Russ Feingold delivered a helluva speech at the Take Back America conference. Here are a few quotes:
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, received a raucous, enthusiastic greeting Wednesday from a liberal group as he criticized President Bush for the Iraq war and a secretive domestic wiretapping program. The same crowd had booed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the presumed 2008 front-runner, a day earlier for opposing a set date for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
Feingold was the first senator to call for a timetable to bring back troops, a popular position at the Take Back America conference. “Run, Russ, run,” some chanted as the Wisconsin senator stepped to the podium. Others wore buttons and stickers with the same sentiment. “They got it wrong in Iraq,” Feingold said to applause. “Iraq was a mistake.” And he reiterated a theme he’s made in recent speeches, exhorting Democrats to show some backbone. Everywhere he goes, Feingold said, people ask him the same question: “When are you guys going to stand up?” Many in the crowd responded by doing just that, greeting the challenge with a standing ovation.
Feingold said that Democrats are wrong to play it safe this year, in the hopes that they can pick up seats in Congress simply because of sinking Republican popularity. “There will not be progressive change in this country this year or any other year if we think we can win by default, or by running out the clock,” he said.
This is the only voice on the national stage telling the bold truth, one based on clarity and conviction instead of hate and racism. Just listening to his words is a tonic in this summer of Neocon sleazes.
If you would like to see a video of the whole speech, CLICK HERE.
The more that I read about Russ Feingold, the more that I like what I read.
is what they said:
Run, Russ, Run!
He’s the only one brave enough, strong enough, and principled enough to stand up and say what needs to be said, and say what just about everyone is thinking…and one of the very few to be smart enough to see it coming and vote his conscience so many terrible years ago.
Stand up, Russ, we got your back.
I agree Russ is one of the few smart enough to come up with solid plans on how to undo the awful horrible mess the neo-cons have made. Al Gore is another, and possibly Wes Clark is yet another.
The phrase that drives me nuts is; vote his/their conscience(s).
I have thought about this many times. In reading the pertinent Federalist papers (nos 47 62 and 63 IIRC) the purpose of having a National Government is to vote the WILL of we the people.
If the Congresses job is to vote their conscience, then what do need need them for?
In thinking about the outrage after outrage for the last 6 years, wouldn’t we have been better off to close
down the federal congress if “their conscience* was the final arbitrator on voting?
If we had closed down the federal congress, the outcomes probably would have been a Democracy more to our values.
IMHO, members of Congress need to be re-taught and have re-enforced that their job descriptions include much more than simply debating, passing legislation, and getting their faces and words in the MSM and on major News Channels. It also includes:
This seems to me to be one idea for holding them accountable to the purpose of our Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. What do you guys think??
implicit in my statement “vote her/his conscience” is the idea that the politician in question has revealed the character of their conscience, beliefs, ideology, and political opinions beforehand, to the electorate.
That based on a combination of their character, beliefs, actions, and personal traits, the electorate chose that person to represent them….
Therefore, by “Voting Their Conscience” they are remaining faithful to their promise to the people that elected them.
If I am a candidate and I say “I support preemptive war for imperialistic, nationalistic benefit” and then people elect me to represent them, and then I vote in favor of such actions, I am being a faithful representative…I have both voted my conscience and adhered to the promises made during my campaign.
(I would also be a pig, but I was just using an example!).
On the other hand, if I am a candidate who ran for office saying “I support single payer health care, I support constructive engagement, I support raising the minimum wage, reproductive freedom, and so forth” and then I vote FOR those things, again, I am voting both my conscience AND the will of the electorate that chose me to represent them based on those positions.
So, “vote their conscience” is a form of lazy shorthand, I guess.
Run Russ run! It’s too bad that he couldn’t actually have appeared at ykos, although he did have a booth. His speech would have been the highlight.
apparently he wasnt willing to sponsor the open bar
If he’s planning to run, it may actually be better that he didn’t. He needs to avoid being painted by the media as a “radical leftist kook” before he can portray himself as an “independent voice of common sense” and have his message heard by the wider public.
Yeah, but isn’t kind of sad/hilarious that the Kos crowd is considered “radical left.”
Indeed, Kahli. Misnomers never cease to abound.
