Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos GOTV: Standing Up for Wisconsin (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And for good reason (4+ / 0-)

    A few years ago, I was among many excited to post and cheer for people like Russ and my senator, Boxer. That was when they talked so much about what could be done if they had the power. We worked hard to get these people in power and maintain those dems that were there.

    It seems however these dem politicians forgot what this is all about. Wars have been entrenched, banksters continue to run the show, the constitution continues to be shredded, and on and on. I know they did a few things and i suppose they were counting on some of us to be impressed by superficial things like giving us healthcare reform and banking reform. Those of us who paid attention saw weak reforms, mandated health purchasing from private insurance with higher premiums, etc.

    Look, I don't wanna hear anymore from obama and the dems that it's hard work to make true changes or it takes time. It didn't take time to hand over the treasury to wall street. It's hard work to find a roof over your head when your being foreclosed! It's hard work to feed your kids when you remain unemployed. It's hard work when banks are sucking everydime out of you, from high interest to fees and you don't have any money.

    Perhaps it's time for some of you to get out of that dc bubble and see how the rest of america is hanging by a thin thread!

    •  Do you have any knowledge of Feingold's positions (10+ / 0-)

      on banking issues?

      •  Yes I do (0+ / 0-)

        I am aware of the STATED position of many dems. It's one thing to state things. It's another thing to fight for 'em like your house being foreclosed!

        We've had plenty of rhetoric!

        •  He did fight. (14+ / 0-)

          He opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagal over a decade ago and he opposed the recent financial reform bill because it didn't go far enough and he was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against it and the only senator who voted against it because it didn't go far enough. Feingold is the number one enemy of the big banking lobby and that's part of why he's in danger. So you would rather Ron Johnson be elected?

        •  Not to mention TARP (8+ / 0-)

          Feingold was one of a small handful to oppose TARP. Based on the issues you seem to hold dear, Russ should be your number one (or number two after Bernie Sanders) man in Washington and you come here to pooh pooh his reelection? What the fuck? What do you think a senator should have done on these bank votes????

        •  Filibuster and/or (0+ / 0-)

          Encourage other like minded senators to not vote for bad bills. Going on tv to make it clear why bills are bad, etc.

          •  TV? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, elwior, skohayes, PvtJarHead

            Yeah, like TV stations are controlled by Russ Feingold. He gave his reasons forcefully on the floor of the Senate. As for a filibuster, you can't do it alone. When there are 60 votes for a bill, that's it. It's filibuster-proof. So now, seriously, in the real world who did more and what more could be done? Who would you rather have in that senate seat?

            The real problem is that not enough of US put enough pressure on other senators. You are taking out your problems on the wrong guy.

            Or am I wasting my time on a GOP troll? Seriously. I don't know you. Do you support Ron Johnson?

            •  Why does it come down to being a troll? (0+ / 0-)

              I'm liberal. I voted Green early last month. I voted for Obama in 2008 but I will ot in '08.
              As far as I know, one senator can still filibuster a bill.

              Look, my intent is not to beat up Feingold specifically. My problem here is these dems always find a reason not to do what people believed they should be doing. It's easy to talk the talk but if you really mean what you say then you fight for it.

              It's like in sports. The team that wants it more wins. Right now the repubs want it more. They have done far more with less than so called dems.

              •  Here's the thing (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior, PvtJarHead

                I supported Feingold when I was a Green-leaning independent 8-15 years ago. He is unique. He is a guy who actually behaves the way it would seem you want your politicians to behave, but you come to this diary and blame Feingold for a problem that is a problem with the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. I think you need to choose your targets more wisely.

                And no, if one senator could effectively filibuster a bill without the support of 40 others, there would be far more filibusters.

                •  filibuster rules courtesy wikipedia (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  According to this a single senator or series of senators can filibuster.

                  Main article: Filibuster in the U.S. Senate
                  In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[26] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. This means that as few as 41 senators, which could represent as little as 12.3% of the U.S. population, can make a filibuster happen. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from three fifths of Senators would be required to break the filibuster.[26] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. (Proponents also refer to it as the constitutional option.) In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.[27]

                •  as for choosing targets carefully, (0+ / 0-)

                  we (or I at least) thought we did in 2006 and 2008.

                  Wars continue.
                  Bailouts continue.
                  Violating the constitution continues.
                  Health care fiasco.
                  Foreclosure fiascos.
                  Impeachment off the table.
                  Privatizing Social Security or raising the retirement age still on the table.
                  And so on.

                  Look, it's not just me, it's a great many of us who's actions have left Obama and his party struggling for votes. Dems have a choice Nov 3rd. They can either continue with blinders on and believe everyone else is stupid or just don't get it. Or, they can take a look at constructive criticism and build a better party. The choice is theirs!

                  •  Once again (0+ / 0-)

                    Since Feingold has been an uneasy ally and frequent critic of the Obama adminstration and one of the few prominent Democrats to be a critic of Obama from the left, you are way off base. Any of the things you are saying, if you were saying them about Reid or Durbin or Schumer, I would not argue with you. You are choosing the wrong target.

    •  He voted against the confirmation of Geithner! nt (4+ / 0-)

      "When all you have is an assault rifle every problem looks like a target." - Something the Dog Said

      by PvtJarHead on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:16:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you're going for the alternative? n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pHunbalanced, elwior

      Good luck with that!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site