Russell Feingold...

[skybridge]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

On this, we can agree.

Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that

Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states

As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party

Dave

Gotta' agree with Hawk and Notre Dame on this one.  After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that Feingold is a potential VP at best.  At the top of the ticket he will do more harm then good.  Put him in the VP slot to keep the base happy and maybe he can lock up states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa early.

The recent liberal candidates' failures are to be attributed less to their liberalism than their poor campaigns. Think back to 2000 and ou'll notice that Gore's and Nader's combined vote outdoes Bush's and Buchanan's by 2,977,696--somewhat indicating a desire for a liberal president. In 2004 Bush was re-elected with the narrowest PV percantage margin in history and 59,028,548 votes amounting to 48.27% of the PV isn't really a crushing defeat either.

For the time being, Bush may have succeeded at taking the country to the right, but that does not mean that a liberal has no chance. If the Dems only nominated a strong candidate with substance and learned to run a proper campaign there is a good chance he could pull it off. (And Feingold is a candidate who could do just that, so don't isolate him in the VP slot.)

[Rob]

The recent liberal candidates' failures are to be attributed less to their liberalism than their poor campaigns. Think back to 2000 and ou'll notice that Gore's and Nader's combined vote outdoes Bush's and Buchanan's by 2,977,696--somewhat indicating a desire for a liberal president. In 2004 Bush was re-elected with the narrowest PV percantage margin in history and 59,028,548 votes amounting to 48.27% of the PV isn't really a crushing defeat either.

For the time being, Bush may have succeeded at taking the country to the right, but that does not mean that a liberal has no chance. If the Dems only nominated a strong candidate with substance and learned to run a proper campaign there is a good chance he could pull it off. (And Feingold is a candidate who could do just that, so don't isolate him in the VP slot.)

I disagree. The country has been swinging to the right for a long time- since 1968, in fact. This isn't personal support of Bush; he actually did a lot worse than he might have.

[wallock]

I, like most Democrats, will not give in to weakening our liberal stances to get a 'moderate' in office.  Kerry was considered liberal and had perhaps the worst personality I have ever seen (and Bush has a great one - whether you like him or not) and Kerry NEARLY won.  Get someone like Feingold who connects with absolutely EVERYONE he meets and voters don't only 'feel' like they can relate with him, but in fact, really do, we win easily win.  Remember, Feingold beat Kerry in Wisconsin by 10 points (Feingold recieves MANY Republican votes and Wisconsin is pretty rural except for Madison/Milwaukee).  We don't need Feingold's help with the blue states, we need his help to win the Red ones.  He has convinced many Republicans to vote for him because he is pro US jobs (unlike Kerry, has a record to back it) and is the most fically responsible senator in all of congress (frequently commended as a deficit hawk).  You guys can keep moving 'right' with the Republicans, but I won't and Feingold won't.  It is time we change our game plan to convince people liberal ideals are not bad instead of showing how 'moderate' we are.  Heck, we even have a Senate minority leader that is considered 'pro-life'.  And Feingold won't do it, but we also need someone to start standing up for gay rights.  It is no longer about votes, but about the simple fact that we are treating an entire group of people like complete crap and Democrat's don't want to speak out about.  In thirty years from now I hope people feel embarrassed for not supporting them when they realy needed it.  Can you imagine if during the 60's, democrats and liberals didn't touch African American civil rights because they were afraid of losing votes?  Blacks were born black and gays were born gay.  Therefore, gays and gay couples should have every single right as non-gays do.  Period.   It sickens me how much 'Democrats' are giving in to the right wing agenda.  OK, I'm done.

[skybridge]

afraid of losing votes?  Blacks were born black and gays were born gay.  Therefore, gays and gay couples should have every single right as non-gays do.  Period.   

This may be a little off-topic but that's the one liberal view I don't share. I think an amendment banning gay-marriage might be harsh but personally I don't care too much. However, I DO NOT think they should have the right to adopt or raise children. You might say that some of them would make better parents than a number of straight couples, but think about the child here! Wouldn't you find it the least bit disturbing if you had two daddies or mommies--and no complimentary parent of the other sex?

It sickens me how much 'Democrats' are giving in to the right wing agenda.  OK, I'm done.

Here we can agree again.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I disagree. The country has been swinging to the right for a long time- since 1968, in fact. This isn't personal support of Bush; he actually did a lot worse than he might have.

I don't think it's swung to the right so much as the priorities of Presidential candidates have changed, partly because since '68 the Republicans have been banging on about wedge issues in a way they didn't before, and partly because the Democrats have let them do that.

[wallock]

afraid of losing votes?  Blacks were born black and gays were born gay.  Therefore, gays and gay couples should have every single right as non-gays do.  Period.   

