Feingold Supports a Somewhat Urgent Question

[erpowers]

How do we Feingold supporters stop the candidates we did not really want to run as the Democratic nominee for President from getting the nod over Feingold. It seems to me that the media is trying to push certain candidates and will continue to try to push certain candidates on the Democratic Party. So what do we do? Do we write letters to editors?

[acmejack]

1. You don't.

The preordained party candidate will get the nod, period. I really believe it is all grand theater for our benefit. Last time Kerry was the chosen one and voila there he was-this time, focus group says...

[karynnj]

11. Actually Kerry wasn't preordained by anyone

If he were preordained he wouldn't have had his fund raising nearly dried up in December 2003. The media's main topic of interest about him was when would he drop out. Dean had all the media and Lieberman likely had the party support.

[LittleClarkie]

35. God knows Dean was getting the Hillary treatment in 2003

He was the frontrunner before anyone cast a vote.

Kerry was assumed DOA.

A Deaniac person I know still wishes Dean had gotten the nod. "We should have picked him over Kerry" she said. I asked why he didn't win then. Oddly, she said it was because of his organization in Iowa. Awash in money, they spent it frivolously. Kerry, who appears to work better when coming from behind, did just that.

I've never understood why folks thought that Kerry was picked by anyone.

[Samantha]

38. I simply assumed a DLC candidate would get the nod

Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, the Democratic party has its so-called elite. That element controls the machinery. Bill Clinton controlled the DLC in 2004 (and probably still does).

The Washington Post published an article stating that so-called party leaders were alarmed at the rise of Dean, who they thought should not be the nominee. If his rise continued, they would stop him. I could not believe these so-called leaders would be so bold as to put their intent in print, but what do I know? I posted the article here. I hope you do not ask me to go out and get the link again.

The obvious reason the DLC wanted a candidate like Kerry to win (and blocked Al Gore) was for the Hillary benefit. Hillary could not have challenged an incumbent Democratic president in 2008, ergo, Bush* had to be re-elected. Call me cynical if you wish (I also posted that when Gore said he would not run in 2004) -- but the party did jerk the rug out from Gore in 2004 and it jerked the rug out from underneath Dean in the primaries. By "party" I mean DLC, not the little people like you and I constituting the mere base.

[LittleClarkie]

39. Meh. I wonder why From treats him like a redheaded stepchild now though

I think if the DLC supported someone, it was someone they didn't expect to win. They wanted Hillary 2008. They musta been hatching bricks when it looked like Kerry had momentum toward the end there.

I've never understood what he was doing there on their list. He's far too liberal for them.

[blm]

14. The corporate media tried to kill Kerry's campaign, DLC wanted Lieberman

and Edwards, and media kept UNDER-reporting Kerry's strength on the ground in Iowa while OVER-reporting Dean's for months.

And somehow you claim that Kerry was pre-ordained - HAHAHAHAH. Yeah - the corporate powers really wanted the guy who wrote the Clean Elections bill, worked on Kyoto Protocol, and uncovered BCCI in the White House.

The best advice I can give Feingold supporters at this stage is to stick with FACTS whenever you discuss your guy and other Democrats - that way you won't be part of disinformation campaigns that end up supporting the RNC and its candidates.

[HereSince1628]

2. Feingold will be Dean-monized. He is cut off from party insiders

who like all the good-old boys (and mafioso for that matter) sit in rooms filled with cigar smoke and dole out positions and territorial control on the basis of loyalty and family ties.

We can assail the editors but it will only be seen as ranting and ravings of a lunatic fringe who don't understand that the good old boys have the answers to all our problems.

Feingold is getting and is going to get more of the same treatment Howard Dean did.

You are asking how to raise a David to the stature of Goliath. It isn't by simply presenting the truth. Truth without power just gains you ridicule as a Quixotic fool. Power takes money, and you really stop the march of any campaign the same way the good-old boys stopped Dean--you must exhaust the opponent's money.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Kerry won over Iowans by a lot of hard work. Media did not want Kerry.

The M$M did nothing to help John Kerry--they collectively bent over backwards to support the inept, incompetent Bush--a problem we will again have, no matter whom the Democrats nominated for 2008.

[HereSince1628]

12. What you say may be true but money is life for a campaign.

You kill opponents by running them out of money, it is absolutely necessary to wage an effective campaign.

[blm]

16. That's why the media worked to dry up Kerry's funding by under-reporting

his actual ground strength in Iowa.

