I'm willing to entertain the idea that any pol is not perfect. But if anyone starts putting blame for shit on Russ Feingold, I'm going to check out the claim because Feingold has a pretty good history of being on the side of the angels. Yeah, I know, he voted to confirm John Roberts to the SC and he voted to confirm John Ashcroft. He also voted for welfare reform back in the day. That one ticks me off. See? None of them are perfect. Still, any negative claims about Feingold have to be proven before I will believe them. Jump below the fold if you want to see one.
What got this started is my habit of periodically clicking the Russ Feingold tag just to see what DKos is saying about my favorite Progressive. I suppose that makes me some kind of sick stalker groupie...:worries:
Anyway, there's a diary from a while back (July 27) Titled "Credit Where Credit is Due: Some People Need Reminding" that claimed that, if I read it correctly, Feingold wanted a vote on the Bush tax cuts postponed until after the election. However, when I follow links provided in one commentator's post (the diary does not have any links) and then follow links in those articles, I come to this at TPM:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid he wants to vote to extend the middle class tax cuts before the elections, a Feingold aide told TPM. The senator wants to see the cuts for the wealthy expire.
Look, I was all down with the diary and it's premise that the tax cut bullshit and the debt limit bullshit is not all on Obama - that Congress, including some Dems, has played its role. I was even slightly willing to entertain that Feingold might have wanted to postpone a tax cut vote until after the election due to his own tough reelection bid, but that sounded really wrong because fear of personal political repercussions has not been his MO.
Just to show you that I don't agree with him on everything, I was kind of scratching my head and going huh? over his vote in December against middle-class tax cut extensions. I would have preferred he voted for, especially since it was tied to unemployment benefits. I mean, damn, people are desperate for UI to meet daily needs; do what you have to to get them some money! It is especially glaring now that I have the above statement from his aide from TPM. If he wanted middle-class tax cuts, then why didn't he vote for them in December?
Here's that answer, from the horse's mouth:
In the statement Feingold submitted to the Congressional Record, the senator said he supported several things in the deal, including extending unemployment benefits and middle-class tax cuts. But he said the package failed in one “critical” respect:
“Rather than include a combination of responsible spending cuts and revenue increases to offset its projected cost of nearly $900 billion, the proposal instead just adds its cost to our already massive national debt.”
Feingold added:
“There may be good arguments to postpone fully paying for these tax cuts, or alternatively for offsetting their cost over a number of years to avoid undermining the fragile economic recovery. But, like the Baucus and Schumer proposals I opposed earlier this month, the measure before us fails to make even the most modest effort to pay for these tax cuts. Instead, it heaps $900 billion onto an already mountainous level of debt that we are asking our children and grandchildren to bear. And much of this money will go towards unjustified tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”
I deeply respect his POV, though I still wince over the UI lost. The people needing the UI did more than wince, no doubt about that.
Anyway, my main point is this: someone here says the Feingold wanted the vote put off until after the election. I can't find proof of that, especially that he had a meeting with Obama to ask for it. If anyone reads this diary (heh) and can lead me to evidence one way or the other, I would appreciate it. I just want to know the truth.
I just want things to be accurate.