NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always liked his stands on civil liberties, as well as on the Iraq War, and the fact that he donates the difference between what he first made as a Senator and what he makes now back to the Treasury, but after reading this (http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=66348&ntpid=1), I'm sold completely:
Political watchers such as University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato point out that while Feingold's recent stands on civil liberties and the Iraq war may please liberal activists, they may well hurt his chances later on with moderate Democrats and conservatives.

The senator had a blunt answer.

"I don't care," he said. "Whatever political considerations I have are absolutely irrelevant to the decisions I make having to do with people's civil liberties and something as weighty as Americans risking their lives overseas. The day that I start think politically about those things is the day I should leave politics."

Feingold for President 2008.

Wow. Is this a real politician? I did not know such existed....

Is he actually running in '08?

There's been a lot of talk about this. I don't think he'd win the primaries though.

I've always liked his stands on civil liberties, as well as on the Iraq War, and the fact that he donates the difference between what he first made as a Senator and what he makes now back to the Treasury, but after reading this (http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=66348&ntpid=1), I'm sold completely:


Feingold for President 2008.
Time to start then!!
*bows*

Sorry to hurt you, but at this moment, I don't care what his stance is. He can't win. He doesn't look like a president.

Ah the shining idealist, I truely hope America isn't as cynical as me but I can't see him lasting once the press turns on him which they certainly will he will be seen as a joke.

Sorry to hurt you, but at this moment, I don't care what his stance is. He can't win. He doesn't look like a president.
Like i said about starting now ...
he's probably capable of garnering enough funds to augment his appearance subtly, unlike most prior candidates.

Like i said about starting now ...
he's probably capable of garnering enough funds to augment his appearance subtly, unlike most prior candidates.
Might have enough time.
Don't know that much about American politics, but seems that he might be better than Bush.

Might have enough time.
Don't know that much about American politics, but seems that he might be better than Bush.
Might be? Right now, a wilted tomato plant would be better than Bush.

Yeah, it's early, and the press might decide to Dean him, but I can't let that bother me right now. Feingold in '08.

Being half wisconsian (is that even a word?), I feel it's about time we had a president from America's dairyland!

Our new secretary of Agriculture:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000063XMQ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[QUOTE=N Y C]Being half wisconsian (is that even a word?), I feel it's about time we had a president from America's dairyland!

A president from Wisconsin? No, what America needs is a president from rural Illinois, America's breadbasket!

I've always liked his stands on civil liberties, as well as on the Iraq War, and the fact that he donates the difference between what he first made as a Senator and what he makes now back to the Treasury, but after reading this (http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=66348&ntpid=1), I'm sold
Well, at least he gets an "A" for bluntness.

Sorry to hurt you, but at this moment, I don't care what his stance is. He can't win. He doesn't look like a president.

What if he grows a beard? And starts wearing a top hat?

Sorry to hurt you, but at this moment, I don't care what his stance is. He can't win. He doesn't look like a president.
GWB does??? :eek:

You're just guilty of [ resurrects an old PC term from the seventies ] "look-ism!" :p

Feingold for President 2008.
My two cents worth is that a successful campaign for President isn't going to be based on the Patriot act, or even on White House abuses of surveillance. I'm not sure how Feingold can even claim to protect civil liberties after the POS Incumbent Protection Act that he and McCain sponsored.

Of course, liberal Democrats only want to hear about how bad the incumbent Republican is, so Feingold will probably do at least as well as Dean in the primaries.

My two cents worth is that a successful campaign for President isn't going to be based on the Patriot act, or even on White House abuses of surveillance. I'm not sure how Feingold can even claim to protect civil liberties after the POS Incumbent Protection Act that he and McCain sponsored.


Without a doubt that will kill any chances either of those two have and it will not even require their unlimited funding.

My two cents worth is that a successful campaign for President isn't going to be based on the Patriot act, or even on White House abuses of surveillance. I'm not sure how Feingold can even claim to protect civil liberties after the POS Incumbent Protection Act that he and McCain sponsored.

