Meet the Next President::

[goreo8]

Russ Feingold knows what he wants

WASHINGTON - As the only senator to have voted against the Patriot Act and the only presidential hopeful to have voted against the Iraq war, Russ Feingold is sometimes tempted to say “I told you so.”

“Yeah, but I was taught it’s impolite to do that,” the Wisconsin liberal tells The Examiner in an interview. “And it also doesn’t help you get where you want to go.”

The White House is where Feingold wants to go. He is counting on his consistent opposition to the Iraq war to get him there.

“He is, I think, the one Democrat who can say he’s 100 percent pure,” says columnist David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register.

Indeed, Feingold has become the left’s dark horse candidate in a contest crowded with Democrats who at least initially supported the war, including senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards.

“People are prepared to live with a good candidate who says ‘I was wrong’ after the fact,” Feingold says. “But I think people would strongly prefer a candidate who had the judgment that’s right in the first place.

http://www.examiner.com/a-293244~Meet_the_Next_President__Russ_Feingold_knows_what_he_wants.html

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. If Gore doesn't run, I could vote for Feingold.

Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992; Re-elected in 1998 and 2004.

U.S. Senate Committee Assignments: Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Budget and Intelligence

Elected to the Wisconsin State Senate in 1982; Re-elected 1986 and 1990

[Warpy]

3. I'll vote for whatever Democrat they decide to run

unless the DLC, in it's infinite wisdom, picks an antichoicer.

There are some I'd prefer, and some I'd have to take a shower after, and a couple I'd have to delouse after. Feingold is one for whom I'd be happy to fill out that optiscan ballot.

(Yes, NM got rid of the touch screen machines after we got burnt in 2004)

[blm]

2. Judgement to stay SILENT for most of his years in the senate while OTHER

senators stuck their neck out on the toughest battles?

Maybe to some - not to me. He has a good legislative voting record and a LOUSY record of confirmation votes.

He has not used his senate platform to take on the hard battles, and did not offer vocal support for those Dem senators who did.

Even on his one big issue of campaign reform, he UNDERCUT the public financing movement being led by Kerry and Wellstone, and joined with McCain for a COSMETIC reform bill, and then let McCain do all the visible LEADING.

His newfound voice in the senate has been great to hear - but, why didn't he ever use it in support of the serious issues faced by the senate in ALL of his 13 years there?

I can vote for him just as much as most other Democrats, but I take issue with the way he is being portrayed now by clueless reporters who haven't a clue what is in the congressional records of this country's lawmakers.

[acmejack]

4. Better go with with wonder Kerry again?

edit : I forgot, reporting for duty (with those millions I saved for fighting to have every vote counted!)

[blm]

8. Blame the DNC's office of voter integrity that didn't do its job BEFORE

the election.

They let us down and let the Dem candidates down.

They promised that what happened in 2000 would never happen again. They also chose to NOT believe in machine fraud after 2002.

The same team of election lawyers who told Gore he HAD a case to continue told Kerry he had no legal evidence to contest the count in COURT.

Kerry could only get the votes counted that were there. Most of the votes weren't there because the DNC did not do its job countering RNC tactics for the four years after 2000.

And ANY candidate in 2004 would have gone into election day with the same team of Dem election lawyers and experts. And NONE of them, including Russ, has even HINTED that the 2004 election was stolen through fraud.

[skipos]

5. I'd vote for him but

it would sure be nice to have a good 08 candidate who is from a flippable red state and is NOT a senator. We need all the EVs we can get, and we need to accept the fact that senators have a tougher time getting elected President.

[CrispyQ]

7. Brian Schweitzer!

Yea, baby! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[mrgorth]

13. Agreed

but he doesn't seem to be interested.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Schweitzer gambles with his political future if he runs in '08

He has less political experience than John Edwards and if he fails to capture the nomination, Montana will not be forgiving of his neglecting his duties as Governor for two years. If he serves a term or two as Governor he has many more viable options open to him and his career won't end if he doesn't get the nomination the first time.

[acmejack]

6. That's true anyone with a voting record that they can trash.

Is dead meat. Of course that is a two way street, which is why they won't run McCain or Allen.

[blm]

15. I think McCain IS running and BushInc will help him in the long run.

They have too much at stake to let a Democrat in who would open the books on them. They would have to hope that one of their pet Democrats gets in who they can TRUST will close the books like Clinton did in 93.

[bigdarryl]

9. He's got a big problem and that is...

He's married twice and divorced twice the republicans would exploit that.maybe even some democrats. politics is nasty and dirty its about bloodying your opponent

[Ninja Jordan]

11. What the hell's a "democrate"?

[wyldwolf]

10. Another "next president?"

Nah.

