold's reasons for his vote. But to those who disagree with the Senator's confirmation vote for Ashcroft, I say remember that was only one vote. Look at the rest of the Senator's record, throughout the first Bush term-he was one of the most consistent fighters for progressive causes. Many of the Senators who opposed Ashcroft supported the war in Iraq. Some supported the Bush tax cuts. All supported the PATRIOT Act. Look at the Senator's whole voting record. I agree with Feingold's comments in this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel piece from 2001:

Feingold argues that his position has been more consistent than that of lawmakers who opposed the attorney general's confirmation but have gone along with the policies.

"If you think about it for a minute, that's clearly the odd thing. To say, 'I'm worried about what John Ashcroft is going to do about civil liberties, therefore I will vote against him,' and then when he does something bad about civil liberties, you vote for it - that doesn't make sense," Feingold said.

Because of his stated views on Cabinet confirmation votes, I honestly was neither surprised or disappointed by Feingold's vote for Rice. I never bought into the argument that "a vote for Rice is a vote for war and for torture"; voting to confirm a Cabinet nominee isn't voting to support their views or past actions. If that were the case, I'd want the Democrats to oppose all of Bush's nominees, because I must disagree with them on some policy. But if you were disappointed in the Senator's vote to confirm Condi, keep on watching his votes throughout this second term. I am confident he will continue to be a consistent supporter of progressive views, including human rights and a sane foreign policy.

More surprising to me is his vote AGAINST confirming Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. I think his statement on the vote is definitely worth reading. The Senator states that he is voting against Gonzales:

Not because he is too conservative, or because I disagree with a specific policy position he has taken, but because I am not convinced that he possesses the abiding respect for the rule of law that our country needs in these difficult times in its Attorney General.

That's very troubling. I did not get to watch Gonzales's confirmation hearings, but from Senator Feingold's statement it sounds like Gonzales didn't even try to give the "right" answer to some very important questions. As I said, I haven't been too interested in opposing Bush's cabinet nominees, but Senator Feingold's statement really makes me worried. I hope everyone who has Democratic or moderate Republican Senators will contact them and urge them to oppose Gonzales's nomination. As the Madison Capital Times writes:

Before the Gonzales nomination is considered by the full Senate, wavering Democrats and Republicans who are generally inclined to back President Bush should reflect on Feingold's concerns. If Alberto Gonzales failed to pass the Feingold test, then, surely, he should not be confirmed as attorney general.

Nader: Feingold would be a good President

2005-01-16T20:24:00.000-08:00

Last weekend (January 8), I was watching Tim Russert's self-titled hour-long interview show on MSNBC (or CNBC) and his guest for the entire hour was Ralph Nader. Toward the end of the interview, Russert asked Nader who (besides himself) he'd most like to see as President; the first name Nader mentioned was Henry Waxman...and the next was, yep, Russ Feingold. (He also said Ted Kennedy would have been a good president.) Nader later mentioned that he was going to be meeting with some Democratic senators, including Minority Leader Reid, Barack Obama, and Feingold.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a transcript or video clip of this show online-if someone else can, please email me. However, I was able to find this old 1998 press release where Nader endorses Feingold for reelection. It's a pretty powerful statement on Feingold's behalf, and was made after Nader had already made his first run as a Green Party candidate in 1996.

I know a lot of Democrats, from all parts of the party, wish Nader would just shut up, but that's not gonna happen. And there is still a significant number of people out there who admire Nader, and vote for him, for the Greens, or don't vote. While some of these people are far-left ideologues would never vote for a Democrat, most of them would be Democrats-if the Democrats had a candidate who solidly stood up for their traditional values.

Some of Nader's issues are weird, but most of them-the environment, corporate responsibility, fair trade, worker's rights, universal health care-are traditionally Democratic issues. I think that Feingold is the best candidate who could appeal to Nader's followers while also appealing to more moderate voters, with his fiscal conservatism and personal integrity. Many Democrats would just like to ignore or berate Nader's followers, Greens, liberal independents, etc., but they should be reminded that having a "big tent" party can't just mean reaching out more to the center-right.

And now for the exciting personal disclosure part...in the 2000 election, at the age of 19, I cast my vote in the state of Missouri for Ralph Nader for President. Some of my reasons for doing so seem dumb and naive (I supported Bradley in the primary and didn't like the way Gore treated him; I actually thought the Greens could become a national third party) some I feel are still legitimate (Nader talked about issues like poverty and corporate power that I care about-and that Gore basically ignored; the exclusion of third party candidates from the Presidential debates is disgraceful).