But Warner and Clark had no problem appearing. It doesn’t seem to have hurt them.
Warner and Clark are perceived as “moderate democrats” reaching out to those “left-wing extremist blogger loonies” (that’s the mainstream media, non-blogger perception, not my take on DKos). That’s a very different place than being painted as a “radical among radicals.”
Sorry, knoxville…
The media will paint him as a nutsoleftistradicalJewcommieniggerlovin’punk no matter WHAT he does or does not do.
Nicely, of course.
That is an absolute GUARANTEE.
Unless he is an absolute political genius, he stands even less of a chance than did Dean in 2002/2003.
By the time 2004 rolled around, Dean had been set up and painted with a BIG media bullseye.
All it took was one slip, and he was a goner.
“ARRRRRGH!!!!“
“Now’s the time!!! LOOSE that arrow!!!”
BULLSEYE!!!
And Dean was an undivorced Protestant Christian.
And a MODERATE in terms of his position relative to the PermaGov.
Stand up in the Senate of the United States of America in the Year of Our Lords and Masters 2006 and actually read The Declaration of Independence into the Senate record?
Stand essentially alone in the Democratic Party in calling for a public act of censure aimed at BushCo and its Blood For Oil War?
Send Clinton and Reid and Obama and Kerry and all of the rest of the spineless (but never spinless) DemocRatpublicans scurrying for the exits like creatures of the night suddenly exposed to the clear light of day?
HERESY!!!
BLASPHEMY!!!
And…priceless.
Can you IMAGINE the antipathy those DemRats hold towards him?
The truth is an embarrassment to them.
HE STANDS ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF BEING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE TO RUN FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2008.
Get THAT out of your heads right now.
He could stage an internet-based campaign that netted him millions.
He could win every primary he entered.
And he would STILL lose.
One way or another.
To some Kerry clone like Warner.
Heavy as he is…you fucking well didn’t see any t-shirts with HIS face on them over at the little orange party in Lost Values, did you?
I mean…he didn’t even have to have BEEN there to have gotten a standing ovation if the Kospuppies had so desired.
But no.
They chose Mark Warner to hustle.
Lame.
Feingold’s ONLY chance is as a third party candidate.
And even then…he’d better watch his back.
And stay out of hotel kitchen hallways, too.
He poses a challenge to the PermaGov that they in NO WAY can permit to come to power.
Bet on it.
Now…Gore…
He’s already PROVEN that he’ll play ball.
And he comes from SUCH a good family!!!
Watch.
If the real power decides that some sort of changes have to be made…towards the environment, towards the pursuit of international economic dominance through altered means…Gore’s their boy.
Hereditary wealth, good Protestant PermaGov stock, nice little wifey who is all for censorship of the pop arts so that all those goodhearted little kiddies don’t get their bowels in an uproar over the injustice system as it stands today…named TIPPER, fer Chissake!!!
“He’s PERFECT, GB!!! Perfect. Let’s run HIS ass up the flagpole and see how it waves. ANYBODY but that midwestern Jew.”
Watch.
AG
Russ was at his homestate Convention the weekend of Ykos, where his speech had the only really enthusiastic reception, (barring mine :0 ). Nothing really new in Russ’ speech.
He served served sloppy joes and beer at his after the session party Friday Night.
This speech is just a thing of beauty. His delivery is impeccable.
If this is how strong he connects in 2006, I can’t imagine how good he’ll be 2 years from now.
I have no doubt after listening to this speech that he will be running. I’ll be signing up as soon as he announces to campaign and raise as much grass roots money for him as I can.
Thx for posting this, Wilfred. I’m with Russ all the way too, and glad to see he’s picking up steam with others. He’s a great speaker, pulls no punches and is on of the few to speak truth to power. He’s got my support (has had for a while now) in 2008. I’ll beat the streets and do what I can for him if/when he runs.
Great stuff everybody.
I have to add how fucked up our notion of what is radical left in America. Just a few short decades ago, the radical left was the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, and maybe various progressive (but really nativist) movements from the Thirties like the Farm Holiday movement or the Farmer/Labor Party of Minnesota. Radical left meant believing that private property is theft, that corporations are the scourge of the planet, that businesses in vital economic areas like health care, transportation, communications, oil and gas production and distribution should all be at least highly regulated (American leftists) or nationalized (Canadian and European leftists) or owned and operated by the state (USSR and China in the old days). Radical left meant building a society the purpose of which was economic and social justice rather than the accumulation of wealth. Radical left meant making judgements about the direction of society based upon benefitting the whole of society not just on what benefits those who own the means of production. (As in “What’s good for General Motors is good for the United States.”)
Now the radical left means someone who doesn’t think that the country should be run for the betterment of the top one tenth of one percent of the population, who thinks that money isn’t speech, that the President isn’t a king, and who understands that virulent fascism goes by the name Republican and Conservative today. Hell, give me the fucking good old days.
Feingold has only shown luke-warm support for paper trails legislation. He’s voted for it, but he hasn’t been visible advocate for even that.
Hillary has a better position on voting rights that Feingold does right now. That’s pretty poor.
I don’t see how someone can be a viable choice for progressives in the 2008 Presidential Primaries without being a stong advocate of voting rights issues in some fashion. There’s plenty of ways to be a forceful advocate for voting rights without being vocal about Ohio in 2004.
…being a strong advocate of…
It’s only a guess but I think if Feingold wasn’t voting for those bills and Hillary was it was because he thought they were badly written and was supporting other legislation that would do the job better.
I’d love to hear from anyone who knows his views on voting rights legislation.
“…As to the second question, about whether or not he fully understood the havoc being wreaked across the country right now on our Electoral System due to the plague-like spread of Electronic Voting machines in light of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, (Feingold) expressed concern, but admitted he wasn’t as fully up-to-date on the topic as he might like to be….”
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2726
Wasn’t up to date? On Ohio 2004? An elected Democrat that wasn’t “up-to-date” on what happened in Ohio in 2004?
Sorry. Not buying that Russ Feingold never freakin’ heard all the voting irregularities in the 2004 election. Russ Feingold would have to either be as dense as Bush not to know, or is intentionally attempting to avoid stating an opinion on voting rights. Honestly, I’m really kind of offended Feingold would attempt to float a line like he “wasn’t up-to date” on Ohio 2004. None of the people in the audience reading this interview could possibly be that dumb and uninformed.
I agree after reading that Bradblog link that Feingold needs to be grilled on this point. It makes absolutely no sense with all his other positions why he wouldn’t not only support this but lead on it.
…Feingold for having been out in front on this. I respect him for standing up for the Bill of Rights, too.
But he is wrong to say “Iraq was a mistake,” for reasons I explained in Enough already with calling Iraq a mistake last November.
I think Feingold saying he wants to Censure Bush for it when almost no one else in the Senate will say that pretty much says it all.
Good point MB. I recommend everyone read MB’s diary at the link above. I think it is very well documented and clarifies these issues.
It wasn’t a mistake, it was completely intentional. When I posted comments (under a different handle) that got me banned from Daily Kos, that was a mistake. I feel kinda bad about it now.
But the neocons don’t feel the least bit bad about Iraq. They did exactly what they set out to do. They’re just pissed that the Iraqis had the audacity to interfere with their plans by fighting back.
They most definitely to not regret what they did, though.
Americans hate losers and they hate losing. It’s bad strategy to hope the GOP loses. It looks like we want the Nation to fail to too many people.
The party should project that they want to win. That they are going to fight George Bush and the GOP on every issue. That they are DEFINITELY going to withdraw from Iraq, not because the cost is too great – Americans will endure heavy losses if they feel the cause is just – but because it’s a BULLSHIT MISSION.
Stop saying that “we must accomplish the mission”. The mission was to invade and occupy Iraq, to take control of it’s government and resources and establish permanent military bases. The goal was to gain political, economic and military power in Iraq. That’s bullshit and it’s un-American. The American people would have never supported such a mission and that’s why Bush and his pals dreamed up the WMD deception, to con people into it.
The Dems need to say, “The GOP lied us into this mess to pursue an immoral, not to mention stupid, agenda. We’re going to end this crap and get ourselves out of this shit. Then we’re going to deal responsibly with the fallout, such as increased VA costs, which will be considerable.”.
In short they need to grow balls and tell it like it is.