[Ninja Jordan]

12. Maybe as a Veep

He doesn't have the necessaries to win at the top of the ticket. He is unmarried, twice divorced, Jewish name yada yada yada

[wyldwolf]

14. ..not only that...

... he practically sold Bill Clinton down the river and his campaign finance laws have proved to be a detriment to Democrats.

[maxsolomon]

16. Feingold/Clark

or vice versa.

he needs some military spine in his ticket or the rubes will dismiss him.

[FrenchieCat]

17. well....

:boring: ....

Me, I'm waiting to meet the next congressional majority. Now, that will be something to behold! :)

[SaveElmer]

18. Not likely...

A possible veep candidate...but I doubt even that...

[JNelson6563]

19. I'm hoping for Gore/Feingold

:toast:

[karynnj]

20. Kerry was NEVER for the war - It only helps the Bushies to conflate

the IWR vote with the war. Kerry spoke out BEFORE Bush went to war.


In his MAJOR POLICY SPEECH on Iraq - that the media, unlike in any previous election opted not to cover to any reasonable degree, Kerry said:

"Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president, would have needed that threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

(APPLAUSE)

The power entrusted to the president purposefully gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple: We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation, If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.

Instead, the president rushed to war, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went purposefully, by choice, without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted by choice, without making sure that our troops even had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead by choice, without understanding or preparing for the consequences of postwar. None of which I would have done."

The reasons Kerry sited here were the same as those he spoke in October 2002.

The media said Kerry shifted position - but the documents exits - he very consistently said the same thing - unlike the Bush administration.

Since October 2005, Kerry has consistantly and repeatedly acknowledged that, though one should be able to trust the President on war, the vote was wrong. It was an authority that he should not have given to Bush and he said he profoundly regrets it. What it never was though was Kerry ever being for going to war.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Kerry shouldn't have trusted Bush with the authority to go to war

And he knew when he was casting that vote that no matter how many statements he made to the contrary, it would be viewed as support for the war.

Don't get me wrong, I understand Kerry's position but he should've voted against the resolution. Had he done so, I think it's quite possible he would be President right now.

[blm]

26. That's expecting the media would have portrayed ANY stance honestly.

Dean's position was never dealt with honestly - he was turned into a radical antiwar zealot. Kucinich was turned into a hippie peacenik.

And you had the additional dilemma of having Bill Clinton going around on tv saying it was important to support Bush on this.

Who sez ANY position was unspinnable in 2004? It took a category 5 hurricane to blow back at sone of the newsmedia as an event that was IMPOSSIBLE to spin.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Not saying that the media wouldn't have done their spin

But it would've been much more difficult to make it look like Kerry had no position if he had simply voted against the war.

[blm]

29. The media spun IWR into a prowar position, when IWR would have PREVENTED

war with its directives for weapon inspectors and increased diplomacy.

Would have prevented war if it had been any other president administering it - even Reagan.

[Greyhound]

31. Same shit different day. He expects us to believe that he believed

idiot frat boy wouldn't mis-use the authority he voted for? BS, he isn't that stupid and that he apparently believes we are, is insulting. No sale. :grr:

[enough already]

21. Russ is The Man

He has easily moved to the top of my wish list for Prez.

[Vidar]

22. He's easily the best man, but I'm unsure of his electability.

[Greyhound]

32. How about Russ as the VPOTUS in charge of politics and domestic

policy, with Clark as POTUS handling foreign policy?

[Vidar]

34. Not bad at all, but how do we replace him in the Senate?

Kerry tries but comes in a very distant second to Russ as a crusader.

[Greyhound]

35. Surely Wisconsin can come up with at least 1 more genuine Democrat. n/t

:kick:

[Ignacio Upton]

24. I'm supporting Warner in 2008

Although if Gore runs I'll support him. While I like Feingold and feel that he would make a great President, I don't feel that he's electable (and no I'm not trying to be DLCish about this.) Being a secular liberal Jew (to differentiate from more conservative and Orthodox Jews like Lieberman, who while we hate, could still do better with "moral types" and "law and order" types in red states than someone like Feingold could) who's twice-divorced won't play in large parts of the country.

[Clark2008]

28. So you'e opting for a corporate lackey instead?

Don't we have enough of those in politics already?

[Greyhound]

30. My only question for him would be "Why didn't you stand up and

support the representatives that contested the vote in 2000"? I'll be supporting Clark in the primary, but if Russ gets the nod I have no problem supporting his candidacy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Snowball, meet Hell.

Russ Feingold would make a good President if he *were* to somehow win both the Democratic primary and the national election, but it would take two separate miracles, each making the feeding of the 5000 look like a cheap party conjuring trick, for that to happen.