Of course, liberal Democrats only want to hear about how bad the incumbent Republican is, so Feingold will probably do at least as well as Dean in the primaries.
I think you're overstating both the efficacy and the implications of McCain-Feingold, but I understand the disagreement. As to calling it the "Incumbent Protection Act," however, incumbency rates have remained pretty static for a long time, AFAIK, and this act certainly didn't make that problem any worse. But if it got corporate money out of the politicians' hands, even if it only got shunted to nominally independent groups, then it was a success in my book.

Of course, if I had my way, corporations would cease to be legal persons and lose any and all rights as far as speech is concerned. No lobbyists, no campaign contributions, nothing from corporations in politics.

I think you're overstating both the efficacy and the implications of McCain-Feingold, but I understand the disagreement. As to calling it the "Incumbent Protection Act," however, incumbency rates have remained pretty static for a long time, AFAIK, and this act certainly didn't make that problem any worse. But if it got corporate money out of the politicians' hands, even if it only got shunted to nominally independent groups, then it was a success in my book.

Of course, if I had my way, corporations would cease to be legal persons and lose any and all rights as far as speech is concerned. No lobbyists, no campaign contributions, nothing from corporations in politics.
My biggest gripe over the 'Campaign' Finance Act is that Bush signed it, saying it was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court could invalidate it. We know how that went. But whenever I hear McCain or Feingold complain about how civil liberties are eroded by XYZ, I think of their deliberate actions to prevent any large scale, organized effort to address issues and candidates in the days before elections.

Sorry to hurt you, but at this moment, I don't care what his stance is. He can't win. He doesn't look like a president.
And Bush looks like a monkey. I can make brash, irrelevant arguments too.

Go away, nub.

There are always exceptions. Even with politicians...this happens to be one.

As a fairly moderate liberal, I can say that I do like Feingold on some issues, and I really respect his ability to stand firm to his values, without regard to politics. However, just as admirable as it may be, it's not enough to get my vote in '08.

You see, I feel that a lot of you are just going "OMG FEINGOLD" because he's not your average, corrupt politician. You aren't looking deeper into the situation. Feingold would be good for this country, were it not for the fact I feel that he would not be able to defend our country against attack very well.

With that said, I believe '08 will be between Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice. Feingold may be a VP candidate for Clinton after he loses out in the Democratic primaries, but I couldn't see him winning the election.

He seems way too protectionist to me, and the last thing we need is someone with an archaic economic philosophy, or even worse a person willing to place politics before economic reality. Protectionism cannot become American policy again, because it failed before and it will fail again.

However he is a fiscally responsible politician and has an excellent civil rights record. He should stay in the Senate.

As a fairly moderate liberal, I can say that I do like Feingold on some issues, and I really respect his ability to stand firm to his values, without regard to politics. However, just as admirable as it may be, it's not enough to get my vote in '08.

Here's what I want to know: What are his values? Clearly there's some grey areas in the category of civil liberties and our God-given rights? Where else does he stand equally firm on his principles?

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Russell_Feingold.htm

It's a little old, but it gives you an idea of what Feingold is about...

...personally, I don't think he'll become President, but if he's hanging around in the primaries by the time Wisconsin rolls around, I'll probably vote for him.

Might be? Right now, a wilted tomato plant would be better than Bush.

Yeah, it's early, and the press might decide to Dean him, but I can't let that bother me right now. Feingold in '08.
A wilted tomato plant??
Yea.. Yea that sounds about right.

FEINGOLD 2008! I'll back him 100%

I like his voting record... If he gets far enough, he'll sure as hell have my vote.

Might be? Right now, a wilted tomato plant would be better than Bush.
Yeah, and you're talking about IQ. The appearance would be a fringe benefit!

I could (and have) voted unreservedly for Feingold. He's willing to attempt solutions to problems, work without regard to partisan politics, and does a damn good job keeping all his constituents' needs in focus.

Unfortunately, I don't think he'll survive the primaries. He'll do well in the Midwest and Northeast, and I think he (or someone like him will do surprisingly well against Rodham Clinton, but Feingold won't be able to carry any part of the South. (For that matter I doubt Rodham Clinton's ability to carry mid- to conservative-Democrats, i.e. Southern Dems).