[karynnj]

13. In reality, Feingold has gotten respect from the leadership

After the Patriot act passed, Senator Reid made a speech on the floor of the Senate praising Feingold's legal expertise, intelligence and moral character in the highest possible terms. He did this in December as well.

Now, at this moment he is likely cut off by many Senators - but he chose this. He announced on TV he was bringing a censure, did it and 2 days later blasted the Senators who didn't follow his approach. Whether this will permanently make him an outsider, who knows?

I think Feingold could be a Dean without the visible anger, which fair or not hurt Dean. Feingold could capture the liberal part of the party - with a crowded field that might be enough. He would need to convince people in Iowa or NH on a face to face basis to pick him. The WI people have said he is very good at this. He's not my favorite candidate - Kerry is - but what he needs to do is what Kerry did last time. Also note that Dean FAR outspent him in Iowa and NH. (Part of what's good with those states is that money alone doesn't suffice.)

[blm]

15. Kerry and Wellstone wrote Clean Elections bill - McCain and Feingold took

the centrist approach, preserving corporate pac money.

So, how is it that Feingold would be cut off by those same powers?

[flpoljunkie]

17. Kerry Clean Money bill from 1997. Feingold Clean Election bill from 2002.

I think it is fair to say they both are supporters of public financing of campaigns. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill was not a "perfect bill" as Harry Reid likes to say, but it was a clear step in the right direction and doable at the time.

Senator Wellstone introduced a "Clean Money, Clean Elections" bill on 4/15/2001 with John Kerry on of four co-sponsors, including Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-02.htm

From a column by Molly Ivins...

Invite Senator Russ Feingold to campaign in Vermont. The Wisconsin Democrat, co-author of the McCain-Feingold reform, refuses to take special interest money but still wins elections even though his Republican opponents out-spend him. Feingold also supports public financing and is co-sponsor of a clean money bill now before Congress.

[blm]

18. McCain-Feingold passed in 2002, but first written in 97. It still would

have been helpful to have more senators PUSH for Clean Elections bill when Kerry and Wellstone submitted it - Russ chose to NOT support it, and instead worked on McCain-Feingold.

So, although I'm glad at least minor reform happened, it certainly escapes me why so many supposed left pundits and reporters get the facts wrong and always point to Feingold as the Clean Elections senator and ignore that it was Kerry and Wellstone who actually advocated for it and submitted the legislation. Good news is that a few states HAVE adopted the language of thst Clean Elections bill for their own state elections.

Seems to me there are WAY too many left journos who get their facts wrong and end up misinforming the public.

[karynnj]

36. The 2001 bill was a reintroduction of the 1997 bill

I think this needs to happen when you enter a new Congress.

[MrBenchley]

3. God forbid you actually make a legitimate case

for why Feingold ought to be president and try to convince others...(snicker)

[erpowers]

4. Are You Asking

Are you asking me to make the case because yes I can.

[MrBenchley]

5. LOL!

No...keep on complaining that some people prefer other candidates.

[erpowers]

20. For Me

For me it is not about the fact that other people prefer other candidates. It is the fact that the media is trying to push candidates on the Democratic Party. I have no problem with other people liking other candidates; however, I do have a problem with the media trying to claim that a candidate has already been picked by the Democratic Party.

[MrBenchley]

22. The media says that

because the Democrats themselves lean that way.

[acmejack]

6. Right on cue!

Always good to have your constructive input, Benchley. Nothing I enjoy more than to see you are on the job.

[MrBenchley]

21. Hey, always glad to point out

the dishonesty and general ugliness of the far left...

[DrGonzoLives]

23. Do you ever have anything intelligent to say?

Just curious.

[MrBenchley]

24. LOL!

Guess "Wahhhhh! how can we stop candidates other people like?" strikes YOU as intelligent....

[DrGonzoLives]

25. Perhaps you could explain to us idiots

why Feingold is the OMG WORST CANDIDATE EVER!!!11onezzzz

[MrBenchley]

26. No...I'll just let this thread speak for me

and leave you wallowing in your impotence.

[DrGonzoLives]

28. Figures

You really are just a troll, aren't you?

[MrBenchley]

30. The thread speaks for itself

but thanks for the personal attack...it sums up our "progressive p[urists" and their "love of freedom" perfectly.