This may be a little off-topic but that's the one liberal view I don't share. I think an amendment banning gay-marriage might be harsh but personally I don't care too much. However, I DO NOT think they should have the right to adopt or raise children. You might say that some of them would make better parents than a number of straight couples, but think about the child here! Wouldn't you find it the least bit disturbing if you had two daddies or mommies--and no complimentary parent of the other sex?

That is exactly what sickens me!  Gay couples who have children (and many studies have shown this... read Psychology Today for example) end up having children that are in fact, more well rounded, educated and content with themselves (high self esteem).  Child abuse in gay marriages is NO higher than in regular marriages.  PERIOD.  Also, of course it would be different having two parents of the same sex.  But you can learn just as much about life and become just as great person having gay parents.  Many couple have their child have a mentor of the opposite sex too.  That's like saying, "Think about the child, how would you feel if you had two black parents and were a white baby".  Of course your upbringing could be a little different, but not bad in the slightest.  Would you say that a black couple shouldn't be allowed to have children?  I sure wouldn't hope so.  I just hate it how people, including democrats, are so cruel to this group of people because of the way they were born.  A big part of the right wing agenda is banning gay marriage and democrats are giving in to it when 90 percent of us know it is wrong to do so.  Believe me, in twenty years many democrats will be embarrassed (and rightfully so) for the way they were acting now about this issue.

[ian]

afraid of losing votes?  Blacks were born black and gays were born gay.  Therefore, gays and gay couples should have every single right as non-gays do.  Period.   

This may be a little off-topic but that's the one liberal view I don't share. I think an amendment banning gay-marriage might be harsh but personally I don't care too much. However, I DO NOT think they should have the right to adopt or raise children. You might say that some of them would make better parents than a number of straight couples, but think about the child here! Wouldn't you find it the least bit disturbing if you had two daddies or mommies--and no complimentary parent of the other sex?

That is exactly what sickens me!  Gay couples who have children (and many studies have shown this... read Psychology Today for example) end up having children that are in fact, more well rounded, educated and content with themselves (high self esteem).  Child abuse in gay marriages is NO higher than in regular marriages.  PERIOD.  Also, of course it would be different having two parents of the same sex.  But you can learn just as much about life and become just as great person having gay parents.  Many couple have their child have a mentor of the opposite sex too.  That's like saying, "Think about the child, how would you feel if you had two black parents and were a white baby".  Of course your upbringing could be a little different, but not bad in the slightest.  Would you say that a black couple shouldn't be allowed to have children?  I sure wouldn't hope so.  I just hate it how people, including democrats, are so cruel to this group of people because of the way they were born.  A big part of the right wing agenda is banning gay marriage and democrats are giving in to it when 90 percent of us know it is wrong to do so.  Believe me, in twenty years many democrats will be embarrassed (and rightfully so) for the way they were acting now about this issue.

Well stated, Wallock.

[Notre Dame rules!]

90% of whom knows it is wrong to ban gay marriage?  90% of the people who on the measure when it is on the ballot?  Not hardly!  Gay marriage is a losing issue among Dems, GOP, and Indy voters.   Name a single state in which the measure wasn't defeated in overwhelming margins. 

Do we need an amendment to state what marriage is?  I would hope not. 

Do we need a judiciary that  adjudicates existing law, rather than legislating from the bench?  I believe so.

[Moooooo]

I dont care to much for gay marriage, but adoption is a different thing.  Id rather see a child in a loving home with two parents of the same sex than in a broke down orphanage or foster home.  As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

[skybridge]

I dont care to much for gay marriage, but adoption is a different thing.  Id rather see a child in a loving home with two parents of the same sex than in a broke down orphanage or foster home.  As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

With your last sentence you may have a point. Anyway, to get this back on topic, what's Feingold's position?

[opebo]

As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

Garbage!  We put up with heterosexuals and religious pushing their lifestyles on their children. 

[minionofmidas]

The difficult thing to get your head around is this: To win, a Democrat needs to win enough votes in the Center AND hold the Liberal base together.
Thence a clear-cut Liberal won't win and neither will a clear-cut Moderate ... unless the Republicans do worse. Which they're close to.

[Moooooo]

As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

Garbage!  We put up with heterosexuals....

You can't argue with nature.

[Rob]

As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

Garbage!  We put up with heterosexuals....

You can't argue with nature.

Agreed.

[Frodo]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

On this, we can agree.

Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that

Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states

As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party

Dave

it's not enough to be against something, you have to offer a compelling vision of your own. 

and i don't see how nominating Democratic versions of Nelson Rockefeller (as so many Democrats here on this forum favor) is going to get us back our majority if they have no other message other than that they are not Republicans.   Democrats need to get their identity back and feel comfortable being in their own skins before expecting people to be comfortable with giving them power again.  so far, i see some hope with Dean, and an increasingly combative Congressional minority, but that could all go down the drain if we nominate another lackluster centrist for president with no vision of where to take the country.

certainly, running as a centrist can win you this race or that, but in the broad scheme of things, it is not what creates a durable national majority that lasts across decades no matter who may occupy the Oval Office, or what party controls Capitol Hill.  i am imploring the centrists to have a longer-term vision than winning the next election.  running centrist in elections is a short-term strategy -it is no substitute for creating durable majorities.  it is the vision of where the country should be that compels people to become lifelong Democrats or Republicans, and shapes the landscape in which our agenda can be advanced.     

compelling visions have typically come not from the cautious centrist middle, but from the ideological poles.  it has happened with the Republican Party (as we all can see), and the Democratic Party in the past when it took advantage of the rise of labor and the progressive movement around the turn of the century.  never has it come from moderates.   

bottom line: centrists by default are incapable of offering up compelling visions of where they would like to see this country decades from now.  they are centrists because they are cautious -and caution has never been a source of inspiration. 

[opebo]

As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

Garbage!  We put up with heterosexuals....

You can't argue with nature.

Nonsense, of course you can.  Besides, homosexuality is just as 'natural' as heterosexuality.

[skybridge]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

On this, we can agree.

Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that

Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states

As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party

Dave

it's not enough to be against something, you have to offer a compelling vision of your own. 

and i don't see how nominating Democratic versions of Nelson Rockefeller (as so many Democrats here on this forum favor) is going to get us back our majority if they have no other message other than that they are not Republicans.   Democrats need to get their identity back and feel comfortable being in their own skins before expecting people to be comfortable with giving them power again.  so far, i see some hope with Dean, and an increasingly combative Congressional minority, but that could all go down the drain if we nominate another lackluster centrist for president with no vision of where to take the country.

certainly, running as a centrist can win you this race or that, but in the broad scheme of things, it is not what creates a durable national majority that lasts across decades no matter who may occupy the Oval Office, or what party controls Capitol Hill.  i am imploring the centrists to have a longer-term vision than winning the next election.  running centrist in elections is a short-term strategy -it is no substitute for creating durable majorities.  it is the vision of where the country should be that compels people to become lifelong Democrats or Republicans, and shapes the landscape in which our agenda can be advanced.     

compelling visions have typically come not from the cautious centrist middle, but from the ideological poles.  it has happened with the Republican Party (as we all can see), and the Democratic Party in the past when it took advantage of the rise of labor and the progressive movement around the turn of the century.  never has it come from moderates.   

bottom line: centrists by default are incapable of offering up compelling visions of where they would like to see this country decades from now.  they are centrists because they are cautious -and caution has never been a source of inspiration. 

Someone who agrees with me.

[Smash255]

One thing Feingold brings to the table is ecitment charisma very similar to what Clinton brought to the table,  That charisma can be the difference in those swing states, espcially when you have a liberal running against a conservative

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

if Feingold / Bayh can win MN, WI, IA, MI, PA,  and OH, that would be great. Then, NH or OR and states Kerry won by 6.68% or more would win the election.

[TheresNoMoney]

Feingold has to be on the ticket in 2008. The guy exemplifies everything that is good about progressive Democrats.

He has great values, great charisma, and connects with average people (because he is an average guy from small-town Wisconsin). He could really revolutionize the way politicians are viewed and do wonder for the progressive movement.

He has a very interesting background as well (getting a Rhodes scholarship coming from UW-Madison, voting against every Senate pay raise and returning his raise to the Treasury, holding listening sessions every year, creative television ads).

Whether president or VP, the Democrats need Feingold in 2008.

[cwelsch]

If you guys want so bad for Republicans to vote for your candidates maybe you should just run a centrist campaign.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you guys want so bad for Republicans to vote for your candidates maybe you should just run a centrist campaign.

Bad move, what the Democrats need to do is work on framing their issues better.

[Serenity Now]

I dont care to much for gay marriage, but adoption is a different thing.  Id rather see a child in a loving home with two parents of the same sex than in a broke down orphanage or foster home.  As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

Could you tell me exactly in which way you imagine homosexual couples would "push" their lifestyle on the child??

[Notre Dame rules!]

I dont care to much for gay marriage, but adoption is a different thing.  Id rather see a child in a loving home with two parents of the same sex than in a broke down orphanage or foster home.  As long as they DONT push their lifestyle on the child.

Could you tell me exactly in which way you imagine homosexual couples would "push" their lifestyle on the child??


Are you kidding?   Let's think about this.  A gay couple is bound to invite other gay couples over for parties, get togethers, and what have you.  That virtually guarantees  that the child will be exposed to gay culture far more than he/she would be exposed to traditional relationships. 


That's not a knock at gays, it's just simple fact.  Conversely, a straight couple tends to invite other straight couples over for the vast majority of their social functions, and we always hear about how gay children feel compelled by 'society' to conform to the mainstream culture.  How would a straight child living in a gay culture not feel the same pressures?