His personal baggage (soon to be twice-divorced) will almost certainly provide plenty of fodder for the spin machine without them even having to address issues.

I'll be hopeful (and given the time will help with the campaign) that a real person can do well in a presidential race, but my expectation level of success is pretty close to nil. And then I'll be happy that he'll still be Wisconsin's senator.

Meh, don't get excited. Politicians are full of empty promises. Most of them do the exact opposite of what they said they would do.

With that said, I believe '08 will be between Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice.

You're joking right? Hillary may get the democratic nod, although she is so reviled by anyone who is not of the far left that she is sure to lose. If her views were a bit more moderate she would be in easily though. Meanwhile, Condi Rice will NEVER get the republican nod- first, an African American will not get the republican nomination, period. (unless it was Powell) And even if she did- she would be creamed. First, a black candidate would alienate a large supportive demographic of the republicans- white rednecks and "rural folk". And second, you have to be able to look at a president. GW may look like a wilted tomato, but Condi gives a whole new meaning to the word fugly.

You're joking right? Hillary may get the democratic nod, although she is so reviled by anyone who is not of the far left that she is sure to lose. If her views were a bit more moderate she would be in easily though. Rodham Clinton is very much a moderate on issues and is hardly a darling of the left. The myth of her "extremism" is a product of right-wing pundits and campaign managers, who know that a strong woman doesn't play well in Padookaville.
<snipped> And second, you have to be able to look at a president. GW may look like a wilted tomato, but Condi gives a whole new meaning to the word fugly.You know, I think rather than restricting campaign finance, we'd all be better off with a ban on the use of television during the campaign. Looks have absolutely nothing to do with one's fitness and ability to be president. The fucking monkey we're stuck with now is a prime example.

Feingold would be a great president, but I'd settle for anything that reduces or if possible, eliminates neo-conservative influence on america's foreign and domestic policy.

You're joking right? Hillary may get the democratic nod, although she is so reviled by anyone who is not of the far left that she is sure to lose. If her views were a bit more moderate she would be in easily though. Meanwhile, Condi Rice will NEVER get the republican nod- first, an African American will not get the republican nomination, period. (unless it was Powell) And even if she did- she would be creamed. First, a black candidate would alienate a large supportive demographic of the republicans- white rednecks and "rural folk". And second, you have to be able to look at a president. GW may look like a wilted tomato, but Condi gives a whole new meaning to the word fugly.

Um...you obviously have no idea what's been going on. Condi Rice is getting a huge following, and although she has denied she will put herself forth as a candidate, she has not denied she will reject a draft of herself into the candidacy.

The only way that Hillary can be beat is by another woman. For it is almost totally certain that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. No man that is placed in front of Hillary will be able to compete with running against the first woman with *real* chances of being President. Condi Rice is the obvious choice for Republicans.

And you honestly give rednecks too much credit. They blindly follow their party leaders. I think I would know, living in northwest Louisiana. They honestly wouldn't usually support a black person at all, especially not a black woman. But if their party leaders say, "Yeah, buddy, it's what we're doing and what we're doing is the only way Republicans can win," they'll be sold.

Condi Rice vs. Hillary is the way it's going to go. I'm also looking for a strong third party candidate. I know that Christopher Walken is most likely running (walken2008.com), and I'm waiting for a powerful person in Congress to split and run as an independent. (Russ Feingold, as I already said, will get VP candidate if he runs for the Democratic nomination, most likely.)

I honestly think this will be one of the more interesting elections in American history.

For it is almost totally certain that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.

How? Hillary isn't running. You can't get the nomination if you don't run.

Once again: Hillary Clinton will not run for President in 2008.

How? Hillary isn't running. You can't get the nomination if you don't run.

Once again: Hillary Clinton will not run for President in 2008.
That's right. She is going to fully serve her next term as Senator. Just as her husband completed his last term as Governor.

Watch. There will be a 'listening tour', followed by an announcement that she just must follow the guidance of her constituents and run for the Democratic nomination. Besides, she's going to be rolling in cash after winning this next election. What else do you spend campaign money on, but more campaigns?