[erpowers]

33. Changing Words

You are totally changing what I said. Do not change my words in order to support you own opinion. I said that I believe the media was trying to push a candidate or candidates on the Democratic Party. The media is acting like the Democrats have already picked the candidate that will run in 2008. My question was how do we stop the media from picking our candidate for us. I do not want a situation in which the media spend a year or two pushing one candidate that they like and then the Democratic Party feels forced to pick that candidate. I never said anything about being against people having a right to pick the candidate they like. I just do not want Feingold steamrolled by the media acting like he has no chance at the nomination because Democrats already picked their candidate, which just happens to be the candidate the media likes.

[MrBenchley]

34. Cry about it to somebody else....

The plain fact is that if more Democrats thought Russ had a chance, they'd be mentioning him.

[Placebo]

7. Last I checked, it was voters who picked our nominee...

not just Feingold supporters.

But I could be wrong.

[MrBenchley]

27. As you can see, Feingold supporters demand a veto

over every other candidate....

[radio4progressives]

32. um Nope. It's Schumer and Emmanuel.

Schumer is concentrating on picking candidates to run for the Senate and Emmanuel is the designated annointer for the House, except that Schumer is kept in the loop, and Emmanuel runs their candidate choices by him.

Schumer has big money, he has the media and connections to bring enough big guns to really destroy things for grassroots activism and grassroots nominees/candidates.

If anyone thinks we've got some sort of democratic process going on here, you are as delusional as i was until now. So it's up to us to convey to Schumer and Emmanuel that we don't like what they're doing.

[mopinko]

8. move to iowa

or new hampshire. :shrug:
i hear ya. they will stuff whatever loser they want down our throats.

[Debi]

19. That is not a true statement at all

Iowa voters caucus for the person they believe will be the best nominee. New Hampshire voters vote for the person they believe will be the best nominee. The MSM goes batshit crazy about the person who receives the most delegates from those two states and then voters jump like lemmings off a cliff rather than making up their own minds. The winner of Iowa and New Hampshire is just that. Don't blame those two states for the herd mentality that follows. :(

[mrgorth]

10. Not much

Give to your candidate. Talk to rich dems about Spinegold. Work for him. Write LTTEs. That's about it.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. First,

do NOT go to Iowa. Caucuses are too easily manipulated. The Iowa caucus is a tool for the Big Boys and media to decide FOR us who the nominee will be and the DLC/DCCC/DSCC already have several of their tools lined up. The MOST important thing here is to ensure that 200+ Iowans, who are hardly the bellwether of American opinion, DO NOT choose our candidate this time. It is ESSENTIAL that people in New York and Pennsylvania and Florida and California and THE REST OF THE COUNTRY get an input this time.

Second, fire up the grassroots money-making machine because we're going to need it. The people who hold the big money will be throwing all they have at us INCLUDING anti-Feingold smear ads. Remember the Kerry/Gebhardt/Edwards-funded campaign ads against Dean comparing him to Osama bin Laden? They'll do it again except this time they'll paint him as a "librul," emphasize that he's divorced AND (gasp!) a Jew!!!! And THAT'S just the Democrats. (I consider the swift boat ads against Kerry karma.)

Third, take advantage of the fact that the progressives are the activists, the worker bees, the people who are on the front lines and who will GOTV. THAT is what you need to win elections. The candidate with the most money is NOT always the winning candidate. Remember Huffington in CA. All that money did not win him the Senate seat.

Feingold is our ONLY hope because if it's anyone else, the progressives will vote third party. I think the progressives would vote for Gore as well but so far we don't have any indication he's going to run. We will no longer tolerate being told to "shut up and vote." The mainstream Democrats and mainstream media don't yet have a clue that THE PROGRESSIVES HAVE ALREADY WALKED if one more DLC clown is shoved down our throats.

[karynnj]

37. Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt did not fund the ads

The people who did had also given money to at least one of these candidates - mostly to Gephardt. These 2 actions were independent. Kerry condemned the ad. The fact that Torrecelli gave money to Kerry and to this effort - certainly does mean that he told Torrecelli to donate to the anti-Dean ad. Which DID NOT compare Dean to Bin Laden but questioned how he would deal with him.

[radio4progressives]

31. It isn't the Media - It's the Party leadership - headed now by Schumer

in so far as the Senate is concerned but he's also interferring with House races. and it's him that has the access to the Media.

all according a very long and interesting article i posted links to hear on DU at blog.

So, the strategy isn't the media.. the Strategy is to organzie a delegation and to schedule pow wows with Schumer in Washington DC. Not one meeting, but several meetings. a delegation that acts like a huge pain in the ass until he finally gets the message.

that's my thought... :shrug: