Feingold for President!!

[mgnk99]

Im really pushing for Feingold to make a push..lets just say he gets the nomination..who would you think would be his running mate..it has to be someone from the south..but who is there??

[marmar]

1. More and more I'm becoming a fan...

Right now, he and Edwards are the 2 I like the most.

[mgnk99]

3. Edwards...

yeah he knows what to do this time around maybe..he did not help Kerry out to much..but he is the down to earth nice guy image family man...which would help Feingold..since isn't Feingold divorced?? anyways..but Edwards is a southern voice..but that didn't help last year..im just kinda skeptical with him

[rpannier]

2. I thought we were all turning on Feingold for his Roberts vote.

I like Russ, I'm not sure he's my first choice (and not because of Roberts). I work here with a guy from Wisconsin who is a huge Feingold supporter. If he were to get the nomination, I'd look west instead of south. Pick a Nevadan or the Governor of Montana.

[mgnk99]

4. oh the gov. of montana..

why would you pick someone out west and not the south?? better chance to win in the mountain region and not the south??

[rpannier]

13. If you follow the trends out west

They're moving in our direction. From Arizona into Montana, every major city in the mountain states is under Democratic control: Phoenix, Las Vegas, Reno, Cheyenne, Helena, Butte, Boise, Salt Lake City, Denver, etc. In the last election had we won Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada the electoral votse would have finished 270 Kerry-269 scrub. It's not enough to claim the Presidency, but it's damn near there. We have put southerners on the ticket before, Lloyd Bensten (D-TX) and we lost anyway. Let's look elsewhere and see if we can't have more success.

[lessthanjake]

20. Who cares about the Roberts vote

I mean seriously i think he did the right thing. WTF do you guys want? BUSH IS GOING TO APPOINT THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!!!!!!! It would only be someone worse than Roberts if he were voted down.

[rpannier]

22. My point is

the number of people at DU who were ready to dump any Democrat who voted for Roberts was just ridiculous. That was why I made the Roberts crack.

[lessthanjake]

26. Yeah I know you were joking but i was pointing out

that people are ridiculous when they bash him for that.

[rpannier]

29. Agreed

At some point people have to accept that not every single issue that comes up for a vote should be make-or-break. Picking your battles is part of what makes an effective Senator.

[Czolgosz]

38. Russ lost my vote over Roberts. I don't expect my candidates to adhere to

my position on every issue, but Roberts is a 50 year old who might well serve in a lifetime appointment as chief of the supreme court for 35 years. I may have grandkids who will know "the Roberts court." And Roberts was not like Miers who doesn't have a record. Roberts has a record that puts him to the right of Rehnquist and dishonest to boot. That vote was a litmus test for me. I'm done with Russ as someone who I'd be excited about. I'll vote for him if he gets to nomination, but there are now a good dozen possible candidates I'd rather spend my money and efforts for in the primary.

I'm kind of surprised that you think that the people who are disappointed over the Roberts vote should shrug off that issue as if it was just one vote in a stream of other votes. For me, it was by far the most important vote of Bush's second term. I find it inconceivable that Russ would vote for him. It just shows me that he and I have different values, which is fine, but that's not what I'm looking for in a candidate.

[rpannier]

49. I guess part of the reason I'm not as upset as you

is that I don't know enough about Roberts I guess. Living outside the United States (in Asia) I don't always pay really close attention to every little detail -- my work takes me to some fairly remote places sometimes.
In addition, I heard the same handwringing (not to offend you. I'm not saying you are handwringing but some people are -- people who feel that every vote is sooooo damned crucial on every issue) over Souter and Kennedy. People often get strange when they get on the Court, one only has to look at the career of Justice Hugo Black to see how people change when elevated to the Court.
Also, let's not forget that Earl Warren, while governor, pushed very hard for internment camps during WWII. He is now an icon on the left for his support of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

[Czolgosz]

50. What kills me about Roberts is that when he says the same things as Janice

Rogers Brown, he says them in polite language and so everyone falls asleep where as Judge Brown says the same things and everyone runs for the torches and pitchforks.

Here's a classic example of where Brown says something in a speech which undercuts the legal basis for all the personal protections we have gained over the past six decades (voting rights, civil rights, environmental protections, labor laws, safety regulations, etc.):

In the New Deal/Great Society era...protection of property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937...Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status...It thus became government’s job not to protect property ...and, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism.

She has (rightly) been crucified over these statements because they show that she would roll back all the advances made in the past sixty-odd years. But Roberts says the same thing - in an official court opinion no less - and everyone yawns because he says it in calm, academic language that slides under the table. I think the Roberts appointment may be a Bush legacy that outlasts all his other misdeeds.

[FreedomAngel82]

62. There will be other justices who die over time since we all die

Hopefully we'll get some democratic appointments to the court to even everything out.

[Czolgosz]

64. It's true that -- in time -- we can hope to get fair, qualified judges on

the Court. But supreme court appointments last an average of 26 years. That's just an average and Roberts is extremely young to have been appointed Chief Justice. All I'm saying is that this is a scar that will take an awfully long time to heal, and it is an issue that meant very, very much to me.

No one who shares my values could have voted for Roberts the way Russ did. I feel badly about the vote because I though fairly highly of Russ until then, and I - of course - would still support him in a general election, but now I'm looking elsewhere for a primary candidate whose values are a closer match to mine.

[FreedomAngel82]

61. I do understand where Feingold is coming from

Roberts is at least with experience and everything. So I could see why he would vote for him if he wants the nominee with mainstream America.
I think with the right vp he could do pretty well. Didn't he vote against everything with Iraq in the beginning too?

[Dr Fate]

5. Southerner: Clark from Arkansas.

I disagree with Russ's Robert's cave-in, but he is right on plenty of issues I care about- I cant wait to see how he does in the primaries.

[jackthesprat]

9. Feingold is great.

Many senators caved in on Roberts. Feingold still has better record than most of them.

[Beaverhausen]

56. But they all didn't. 22 of them in fact.

What did he have to lose with a "no" vote?

[skipos]

6. Why two threads?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

15. LOL!

[Rockholm]

18. I guess you caught that one, huh?

[HereSince1628]

7. I'd miss him as senator, but I'd work and vote for him

I know that a northerner who may be the most Wellstone-like senator and member of a religious minority has little chance appealing to the good old boys in the DLC.

He's not always where I would be, but I think I share most of his sentiments.

[mgnk99]

8. thats what feingold is..

he doesn't follow partisan lines..and yes he is a religious minority..and yes he doesn't have the perfect family...that is why he needs an effective political strategy and a lot of push in the primaries..

[HereSince1628]

10. He is _my_ senator, Kohl never answers any of my inquiries.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Let Feingold win 2006 for the Democratics, if he is any good. Then 2008.

[mgnk99]

16. Kohl has to win for 06

not Feingold..he won senator last year.. in 04..

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. You miss my point. Lead a national victory in 2006 if they are any good.

If they are any good as party leaders or national leaders they can lead the Democratics to national victory in the 2006 elections.

2006 is two years before 2008. So much discussion of 2008 is nonsense because 2006 comes first and there are going to be so many events between now and 2007.

Win 2006.

[sybylla]

21. Feingold has his Progressive Patriots fund and is working to do just that

You can find out more at Progressive Patriots Fund

It's on the order of what Howard Dean tried to do during the last election with his Democracy for America PAC and his Dean Dozen candidates who got financial assistance in their campaigns.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Excellent. Thanks for showing us that.

[Adelante]

14. I like Feingold

I don't like disabled profiles on 19 posts, though :hi:

[JohnnyCougar]

19. AMEN!!!

[mgnk99]

23. oh ok..

i understand now a bit for 06...but right now he is just exploring the presidency..he's a darkhorse canidate anyways...he probably won't get the nomination but you never know...i really don't know who would be the front runners for the democrat ticket

[sybylla]

25. Clinton started out a "darkhorse" candidate too.

There's always a chance.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. His opposition to the death penalty will be problematic

Look at what is happening in the Governor's race in VA. Kerry and Dean both changed their position on this before they ran, perhaps Feingold will wise up and do the same.

[yurbud]

28. he can make this work if he DOESN'T change and get apologetic about it

The best way to do this is unapologetically say why you are against then turn to your "tough on crime" positions like sending Ken Lay to Gitmo.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. So he should say that he opposed the death panalty for Osama

but wants to get tough on Ken Lay? I'm sure that will fly well in swing states.

[IntravenousDemilo]

58. This is a non-sequitur

unless you're saying Ken Lay should get the death penalty, or that Lay and bin Laden committed the same crime.

Of course he would say Lay should not be executed FOR ANY REASON, just as he would say bin Laden should not be executed FOR ANY REASON. Feingold believes that no one should be executed FOR ANY REASON because he thinks it's just wrong. I'm inclined to agree.

Ken Lay's criminal activity is irrelevant in any discussion of capital punishment, since he didn't commit a capital crime. Yeah, Kenny and his board of directors should all get 40-year jail terms, and have all their assets seized and distributed to the customers and employees they fucked over, along with maybe a severe beating and humiliation.

But Osama should be stuck in a deep, dark dungeon for the rest of his life, after the relatives of the 9/11 victims have had a crack at him.

[Kingofalldems]

31. Oh they did change their position?

Wasn't aware of that. Perhaps you can prove it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Oh course I can prove it:

During one of his debates with Weld in 1996, Kerry ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the United States.

Kerry still opposes capital punishment, but he now makes an exception for terrorists.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540/

In 1992, Dean said, "I don't support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and, two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can't really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn't be in the business of taking people's lives."

In early June 2003, Dean issued a statement declaring, "As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer. The events of Sept. 11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088207/

[fujiyama]

51. Kerry did have a point though

A lot of nations are hesitant to extradite terrorists to the US.

But I do agree that it's a tough position to sell to most Americans.

[blm]

53. Difference is that 9-11 brought the battlefield to the US and terrorists

are ALWAYS on battlefields wherever they go and where they expect to die as combatants.

Kerry is STILL against the death penalty as a sentence in the US judicial system.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. He needs to articulately express his views on the death penalty

Which is that, while it is human nature to want the most heinous crimes to receive the most severe punishments, it just isn't befitting of the US justice system.

Also, an angle that is never approached is the amount of innocent death row inmates.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. That is not a position that has had a lot of success recently

in swing states.

[sandnsea]

40. No Kerry didn't

Where'd you get that idea? Kerry only supported the death penalty for terrorists and I think that was even after 9/11. It wasn't even an issue and I don't think it would be for Feingold either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. He used to oppose it for terrorists

During one of his debates with Weld in 1996, Kerry ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the United States.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540/

Is that still Kerry's position?

[blm]

54. terrorists were not in an organized war with us at the time.

Kerry knows that men of war can expect to die on the battlefield and terrorists bring that battlefield with them wherever they go.

Kerry still opposes the death penalty as a sentence in the US judicial system.

[sandnsea]

55. Isn't that what I said?

Explain how that isn't what I said. Terrorists who had attacked the country, basically an act of war which he differentiates from crime. The reason he didn't support it before was due to extradition from countries without the death penalty.

[blm]

52. Kerry is still against the death penalty in the US judicial system.

Bin Laden, as a known terrorist, would be considered a combatant who expected to die for his battles, bringing his battlefields with him wherever he goes.

[election_2004]

30. Clark/Feingold and Feingold/Clark....

Are both possible tickets that would seem to have a broad-based stamp of approval with progressive voters.

I'd work like hell to get my state's junior U.S. Senator elected, and would be proud to have him as prez or V.P.

[nickshepDEM]

32. Feingold/Nunn would be a great ticket.

Feingold/Warner, Feingold/Biden, Feingold/Bayh...

All great tickets.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Feingold is the opposite of all of those you have listed.....

And they are all DLC stooges.
Why do you want to do that to us?
Why?

Warner/Biden/Bayh supported the Iraq War.....Feingold Didn't.

[nickshepDEM]

36. Whats your point? Alot of people were wrong about Iraq at one time...

...or another. Including:

Wesley Clark

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

"Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time."

"He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extend and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we. Saddam might use these weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his other neighbors.

