Hey PunkDavid, I know you think a secular Jew hasn't got much chance, but a lot of people are talkin about it anyway. I say let's go for it! Who's gonna beat him in the primary.... Shillary?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1216-24.htm

Published on Thursday, December 16, 2004 by The Nation
Feingold for President?
by John Nichols

The crowd at the Vernon County Democratic Party's annual dinner was large, loud and longing for a little partisan passion.
Far from being beat down by the November presidential election result, the 100 rural Democrats who gathered in Viroqua Tuesday night were ready to fight against the war in Iraq, against economic policies that favor big business over working people and family farmers, and against the warping of the public discourse by a media that is more concerned about Scott Peterson's conviction than the future of Social Security.

Unfortunately, they don't see many reflections of their grass-roots passion in the state or national Democratic Party leadership. In fact, when Ed Garvey and I met with the Vernon County activists - most of whom were Democrats but some of whom were interested Greens and independents - the response to our suggestion that in this era of conservative hegemony Wisconsin and the United States need an opposition party was immediate and enthusiastic.

They even had a suggestion for who the opposition leader should be. When I was describing what a serious opposition party would stand for at this moment in history - starting with an absolute rejection of the war in Iraq and empire building and going on to a passionate defense of civil liberties and a willingness to stand up to multinational corporations - a bearded fellow in the crowd shouted, "We've got someone who can do it - the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act: Russ Feingold." The crowd cheered.

And they aren't alone.

The buzz about a possible Feingold for President campaign in 2008 is getting stronger. Hotline, the online bible of inside-the-beltway political junkies, just featured a commentary in which editors suggested that Wisconsin's junior senator could be a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Noting that, against serious opposition, Feingold ran more than 140,000 votes ahead of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in Wisconsin, a source told Hotline, "He just accomplished an impressive victory in a heartland swing state in a year that wasn't so kind to (Democrats)." The source went on to suggest that Feingold "will be looked at as a new voice for the party as it moves forward."

Over at the http://www.mydd.com, a popular Democratic Web site, political writer Chris Bowers observes, "Feingold is in an odd position. Even though he has won three terms in the U.S. Senate, he actually is still known as a 'reformer' and an 'outsider,' due in no small part to the constant repetition of the 'McCain-Feingold' legislation in the national media. Because of this reputation, among all Democratic senators, except perhaps (newly elected Illinois Sen. Barack) Obama, I think he would be the best bet to capture the non-ideological reformers that I believe are a key to future Democratic success."

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

So will Feingold run? The man is not without ambition. He thought about seeking the presidency in 2004, but backed off before the contest really got started.

As the jockeying begins for 2008, it is a safe bet that Feingold will again ponder a run. And with the unsolicited support that he's getting from his home state and elsewhere, he might well be inspired this time to do more than just explore a candidacy.

I'd vote for Russ without hesitation. I did a little work for the Feingold 2004 campaign and I think he'd make a great president. Just how electable he is I do not know, but he'd make a much better candidate than John Kerry. If you want a straight answer to a question, just ask Feingold. He'll give it to you without beating around the bush. Plus there's no doubt where he stands on the war or the Patriot Act.

Hey, I'd love it. I think Feingold is the single finest human being in the Senate, and he had proven himself a tough and principled leader. As was noted, Kerry won Wisconsin with less than 50% of the vote. Feingold beat a Republican candidate who had a ton of national support early on, until the polls two weeks before the election showed Feingold winning by over 15 points!

Also, I should note that Feingold's TV ads were the best political advertisements I have EVER seen. They were clear, with a philosophy and a policy message, they were 100% clean, and the only mention of his opponent Tim Michels was when the Feingold ad straight up exposed the lies in Michels's ads. Why John Kerry's people couldn't write a 30 second ad that exposed the Bush campaign's lies, I have no idea.

Maybe it's not such a crazy idea after all. Wisconsin may have gone for the Democrat in the last five presidential elections, but it was also decided by less than .5% in each of the last two. But Wisconsin has a love for the maverick, and Feingold is that, which is why he is so popular here. I think his popularity could carry over across the country because of his name recognition.

--PunkDavid (just tell 'em you're a Lutheran )

FEINGOLD IN 2008! ENSURE REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT TIL 2012!!!

off.

--PunkDavid

David, come on buddy. I'm reaching out to you here. We disagree on so much. But here, we finally reach some common ground.

What America needs is a president who is not a puppet of either party. But if this Feingold fellow really voted against the Patriot Act, I guess he's a 'reasonable' substitute for the seemingly impossible.

Feingold is a good senator and he would make a decent president.

Calm down, Kiyo.

--PunkDavid

*bursts into flames*

I know, that did seem benign didn't it!

I guess I just do not have much to say about Russ because I think he has done a fine job for my state. We'll see how the next four years goes to make a better judgement concerning the presidency, as well as who the other candidates will be.

But he is a solid guy who votes according to what he says he is going to, and that is why the people in Wisconsin voted for him. We know where he stands and he delivers.

I guess the only difference between Feingold and Bush is that Feingold is usually right. And he probably knows reality when it smacks him in the face too.

Right or wrong is usually in the eye of the beholder, but what I really like about Russ is that he explains why he votes a certain way and always does so in a logical and reasonable manner.

Both he, and Dave Obey, do a fine job for Wisconsin.

you're right, it usually is, except in matters of fact, which is what I am speaking about when talking about reality.

Agreed.

"America Is So Much Better Than This"
By Sen. Russ Feingold, AlterNet. Posted December 7, 2004.

When the matter of naming Condoleeza Rice to replace Secretary of State Colin Powell came before the U.S. Senate, at least one senator stood up and castigated the Bush foreign policy and the abuse of U.S. power.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has the unique distinction of being the lone dissenter in the Senate on the vote approving the Patriot Act. He also was among a handful of Senators opposing the resolution to authorize the Iraq war. And last month, he won re-election, beating his well-financed Republican opponent 55-44 percent. On Nov. 18, when President Bush's nomination of Condoleeza Rice to replace Secretary of State Colin Powell came before the U.S. Senate, Sen. Feingold stood on the Senate floor and, in his characterestically forthright manner, spoke the following words.

Mr. FEINGOLD: On Tuesday, the President announced the nomination of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to be the next U.S. Secretary of State.

I admire Dr. Rice's obvious intellectual gifts and her communication skills, and I congratulate her. I also believe that the president has the right to appoint cabinet officers who reflect his ideology and his perspective. Barring serious concerns about a nominee's qualifications or ethical record, and in keeping with Senate practices and precedents, my inclination is to give the president substantial deference in his cabinet choices, so I do expect, barring something unforeseen, that I will be supporting Dr. Rice.

But I am deeply troubled by the signal that this nomination appears to send — a signal suggesting that the modest moderating influence of the State Department over the last four years will disappear, and that the next four years will be guided even more closely by the voices that shouted loudest in the first term, and that led our country into seriously flawed foreign policies. Our country cannot afford to continue down the foreign policy path that was forged during the first term of the Bush administration.

Over the past four years, we have witnessed the greatest loss of a very valuable type of American power in our history: our power to lead, to persuade, and to inspire. As Joseph Nye has pointed out, this power will not convert the extremists who oppose us no matter what. Those people must be eliminated, pure and simple. But it can thwart their plans, by denying them new recruits, undermining their appeal and their message, and unifying, rather than dividing, Americans and the rest of the international community. Rather than bolstering this asset, which has helped to make us the most powerful country on earth, I'm afraid we have squandered it.

In March, the Pew Research Center found that one year after the start of the war in Iraq, "discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished" across the world. Majorities in Pakistan, Jordan, Morocco and Turkey believe that the U.S. is exaggerating the terrorist threat. They doubt the sincerity of the U.S. war on terrorism and say that it is an effort to control Mideast oil and dominate the world. The Center found that "at least half the people in countries other than the U.S. say as a result of the war in Iraq they have less confidence that the United States is trustworthy. Similarly, majorities in all of these countries say they have less confidence that the U.S. wants to promote democracy globally." Our motives are questioned, our public justifications and explanations viewed with skepticism, and our post-9/11 public diplomacy efforts have too often missed the mark, substituting pop music broadcasts, brochures and videos for the kind of respectful dialogue and engagement that could convince generations of angry young people that their humiliation is not our goal.

We have had over three years since Sept. 11, 2001, to think strategically about how to win the fight against terrorism. But I'm afraid we have little to show for this time.

We have relied upon a doctrine that fails to recognize that our enemies do not rely on explicit state sponsorship of terrorism. By focusing primarily on possible state sponsors of terror, the administration failed to realize that our terrorist enemies operate effectively in weak and failing states and without the backing of national governments. This is a new enemy waging a new war against us, but the administration appears still to be stuck in an old cold war mindset.

We have muddled our language and our focus by conflating other priorities with the fight against terrorism, costing us credibility around the world and shattering the unified and resolved global coalition that emerged to support us in the aftermath of 9/11. By choosing to fight the war in Iraq in such a divisive and astronomically expensive fashion, we have diverted resources away from the fight against the terrorist networks that seek to destroy us and undermined our ability to win the hearts and minds of many whose support we will need to succeed in the long run. We have recognized the dangers of nuclear proliferation in an age of terrorism, but have then pursued policies that may well create incentives for states to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.

We have developed essentially no measures of success or failure when it comes to one of our most urgent priorities, as the 9/11 Commission underscored — preventing the continued growth of Islamist terrorism. In fact, we do not even know where we stand today in this vital struggle.

We have not given any serious thought to how to avoid the mistakes of the Cold War, when we gave a free pass to forces of repression and brutality, as long as they did not come with a Communist bent. Those mistakes, as we all know, actually helped to make Afghanistan the brutally repressive terrorist haven that it was on 9/11/2001.

We have not made an adequate investment in bolstering our diplomatic resources and engagement around the world. From Northern Nigeria to Eastern Kenya, we have virtually no presence. In Somalia, despite knowing that al Qaeda-linked terrorists have operated in the country, we simply failed to develop any policy at all.

While the administration's policy was failing on all of these fronts, the president's team was devoting its time and attention to selling the world and the American people a war in Iraq with fundamentally flawed intelligence, manipulative and misleading characterizations, and rosy predictions that proved horribly, dangerously off-the-mark.

The administration's Iraq policies in the first term painted a picture of an American government that isn't so sure it rejects torture; that isn't competent and careful enough to properly vet intelligence presented in major speeches and briefings; that willfully rejects the lessons of history and the advice of its own experts; that is surprised when disorder results in massive looting; that misleads taxpayers regarding the costs and commitments entailed in its policies; that spends billions upon billions without any effort to even budget for these extremely predictable costs; and that is willing to politicize issues fundamental to our national security in the ugliest possible way.

We deserve better. Certainly the brave men and women of the U.S. military who are fighting every day to make this effort in Iraq work deserve better. We do not honor them by accepting lousy, irresponsible policy in the halls and hearing rooms of the Capital and then leaving our soldiers holding the bag on the ground, when policy collides with the hard truth.

The administration's record of the past four years suggests a foreign policy careening out of control, driven by ideologues who want to test their theories in the laboratory of the Middle East one minute, by domestic political considerations the next, and by spiteful attempts to punish those who disagree with their methods the next.

Where is this going? Who is in charge? Who knows? No one ever seems to be held accountable for the blunders, the failures, the wildly inaccurate presentations and projections or the painfully ineffective initiatives. Congress cannot simply accept more of the same, keep our heads down and hope that somehow we will muddle through. The stakes are far too high. Our national security, the stability of the world that our children will inherit, our troops — even our country's honor — are on the line. Congress has an obligation, not to oppose every administration effort, but to reassert our role in helping to steer the ship of state wisely rather than recklessly. I look at our foreign policy over the past four years, and I know that America is so much better than this.

I look forward to the opportunity to raise these concerns with Dr. Rice when she testifies before the Foreign Relations Committee, and to receiving some assurance that she will work with Congress to put our country's foreign policy on a better, more effective footing.

Thank you for that post of Russ' speech energystar!

Very thoughtful words.

Feingold is definately not a puppet of his party. He was one of the few Democrats who voted to impeach Clinton.

I voted for Feingold in the most recent election (I voted for Bush for Presiden). I don't agree with some of his positions, but I admire that he stands up for what he believes is right and doesn't bow to political pressures. We need more people like him in Congress. We need to get past the partisan bullshit and actually get some things accomplished.

As for a Presidential run...I just don't see it. I think he could make a heck of VP candidate though. Earlier this fall I said that McCain should run for President with Feingold as his VP. Then maybe things would get done in D.C.

Someone should tell Russ that his side the election in 2004. Maybe when his side wins the president he can have a Secretary of State that he personally approves of. Why should the Bush administration care about what dear ole Russ wants?

Yeah! Shit, why even let there be a minority party in Congress, they lost right?

He said he'd vote to confirm her, you !!!

--PunkDavid (who successfully fought the evil urge to straight up delete your post)

It is a free country. Feingold is free to speak his mind and the Bush administraiton is free to either listen or ignore.

That is freedom my friend.

P.S. I care what you say even if you disagree with me. I don't have to, but I can choose to. That is why America is great.