Russell Feingold...

[skybridge]

I admire him for being the one Senator to oppose the PATRIOT ACT. I also like that he refuses pay raises and that he's Jewish. His Jewishness might actually not be much of a problem as long as the Republicans don't nominate another born-again Christian. Rove's strategy for 2004 was to get 4 million evangelicals to vote for Bush who stayed home in 2000--and those voters who aren't likely to vote for Feingold in the first place would stay home again. Even if they don't, these people tend to be strongly pro-Israel (they need the country to survive for Jesus to return or something) and thus can't logically opppose Feingold for being Jewish. Besides, nobody made a big deal about Kerry's Catholicism.

Like I said in another thread, if the Democrats were a stronger party they could sell a lot of strengths properly. However, don't overestimate debating skills. Kerry was generally considered the winner (even if slightly) of the debates and Bush still beat him in the election--and Kerry is a Northeastern intellectual too.

[skybridge]

Jewish, and Jewish VP running mates traditionally do well in FL

Who was there other than Joe Lieberman so far?

[skybridge]

Jewish, and Jewish VP running mates traditionally do well in FL

Who was there other than Joe Lieberman so far?

Lieberman was the only one, unless you count Barry Goldwater who was part Jewish.

But Goldwater was a presidential candidate. Bob was arguing that Feingold would make a good VP.

Kerry has Jewish ancestors, Dean married a Jewish woman who raises their kids Jewish and Clark supposedly descends from a line of rabbis too.

[skybridge]

Looks like Feingold is considering a national run, since he has been moving towards the center the last few years.   In 2000 he was the most liberal Senator (based on 498 roll call votes  Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000.)

But in 2004 he was not even in the top ten, though he was more liberal than Clinton or Biden.  (The National Journal's vote ratings on 63 roll call votes).

Could you provide a complete list?

[skybridge]

Looks like Feingold is considering a national run, since he has been moving towards the center the last few years.   In 2000 he was the most liberal Senator (based on 498 roll call votes  Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000.)

But in 2004 he was not even in the top ten, though he was more liberal than Clinton or Biden.  (The National Journal's vote ratings on 63 roll call votes).

Could you provide a complete list?

Unfortunately the Political Analysis, 8:211-237, 2000 is not online and The National Journal is by subscription to all the data.
Here is the 2000 top 20 liberals:                         RANK
FEINGOLD        WISCONSIN   D    1
DAYTON          MINNESOTA   D    2
CORZINE         NEW JERSEY   D    3
WELLSTONE       MINNESOTA   D    4
BOXER           CALIFORNIA   D    5
SARBANES        MARYLAND   D    6.5
REED            RHODE ISLAND   D    6.5
KENNEDY                   MASSACHUSETTS   D    8
DURBIN          ILLINOIS                   D    9
HARKIN          IOWA                       D    10
DODD            CONNECTICUT   D    11
AKAKA           HAWAII                     D    12.5
BYRD                   WEST VIRGINIA   D    12.5
LEAHY           VERMONT    D    14
INOUYE          HAWAII                     D    15
LEVIN                    MICHIGAN   D    16
CONRAD          NORTH DAKOTA   D    17
STABENOW        MICHIGAN   D    18
MIKULSKI        MARYLAND   D    19
TORRICELLI      NEW JERSEY   D    20.5
SCHUMER         NEW YORK   D    20.5
CLINTON         NEW YORK   D    22

Here is National Journal info I have:
Most Liberal                             Rating
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)           94
Richard Durbin (D-IL)        93.2
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)        92.2
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)         91.2
Jack Reed (D-RI)                90.3
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)             89.3
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)   88.5
Carl Levin (D-MI)              88.5
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)    85.7
Tom Harkin (D-IA)            84.5
   
Presidential Candidates          Rating
John Kerry (D-MA)         NA  (Kerry missed too many votes)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)   71
Russ Feingold (D-WI)     82.8
Chris Dodd (D-CT)        78.8
Joe Biden (D-DE)         78.7
Evan Bayh (D-IN)         61.7

Hmmm. The states aren't surprising, really.

[skybridge]

I got this email from Senator Feingold today. He didn't answer any of my questions about his presidential ambitions and must have mistaken me for a Wisconsinite. However, I think some of you may find it interesting:

 Dear Friend,
     
     Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me and let me know your
     thoughts on matters of concern to you. Hearing from Wisconsinites is
     my most important source of information and one of the things I enjoy
     most about my job.
     
     Due to the high volume of non-constituent Internet mail and "spam"
     this account receives on a daily basis, I unfortunately am unable to
     respond to your message by e-mail, but I do want to respond to your
     thoughts and concerns. Constituents who have included their name and
     address in the e-mail will receive a letter from me through the U.S.
     mail addressing the issues raised.  If you did not include an address,
     I encourage you to resend your original message with your address, or
     feel free to use the "contact me" form on my web site at
     http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html. At this time, I am only able
     to respond to e-mails that are sent individually, not to
     mass-generated e-mails. However, the views expressed in any
     mass-generated e-mail that includes a Wisconsin address will be
     recorded.
     
     If you have a time sensitive question, please feel free to contact one
     of my offices by calling one of the numbers listed below.
     
     Thank you for writing me, I look forward to hearing from you on other
     issues of importance to you.
     
     Sincerely,
     
     Russell D. Feingold
     United States Senator
     
     506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
     WASHINGTON DC 20510-4904
     PH) 202-224-5323
     TDD) 202-224-1280
     
     1600 ASPEN COMMONS
     ROOM 100
     MIDDLETON WI 53562-3506
     PH) 608-828-1200
     TDD) 608-828-1215
     
     425 STATE STREET ROOM
     225 LACROSSE WI 54601-3341
     PH) 608-782-5585
     
     517 E WISCONSIN AVE
     #408
     MILWAUKEE WI 53202-4504
     PH) 414-276-7282
     
     401 5TH STREET
     ROOM 410
     WAUSAU WI 54403
     PH) 715-848-5660
     
     1640 MAIN STREET
     GREEN BAY WI 54302-7508
     PH) 920-465-7508

[skybridge]

At least his bot was nice enough to write you back.

He must have a slow bot since I wrote him about a week ago...

[skybridge]

Also, I hear a lot of talk about how we need a moderate.  John Kerry was called a 'liberal' but if you noticed, the Bush campaign focused on his moderate votes (iraq war, no child left behind, etc...).  What the Democratic Party needs is someone who IS a liberal.  We need to set ourselves a part from the Republicans instead of continually moving 'right' with them.  If a moderate is elected, the republicans will just move farther right and our 'moderates' will move with them.  The American people need two candidates that are completely different.  Whether or not it is Feingold is irrelevant.  Also, I have hear a lot of talk about the difficulty of a Senator becoming a president.  John Kerry is a perfect example of why.  His votes were viewed as inconsistent (whether or they were is again irrelevant, the fact is they were viewed that way), and they could be easily distorted.  Senator Feingold has been so incredibly consistent in everything he votes on.  Republicans will argue about why he voted in one way or another, but they will not be able to call him indecisive (and Feingold can argue anyone into the ground and is known to speak in front of Republican audiences purposely).  Check out some of his campaign ads here:  www.russforpresident.com/media.htm.  He connects with the voters like no one I have ever seen and he does it without mudslinging or talking about non-issues.

Couldn't agree more. If the Democrats really wanted to be a strong party, Feingold (or someone like him) would be their man! The Republicans would probably attack him for opposing the PATRIOT Act but if the Dems were stronger campaigners they would make people understand that this is a courageous act of independence and a refusal to infringe civil liberties.
However, being the least wealthy member of the Senate since he constantly refuses pay raises, how would he finance a presidential campaign? I hope he'd accept contributions for that matter.

[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.)

[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.

[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?

[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.