Russ Feingold and Barack Obama Voted FOR CondoLIEsa

[manhattanite]

I just wanted all you Russ and Obama fans to know that your hero betrayed you. The only Democrats to vote against that incompetent crook were Senators Kerry and Boxer.

"Democrats voting in favor were Senators Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the ranking minority member; Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland; Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut; Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin; Bill Nelson of Florida; and Barack Obama of Illinois."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rice.html?oref=login&ex=1106802000

[eyesroll]

1. For what I'm sure will not be the last time...

Feingold gives presidents wide latitude when choosing their cabinet. He said this before he was elected the first time. He said this before he was elected this last time.

It is not a betrayal for Feingold to do something he said he was going to do, and that he has done in the past. It is something that people who've paid attention to him know, and either are OK with or at least choose to overlook when voting for him.

Oy.

[MuseRider]

2. Thanks eyesroll.

I did not know that and it explains todays vote. While I may not agree with him at least I know why HE voted the way he did.

[CWebster]

3. Someone should remind Finegold

that the president is not emperor--and by this time, Finegold shoulnd't be granting Bush any more license to be one.

Obama was a disappointment, but others saw it coming.

[manhattanite]

5. He betrayed us.

He voted to confirm someone is incompetent and corrupt. Why bother with Senate confirmation at all if not to prevent someone with CondoLIEsa' record from being confirmed?

[eyesroll]

6. I'm still having trouble with your definition of betrayal.

He did what he said he was going to do. He said this prior to us re-electing him.

I don't like it. But I knew he was going to do it, before I sent him money and before I connected the little dots on my ballot, for him.

I fail to see the betrayal here.

[greatauntoftriplets]

7. How do you suppose Hillary Clinton will vote....

during the Senate confirmation process?

[ClassWarrior]

23. US?? The two Wisconsinites on this thread...

...eyesroll and I, are defending him. You are a self-proclaimed New Yorker. You have your own Senators to badmouth.

NGU.

[manhattanite]

33. US being the people (Wisconsinites or not) who believed in him.

I will remember his vote if he ever runs in the Presidential primary.

[LittleClarkie]

38. Add me

He is a good man. I disagree with him here, but he is a good man. And he's my senator. Even some of the Repubs in my state like him enough to vote for. They see him as a maverick. We like mavericks in Wisconsin. That, and spring.

Never forget that he voted against the Patriot Act. No one else did. No one. Not Kerry, not Boxer, NO ONE! He stood alone.

I hope he's not about to get "the Kerry treatment." Oye.

[RetroLounge]

43. Make that three wisconsinites

I question you definition of "betrayal" and of "we"

RL

[NicRic]

45. Bingo > Just entrtainment at this point ! N/T

,

[Guaranteed]

11. That's an interesting principle to put up against the fascist

policies of the Bush administration.

[JohnKleeb]

12. Its his philosophy, I respect it, disagree but understand completely

Gonna give Kerry and Boxer both kudos that said but I won't criticize Feingold.

[Dr Fate]

15. Besides, not confirming lying criminals is "too radical"...

...and would "confuse swing voters" and would "cause the media to be mean to us and call us racists."

There- I CAN make excuses!- Am I back in the club now?

Ahh- that sweet, sweet cool-aid!

[ClassWarrior]

21. I remember when Russ voted to confirm Ashcroft.

I went to his web site to read his statement. He said a president should be able to choose his own advisors - but he also alluded to the fact that this courtesy would NOT be extended to other Bush** appointments; that is, to his Extreme Court appointments.

I was also curious when he voted to proceed with a Senate trial against President Clinton during the attempted Radical RW Coup. His statement said that, after much study and reflection, he felt the body had an obligation to hear the arguments being presented.

I may not agree with everything last thing he does, but the man is thoughtful, responsible, and principled. I'll take that in an elected leader any day.

Besides, you can't put a saddle on a maverick, God bless him.

NGU.

[manhattanite]

34. He is a traitor.

He helped the Republicans to impeach Clinton but he votes for whatever scumbag Bush wants for his cabinet.

