Although I am disappointed that Sen. Russ Feingold has decided not to run for president in '08, I completely understand his reasons.
There are other obvious reasons also such as the political climate, it is still much too volatile. Plus, people just don't like those who were right all along. Feingold has been one of the few early opponents to the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. Secondly, America isn't ready for someone like Russ Feingold to be president, for the same reasons Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton probably won't make it either. Popular among their own constituents, yes. Elected freely by a majority of Americans for president, no.
Without elaborating further, I believe there is a huge bloc of voters out there who still refuse to allow those they believe to be second class citizens to be president. Feingold is among them. Chosen as a VP running mate though, he may have a chance. Don't get me wrong here, I love the man (I'm not gay).
But this whole thing played out in ways that can cause the imagination to run. When Tommy Thompson played with the idea of running for president (and he still may), I thought it was an attempt to goad Feingold into running and abandon his senate seat, thereby allowing Thompson to switch gears and run for Feingolds empty chair largely unopposed. So, it's a good thing all around, Feingold is a smart man, and I'm more than happy to selfishly keep him right here in Wisconsin. Plus, he deserves to finally work with a Dem majority in the senate. Times are a'changin.
23 comments:
I doubt if Feingold would have given up his senate seat if he was running for President. He knew he is unelectable as President.
I think it would be very hard to run for both president and senator leading up to the primaries. Not that it can't be done. Kerry pulled it off in 2004, and saved his seat somehow.
I also don't think Feingold did this to spite Thompson. I just feel that had Feingold announce his intent for the presidency, Thompson would consider the senate seat. Just a hunch.
Feingold did make the right choice he is a Madison liberal and he would have a uphill battle even getting the democratic nomination. He's to far to the left and he only appeals to the far left democrats. He doesn't appeal to the average American.
J.J your saying that 60% of Americans are against the war. That is a little misleading. I support the war. I think it was the right thing to do at the time when all the facts were presented and after the attacks on the world trade center. I do agree we should look at other avenues in this war in Iraq. I feel the Iraqi people need to take hold of their new government and defend themselves. I feel that maybe 20% of the 60% are completely anti-war people and don't like any kind of war what so ever. I don't know how you can call yourself a conservative democrat and you like Feingold. This guy is as far left as you can get. He does stick to his values and doesn't back down from them. Which I do give him credit for that. But, I really don't like his policies and his positions on most issues.
I think the country just moved slightly to the left and closer to the center with the Dem win on Tuesday. Feingolds idealogy may not be as far left as you think, unless you're far right. Our Congress was a rogue Congress for the past 12 years and those who dissented were outcast like Feingold. He is a fundamental American who puts liberty first, the environment second and wealth third, not the other way around.
While Paul Ryan writes more power for the president in his complicated earmark policy, Nancy Pelosi asks for the simplest and most effective change of all that is necessary. Just sign your name to it, so everyone can see who is requesting the pork, and not rely on one man to use his judgment as he see's fit.
Most of the 60% figure are 20% anti-war nuts and the other 40% are the ones who think we need to do something differently in Iraq not, necssararly oppose the war all together. I just saw a poll that had 57% of Americans believe the dems don't have a plan for the war in Iraq. And this is after the election when the dems took controlof the congress and senate. It will be interesting to see what they do now that their feet are held to the fire. It seems Harry Reid has already said it depends on the President. Already positioning theirselves for fauilure.
I wasn't blaming the democrats at all J.J. I just simply stated that they are setting themselves up to fail. Of course it's up to the President and he has stated time after time all options for Iraq are on the table. The problem is that the dems haven't come up with their own plan. They simply say that the current plan isn't working. That isn't a plan. It should be interesting to see what happens now that they have control. I will just sit back with my popcorn and watch. Your far from conservative J.J your a liberl.
A consevative democrat that supports Feingold? PLEASE. Feingold doesn't have obe ounce of conservativism in his blood. He's anti-military, pro-abortion big government spend crazy liberal.
I'm all for protecting the constitution but, Feingold wants to protect the terrorists as well. He wants to give them the same liberties WE as AMERICANS have. That isn't consevative. He believes late term abortions are alright. That isn't conservative. He's not conservative. We have been engaged in a war and with war comes the costs of war. This is why we have a deficit right now. I don't like the idea of how he has spent money but, I also know that fighting two wars is going to cost money. I hope the dems have an idea to help in Iraq instead of critizing the President at ever turn that isn't a policy. That's why they were voted into power. If they fail they will be voted out of power. As Americans we should hope they can work together for the interest of this country. Critizing the President doesn't help at all. Maybe if they would actually come up with a plan and present it to the nation it would do them a lot of good.
I recall in some news soundbites that the cost of the Iraq war has not been included in our annual deficits for the past three years. I understand that our war machine is a huge part of the budget and the prez has been requesting $80 billion "one-time" appropriations every year just to keep the Iraq war oiled. If this is true, then our debt is much worse than reported.
Bush painted us into a corner and wasted international support and friendship. We know the best way out of Iraq is to trade soldiers with anyone willing to get involved, but who's crazy enough to do that now?
Republicans feel the Dems don't have a plan because they know there is no way out without it looking like the same defeat the Russians experienced twenty years ago when bin laden bled them for almost ten years in Afghanistan.
Bush and his neo-cons are repeating failed history and they've taken old conservative Republicans down with them.
"Feingold wants to protect the terrorists as well." Well if you have been brainwashed by Bush, all Americans who are against him are terrorists and Democrats are terrorists. Sure, he never said it in those exact words but he implied it the only way a plain spoken fella like he is, could. Feingold wants to protect Americans without regard to race, economic class or sex. But to some Americans, Americans are terrorists.