He might threaten American forces in the region. He might determine that he was the messenger of Allah and simply strike directly at Israel, or Israel weighing the possibilities of blackmail or aggression might feel compelled to strike Iraq first. "
-- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

By the way, you are aware that there is a moderate/DLC wing of the Democratic party too, right?

[FrenchieCat]

37. That's tacky....what you have done....and I am ashamed for you....

Taking a few paragraphs out of a 3 hour testimony.....

That's what Gillespie did, and I would have hoped that you would be better than the RNC Chair....but you actually used the same quotes that he did! How sad is that? :rofl:

All one had to do was to read Perle's account on what Clark had said to have understood what Clark's many detailed answers to the congressmen's questions added up to...

But Gillespie gives only selective excerpts of Clark ’s testimony to the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 26, 2002 . Actually, Clark repeatedly urged patience and diplomacy, criticized the Bush administration for undercutting "friends and allies" and said “I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq .”

Don't take our word for it: Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, a strong supporter of going to war, testified with Clark at the same hearing and said, “I think Gen. Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force . . . . The bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”

Gillespie's attack on Clark is a classic case of ripping quotes out of their full context in order to create a false picture.

Quoting Clark Out of Context

In a speech given Jan. 15 in Little Rock, Arkansas, Gillespie quoted at length from Clark's 2002 testimony:

There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat . . . . Saddam Hussein is not only malevolent and violent but he is also to some large degree unpredictable at least to us. I’m sure he has a rationale for what he’s doing, but we don’t always know it. He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we . . . . The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely, and of course Saddam’s current efforts themselves are violations of international law as expressed in the U.N. resolutions.

Then Gillespie said, "There was no stronger case made (for going to war) than that expert testimony, the testimony of General Wesley Clark."

The Rest of the Story

But Clark actually was making a case for waiting, and using strong diplomacy backed by a threat of force, not for going to war.

Here's some of what else Clark said (with emphasis added by FactCheck.org):

Such congressional resolution need not, at this point, authorize the use of force.

. . . . In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections . . .

. . . . We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership.

Clark said any military action should be with the support of NATO allies, and criticized the Bush administration for decisions "which have undercut its friends and allies around the world and given the impression that the United States doesn't respect the opinions of others.”

He made a clear distinction between threatening force and using it: "I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it."

Last year, soon after he began his campaign for the White House, Clark stumbled by saying he "probably" would have voted for the war-authorizing resolution that Congress passed soon after his testimony, then amended his words several times. (See our earlier article on that.) But in his House testimony at the time he pushed for patience and diplomacy, not war.

The yellow light is flashing. We have a problem . . . . but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it.
http://www.factcheck.org/article130.html

[sandnsea]

41. Using Perle's attack on Clark instead?

I swear I don't understand how people's minds work. Perle was attacking Clark as a pacifist in order to discredit everything he had to say. Why would you turn around and use a PNAC attack as truth? How can you call putting the war card on the table and waving it any different than what most Dems supported? "using strong diplomacy backed by a threat of force" That's what almost all Dems who voted for the IWR supported. It was Clark's testimony to Congress that paved the way for that plan. There are plenty of Dems who were totally anti-war, Clark wasn't one of them.

[FrenchieCat]

47. No one said that Clark was "totally" anti-war.....nor did I say that his

views were miles away from most Democrats. The fact of the matter is, however, that his testimony to congress did not advocate going to war with Iraq....it advocated concentrating on Bin Laden and taking diplomatic channels via the U.N., but of course leaving all of our cards on the table. Taking cards off the table is not anything anyone with any common sense would ever advocate (a year after 9/11 in particular).

Of course, most Democrats acknowledged that Saddam was some type of threat....even Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean.

But the bottomline of his testimony, is not what Nickshep characterized it to be....

and yes, Richard Perle, in this instance did get it right (even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.....they say)....so Clark did believe that although Saddam was certainly a thorn in our sides, there was no imminent threat and time was on our side.

You see, Clark wasn't even pro war in reference to going into Afghanistan as the manner to deal with what had happened on 9/11. Clark has never thought that War has ever been anything but a last resort....

That's the point!

A Long, Tough Job
By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A37
The Washington Post
snip
For the United States, the weapons of this war should be information, law enforcement and, on rare occasions, active military forces. The coalition that will form around the United States and its NATO allies should agree on its intent but not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes, because the populations and economic structures of Western nations will be at risk.