[madrchsod]

4. oh my god!! is is awful,,,,,

i guess i`ll hang my head in shame. i`ll cross illinois of the only all democratic state now and my weekend in wisconsin has just been cancelled. i guess i`ll just go into the corner with my dunce hat on. dam am i ever dumb for believing in obama. will my children and grandchildren ever forgive me? god i hope so. i am ashamed to be from illinois...can the world ever forgive me?

[greatauntoftriplets]

8. LMAO.

:hi: and :toast:

[madrchsod]

17. hi!

i guess we should have elected keyes? oh well-i guess some people don`t know what committes he was placed on...
veterans and international relations-a real thorn in the side of the klan
surface transport-locks and dams ,airport. all important to the midwest transport system
enviromenment- stop the klan from killing off our world
oh well some people

[no name no slogan]

9. SFW

These "confirmation hearings" are little more than a sideshow-- and they've always been that way. The Democrats on the committee had NO CHANCE of blocking the nomination, so even if they had voted against her, it would not have meant a damn thing. And, since the Repubs control the Senate, Condi will get confirmed by at least a party line vote of 55 in favor, at the VERY least.

Presidents traditionally get the cabinets they want-- the confirmation hearings are a formality. The only exceptions are if the person is grossly incompetant or has very serious personal issues that prevent her/him from acting in the full capacity of the job they're getting appointed to.

All this fussing over the vote is a tempest in a teapot. These "confirmation" votes are little more than a show vote, and don't mean a damned thing in the scope of things.

Let's focus on the REAL issues: when are our troops getting out of Iraq? How do we insure 45 million people who have no medical coverage? How do we curb corporate control not only our economy, but our media and our culture, too?

These things matter. A pre-determined Senate "confirmation vote" does NOT.

[CWebster]

16. Yes it does

Whether she got confirmed, in this climate, doesn't matter. Going on the record and stating "no", in this climate, does. as if, she like her master, weren't incompetent.

Feingold was a fool, and Obama, could he be positioning himself as sympathetic to Rice? He sure extended himself with sympathy towards her. At first I thought he was playing the lawyer games, but I wonder if it is race related? Why, she is whiter than I am, or she sure wishes she was. She has always struck me as a self-loathing African American woman who modeled herself on the WASP model with her prissiness and empty, but snooty utterances.

[no name no slogan]

19. They're already ON record

THEY DID question her, they DID raise good points about her history. The vote is merely a formality.

And quite frankly, she could be a self-loathing Jew for all I cared, I don't give a damn about her looks or whether or not she wants to be a WASP. That has NOTHING to do with her being in Dubya's cabinet.

Some people like to fret over single, meaningless votes. If that's how you judge a politician, I won't stop you. However, to dismiss a pol based on ONE SINGLE VOTE is ludicrous.

[CWebster]

22. Their words amount to nothing without the vote.

Something, I am afraid, John Kerry learned the hard way.

It has everything to do with why she is in. Like Clarence Thomas, she serves 2 purposes: She serves the man while advertising her race and gender as some sort of evidence that Republicans have minority appeal.

[JI7]

36. well, i can see why he wouldn't want his first vote to be a vote

against another minority. especially when it makes no difference in the final outcome.

[CWebster]

42. Is that how shallow Obama is?

Then why didn't Boxer support her because she was a woman?

Wonder how Jesse Jackson, Jr would've voted--or any member of the Congressional Black Caucus. What do you want to bet that she wouldn't have won a single vote?

[stray cat]

10. So what? Presidents get the cabinet they want.

I'll stick with both Feingold and Obama and the rest.

[Guaranteed]

13. So, why do you think Boxer and Kerry voted "no?" nt

[no name no slogan]

20. Nothing left to lose

Kerry's a virtual lame duck, and Boxer is in a safe seat. They have nothing to lose by voting against Condi. It's all politics as usual. Anybody who believes otherwise is either naive or delusional.