I'm curious to know exactly how Feingold wants to protect terrorists, as in 9-11 style Islamic extremists and al-quaida suicidals.
He voted against the Patriot Act. Which gives the government tools to catch terrorists. The same tools that are currently used by law enforcement agencies to capture drug dealers and mobsters.
He also voted against the autorization trial by military violations of the law of war. Thinks giving social security benefits to illegal aliens is a good thing to do. He also voted against making certain adjustments to the alternative minimum tax to prevent 15 million middle class families from having to pay this additional tax. He also voted against the deficit reduction act of 2005. Which would reduce federal spending by 40 billion over five years. He seems to be part of the spending problems in Washington. He supports partial birth abortions. He also supports liability lawsuits against the manufacturers, distributors,dealers or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. I could go on and on about this guy.
How many terrorists have we caught using the powers of the Patriot Act? Its a secret because they don't want to the terrorists to re-adjust - give me a break. Eavedropping without warrants and torture should be illegal on anyone's soil. Russ Feingold has ranked extremely low on novelty Congressional power ranking systems, but you seem to have him pegged as the kingpin for the spending problems and initiatives of the once Republican-led Congress. Anybody who pays into Social Security and is vested in the system should be given its benefits. The illegal immigrant issue is far more than what we are talking about here. I believe like Feingold, its up to the courts and juries to decide on both frivolous and liability lawsuits, not some greasy politician. I don't agree with him on every single issue, but he is fundamentally correct whether you like him or not.
Ya lets's tell the enemy what's working and what's not working. Let's just give them a little glimpse of hope so they may in fact think they have a chance to defeat us.
J.J It was never stated that the patriot act tells terrorists anything. I'm not sure where you came up with that. The government doesn't eavesdrop on US citizens. It's used to tap international phone calls between know terrorists. We don't torture people either another liberal myth. I'm all for sleep depravation or playing heavy metal music for 24 hours a day to make a terrorist talk. If it saves an American life keep doing it. How has President Bush hurt democracy? You say your a conservative democrat with talking points like what you have written your a true blue liberal.
I love how the term "liberal" gets thrown around like it's an insult. It's like when you can't win an argument, your last resort is to just give up and say "F%&^ you." In politics, the last resort, instead, is to call someone a liberal.
As someone who has been described as a Republican on this site due to pro-business articles I have written, I would just like to say that Sen. Feingold is my favorite politician. Instead of trying to describe him as liberal or conservative, can't we just agree that the guy is perhaps the best representation of a true independent? What else do you call the only Dem who voted to allow the president to appoint John Ashcroft and the only one with enough of a spine to stand up and say the Patriot Act had some serious flaws? The guy marches to his own drummer, and that's a good thing. We need more people in Congress that think and less mindless lemmings who blindly follow the party line.
It's hard to fault Feingold for opposing parts of the Patriot Act when he was simply following the lead of Benjamin Franklin, who published the statement, "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Though I suppose Franklin could have been a true blue liberal who supported terrorists, too.
At any rate, three cheers for Sen. Feingold, who has the guts to be true to himself and make decisions based on what he thinks is best for the country, not his own personal interests.
It's great that Mr. Feingold stands for what he believes in but, some of the issues he has voted on make me question him aa little bit. To vote against the patriot act is one thing if he sees flaws in it then fix the flaws. His voted against altering the alternative minimum tax really is going to hurt a lot of middleclass Americans. It has already hurt some of my family members.
Feingold knew he had a snowballs chance in hell to be President. Why run when you know you have no chance of winning.
Changing the AMT is still on the table and Feingold was one of 73 senators to express that protecting middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax should be a higher priority for Congress in 2006. See Senate rollcall. In fact, nearly all the senators who want to leave the AMT just the way it is are Republicans. Feingold was also one of 43 senators voting yes to ensure that legislation is not enacted that increases the number of taxpayers affected by the alternative minimum tax. But again Republicans put the gabosh on that also. Results are here Before they modify or eliminate the tax, the senate will need to figure out how to replace the lost billion$$, thats the problem.
To cover the lost billions that they wouldn't have if it wasn't for the automatic tax that will hurt millions of middle income people. To adjust it would not loss billions of dollars. That's just plan dumb thinking. If they just simply adjusted it to what it was suppose to do when they implemented it to cover the percentage of wage earners that it's suppose to cover they would have the same amount of taxes coming in as they did before.
Right howard that tax is effecting new people into the tax that weren't affected by it before. So, it's just new money that the government would recieve from taxes. It's money the government has't seen yet so it's not really lost money.
One thing. If they don't lose billions by adjusting it then that means they are not taking any money from taxpayers, why bother doing anything at all? Secondly, if its "new" money the government hasn't seen yet, how do we know it's even there. The government needs x amount of dollars to run in the red by x amount of dollars. Bush and Rep. Paul Ryan have said that their taxcuts caused more money to flow into the treasury, so using their logic if a little taxcut is good alot is better?
Best idea yet is to rollback the taxcuts on the top 5% earners, make the taxcuts permament for the lower 95%. Then raise the income bracket substantially on AMT payers to reflect the wage earners it was intended for in the first place.
All they have to do is adjust it to inflation it currently doesn't. So, ever year as people make more money the closer they get to paying this extra tax that they wouldn't normally have to pay. They need to do something with it. It's going to effect a lot more people 1/5 of taxpayers by 2010.
Feingold is a joke. This man is soooo far to the left he wouldn't be able to even get the parties nomination. He only appeals to the looney lefties.
Post a Comment