Soon after that, I realized that in order to win in modern American politics you have to be in one of the major parties-and you can't change things if you don't win. Since then, I have worked for Democratic campaigns for Senate, President, and Congress and have voted for the Dems in all elections, save a few city offices.

But still...I WAS A TEENAGE NADERITE! Feel free to blame all your problems from the last four years on me.

More from the Journal-Sentinel

2005-01-14T18:31:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel featured an article titled "Bigger Things Seem Possible for Feingold"; it's a good piece, read it here if you haven't already.

Among the interesting pieces of information in this article: Feingold was recently made a Deputy Whip for the Senate Democrats. It kind of surprises me that they'd give him a leadership position, since he's a maverick, but it's great news. I feel good knowing my two favorite senators, Feingold and Durbin, both have places in the party's Senate leadership.

There's also this quote from Feingold's recent Senate campaign manager:

"There is no doubt that Sen. Feingold will be looked at as a new voice for the party as it moves forward," Aldrich wrote in a statement. "He has every intention of continuing to use his voice to build the party, to speak out on important issues and to advance a progressive reform agenda that not only has a lot of support in Wisconsin but across the country."

Sounds good!

Also quoted in the article are Charlie Wishman and Eric Hungerford of draftruss.com.

And speaking of draftruss.com, make sure to check out the discussion forums over there, I recently joined under the incredibly original name BloggerDan.

Senator Feingold: Goin' South and...Wearin' Ascots?!

2005-01-11T21:13:00.000-08:00

Many of you have probably already read Senator Feingold's article, originally written for Salon, and recently reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, describing his experience and thoughts during a recent golfing vacation in Alabama. For those that haven't I encourage you to check it out. Here is a key section:

"Now some may think that Alabama and Wisconsin are the polar opposites of American politics.

But in both states I've found that (along with sharing a sincere appreciation of a good turkey dinner) too many hardworking people are losing their battles for decent paying jobs and adequate health care.

I'm tired of seeing the power-hungry persuade the hard-working people of this country that the only way to preserve important values is to vote against their own families' basic interests.

I believe that the working people of both states have sacrificed for other people's agendas for too long.

And I believe that any political party or political movement or political candidate who would consistently say this would be heard throughout America."

I definitely agree with Senator Feingold here: there is a national audience for a Democratic Party that puts forth a consistent economic populist message. I don't know if turning the red states blue is that easy, but we should give it a shot.

The Journal-Sentinel also printed a response from a Greenville, Alabama resident who, to put it mildly, disagrees. It's basically straight out liberal bashing, at one point comparing Feingold to the Bolsheviks. However, it is worth reading if only to get another perspective...And it's pretty amusing when the writer imagines that Senator Feingold "dons his smoking jacket and ascot and sips his cognac while sitting in his winged-backed chair by the fire." Does anyone have pictures of Senator Feingold in his smoking jacket and ascot? I'd like to see that!

Seriously, though, while I admire Senator Feingold (obviously) and agree with his message, I can see while some in Greenville and other parts of the south may have be angered by the piece and by the whole economic populist argument. Unfortunately, it can come off as arrogant and patronizing (i.e. "You silly poor southerners! You should care about health care, not abortion!") playing in to the liberal elitist stereotype. That said, I think Senator Feingold was very respectful and admiring of Alabamans in the article...But, then, I'm not from Greenville.

A final note, the Journal-Sentinel says that Greenville's mayor has invited Feingold back to see more of the city and the Senator agreed. I think that is good news. In Wisconsin, Feingold is known for having "listening sessions" in every county each year. Hopefully, when Senator Feingold returns to Greenville he'll have a listening session there, so he can hear what the people there are concerned about, not just tell them what they should be concerned about. That's the best way to get rid of the liberal elitist tag (well, after losing the ascot and smoking jacket...), and I think if he does that the people of Greenville will come away respecting him, if not agreeing with him on everything.

I'm Back!

2005-01-11T19:34:00.000-08:00

Hello, anybody who's still checking this blog! I just wanted to say that I am back home in St. Louis with my computer and Internet access. I'll be going through the comments and the emails from the Yahoo group, so expect some more postings soon.

Hopefully, I won't have to be away from Internet access for this long again.

Great New Link

2004-12-21T12:42:00.000-08:00

Hey folks, I'm posting from my hometown library with a small but important update: the draftruss.org website is up! Check it out!

Thanks to Chuck and Eric from draftruss.org for mentioning it to me, and for linking to me in their blog section! All this momentum is really exciting!

Happy Holidays Open Thread

2004-12-19T21:49:00.000-08:00

I'm going to be out of town until early January, and I'm staying with my Mom who doesn't have an internet connection, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to post again. But if there is any Feingold news feel free to post about it on the comments thread here, and I'll post it when I have the opportunity.

Happy Holidays, everybody, and thanks for coming here, I really appreciate it!

Links to Check Out

2004-12-17T23:55:00.000-08:00

I added some more links. Thanks to Ben Masel for pointing me to the Feingold videos. The other new links are to some political news sites I visit regularly, including that of my friend The Kentucky Democrat.

Everyone interested in a Draft Feingold in 2008 campaign should join the Yahoo group, if you haven't already.

Also, check out the Draft Russ store at Cafe Press, which features some Draft Russ T-shirts and buttons. You can even get a Draft Russ T-shirt for your dog! (Note: the DraftRuss.com website on the merchandise does not currently have any content, although it is registered. But your dog won't mind.)

Some Small Changes and Updates

2004-12-16T21:03:00.000-08:00

Just a couple of little things.

First, John Nichols' article about the Feingold presidential buzz was reprinted in the Madison Capital Times and posted at CommonDreams.org. And both those versions of the article still mention and link to this blog! I hope it gets me some new visitors!

Thanks to the anonymous commenters who mentioned these reprints of the article to me. And speaking of comments, I've added the Haloscan comment system to the site so non-blogger members can comment more easily.

Finally, I added some links to Feingold sites in the sidebar, check them out. I'll be adding some general political links soon-but let me know if there are any other Feingold sites I should add.

We're Making News!

2004-12-15T17:05:00.000-08:00

I got a nice surprise today: one of my favorite journalists, John Nichols of The Nation, posted a blog entry about the Feingold for President buzz...and he mentions this blog!

Writes Nichols: "The interest in a Feingold candidacy has even sparked the development of a "Russ Feingold for President" Internet forum at www.russfeingold.blogspot.com, where writers positively gush about Feingold's "courage, intelligence and integrity" and his electability."

Check out his whole post here!

But this raises a disturbing question: has my blog peaked too soon? Seriously, I've had it for half a week, there aren't any links yet, and it's already being quoted on The Nation's website! I'm amazed!

EDIT: Well, now the blog's address and the quotes from my post are no longer in the article. And after I had told my mom and sister about it too!

Feingold '08 speculation in Hotline

2004-12-14T23:23:00.000-08:00

Chris Bowers at myDD.com posted some comments from Hotline regarding the possibility of Senator Feingold making a presidential run.

The Hotline comments include a source stating that Feingold has "every intention of continuing to use his voice to build the party, to speak out on important issues and to advance a progressive reform agenda that not only has a lot of support" in WI "but across the country."

Bowers calls Feingold "an intriguing possibility" and notes that "Even though he has won three terms in the US Senate, he actually is still known as a "reformer" and an "outsider"... "

I urge you all to read the whole post, and show your support for a Feingold candidacy in the comments section. It's great to see that Feingold's name is already being discussed around the web!

Thanks to my anonymous commenter on the previous post who pointed this article out to me. Please email me any good Feingold articles you find, and I'll acknowledge you when I post them.

Why Feingold for President?

2004-12-11T22:14:00.000-08:00

Russ Feingold is probably as close as I come to having an ideological soulmate in the United States Senate. He's strong on the environment. He believes in corporate responsibility and limiting the influence of special interests in politics. He believes in fair trade deals which would ensure that everyone, everywhere benefits from globalization, not just those who are already wealthy.

But the issues aren't the main reason I believe he should be the Democrats 2008 presidential nominee. The main reason is, of all the people on the national political stage, I believe he would make the best president-and that's what really matters. He has courage, intelligence, and integrity-characteristics that are pretty rare in politicians these days, but characteristics that are always needed in a president.

You might be asking, "But...Is he electable? After all, he isn't a moderate southern governor?" Well, that's true, he's not a moderate southern governor. But he has been elected to the Senate three times from the battleground state of Wisconsin. In his reelection bid this year his margin of victory was over 10%-his highest ever and much higher than John Kerry's margin of victory in the Badger State. And he got that victory after being the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act-not to mention opposing the Iraq War. Why'd he win? In large part because voters in WI see and respect his integrity-and I think that's a quality that's admired by voters throughout this great country, no matter if their states were red or blue this year.

I don't know if Russ Feingold will run for president in 2008, and if he does, I can't say he'll win. But I believe he could win-and I believe that no matter what a Feingold campaign would raise the level of debate in the Democratic Party and in the country as a whole. So, I hope you'll join me in this effort to get Russ Feingold to run for president.