[adigal]

14. Yes, Presidents get the Cabinet they want

but it does not have to be with the stamp of approval of the Democrats. I watched the hearings, and I saw Feingold take Rice to taks for incompetence and deceit - over her lack of financial knowledge and the numbers of Iraqi troops in Iraq. Yet, he voted for her. If she is deceitful and incompetent, the moral thing to do would be to vote NO, even if it does not mean she will be derailed.

As for Obama, I was disappointed in him yesterday and more so today. If being "purple" means you tacitly approve of torture and deceit, then I guess I will stick with Blue candidates.

Kerry, who has been so reviled here, voted his conscience. Political??? Perhaps. But at least he took a stand against the Queen of Deceit.

[manhattanite]

35. Exactly. nt

[John_H]

18. Welcome to DU. I think you'll find that most DUers have a worldview

significantly more sophistcated than both eight year olds and one-percenters. Even better, the overwhelming majority of us have very unfreeperlike complete sets of teeth.

[Zhade]

24. Feingold voted for Ashcroft, too.

Is there a method to his madness? I don't understand it at all.

[ClassWarrior]

25. See post #21.

NGU.

[Zhade]

41. Thanks, makes more sense now.

NT!

[Larkspur]

26. Feingold voted against the Patriot Act and Kerry voted for it

but now they switched votes on Condi.

What I want from Democrats is Courage on issues that really matter, like doing everything in their power to stop privatization of Social Security and going on another ill advised war against Iran and/or Syria.

Condi is incompetent and I expect Dems, including Feingold, to hold her and Bush accountable for their actions as they happen.

[youngred]

27. hardly

Biden is right, A president should have the cabinet of his own choosing.

I may find this deeply offensive that she was nominated, but short of galring probs she should be allowed

[Uzybone]

28. Ahhhh super lefty hero Feingold does it again

Ill never forget his vote that allowed Ashcroft to reach the floor. IMO that was the worst vote by a democrat since Bush took over. Worse than IWR, NCLB, Patriot act and all others thaty whiny lefties like to scream about.

[liberalpragmatist]

29. So are we now crucifying Obama and Feingold

I swear, this forum is driving me crazy. I may have to take a breather from her for a few months until some of the, um... "passion" dies down.

Can we ever accept some people without having to agree with every single action or view s/he might hold?! The only person who agrees with me 100% on everything is myself.

[leesa]

40. This is a very IMPORTANT issue and they failed us for no reason at all.

Why do you give these turncoats passes?

[iwantmycountryback]

30. Yes because 1 vote means everything

Despite Feingold being the only Senator to vote NO on the Patriot Act, he voted for somebody who will be confirmed no matter what, therfore he betrayed us. Some people here are much too reactionary and close-minded. Would I have preferred they vote no? Of course. But am I going to throw a hissy fit and declare them traitors to the party? No way.

[nevergiveup]

31. I am from Illinois and I expected Obama

to vote for confirmation. It is just politics and as far as that goes George and Condi deserve each other. However, if X nominates a strict fundamentalist for the Supreme Court and Obama votes "aye" then I will be pissed.

[Leilani]

32. Feingold doesn't change his principles like underwear

the way so many Dems do.

Feingold has laid out a position & his reasoning for it.

You can disagree, but I respect him. He thinks through an issue, takes a stand, & remains firm.

If only ALL politicians had his principles, it would be a different world.

[fujiyama]

37. This isn't a change

from Feingold's philosophy, but either way I'll admit it's still a disappointment.

I think her history these last four years is enough of a reason to deny her a higher cabinet post.

Oh well, good for Boxer and Kerry. I hope to see them also go after Gonzales who imo is even worse than CondiSleaza.

[leesa]

39. Says it all. These two are off my radar forever.

There is no justification for voting for this treasonous, lying bitch.

[zulchzulu]

44. Yep..takes just one vote in thousands to completely discredit a Senator...

...if you don't understand their strategy.

[Az_lefty]

46. Feingold is wrong this time around.

You don't give a president wide latitude on appointments when they nominate an incompetent proven liar like Rice.