Glenn Greenwald: Interview with Senator Russ Feingold

[Better Believe It]

Interview with Senator Russ Feingold
By Glenn Greenwald
September 14, 2010

Even for those who are disillusioned and angry with the Democratic Party, or even apathetic about the outcome generally of the 2010 elections, Russ Feingold is one of the very few candidates whose re-election is genuinely worth caring about. No matter how bad Democrats generally become, Feingold's presence in the Senate provides unique and real value. I spoke with him for 15 minutes late last week about a variety of topics, including Obama's civil liberties record. The discussion can be heard by clicking PLAY on the player below. But before you listen, I'd like to review just some of the reasons for my view that Feingold's re-election is compelling and important, and why I strongly encourage donating to his campaign as part of his "Money Bomb" today as he tries, within the confines of his self-imposed campaign finance limits, to defeat an extremist, multi-millionaire, right-wing candidate who will be as radically awful on civil liberties, secrecy and war issues as Feingold is great.

Feingold is responsible for what is easily one of the most courageous political acts of the last decade, when he stood up on the Senate floor a mere six weeks after the 9/11 attacks -- in a climate in which almost nobody with a real platform was willing to dissent on anything, let alone anything significant -- and vehemently warned of the dangers posed by the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. He then proceeded to cast the only Senate vote against that Orwellian-ly named bill, making it a 98-1 vote in favor. As he explained on October 25, 2001, he had even spoken on the Senate floor on September 12 -- within 24 hours of the 9/11 attack -- to warn of the dangers to the Constitution which overreaction would cause.

Equally impressive is Feingold's placement of principle over party. As many of the above events demonstrate, he is one of the very few Democratic officials just as willing to criticize his own Party leaders when merited as he is Republicans -- not from the Right (like Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman) but based on his principled commitments to these political values. He's a far more idiosyncratic and independent figure than is commonly understood (as evidenced by his recent vote against Obama's financial reform plan on the ground that enacting such a weak measure would do more harm than good in dealing with the menace of Wall Street corruption). As my interview with him demonstrates, he has been one of the earliest and most emphatic critics of Obama's continuation of Bush's civil liberties and executive power abuses. And his crusade against the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics has almost cost him his seat in the Senate, as he bravely applied his principles to himself by refusing to accept soft money in his very closely contested 1998 re-election bid.

Feingold is not a perfect politician; nobody is. There are issues where I disagree with him. But the serious value of his being in the Senate is due not only to his positions on specific issues, but to the type of individual he is. No matter how disgusted one is with the Democratic Party, his being in the Senate enables these vital issues and critiques that nobody else expresses to be heard -- including those aimed at his own party (see here and here) -- and often single-handedly prevents their being suppressed. His positions on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and their various sub-Committees empower him to force an examination of surveillance, secrecy, Constitutional and rule of law issues that would otherwise be ignored. There are very few politicians this year whom I would encourage others to support in any way, but I really believe that a Russ Feingold loss would be a devastating blow to most of the political issues I write and care about.

Transcript: Interview with Senator Russ Feingold

The transcript of this interview is posted here:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2010/09/14/feingold_transcript/index.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2010/09/14/feingold/index.html?source=rss

[HughMoran]

1. "those who are disillusioned and angry with the Democratic Party"

Glenn has to start every piece like that?

Amazing. I can see the appeal for some :eyes:

[LWolf]

10. Would you prefer to pretend we don't exist?

Or to work, like Rahm, Gibbs, and Obama himself, to belittle us, or marginalize us?

Do you think that's going to make us non-existent, or safe-guard the centrist democrats and their agenda?

[sabrina 1]

31. So would you say that Nancy Pelosi is dreaming when she expresses to the WH

her concerns about the loss of support for Democrats by many who voted for them in 2008? Glenn Greenwald started this article that way because it is a fact. And those who are in denial about that fact are not helping to solve the problem.

If you don't recognize that there is a problem how can you fix it? People ARE disillusioned and angry at Democrats.

If Republicans take back control of this government I know who will be to blame and so will millions of others whose worst nightmare is a Republican controlled government. To have handed Dems the power to change the way things had been in DC, only to see them bring Republicans back into positions of power, such as this ridiculous Deficit Commission which elevated people like Alan Simpson and Grover Norquist to powerful positions the voters stated clearly they did not want them to have, was a slap in the face to those who supported Democrats.

I could go on, but please do not act as though Democrats over and over again, have not given people reason for disillusionment.

[Uzybone]

2. Feingold is a fine man

casts a few weird votes here and there, but overall is a gem in the senate. We need 100 Feingolds in the Senate.

Greenwald on the other hand is a worthless hack.

[Better Believe It]

3. "Greenwald is a worthless hack." And that of course is why Senator Feingold appeared on his show!

Yikes!

Let's see if we can reach down a little deeper into the bucket of mud.

Got some slinging to do!

If you sling enough of the crap some of it will stick!

Greenwald is a worthless hack!

That might stick!

[Uzybone]

4. Greenwald slings mud too

so don't twist over too much in defense of the man.

As for the senator, many of them appear on shows of media idiots/blogging fools because that is what they have to do. I once saw Kucinich being interviewed by Tweety, after the interview Tweety was still a fool.

[Better Believe It]

5. So Feingold appears on a "media idiot" shows because he has to? Sure he does.

And here I thought the good Senator was an independent type who bowed down to no one.

Thanks for the info.

Well, Greenwald has never seemed like an idiot to me.

Any more hysterical mud slinging outbursts from you and we just might have to start pumping Valium into you!

Would you be slinging chairs and crap around if we were in a room?

Calm down, relax and be civil.

OK?