And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.
snip
Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity.

In some cases, astute police work will win the day, here and abroad. In other cases, international intelligence collaboration may be necessary. Special military forces may be called on to operate in states that are uncooperative or simply unable to control their own territory. In exceptional cases, targets will be developed that may be handled by conventional military strikes.
But in the main, this will be arduous, detailed and often covert work to track, detain or otherwise engage and "take down" our adversaries, rolling them up cell by cell and headquarters by headquarters.

Some will call for full disclosure and near-legal standards of evidence before acting. Others will arm a hair trigger, seeking to use the most readily available information, even if scant. But we must not pose legality and expediency as opposite extremes. To be expedient, we must act within the bounds of international law and consistent with consensus among the allied coalition that is emerging. And maintaining this consensus will be one of the prime challenges we face.
snip
We must strengthen our protective measures at airports, at utilities and other public service facilities such as communications networks, and prepare necessary public health and disease control capabilities for the possibility of nuclear and biological events. And if we are successful in preventing further attacks, another challenge will be to maintain our resolve.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/usa_attack1.htm

[sandnsea]

57. Good

Just so you acknowledge Clark advocated a threat of force approach just like most of the rest of the Democrats.

And that piece you posted, that's about terrorism as a whole, not Afghanistan. If Clark didn't support war with Afghanistan, then I wouldn't want him for President. I don't know why you omitted it, but this quote is more likely his thinking on Afghanistan:

"These terrorist networks may well have state sponsorship. And here, more intense, visible action involving not only strikes but also substantial ground action may be required to gain the surrender of hostile governments or the end of their support for terrorists."

[FrenchieCat]

65. Well he's a quick thinker....as this piece was published

3 days after 9/11. And I don't think that he was advocating a full blown out war, but rather targeting the terrorists much more than the state....although, yes, he may have advocated that if there was any indication of state sponsorship, that would have been an option....of course.

[nickshepDEM]

46. Still spinning I see. The bottom line is...

Clark said all of those things.

Sadam a threat - wrong.
Sadam had and still has chemical and biological weapons - wrong.
Sadam pursuing nuclear capabilities - wrong.

I could care less about the rest of the testimony. He was wrong on those counts, and that was my point. Just about everyone was wrong about Iraq at one time or another. Stop spinning.

Have a nice day, Frenchie. :)

[FrenchieCat]

48. You don't really have a point......other than attempting to

be a Black & white spinner here....

Sorry but all of the references that you mentioned are a bit more complicated than your "boil down".....

What type of threat did Clark say Saddam was? It was widely acknowledged that Saddam was not our friend...hence the "No Fly Zone", and a war in 1991. But, Clark did testify that Saddam was not an eminent threat; that was the standard.

Everyone thought that Sadam still had chemical and biological weapons. that's what the intelligence showed. Why would Clark somehow "know" any different? Even the U.N. thought that he had them. Whether he could deliver them....Clark didn't think that capability was there....again this was the standard to judge.

Whether Saddam was pursuing Nuclear capabilities, we still don't know the answer to that. Clark did acknowledge that Saddam did not have that capability, and Clark judged such possibility to be years away.

So your black and white statement that "Clark was wrong and that's that" is simplistic, elementary and pretty much the approach that a child would take on analyzing a serious issue such as life and death and war and peace.

Might as well stick your tongue out and say....nya, nya, nya, nya!
---------------------------------
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.

Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Clark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...

...in the near term, time is on our side , and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force.http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know....
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

[Crazy Chester]

34. How about Feingold / Pelosi?

Might be a tough sell in the red states, but who knows "the times they are a changing"

[erpowers]

39. Not Really

I do not think he has to have a VP from the south. I think he just needs to pick a VP that stands up for his/her ideas.

[catmother]

59. feingold

i like him, but i'm not sure if this country is ready for a jewish president. unfortunately, there's still a lot of racism out there.

[FreedomAngel82]

60. He wouldn't be bad

I think he's progressive enough and him voting against the "Patriot Act" is enough for me to show support for him. I hope he does run.

[txaslftist]

63. Clark