~
Make a difference right now. Take Action!
November 14, 2006
November 13, 2006
October 15, 2006
Julia Wilson, Upset By The War In Iraq.
Upset by the war in Iraq, Julia Wilson vented her frustrations with President Bush last spring on her MySpace.com page.
She posted a picture of the president, scrawled "Kill Bush" across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand. She replaced the page last spring after learning in her eighth-grade history class that such threats are a federal offense.
Too late.
Federal authorities had found the page and placed her on their checklist. They finally reached her this week in her molecular biology class.
The 14-year-old freshman at Sacramento's McClatchy High School was taken out of class Wednesday and questioned for about 15 minutes by two Secret Service agents.
"I think they did completely overreact. I'm just a kid. I don't think I'm much of a threat," Wilson said.
The incident has upset her parents, who said the agents should have included them when they questioned their daughter.
"It was an interrogation," said Kirstie Wilson, the teen's mother.
On Friday, the teenager said the agents' questioning over her page on the popular teenage Internet gathering spot led her to tears.
"I wasn't dangerous. I mean, look at what's (stenciled) on my backpack -- it's a heart. I'm a very peace-loving person," said Wilson, an honor student who describes herself as politically passionate. "I'm against the war in Iraq. I'm not going to kill the president."
---------------------------------------------------------------She posted a picture of the president, scrawled "Kill Bush" across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand. She replaced the page last spring after learning in her eighth-grade history class that such threats are a federal offense.
Too late.
Federal authorities had found the page and placed her on their checklist. They finally reached her this week in her molecular biology class.
The 14-year-old freshman at Sacramento's McClatchy High School was taken out of class Wednesday and questioned for about 15 minutes by two Secret Service agents.
"I think they did completely overreact. I'm just a kid. I don't think I'm much of a threat," Wilson said.
The incident has upset her parents, who said the agents should have included them when they questioned their daughter.
"It was an interrogation," said Kirstie Wilson, the teen's mother.
On Friday, the teenager said the agents' questioning over her page on the popular teenage Internet gathering spot led her to tears.
"I wasn't dangerous. I mean, look at what's (stenciled) on my backpack -- it's a heart. I'm a very peace-loving person," said Wilson, an honor student who describes herself as politically passionate. "I'm against the war in Iraq. I'm not going to kill the president."
WestTexasBliss wrote
Can you believe this? Wouldn’t a simple phone call to the parents been enough? Who do you Secret Service agents think you are, Nazi SS agents? I know you have to kiss your boss’s (Bush) Anus, but give me a brake, a 14 year old girl and all you need to do is look at her parent’s and her background! Were do you think your at, the Middle East? You’re in America! 14 year old girls in America, with a background like hers don't kill people! You made her cry! You… This goes to show me that Sen. Russ Feingold is right about wiretapping. Some jobs should be on the line but I know all you will get is a stupid donkey grin and a pat on the backside from your boss Bush. Wait till 2006; I pray we can find someone to clean up the crap in Washington! So far we have Republican gangsters, spineless Democrats, a House and Senate selling this country to the highest bidder (K street, business as usual) and now, Secret Service agents who are like Nazi SS agents and American couch potatoes. Sen. Russ Feingold, were are you? I don’t condone the picture, but, go get them girl.
August 20, 2006
The Sin of Silence
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
~ Abraham Lincoln
~ Abraham Lincoln
August 11, 2006
Beat Swords into Plowshares
When I was 8 years old a hornet's nest began to take shape in the back of our yard. I went out and watched with a combination of fascination and fear as it grew day by day.
Finally, unable to stand the suspense, I took a big brick and threw it at the nest, breaking off the bottom half and sending the hornets into a swarming frenzy. I ran away as fast as I could as the angry bees swirled behind.
When I think of the relationship of the United States to the Middle Eastern Muslim countries, my experience as an 8-year-old comes to mind. "Why do they hate us?" Americans ask. Well, we've thrown a brick at their hive.
Forget the rhetoric about World War III. Choose the rhetoric of the Middle Eastern prophet Isaiah: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Frank O'Hara is vice president of Planning Decisions in Hallowell.
By Frank O'Hara
August 04, 2006
FAIR VERSUS FREE
The Federal Communications Commission seeks to enforce a "fairness doctrine" on radio and TV stations. We suffered numerous "fair trade" laws, until they were declared unenforceable. One businessman vies with another in proclaiming his faith in competition — provided that it is "fair."
Yet, scrutinize word for word the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and you will not find the word "fair." The First Amendment does not protect the "fair" exercise of religion, but the "free" exercise thereof; it does not restrain Congress from abridging the "fairness" of speech or of the press, but the "freedom" of speech or of the press.
The modern tendency to substitute "fair" for "free" reveals how far we have moved from the initial conception of the Founding Fathers. They viewed government as policeman and umpire. They sought to establish a framework within which individuals could pursue their own objectives in their own way, separately or through voluntary cooperation, provided only that they did not interfere with the freedom of others to do likewise.
The modern conception is very different. Government has become Big Brother. Its function has become to protect the citizen, not merely from his fellows, but from himself, whether he wants to be protected or not. Government is not simply an umpire but an active participant, entering into every nook and cranny of social and economic activity. All this, in order to promote the high-minded goals of "fairness," "justice," "equality."
Does this not constitute progress? A move toward a more humane society? Quite the contrary. When "fairness" replaces "freedom," all our liberties are in danger. In Walden, Thoreau says: "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." That is the way I feel when I hear my "servants" in Washington assuring me of the "fairness" of their edicts.
There is no objective standard of "fairness." "Fairness" is strictly in the eye of the beholder. If speech must be fair, then it cannot also be free; someone must decide what is fair. A radio station is not free to transmit unfair speech — as judged by the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission. If the printed press were subject to a comparable "fairness doctrine," it would have to be controlled by a government bureau and our vaunted free press would soon become a historical curiosity.
What is true for speech — where the conflict is perhaps clearest — is equally true for every other area. To a producer or seller, a "fair" price is a high price. To the buyer or consumer, a "fair" price is a low price. How is the conflict to be adjudicated? By competition in a free market? Or by government bureaucrats in a "fair" market?
Businessmen who sing the glories of free enterprise and then demand "fair" competition are enemies, not friends, of free markets. To them, "fair" competition is a euphemism for a price-fixing agreement. They are exemplifying Adam Smith's remark that "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." For consumers, the more "unfair" the competition, the better. That assures lowest prices and highest quality.
Is then the search for "fairness" all a mistake? Not at all. There is a real role for fairness, but that role is in constructing general rules and adjudicating disputes about the rules, not in determining the outcome of our separate activities. That is the sense in which we speak of a "fair" game and "fair" umpire. If we applied the present doctrine of "fairness" to a football game, the referee would be required after each play to move the ball backward or forward enough to make sure that the game ended in a draw!
Our Founding Fathers designed a fair Constitution to protect human freedom. In Thomas Jefferson's ringing phrases from the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among Men ... to secure ... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Milton Friedman, the winner of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, is the author of Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose . This piece originally appeared in the July 4, 1977 issue of Newsweek and was reprinted in Bright Promises, Dismal Performances: An Economist's Protest, a collection of his articles. Copyright 1983 by Thomas Horton and Daughters, 26662 South New Town Drive, Sun Lakes, AZ 85224.
Yet, scrutinize word for word the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and you will not find the word "fair." The First Amendment does not protect the "fair" exercise of religion, but the "free" exercise thereof; it does not restrain Congress from abridging the "fairness" of speech or of the press, but the "freedom" of speech or of the press.
The modern tendency to substitute "fair" for "free" reveals how far we have moved from the initial conception of the Founding Fathers. They viewed government as policeman and umpire. They sought to establish a framework within which individuals could pursue their own objectives in their own way, separately or through voluntary cooperation, provided only that they did not interfere with the freedom of others to do likewise.
The modern conception is very different. Government has become Big Brother. Its function has become to protect the citizen, not merely from his fellows, but from himself, whether he wants to be protected or not. Government is not simply an umpire but an active participant, entering into every nook and cranny of social and economic activity. All this, in order to promote the high-minded goals of "fairness," "justice," "equality."
Does this not constitute progress? A move toward a more humane society? Quite the contrary. When "fairness" replaces "freedom," all our liberties are in danger. In Walden, Thoreau says: "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." That is the way I feel when I hear my "servants" in Washington assuring me of the "fairness" of their edicts.
There is no objective standard of "fairness." "Fairness" is strictly in the eye of the beholder. If speech must be fair, then it cannot also be free; someone must decide what is fair. A radio station is not free to transmit unfair speech — as judged by the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission. If the printed press were subject to a comparable "fairness doctrine," it would have to be controlled by a government bureau and our vaunted free press would soon become a historical curiosity.
What is true for speech — where the conflict is perhaps clearest — is equally true for every other area. To a producer or seller, a "fair" price is a high price. To the buyer or consumer, a "fair" price is a low price. How is the conflict to be adjudicated? By competition in a free market? Or by government bureaucrats in a "fair" market?
Businessmen who sing the glories of free enterprise and then demand "fair" competition are enemies, not friends, of free markets. To them, "fair" competition is a euphemism for a price-fixing agreement. They are exemplifying Adam Smith's remark that "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." For consumers, the more "unfair" the competition, the better. That assures lowest prices and highest quality.
Is then the search for "fairness" all a mistake? Not at all. There is a real role for fairness, but that role is in constructing general rules and adjudicating disputes about the rules, not in determining the outcome of our separate activities. That is the sense in which we speak of a "fair" game and "fair" umpire. If we applied the present doctrine of "fairness" to a football game, the referee would be required after each play to move the ball backward or forward enough to make sure that the game ended in a draw!
Our Founding Fathers designed a fair Constitution to protect human freedom. In Thomas Jefferson's ringing phrases from the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among Men ... to secure ... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Milton Friedman, the winner of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, is the author of Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose . This piece originally appeared in the July 4, 1977 issue of Newsweek and was reprinted in Bright Promises, Dismal Performances: An Economist's Protest, a collection of his articles. Copyright 1983 by Thomas Horton and Daughters, 26662 South New Town Drive, Sun Lakes, AZ 85224.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
July 17, 2006
April 30, 2006
Home Sweet Home
Sarcasm aside, I'm not getting my hopes up on a Rove indictment. Too many times over the last 5 years, something has happened that should have signaled the downfall of the current administration. Voting discrepancies, Katrina, Libby's indictment, NSA spying, and the list goes on and on. Yet either the topic was next thing to ignored by the media or by those who could actually take some action (Democrats), or it was somehow forgotten by the angry masses because of something new happening to divert our attention. In that way, Rove has been successful.
I fear for our country for the next 2-3 years. I've learned the hard way that bad things don't take long to happen, but it takes a helluva long time to correct them. Will we ever be able to crawl out of this hole or will this continue until there is nothing left of the U.S.A.?
Posted by: RD April 30, 2006 at WE Blog
What’s it going to take for you spineless good for nothing coward Democrats wimps to do something? Will you Censure Bush&CO now? Are you ever going to crawl out from under that rock and do something! It’s your fault we are in this mess; you Democrats did a piss poor job the last time you were in office so Americans voted for every Republican on the ticket. You Republican Gangsters and you Democrat Cowards are nothing but a big joke and you are laughing all the way to the bank, and we Americans pay.
Russ Feingold doesn’t have a problem standing up to the Republicans. To bad he is all alone. Americans need more like him!
Posted by: BackyardPit
I fear for our country for the next 2-3 years. I've learned the hard way that bad things don't take long to happen, but it takes a helluva long time to correct them. Will we ever be able to crawl out of this hole or will this continue until there is nothing left of the U.S.A.?
Posted by: RD April 30, 2006 at WE Blog
What’s it going to take for you spineless good for nothing coward Democrats wimps to do something? Will you Censure Bush&CO now? Are you ever going to crawl out from under that rock and do something! It’s your fault we are in this mess; you Democrats did a piss poor job the last time you were in office so Americans voted for every Republican on the ticket. You Republican Gangsters and you Democrat Cowards are nothing but a big joke and you are laughing all the way to the bank, and we Americans pay.
Russ Feingold doesn’t have a problem standing up to the Republicans. To bad he is all alone. Americans need more like him!
Posted by: BackyardPit
April 27, 2006
Troop Return By End Of Year
Sen. Russ Feingold said Thursday he will introduce an amendment to a spending bill requiring that U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of the year.
Feingold, D-Wis., had proposed last year a target date of Dec. 31, 2006 for the troops to return. His latest amendment takes that concept a step further by requiring the troops to leave by that date.
"Our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq," Feingold, a potential presidential candidate, said in a statement.
"Our military has performed valiantly in Iraq, but the indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. forces there tends to weaken our ability to fight the global terrorist networks that threaten us today."
Feingold plans to offer the amendment to a $106.5 billion emergency spending measure for Iraq and further hurricane relief. The amendment might not come to a vote until next week.
April 26, 2006
Give Me A Brake
Give me a brake, regarding your article “Sen. Russ Feingold's Leadership PAC suggests the White House wants to wiretap political opponents” on April 25, 2006 by Brooks Jackson and Justin Bank.
Let’s see, you have Sen. Russ Feingold, Bush, Rove and Gonzales and you want to nail Sen. Russ Feingold.
Ho I get it, you what to get a job with Fox News.
April 24, 2006
My Dinner with Feingold
Russ Feingold blew through town this weekend, and called on a few bloggers to meet him for lunch.
I'm happy to report that upon introducing myself, he informed me that he's well familiar with The BRAD BLOG. On the other hand, he's a very good politician, so I'd have said the same thing to me too ;-)
I'll mention up front, that of the current cadre of '08 Democratic Presidential contenders -- which, of course, he claims not to be thinking about -- he's just about the only one I'd seriously consider supporting at this time (though I'd certainly be open to the idea of Al Gore if he jumped back in, and Wes Clark hasn't yet done anything to piss me off yet, but barring any other fresh ideas, I'd likely be forced to go the third-party route as usual. But I digress.
Read The Full Story…
April 04, 2006
Leaving Feingold To Hang Out To Dry Is Asinine
Letting Senator Feingold hang out to dry only cements the Republican lie about our spinelessness for the as-yet undecided electorate. Just as John Kerry lost the election by not immediately tearing the Swift Boaters a new one, we might lose again by not seizing this moment. As Josh Marshall wrote then about Kerry, "If you can't defend yourself against this attack how can we trust you to protect the country." The same will be asked about Democrats and Feingold. "If you won't protect one of your own, how can we trust you to protect the rest of us."
MORE…
MORE…
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
April 03, 2006
The Republicans are TRAITORS
The Republicans are TRAITORS
Watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Feingold's censure resolution, I am struck, ONCE AGAIN, by the abysmal lack of integrity of the Republicans in Congress.
They have made their stand, behind the most criminal, deceitful and incompetent President in the history of the United States of America -- and they will not be moved. Not by facts, not by arguments, not by the very Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
In this execrable display of mindless partisanship, the Republicans in Congress neither uphold nor defend that Constitution. It is patently clear that the Republicans hold partisanship above all else -- above truth, above country, above the Constitution.
They are traitors. They are GUILTY OF TREASON AGAINST THEIR COUNTRY.
Read The Full Story…
Watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Feingold's censure resolution, I am struck, ONCE AGAIN, by the abysmal lack of integrity of the Republicans in Congress.
They have made their stand, behind the most criminal, deceitful and incompetent President in the history of the United States of America -- and they will not be moved. Not by facts, not by arguments, not by the very Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
In this execrable display of mindless partisanship, the Republicans in Congress neither uphold nor defend that Constitution. It is patently clear that the Republicans hold partisanship above all else -- above truth, above country, above the Constitution.
They are traitors. They are GUILTY OF TREASON AGAINST THEIR COUNTRY.
Read The Full Story…
March 31, 2006
United States of America for Feingold
- Alabama for Feingold
- Alaska for Feingold
- Arizona for Feingold
- Arkansas for Feingold
- Colorado for Feingold
- Connecticut for Feingold
- Delaware for Feingold
- Florida for Feingold
- Georgia for Feingold
- Hawaii for Feingold
- Idaho for Feingold
- Indiana for Feingold
- Kansas for Feingold
- Kentucky for Feingold
- Louisiana for Feingold
- Maine for Feingold
- Maryland for Feingold
- Mississippi for Feingold
- Montana for Feingold
- Nebraska for Feingold
- Nevada for Feingold
- New Hampshire for Feingold
- New Mexico for Feingold
- Carolina for Feingold
- North Dakota for Feingold
- Oklahoma for Feingold
- Oregon for Feingold
- Rhode Island for Feingold
- South Carolina for Feingold
- South Dakota for Feingold
- Utah for Feingold
- Vermont for Feingold
- Virginia for Feingold
- West Virginia for Feingold
- Wisconsin for Feingold
- Wyoming for Feingold
All Hands On Deck
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let Russ Know That We've Got His Back.
---------------------------------------------------------------
March 30, 2006
Democrats: Waiting Until The Time Is Right
Maybe the electorate is waiting until the fall to make up its collective mind, when the people can watch endless distorted attack ads on television paid for by special interests. Maybe that's what they crave, followed by a two-year presidential campaign decided by a couple of thousand rich people and a handful of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Right now the best thing President Bush and the Republican Party have going for them is the Democratic Party. God forbid someone should stand up and start connecting the dots, linking the permanent interests of urban America and rural America, pulling together the soccer moms and the NASCAR dads.
Right now the best thing President Bush and the Republican Party have going for them is the Democratic Party. God forbid someone should stand up and start connecting the dots, linking the permanent interests of urban America and rural America, pulling together the soccer moms and the NASCAR dads.
March 27, 2006
Feingold Is A Patriot
Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman came to Madison last week with an important message for his party's members in Wisconsin and nationally.
Mehlman said that, while he may disagree with U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold on particular issues, "I recognize Senator Feingold is a patriot and a good man."
Read the full story…
Mehlman said that, while he may disagree with U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold on particular issues, "I recognize Senator Feingold is a patriot and a good man."
Read the full story…
Feingold's Principled Stance Deserves Support
Once again, the Democrats have shown why they do so poorly in elections.
The recent resolution for censure of President Bush put forth by Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin illustrates the point, as no other senator has joined him in this effort to expose the crime of illegal wiretapping by this president.
One has to wonder why other senators do not rush out to join a senator speaking out about an actual crime. Isn't it the duty of senators to uphold the law, no matter which party they belong to?
Perhaps this explains why fewer than half of eligible voters go to the polls. They already know the game is rigged.
But every now and again, a patriot like Feingold shows up to do his job, and wouldn't you know it, he's the only one crying in the wilderness of a Congress that will let this administration do anything in the whole wide world its wants to.
As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said recently in a speech, and I paraphrase, we are at the beginning of dictatorship, and it would be better to fix it now rather than later.
Looks like only Feingold is willing to act.
William Johnson…
The recent resolution for censure of President Bush put forth by Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin illustrates the point, as no other senator has joined him in this effort to expose the crime of illegal wiretapping by this president.
One has to wonder why other senators do not rush out to join a senator speaking out about an actual crime. Isn't it the duty of senators to uphold the law, no matter which party they belong to?
Perhaps this explains why fewer than half of eligible voters go to the polls. They already know the game is rigged.
But every now and again, a patriot like Feingold shows up to do his job, and wouldn't you know it, he's the only one crying in the wilderness of a Congress that will let this administration do anything in the whole wide world its wants to.
As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said recently in a speech, and I paraphrase, we are at the beginning of dictatorship, and it would be better to fix it now rather than later.
Looks like only Feingold is willing to act.
William Johnson…
March 24, 2006
Election 2006 Is the Key
In the end, this issue is going to be resolved by the 2006 midterm election. If Republicans lose control of either the House or Senate, the investigations of the Bush/Cheney White House will begin. It won't be pretty. It will make dealing with lying about sex look like High School hazing. It will even make Richard Nixon look like a piker when it comes to staying within the law.
If the early polls are half correct, independent swing voters have had it with Bush. Democrats want no part of him. Moderate Republicans are keeping their distance; they are no longer willing to hold their noses and vote for him.
It will be up to the voters in this Fall's election to judge him, and to decide whether to sweep out of office those legislators who are preventing a full investigation of this matter.
But if this issue goes to court, Bush should worry. Even Republican-appointed judges would have to comprise their judicial integrity to rule in his favor.
READ THE FULL STORY… Good
If the early polls are half correct, independent swing voters have had it with Bush. Democrats want no part of him. Moderate Republicans are keeping their distance; they are no longer willing to hold their noses and vote for him.
It will be up to the voters in this Fall's election to judge him, and to decide whether to sweep out of office those legislators who are preventing a full investigation of this matter.
But if this issue goes to court, Bush should worry. Even Republican-appointed judges would have to comprise their judicial integrity to rule in his favor.
READ THE FULL STORY… Good
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has the responsibility to provide oversight and to check the power of the president. This is our country. It is our Constitution. Feingold should not be the only one to stand on this serious matter. America is watching, and we don't expect him to stand alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------
March 23, 2006
Democrats, Excuses Excuses Excuses. Republicans, Lyres Lyres Lyres.
Myth-making and excuse-making on the Feingold Resolution
Counteracting negative reactions to censure with facts and frames.
In order to generate further support for the Feingold Censure Resolution, numerous bloggers are encouraging everyone to pay an actual physical visit to their Senators' local offices in order to urge support for censure. Anyone doing so is likely to encounter the two primary myths/excuses which have been concocted by Senators and others in order to justify their refusal to support the Resolution. They are both plainly false:
MYTH/EXCUSE NUMBER ONE: An investigation is needed before it can be known whether the President broke the law.
MYTH/EXCUSE NUMBER TWO: Republicans want this scandal to persist because it benefits them politically.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Counteracting negative reactions to censure with facts and frames.
In order to generate further support for the Feingold Censure Resolution, numerous bloggers are encouraging everyone to pay an actual physical visit to their Senators' local offices in order to urge support for censure. Anyone doing so is likely to encounter the two primary myths/excuses which have been concocted by Senators and others in order to justify their refusal to support the Resolution. They are both plainly false:
MYTH/EXCUSE NUMBER ONE: An investigation is needed before it can be known whether the President broke the law.
MYTH/EXCUSE NUMBER TWO: Republicans want this scandal to persist because it benefits them politically.
---------------------------------------------------------------
History is on Feingold’s side, even if Democrats aren’t
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
March 21, 2006
Republicans Release New Ad That Mischaracterizes Feingold's Censure Resolution
Republicans release New Ad that Mischaracterizes Feingold's Censure Resolution
FactCheck.org states, "A GOP radio ad falsely characterizes Sen. Feingold's censure resolution as reprimanding the President for pursuing Al Qaeda"
The nonpartisan, nonprofit, voter advocacy group FactCheck.org has revealed several falacies in a new Republican advertisement that takes aim at Senator Feingold and his resolution to censure President Bush for the illegal wire tapping of American Citizens. FactCheck.org monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Their goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The GOP radio ad accuses Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin of proposing to censure President Bush "for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda," which isn't true. Feingold has stated he supports wiretapping suspected terrorists. His measure would censure Bush for ordering wiretaps on US soil without a court warrant, for failing to notify all members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, and for "efforts to mislead the American people" about the legality of the program.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) released the radio advertisement on March 21. The RNC would not disclose how much they spent on the ad, but an RNC spokesperson said the advertisement is scheduled to run for a week on Wisconsin radio stations.
The ad characterizes President Bush as "working to keep American families safe," while accusing Sen. Feingold of leading Democrats who are "working against . . . efforts to secure our country." The ad claims that "Feingold and other Democrats want to censure the President. Publicly reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda." That is a false characterization.
You can read the complete analysis of the ad, the copy of the ad itself and the respective references at the following FactCheck.org page:
Southern Maryland Online
FactCheck.org
FactCheck.org states, "A GOP radio ad falsely characterizes Sen. Feingold's censure resolution as reprimanding the President for pursuing Al Qaeda"
The nonpartisan, nonprofit, voter advocacy group FactCheck.org has revealed several falacies in a new Republican advertisement that takes aim at Senator Feingold and his resolution to censure President Bush for the illegal wire tapping of American Citizens. FactCheck.org monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Their goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The GOP radio ad accuses Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin of proposing to censure President Bush "for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda," which isn't true. Feingold has stated he supports wiretapping suspected terrorists. His measure would censure Bush for ordering wiretaps on US soil without a court warrant, for failing to notify all members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, and for "efforts to mislead the American people" about the legality of the program.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) released the radio advertisement on March 21. The RNC would not disclose how much they spent on the ad, but an RNC spokesperson said the advertisement is scheduled to run for a week on Wisconsin radio stations.
The ad characterizes President Bush as "working to keep American families safe," while accusing Sen. Feingold of leading Democrats who are "working against . . . efforts to secure our country." The ad claims that "Feingold and other Democrats want to censure the President. Publicly reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda." That is a false characterization.
You can read the complete analysis of the ad, the copy of the ad itself and the respective references at the following FactCheck.org page:
Southern Maryland Online
FactCheck.org
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Republican Spin Machine is up and running.
Can you see Karl Rove’s finger prints?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
If Senate Won't Vindicate Feingold, History Will
How can we know if a President isn’t abusing his authority to eavesdrop on American citizens?
We can’t, at least under President Bush’s sweeping claim of wartime executive power.
That’s the issue at the core of Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold’s brave and lonely attempt to censure President Bush. Feingold has never asserted that “we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications” as White House Communications Director Scott McClellan falsely claimed. Feingold is challenging the President’s interpretation of the law and whether government can ever spy on Americans without a search warrant, even when Americans are communicating with someone in another country.
Such warrants aren’t hard to get. In 1978, Congress established special courts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law recognizes that emergency circumstances often require immediate action and allows the executive branch to obtain a warrant within 72 hours of the search. Not only does the law strike a balance between national security and civil liberties, it also respects the balance between the executive and judiciary. America has a long and wise history of checking unlimited power of any single branch of government, especially when individual rights are at stake.
Even if the searches are legal, which many legal scholars vehemently dispute, there’s a public policy issue that goes beyond President Bush. Would Republicans feel comfortable giving a Democratic President this kind of clandestine power? What would keep a Democrat from eavesdropping on Rush Limbaugh hoping to uncover embarrassing information on Limbaugh’s prescription drug history or failed marriages? It was only 40 years ago when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, unchecked by search warrants or judicial oversight, abusively wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. We can only hope that President Bush is limiting eavesdropping to genuine terror suspects and not gathering information on political adversaries exercising their First Amendment rights.
Nobody argues against eavesdropping on terror suspects. Nobody argues that warrants shouldn’t be classified or post-dated under exigent circumstances. However, it doesn’t take a pacifist to insist that a magistrate -- someone who doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the president -- review electronic eavesdropping requests. It’s not only the law; it’s the only way to conduct surveillance consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Senator Feingold is right to insist that the President honor both the law and Constitution. If Feingold’s fellow Senators won’t vindicate his stance, history will.
We can’t, at least under President Bush’s sweeping claim of wartime executive power.
That’s the issue at the core of Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold’s brave and lonely attempt to censure President Bush. Feingold has never asserted that “we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications” as White House Communications Director Scott McClellan falsely claimed. Feingold is challenging the President’s interpretation of the law and whether government can ever spy on Americans without a search warrant, even when Americans are communicating with someone in another country.
Such warrants aren’t hard to get. In 1978, Congress established special courts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law recognizes that emergency circumstances often require immediate action and allows the executive branch to obtain a warrant within 72 hours of the search. Not only does the law strike a balance between national security and civil liberties, it also respects the balance between the executive and judiciary. America has a long and wise history of checking unlimited power of any single branch of government, especially when individual rights are at stake.
Even if the searches are legal, which many legal scholars vehemently dispute, there’s a public policy issue that goes beyond President Bush. Would Republicans feel comfortable giving a Democratic President this kind of clandestine power? What would keep a Democrat from eavesdropping on Rush Limbaugh hoping to uncover embarrassing information on Limbaugh’s prescription drug history or failed marriages? It was only 40 years ago when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, unchecked by search warrants or judicial oversight, abusively wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. We can only hope that President Bush is limiting eavesdropping to genuine terror suspects and not gathering information on political adversaries exercising their First Amendment rights.
Nobody argues against eavesdropping on terror suspects. Nobody argues that warrants shouldn’t be classified or post-dated under exigent circumstances. However, it doesn’t take a pacifist to insist that a magistrate -- someone who doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the president -- review electronic eavesdropping requests. It’s not only the law; it’s the only way to conduct surveillance consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Senator Feingold is right to insist that the President honor both the law and Constitution. If Feingold’s fellow Senators won’t vindicate his stance, history will.
March 18, 2006
Feingold Is Right; Now Congress Must Fulfill Its Oversight Responsibility
Norman Stockwell: Feingold is right; now Congress must fulfill its oversight responsibility
A letter to the editor
Dear Editor: In Monday's paper you ran a story on Sen. Russ Feingold's efforts to call for censure of President Bush. "The president must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality," said Feingold.
I agree, but I believe the responsibility goes further. Senator Feingold sits on the Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Budget and Intelligence committees, all of which have oversight components related to the conduct of the "war on terror."
It was revealed this week by National Public Radio reporter Jackie Northam that sitting in Guantanamo, Cuba not on U.S. soil are "more than 120,000 documents," which Major General Jay Hood says were "hastily inventoried, stacked up, sealed and then transported here to Guantanamo ... Frankly, it's just in the last year that we've been able to take a closer look at what we've got here."
This is either gross negligence or total incompetence. Why were these documents, if they are such valuable clues in the investigation of terrorism, remanded to hurricane-prone, tropical storage in a foreign country and not even examined for the first three years? Why were they not brought to a state-of-the-art U.S. forensics laboratory following standard investigative process?
If, in fact, this disrespect of process and just plain common sense is any indication, Senator Feingold and other privacy advocates have good reason to voice concern over the way in which the mountains of data collected through an illegal wiretapping program are being handled.
I applaud Senator Feingold's bold statements, and I call on Congress to truly fulfill its oversight responsibility to the people of the United States, by whom they were elected.
Norman Stockwell
Madison
A letter to the editor
Dear Editor: In Monday's paper you ran a story on Sen. Russ Feingold's efforts to call for censure of President Bush. "The president must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality," said Feingold.
I agree, but I believe the responsibility goes further. Senator Feingold sits on the Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Budget and Intelligence committees, all of which have oversight components related to the conduct of the "war on terror."
It was revealed this week by National Public Radio reporter Jackie Northam that sitting in Guantanamo, Cuba not on U.S. soil are "more than 120,000 documents," which Major General Jay Hood says were "hastily inventoried, stacked up, sealed and then transported here to Guantanamo ... Frankly, it's just in the last year that we've been able to take a closer look at what we've got here."
This is either gross negligence or total incompetence. Why were these documents, if they are such valuable clues in the investigation of terrorism, remanded to hurricane-prone, tropical storage in a foreign country and not even examined for the first three years? Why were they not brought to a state-of-the-art U.S. forensics laboratory following standard investigative process?
If, in fact, this disrespect of process and just plain common sense is any indication, Senator Feingold and other privacy advocates have good reason to voice concern over the way in which the mountains of data collected through an illegal wiretapping program are being handled.
I applaud Senator Feingold's bold statements, and I call on Congress to truly fulfill its oversight responsibility to the people of the United States, by whom they were elected.
Norman Stockwell
Madison
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Feingold Jumps 30 Points
A new Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that:
Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable.
Oddly enough, the poll also finds that a majority of Americans oppose censuring President Bush. These numbers contradict another poll taken this week, which show that a majority of Americans are in favor of Russ' censure resolution.
Scott Shields compares the wording of the respective polls:
Rasmussen, known for being fairly reputable despite its partisan leanings, asks this question:
Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a measure to censure, or publicly reprimand, President Bush for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program. Should President Bush be censured for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program?
American Research Group's question was as follows:
Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?
Do with that what you will. I see a definite bias opposing censure in the first question, which would naturally slant the response. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those two results, however--which is still significant if you stop to think about it.
What does a right-leaning poll that says Democratic support for Russ has jumped significantly since the beginning of this week mean? I think Russ is doing something right.
Read the Full Story…
Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable.
Oddly enough, the poll also finds that a majority of Americans oppose censuring President Bush. These numbers contradict another poll taken this week, which show that a majority of Americans are in favor of Russ' censure resolution.
Scott Shields compares the wording of the respective polls:
Rasmussen, known for being fairly reputable despite its partisan leanings, asks this question:
Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a measure to censure, or publicly reprimand, President Bush for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program. Should President Bush be censured for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program?
American Research Group's question was as follows:
Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?
Do with that what you will. I see a definite bias opposing censure in the first question, which would naturally slant the response. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those two results, however--which is still significant if you stop to think about it.
What does a right-leaning poll that says Democratic support for Russ has jumped significantly since the beginning of this week mean? I think Russ is doing something right.
Read the Full Story…
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Russ Feingold, who I believe is running for president, said over the weekend he's pushing the Senate to censure the president over spying. Bush, he isn't worried about it, he knew it was coming. He'd been listening to Feingold's conversations for three months.
TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO
---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 17, 2006
Democrats Attack Feingold
Despite an apparent defeat for Russ, there can be no doubt that he did what needed to be done. In so doing, he brought the NSA wiretapping issue to the forefront of the news cycle again--and unofficially put every Senator "on the record" for their position on the illegality of what the Administration has done.
This from a Raw Story exclusive:
Though all say they believe the program warrants "more investigation," several Senate aides rebuked Feingold for proposing censure. They say that his move had the potential to derail Democratic efforts to strengthen the party's image on homeland security issues, noting that a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue.
Pardon my French, but give me a fucking break. Instead of taking a stand with Russ on an issue as important as a sitting President breaking the law, Senate Democrats instead choose to hide behind polls--and what polls are they using anyway? This is their chance to back a censure--simply a rebuke and nothing more--to hold a criminal President accountable.
One longtime Senate aide was particularly scathing.
“Feingold’s grandstanding screwed the pooch and played into Bill Frist’s hands," the aide said. "Thank God Dems punted this down the field. Frist was going to force Democrats to vote on a resolution Feingold had kept a big secret and he would’ve split the caucus on an issue that needed time to get the whole caucus to support.
There is no excuse for this. After knowing for months about illegal NSA wiretapping, if the caucus can't get its act together and take the President and Senate Republicans to task on something so brazen, they have shamed themselves and our Constitution into irrelevancy.
Feingold fired back:
Feingold, defending his censure plan today on Fox News, said: “I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide…too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues…Democrats shouldn’t cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you’re helping the terrorists.”
I sincerely wish that this lack of spine on such an important issue comes back to bite each and every "Bichey Democrat" in the ass.
Read the Full Story…
This from a Raw Story exclusive:
Though all say they believe the program warrants "more investigation," several Senate aides rebuked Feingold for proposing censure. They say that his move had the potential to derail Democratic efforts to strengthen the party's image on homeland security issues, noting that a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue.
Pardon my French, but give me a fucking break. Instead of taking a stand with Russ on an issue as important as a sitting President breaking the law, Senate Democrats instead choose to hide behind polls--and what polls are they using anyway? This is their chance to back a censure--simply a rebuke and nothing more--to hold a criminal President accountable.
One longtime Senate aide was particularly scathing.
“Feingold’s grandstanding screwed the pooch and played into Bill Frist’s hands," the aide said. "Thank God Dems punted this down the field. Frist was going to force Democrats to vote on a resolution Feingold had kept a big secret and he would’ve split the caucus on an issue that needed time to get the whole caucus to support.
There is no excuse for this. After knowing for months about illegal NSA wiretapping, if the caucus can't get its act together and take the President and Senate Republicans to task on something so brazen, they have shamed themselves and our Constitution into irrelevancy.
Feingold fired back:
Feingold, defending his censure plan today on Fox News, said: “I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide…too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues…Democrats shouldn’t cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you’re helping the terrorists.”
I sincerely wish that this lack of spine on such an important issue comes back to bite each and every "Bichey Democrat" in the ass.
Read the Full Story…
March 15, 2006
Feingold Censure Move May Give Bush a Boost on Security Debate
A Democratic senator's attempt to censure President George W. Bush over his eavesdropping authorization is getting a warm welcome from unlikely sources: the Bush White House and the Republican Party.
MORE…
MORE…
YOU COWARDS, YOU DEMOCRAT COWARDS the Republicans have you right where they want you. You Democrats are afraid of the Republicans you spineless good for nothing wimps. The Republicans are nothing but lying gangsters and you Democrats, are nothing but spineless, good for nothing wimps. Russ Feingold is the only true Democrat out of all of you. STAND TALL RUSS FEINGOLD, The rest of you can go to HELL! The Republicans are nothing but lying gangsters and they are robin us blind and all you Democrats can do is WINE. And when you spineless good for nothing coward Democrats wimps finely get someone to stand up to those Republican lying gangsters you COWARD OUT. I'm about as pissed off as a person can get but you know what Democrats, the Republicans are laughing at you.
WestTexasBliss
Mr. Feingold...You Had Me at Censure
Senator Feingold is right you know, the President did 'plainly break the law' when he approved surveillance without warrants.
I don't want to get too into politics on this blog because, frankly, I don't have the stones for it right now, but I will say this:
The reason that the overwhelming American populace is so willing to allow our civil liberties to be the 'baby in the bath water', is because this administration has so easily replaced logic with fear - a fear that, again, for the vast majority (sadly), was already well established in the zealousy of a 'good vs. evil' mentality. Thanks religion!
As a social outcast, a title I accept with great pride mind you, I happen to enjoy learning about how this kooky human brain of ours works. The part of our brains that ignites fear, doesn't even bother with connecting to any thought process - the brain sort of figures if you are afraid, you don't have time to actually 'think', so you just...react. It's one of, it not the oldest parts of brain evolution and every animal on our spinning marble has one.
So, for me anyway, it stands to reason that the ease with which our once amazing nation is shitting themselves 24/7, is that we are all together a herd of zebra panicking because the big dumb head zebra snorted.
Okay wait...I just got lost in my own imagery here.
My point is, a good many Americans are NOT playing into this cave-man reactionary prompt and are actually THINKING. Mr. Feingold just had the courage to call it. And now all of his colleagues are getting antsy and cowering. Shameful.
Just Angela
Senator Feingold is right you know, the President did 'plainly break the law' when he approved surveillance without warrants.
I don't want to get too into politics on this blog because, frankly, I don't have the stones for it right now, but I will say this:
The reason that the overwhelming American populace is so willing to allow our civil liberties to be the 'baby in the bath water', is because this administration has so easily replaced logic with fear - a fear that, again, for the vast majority (sadly), was already well established in the zealousy of a 'good vs. evil' mentality. Thanks religion!
As a social outcast, a title I accept with great pride mind you, I happen to enjoy learning about how this kooky human brain of ours works. The part of our brains that ignites fear, doesn't even bother with connecting to any thought process - the brain sort of figures if you are afraid, you don't have time to actually 'think', so you just...react. It's one of, it not the oldest parts of brain evolution and every animal on our spinning marble has one.
So, for me anyway, it stands to reason that the ease with which our once amazing nation is shitting themselves 24/7, is that we are all together a herd of zebra panicking because the big dumb head zebra snorted.
Okay wait...I just got lost in my own imagery here.
My point is, a good many Americans are NOT playing into this cave-man reactionary prompt and are actually THINKING. Mr. Feingold just had the courage to call it. And now all of his colleagues are getting antsy and cowering. Shameful.
Just Angela
March 13, 2006
You Cowards You Democrat Cowards
Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure
Democrats Distance Themselves from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's Effort to Censure Bush
Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, maneuvering to prevent a vote that could alienate voters. Republicans dared Democrats to vote for the proposal.
More…
Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, maneuvering to prevent a vote that could alienate voters. Republicans dared Democrats to vote for the proposal.
More…
You cowards, You Democrat cowards the Republicans have you right where they want you. You Democrats are afraid of the Republicans you spineless good for nothing wimps. The Republicans are nothing but lying gangsters and you Democrats, are nothing but spineless, good for nothing wimps. Russ Feingold is the only true Democrat out of all of you. STAND TALL RUSS FEINGOLD, The rest of you can go to …..!
You spineless good for nothing coward Democrat wimps, you left Russ Feingold out their all alone. If you Democrats think I am going to vote for anybody other then Russ Feingold you better think again! If this is an example of how you Democrats are going to run this country you can forget it. The Republicans are nothing but lying gangsters and they are robin us blind and all you Democrats can do is wine. And when you spineless good for nothing coward Democrats wimps finely get someone to stand up to those Republican lying gangsters you coward out. I'm about as pissed off as a person can get but you know what Democrats, the Republicans are laughing at you. I’m about ready to dump you!
March 12, 2006
Russ Feingold: Censure, Possibly Impeach, Bush
Sen. Feingold added, however, "I think we are required to do our job, to live up to our oath of office, and say, wait a minute - there has to be, at least as a first step, some accountability."
Read the full story…
March 11, 2006
Feingold Doing a Terrific Job
Sorry Mr. Tinder. Here's another letter from an out-of-towner who supports Senator Feingold's work. I live out of town now but have spent many, many happy years in Beloit.
I believe Senator Feingold is doing a terrific job as Wisconsin's senator. There is one time when I questioned his efforts: when he voted to confirm John Ashcroft to be Attorney General (despite strong Democrat opposition). Remember Ashcroft? He's the guy who lost his re-election bid to a dead man back in 2000. Russ Feingold supported Ashcroft's nomination out of principle. I have come to understand that principle and thank Russ for doing what he did.
I wonder how many of those who hold the radical right point of view remember that.
Daniel Fauth…
Feingold on This Week
Sen. Russ Feingold will be a headliner Sunday on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC News.
Feingold will appear with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
The two will discuss national security, port security and 2008 presidential politics. Both are testing the water for a possible presidential run.
The show airs at 9:30 a.m. on WISN-TV (Channel 12) in Milwaukee. The time varies in other locales. See http://abcnews.go.com/ ThisWeek for more information.
By KATHERINE M. SKIBA
Lineup for the Sunday TV News Shows
Guest lineup for the Sunday TV news shows:
ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn and Russ Feingold, D-Wis.; political satirist Art Buchwald.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.; Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Joseph Biden, D-Del.; retired Marine Gen. Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon, chief military correspondent for The New York Times.
CNN's "Late Edition" - U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John Warner, R-Va.; Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; former Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y.
"Fox News Sunday" - Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Mike Pence, R-Ind.; opera singer Placido Domingo.
Sorry Mr. Tinder. Here's another letter from an out-of-towner who supports Senator Feingold's work. I live out of town now but have spent many, many happy years in Beloit.
I believe Senator Feingold is doing a terrific job as Wisconsin's senator. There is one time when I questioned his efforts: when he voted to confirm John Ashcroft to be Attorney General (despite strong Democrat opposition). Remember Ashcroft? He's the guy who lost his re-election bid to a dead man back in 2000. Russ Feingold supported Ashcroft's nomination out of principle. I have come to understand that principle and thank Russ for doing what he did.
I wonder how many of those who hold the radical right point of view remember that.
Daniel Fauth…
Feingold on This Week
Sen. Russ Feingold will be a headliner Sunday on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC News.
Feingold will appear with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
The two will discuss national security, port security and 2008 presidential politics. Both are testing the water for a possible presidential run.
The show airs at 9:30 a.m. on WISN-TV (Channel 12) in Milwaukee. The time varies in other locales. See http://abcnews.go.com/ ThisWeek for more information.
By KATHERINE M. SKIBA
Lineup for the Sunday TV News Shows
Guest lineup for the Sunday TV news shows:
ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn and Russ Feingold, D-Wis.; political satirist Art Buchwald.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.; Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Joseph Biden, D-Del.; retired Marine Gen. Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon, chief military correspondent for The New York Times.
CNN's "Late Edition" - U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John Warner, R-Va.; Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; former Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y.
"Fox News Sunday" - Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Mike Pence, R-Ind.; opera singer Placido Domingo.
March 09, 2006
Sen. Russ Feingold, Standing Tall and Shooting Straight.
Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has tapped a former campaign aide to Al Gore to help him begin the task of counting Iowa voters. The move is a sign the outspoken Democrat is seriously contemplating a run for president in 2008.
Enough of the D.C. Dems
Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.
I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.
READ THE FULL STORY… Good...
Town Hall Style Meeting
Russ Feingold to Hold First Ever Nationwide Online Listening Session.
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund announced today that Senator Feingold will hold the first ever nationwide online Listening Session this Friday March 10, 2006 at 10:30am EST.
“When I first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, I promised to hold an open, town hall style meeting, or Listening Session, in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties, every single year.” Feingold said. “These meetings are one of my favorite things about being a U.S. Senator. They give me the opportunity to hear first hand what people are concerned about and, more importantly, they help me do my job better.”
In addition to the over 950 Listening Sessions he has held in Wisconsin, Feingold has held similar Listening Sessions in Alabama, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Feingold’s first ever online Listening Session will give people from around the country the opportunity to ask questions, say what's on their minds, or just see what others are talking about.
People interested in participating in Feingold’s online Listening Session can sign up at:
www.progressivepatriotsfund.com
March 07, 2006
Why Feingold is uniquely qualified to end the Iraq War.
In order to end the war in Iraq, we need to work with the Iraqi people as partners to create a vision in which everybody --- Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and other minorities -- can share. We need to create a culture of openness and participation in which ordinary Iraqis feel like they have a stake in the future of Iraq instead of the current situation in which they live constantly in fear of arrest or instant death. This is why I support Russ Feingold for President -- he is uniquely qualified to work across boundaries and bring people into the process. As President, he would engage in the same kind of crusade to maximize participation in Iraq that he has already through his campaign finance reform proposals and his refusal to accept huge campaign contributions at a time when everybody else was. Feingold understands how democracy ought to work as much as anybody -- after all, he was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He would apply this kind of understanding to the Iraqi conflict as well.
Read The Full Story…
Feingold is a true patriot
Senator Russ Feingold is one the few representatives we have in this country that we can all be proud of. He truly is his own man.
The last I knew he was the only senator that had fully read what the Patriot Act says and knows how dangerous this bill is. The current administration in Washington is the most dangerous thing we as Americans face in this country.
It is a real shame what has happened in country in five short years. We need more people like Russ Feingold. A true patriot.
Michael Frazier Janesville,,,
Senator Russ Feingold is one the few representatives we have in this country that we can all be proud of. He truly is his own man.
The last I knew he was the only senator that had fully read what the Patriot Act says and knows how dangerous this bill is. The current administration in Washington is the most dangerous thing we as Americans face in this country.
It is a real shame what has happened in country in five short years. We need more people like Russ Feingold. A true patriot.
Michael Frazier Janesville,,,
March 05, 2006
U.S. Senator Russell Dana Feingold
U.S. Senator Russell Dana Feingold
Russell Dana Feingold (born March 2, 1953) is an American politician from the U.S. state of Wisconsin. He has served as a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate since 1993. Feingold is best known for his maverick voting and co-sponsorship of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold Bill"), a major piece of campaign finance reform legislation. He is a recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. His name has been mentioned as a possible candidate in the 2008 presidential election.
Early life and education
Feingold was born in Janesville, Wisconsin, to a Jewish family that had settled in the area in 1917. His father Leon Feingold was an attorney and his mother Sylvia Feingold was a worker at a title company.
After graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School, Feingold attended the University of Wisconsin–Madison and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in 1975, a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. He went to Magdalen College at the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1977, where he earned another Bachelor of Arts, and upon returning to the U.S. attended Harvard Law School, graduating with a law degree with honors in 1979.
Russell Dana Feingold (born March 2, 1953) is an American politician from the U.S. state of Wisconsin. He has served as a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate since 1993. Feingold is best known for his maverick voting and co-sponsorship of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold Bill"), a major piece of campaign finance reform legislation. He is a recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. His name has been mentioned as a possible candidate in the 2008 presidential election.
Early life and education
Feingold was born in Janesville, Wisconsin, to a Jewish family that had settled in the area in 1917. His father Leon Feingold was an attorney and his mother Sylvia Feingold was a worker at a title company.
After graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School, Feingold attended the University of Wisconsin–Madison and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in 1975, a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. He went to Magdalen College at the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1977, where he earned another Bachelor of Arts, and upon returning to the U.S. attended Harvard Law School, graduating with a law degree with honors in 1979.
Sen. Russ Feingold is the leading Democratic contender for president in at least two online polls. But Gallup didnt even offer him as a choice.
By Senator Russ Feingold:
Feingold 10th most popular politician: New
Senate squashes Feingold's filibuster of new Patriot Act: New
Why there are DINO's -- Exiting our comfort zone: New, Good
So, tell me again: Why settle for someone who would merely treat the symptoms when you can eliminate the causes?
Why I no longer support Feingold -- the divorce: Read the full story!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
