Russell Feingold...

[wallock]

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:

I worked for Senator Feingold and he goes WAY beyond what is called for as far as campaign finance.  I am 100 percent positive he didn't respond to your presidential inquiry was because he (meaning he told his staff) that is was a misuse of funds to discuss campaign related issues through his Federal office.  If you want a response contact him through www.russfeingold.org to get ahold of his Senate committee, they may be more leniant in answering a question about his run.  I know from experience that at his town hall meetings he refuses to allow people to write checks for his campaign and won't let teachers put their school/university email addresses on the sign in sheet because it is unethical to use the tax payers money in that way without permission.  Visit my site www.russforpresident.com to learn more about him (my ten reasons list is at the beginning of this thread).

[wallock]

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.

[wallock]

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.

He accepts many contributions, but he likes his contributions to be from individuals, not corporations (in the form of 527's etc...).  Personal wealth really has very little to do with how much you spend on a campaign.  He would generate millions and millions from individuals.  He would do just as well as Kerry did as far as money is concerned.

[wallock]

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.

He also only refuses a pay raise while in office.  He see's like this:  You shouldn't be able to vote for your own raise and the people should be able to elect into office at the current pay rate if they think you deserve it.  For example, Feingold is making more this year than last because Wisconsin elected him into the Senate at the current rate.  He makes just as much as any other senator, but in five years from now he will be making the same, unlike all the other senators who voted to give themselves raises.

[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.

[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.