Skip to main content

View Diary: Frameshop: Feingold Now Leads Democrats [UPDATED] (462 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  he voted to fund the war (none)
    when even i knew none of that money would make it to the troops themselves.

    was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

    by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:49:38 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  it's not working, biminicat (4.00)
      nobody here buys your lame argument.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 10:33:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, BiminiCat (none)
        Come on, Russ Feingold has never done anything wrong.  Next thing you will tell me is that he can't walk on water.  

        It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

        by lando on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 10:45:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i'd like to hear his explanation (none)
          for why he voted to fund halliburton.

          why is that not a fair question??

          was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

          by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 10:50:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Attempt at snark (none)
            Your point is valid.

            I like Feingold, but the treatment of him as the second coming is starting to make me ill.  A year or two from now when Iraq is hopefully resolved (maybe that's optimistic) no one will remember or care that Feingold was first or had the most coherent message.  A twice-divorced, liberal, short jewish guy from Wisconsin is not going to be president.  For everyone who thinks the divorces don't matter, they should remember how pious Feingold was during the Clinton impeachment.  Kind of a hypocrite if you ask me.  

            It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

            by lando on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:20:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Another absurd comparison. (none)
              Getting a divorce is not the equivalent of the President of the United States lying to Congress.  And that was the problem Russ had with Clinton.  Not the extra-marital issue.

              He's managed to get elected in WI on several occassions now, so don't be so sure he can't make a good run for the White House.  

              "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 2100+ dead Americans. Jesus Christ, make it stop already.

              by Miss Blue on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:26:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Still a hyprocrite (1.44)
                The whole Clinton affair - the Jones lawsuit and the impeachment - was all just a republican political attack.  Sure, Clinton should not have lied, but he should never have been asked in the first place.  It was none of anyone's business.  And the lie was about an extra-marital affair.
                Most Democrats figured this out, and all but one voted to dismiss it as soon as it came up.  Our boy scout / hall monitor from Wisconsin didn't, and took the opportunity to grandstand. Well, you know what?  Fuck him.  Lets put him under oath to talk about the details of his divorces.  

                It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

                by lando on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:37:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Being in America,,,,, (none)
                  I will not argue with you any further, as you have an American right to be wrong.  Carry on.

                  "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 2100+ dead Americans. Jesus Christ, make it stop already.

                  by Miss Blue on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 12:24:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The 1's are uncalled for... (none)
                  ...Lando has a point, although he is guilty of being too blunt.  

                  Russ was my senator, and I love the guy.  But... despite the humor, there is a real rigidity about the guy.  He also backed the Roberts nomination, as I recall, because of a quaint notion that a President deserves to put whoever he wants in office as long as the person is "qualified", and ideology doesn't matter. Now I know Roberts was going to be confirmed regardless.  But there is a schoolmarm attitude about Feingold.  That's a slight negative.  His biggest strength - an unwillingness to compromise on matters of principle - can also be a weakness.  

                  That said, I would pick him as the nominee over Kerry in a heartbeat.  

                  •  I like Feingold (none)
                    I actually did Lit drops for Feingold last year as part of some  volunteering I did for a Wisconsin house candidate.

                    He may call his bad votes principled, but they are still bad votes.  His vote not to dismiss the impeachment gave bipartisan cover to a purely partisan action.   There was no principle anywhere in that fiasco.  

                    It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

                    by lando on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:55:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  It was process, not content. (4.00)
              Russ' vote was based on the principle that when the House votes an Impeachment, the Senate is mandated to conduct a trial. Hardly "pious." that was Lieberman.

              I won't assert Russ is infallible, he's disappointed me 16 times in the 12 1/2 years he's represented me in the Senate.

              A Senator YOU can afford
              $1 contributions only.
              Masel for Senate
              1214 E. Mifflin St.
              Madison, WI 53703

              by ben masel on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:59:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  16 times (none)
                Do you keep a running tab?  I shudder to think how many times Herb Kohl has pissed you off.

                Read Feingold's speech regarding the impeachment.  Pretty pious if you ask me.  I don't think it was a principled vote because the whole affair from start to finish was just bullshit.  It was a recognition that what the Republicans were doing was valid.

                The thing that bugs me is that Feingold's bad votes are based on principle, while other Democrats bad votes are because they are corporate sellouts, etc.  What bullshit.  Total double standard.

                It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

                by lando on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 12:47:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The difference (none)
                  is that we can understand why he votes the way he does on both the things we agree on and the things we don't. I will never understand why John Kerry was unable to grant Bush Sr. the authority to invade Iraq in 1991, but fine with giving his son the go ahead in 2002.

                  I don't think Feingold is the only principled Senator. But he is the only principled senator who has the same principles that I do. I don't think that Lieberman, for example, is a corporate sellout, so much as someone with very different values than mine.

                  It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain

                  by Bundy on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:08:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  if you (none)
                    actually read the two resolutions....

                    you'll find out why.

                    was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

                    by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:17:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I read the 2002 resolution. (none)
                      Is that fair? As I was six years old in 1991, you'll forgive me for not reading it at the time? A year or so ago, I did read a piece of Kerry's senate floor speach explaining his vote on the Gulf War, and he said something along the lines of wanting to discourage the use of war before trying other tactics. I see no reason why that principle would lead him to authorize junior in 2002.

                      I'm familiar with your case that Kerry wanted to give Bush negotiation leverage. I respect that. However, I still hold that it was irresponsible to give Bush that war power.

                      I like Kerry. Just not as much as Feingold. My guess is that you like Feingold too, but not as much as Kerry. We're allowed to disagree on this, I think.

                      It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain

                      by Bundy on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:38:01 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  woo hoo!! (none)
                        and i'm glad you read my argument about what's different about the two resolutions.

                        no.  thank god.  we don't have to agree.

                        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

                        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:40:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Explain it to us then (none)
                      Becuase it makes no sense to me why Kerry's votes were 180 degree bassakwards.

                      cheers,

                      Mitch Gore

                      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                      by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:42:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  i have (none)
                        from the following diary:

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        There is actually a very striking difference between these two resolutions and the Iraq War Resolution.  These two resolutions asserted,.. in very clear terms... that diplomacy had failed.  The failure of diplomacy was a pre-condition of the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Persian Gulf Resolutions.  So one would have had every reason to believe that voting for those resolutions was a vote for war.  

                        The failure of diplomacy was NOT a stipulated condition of the Iraq War Resolution.  It's not what "everyone knew".  The notion that diplomacy had failed was NEVER offered on the Senate Floor.  This is why a vote on IWR was not a vote for war.  

                        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

                        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:54:19 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ROFL (none)
                          So tell me the diplomacy that was tried and failed as the prerequisite of the Gulf of Tokin resolution?

                          The GOTR was  constructed on the basis of claimed attacks which violated international law, not because some diplomatic effort failed.

                          ANd the violations of international law could not be more clear cut in the GWR so the rationale that we should try more diplomacy, which was not the rationale given why Kerry voted no then, but rather he wanted sanctions to play out, is a stupid vote. So Kerry was wrong to vote for it.

                          The IWR, given the context of the administration power shows precisely how stupid Kerry is, to think that Bush was not going to invade, no matter what the diplomatic situation was. His votes on the IWR and the GWR were both grave errors in judgment, not to mention abdication of his Constitutional obligation to not to hand the power to take the country to war unilaterally to the executive branch.

                          cheers,

                          Mitch Gore

                          Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                          by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 04:48:28 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  if you read each of the three resolutions (none)
                            it is clear.

                            2 of them expressly stipulate the failure of diplomacy.  that a diplomatic response is not an option.  to the GOTR, real or not, the resolution said we will be responding to attacks.

                            the IWR is different.

                            there is no such paragraphs in the first two resolutions titled:  "SUPPORT FOR DIPLOMACY."

                            was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

                            by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 04:55:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Easy to keep a precise count (none)
                  when you're only at 16.

                  Fwiw, the last one was Byrne Grant funding for Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces. For a while there I'd hoped i had him convinced that lack of an elected local oversight body is too much of an invitation to corruption, and allows enforcement to be targeted toward Civil Forfeiture, rather than danger to the community.

                  A Senator YOU can afford
                  $1 contributions only.
                  Masel for Senate
                  1214 E. Mifflin St.
                  Madison, WI 53703

                  by ben masel on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:19:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Was the vote against dismissing the impeachment (none)
                    on the list.  You have to admit that was a dick move by Feingold.  

                    It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

                    by lando on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 02:34:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No. (none)
                      I'd have voted the same way. Let them present their case, then vote to acquit, when it proved feeble.

                      Principle aside, the actual outcome left Clinton stronger than a dismissal without a proceding.

                      A Senator YOU can afford
                      $1 contributions only.
                      Masel for Senate
                      1214 E. Mifflin St.
                      Madison, WI 53703

                      by ben masel on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 02:47:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Feingold.... (none)
              ....has many other points to reccomend other than his opposition to the Iraq War. That's one of the reasons why I strongly support him if he runs in 2008. He's for universal healthcare, against corporate corruption, and has a great reputation for fighting wasteful spending (while supporting useful spending). He can make himself into a very attractive, multifaceted candidate.
          •  Have you ever heard,,,, (4.00)
            the expression:  "you could piss off the pope?"  I believe it was written just for you.

            Russ did not vote for Halliburton.  How fucking absurd is that statement.  He didn't vote for the fucking war either, but once it was passed, who the hell would be so irresponsible to send the troops with no food, guns, bullets, clothes, etc.  Geezuz H Christ, get a grip here.  

            Did we get scammed?  Of course we did.  But without any funding, the troops would be sitting over there naked, starving, all the while getting shot at while lobbing rocks back since they wouldn't have bullets.

            As much as I adore Russ, even I would have lifted an eyebrow if he had voted no on funding.  

            "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 2100+ dead Americans. Jesus Christ, make it stop already.

            by Miss Blue on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:24:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  if kerry voted for this war (none)
              then feingold voted for halliburton.

              people apply an explanation and intent behind one vote but not the other.

              the CW is that IWR voters had to know exactly what bush would do with that authority.

              well.  feingold had to know exactly what bush would do with that money.

              the troops had no armor before feingold's vote.  they still don't have that armor.  and a vote "no" on funding would have put more pressure on bush to bring the troops home sooner.

              i think i just point this out to show how "fucking absurd" it is to say things like "kerry voted for this war" as if he would have never had it any other way.

              it is fucking absurd.

              was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

              by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:31:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Howard Dean (4.00)
                I'm not sure if it's wise to bring Howard Dean into this or not, but his position was the same as Feingold's. The War was a bad idea, but we still have to fund the troops. You might disagree, I might disagree, but it remains a legitimate position. And it makes more sense to me than a Yea on the IWR and Nay on the 87 billion. Because what's worse? Invading a country without justfication resulting the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people? Or Halliburton making a shit-ton of money off of no-bid contracts? They both suck, but the former substantially out weighs the latter in my book.

                It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain

                by Bundy on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 12:26:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Who voted against funding (none)
                   Good point.  Pardon my igornance but who voted against (the troops) funding halliburton and how did they do at defending  that vote? Did Joesquared?Hillary? Kerry? Just wanted know...
                      I'd look for tags to that but I've gotta go back to work and it takes ten minutes to get the tags page on dial-up,,, better work some OT and get something faster...
                   Sometimes the nuanced reason just won't get traction when the frame is so big and shiny....
                  Sure do like Russ whenever I've seen him, a great lesson in framing.
                   He'll be leading a candidates workshop right?

                Neocon plan for Iraq : Chaos and Corruption.

                by KenBee on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 12:58:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Ridiculous double standard (none)
              Russ gets a pass, but no one else does.

              It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

              by lando on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:38:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  you two should get married (none)
            •  piss off the pope? (none)
              It's pretty near time to tell him

              rope.
              a
              up
              piss
              go
              To

              80W-71S
              The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillor

              by Eddie Haskell on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:22:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Russ walking on water (none)
          Lake Mendota's only partially frozen over. Give him 3 weeks.

          A Senator YOU can afford
          $1 contributions only.
          Masel for Senate
          1214 E. Mifflin St.
          Madison, WI 53703

          by ben masel on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:53:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  not selling anything (none)
        just pointing out the facts of the matter.

        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 10:49:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site