[Uzybone]

6. its not really about bowing down to anyone

that doesn't make sense in relation to what I wrote. You think Feingold goes on cable shows and gets interviewed by hacks just for the heck of it?

The blogger is an idiot to me so there.

Its also impossible to figure out someones state of calmness based on internet posts. By that measure based on the vitriol that Greenwald posts Id image he'd be in a straight-jacket. Its also completely irrelevant.

[SidDithers]

9. And here's Feingold on Fox with Chris Wallace...

do you think he went on there because it's what Senators do? That he went on that media idiots show, because he had to?




By your sadly misplaced logic, Feingold appearing with Chris Wallace legitimizes Wallace's political views.

Sid

[dionysus]

18. i'll try. greenwald is a worthless imbecile.

[SidDithers]

7. Unrec...

Greenwald is a perpetually-outraged ass.

Sid

[Better Believe It]

11. Have you no shame? Why do you continue your hate posts and personal attacks against progressives?

Why do you continue to suggest progressives are right-wing idiots? And to compare someone like Glenn Greenwald to Chris Wallace is beyond outrageous.

I've seen enough hate posts from you so I have to put you on ignore.

Bye.

[SidDithers]

12. Yay!!! I'm ignored!!

But I noticed you didn't address your logic fail.

You: Greenwald must be OK, why else would a noted Progressive like Russ Feingold go on his show?

Me: Here's Feingold on with Chris Wallace. Does that also make Wallace OK?

You: Waaahhh! Hater! Hate! Yargle Blargle! Ignore!

:rofl: Too fucking funny.

Sid

[Cha]

13. Yeah, you're "ignored" with the canned spam response given to

anybody who presents logic.."Have you no shame? Why do you continue your hate posts and personal attacks against progressives?"

progressives? :rofl:

[SidDithers]

14. Sure, BBI was oh so progressive...

when he was spamming DU with articles defending the poor Chinese agains the Tibetan terrorists, back around the time of the Beijing Olympics. How times have changed, eh?

Sid

[JuniperLea]

29. OMG I remember that!

:eyes:

[SidDithers]

16. Kick for giant logic fail...

so more DU'ers can get a chance to see.

Sid

[DevonRex]

15. Wait, you can't ignore him before you call him a stalker too.

:rofl:

[dionysus]

19. why won't you leave me ALONE! eleventycrisis!11!! launch the CRUSI MISSELS!!11

:hi:

[dionysus]

20. Have you no shame? Why do you continue your hate posts and personal attacks against Democrats?

[BzaDem]

22. +1

[BzaDem]

21. Glenn Greenwald is no progressive. He bashes progressives. He even supports Citizens United.

He bashes progressives who actually want progressive change (with the canard that they are "not being progressisve enough," and therefore all change should be voted down). And then, in the next breath, he supports the Citizens United decision and claims that corporations can spend just as much as they want on campaigns.

[Better Believe It]

24. Of course. He's a right-wing Republican who hates all Democrats. Thanks for the info.

Sure glad you straightened all of us out on that.

So why is Greenwald supporting Senator Feingold and helping to raise money for his campaign?

Oh, I get it!

Greenwald is so uninformed he must think Feingold is a "Tea Party" Republican!

So are Robert Reich and Michael Moore also pretending to be progressives?

I missed Greenwald's appeal to Congress urging them to vote down all legislative changes because they aren't progressive enough.

Please post the link to that.

You didn't just make that up .... right?

[BzaDem]

25. Glenn Greenwald just PRAISED Feingold for voting no on Financial Reform, because it "didn't go far

enough!"

That is NOT a logically valid reason for voting down change.

I never said Greenwald hates all Democrats. I said he subscribes to the idea that it is a logically sound statement to say something should be voted down "because it doesn't go far enough." This doesn't cause progress (but rather the opposite of progress).

In other words, the reason we are making progress is DESPITE people like Greenwald, not BECAUSE of them.

[dionysus]

26. +1

[Better Believe It]

32. That's not accurate. Find out the real reason why Feingold voted against the bill in his own words:

Senator Feingold did not vote against the bill simply because "it didn't go far enough".



Feingold Statement on Voting Against the Flawed Financial Regulatory Reform Bill

Thursday, July 15, 2010

“At the outset of the debate over the financial regulatory reform bill, I made clear that my test for this bill would be whether it prevents another economic crisis. Unfortunately, this bill falls short. The reckless practices of Wall Street sent our economy reeling, triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression, and left millions of Americans to foot the bill. Despite these cataclysmic events, Washington once again caved to Wall Street on key issues and produced a bill that fails to protect the American people from the pain of another economic disaster. I will not support a bill that fails to adequately protect the people of Wisconsin from the recklessness of Wall Street.”

[depakid]

33. Greenwald's correct- it failed to solve the problems

and left the Democrats owning the next crisis coming down the pipeline.

More of the same.

At some point, if progressives don't stand up and make their positions the ones to negotiate toward, the ideologues will always prevail- and we'll always get "a heck of job"

*I will acknowledge however that yours was at least a substantive criticism, as opposed to the juvenile comments left by several other posters- which do nothing other than cheapen the board and degrade the discussion.

[Better Believe It]

35. Greenwald and Feingold are both correct on that.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[suzie]

28. Why do you continue your hate OPs against Democrats?

[JuniperLea]

30. That's a very, very good question!

I'd like to see the answer too.

:popcorn:

[Better Believe It]

34. Because Greenwald clearly hates Feingold? That's why he supporting Feingold's re-election.

That makes just as much sense as your comment.

[katandmoon]

8. K&R.

[Better Believe It]

17. Kick

[slipslidingaway]

23. knr - n/t