Feingold Rips Edwards Again, Urges Dem Candidates To Take On Rove

As one of Congress' foremost progressive figures, Sen. Russ Feingold is a coveted endorsement for any of the Democratic presidential nominees. But if those seeking the White House are waiting for his call, they shouldn't hold their breath -- especially if they're John Edwards.

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday, Feingold restated his hesitance to endorse either Sen. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both, he said, would make great presidents. The same praise was not, however, heaped upon Feingold's former Senate colleague Edwards, whose political sincerity the Wisconsin Democrat questioned.

"I don't understand how somebody could vote, five or six critical votes, one way in the Senate and then make your campaign the opposite positions," Feingold said, expanding on comments he made a week ago to the Appleton (Wisconsin) Post-Crescent. "That doesn't give me confidence that if the person became president that they would continue the kind of policies that they are using in the Democratic primary. I'm more likely to believe what they did in the Senate."

Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had "taken in" voters by switching positions on several key issues.

"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."

The Edwards campaign did not return a request for comment.

Feingold, who was briefly considered a possible presidential nominee, is known for a willingness to buck party trends and cast a progressive stripe. He forged landmark campaign finance legislation with Sen. John McCain, was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, and has been among the most vocal figures pressing to roll back the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance policies.

The latter issue seems poised to play a major role in the 2008 election, as former White House chief strategist Karl Rove insisted that a vote against FISA could haunt the Democratic candidates in a general election. Feingold fundamentally rejected the notion, arguing, in fact, that it was an electoral strength.

"The case is fairly straightforward to make to people," said Feingold. "We just want to make sure procedures are in place so that if you are doing absolutely nothing wrong, the government can't run around and hear everything you have to say and want to say to your kids and everything you put in an email. That's a winning argument... But if you hide and act like you are afraid of Karl Rove than they'll win the day. And unfortunately on these issues they seem to win the day almost every time by using this kind of fear."

So who does Feingold believe would be best equipped to handle this kind of exploitation of fear? He's not budging.

"There are all kinds of issues weighing on my mind," said the senator. "I'm trying to figure out who is most ready to be president in a very difficult world. I'm looking for somebody who can carry real change and a real feeling of unity in the country. I see some of these qualities in Senator Clinton and some in Senator Obama. And I simply don't feel that I am compelled to make a decision."

Comments

[PostingPopulist]

Feingold is a bitter Cheesehead and is probably pimping for a Cabinet post with Clinton Inc. or the Barack Star, citing his Edwards' blasts as another bullet point on his inflated resume. Methinks "Little Russ" has a major case of Edwards Envy. Edwards has climbed from single digit obscurity to 30 percent plus in Wisconsin and Iowa primary contests, right in Feingold's backyard. Contrast that to 2005-06 when Russ was trial-ballooning his would-be run for prez and he couldn't push his meter above "barely a pulse". Clearly, Feingold suffers from Edwards Envy. I live about 50 miles from Feingold's home base of Janesville, Wisconsin and am aware of some back-biting comments his ex-wife has had for him (now I know from which she speaks---the guy obviously is incapable of detecting the stench emanating from his own mouth)

Feingold's latest in a long line of attacks on Edwards is nothing more than "politically motivated." At least Edwards has never taken PAC money which is more than Obama or Clinton, Inc. can say --- a fact which a co-author of a famed campaign finance law should be able to appreciate. Clinton and Obama both feed at the trough of K Street and Feingold knows it.

Edwards' opposition to trade agreements such as NAFTA-CAFTA-etcetera are clearly superior to the stance of HillBilly Inc. when they ramrodded NAFTA and PNTR with China in the first place. Have you forgot the selling of the Lincoln Bedroom? Lest you forget Senator Self-Righteous Cheesehead, Clinton crossed the aisle to join with Gingrich Republicans to ramrod passage of NAFTA.

I suggest Feingold read John Macarthur's book entitled: The Selling of "Free Trade:" Washington, NAFTA and the Subversion of American Democracy, especially the chapters "The Democratic Party, Inc" and "Clinton Antes Up."

Edwards certainly came to the Senate as a centrist and in the aftermath of 9/11 and Bush's countless con jobs has shifted to the left...Got a problem with that "Purist" Feingold? I seem to recall Reagan and RFK "shifting" as well as countless others.

[DemandTruth]

I see. So even though Clinton AND Obama also have practically the SAME voting record as Edwards, and they're also now parrotting the EXACT SAME MESSAGE as Edwards, they'd make great presidents while John is being disingenuous?

John is now speaking out loudly against immunity (amnesty) for the telecomms, while Clinton & Obama SKIPPED THE VOTE! Yeah. Way to act on your campaign principles, candidates who Feingold thinks would make GREAT presidents!

Frankly, WHAT has Russ Feingold done for us lately? In this instance, he should shut his fucking mouth.

[RabbiReport]

I have thing to say to the "progressive" senator from Wisconsin. Thanks for Ashcroft.

[SouthpawSass]

Guess this is my theme for today. Feingold, you're not on my list:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtm66Z3lebc&feature=related

[factanonverba]

Why Rules of Any Game Matter

Unless you have been exposed to how the rules of any game are written and how different rules lead to different outcomes, you likely have little idea on why different systems have such different outcomes. The most important classes I ever took in my decade long stint in graduate school were the ones on game theory and in particular one called Policy-Making Procedures. Recognizing how different electoral rules provide different electoral results is of the utmost importance.

Look at the differences in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Iowa and Nevada are both caucuses but they have slightly different rules. A brief example and I will show you why John Edwards got over 30% of the precinct delegates in Iowa and only 4% in Nevada. Both states have threshold/viability rules, so a second choice matters. In Iowa, candidates that fail to meet the 15% threshold can try to persuade others to join their camp. One key difference is that in Nevada, only supporters of non-viable candidates will be able to switch to a different corner during the realignment period. That will cut down on the gamesmanship whereby precinct captains of viable candidates direct a small number of people to a rival corner in order to change the delegate count. So Edwards supporters in Nevada where they failed to meet the viability test could not bring others in but could only go out and join either Clinton or Obama.

Now have you even heard this explanation on the national media? No. Why? Any one with a background in game theory can tell you this. The rules of the game matters.

One reason Obama is doing well is because he appeals to independents who by the virtue of being “independents” are more apt to buy the unity message. To date all primaries and caucuses have been open ones. But there are 13 closed ones coming up, only open to registered Democrats. The biggest are NY, PA, AZ, OH, MA, GA. That one change of the rule erases at least 50% of Obama’s support.

[ReneR]

Feingold is showing himself to be part of the problem. Yes he has had good liberal votes but has he been successful in changing the Democrats in the Senate? They all ignore him or they all agree he can say his piece and then they go on being corporate Democrats.

I am appalled at Feingold. He has been my hero. No longer. Supports Clinton or Obama equally and is concerned about votes over four years ago but not looking at the current programs? The insiders must be concerned about Edwards to send Feingold to diss him.

Edwards has supported Feingold's agenda and Obama was the one undermining him in the senate. The world is crazy but the more I look at the senate the more I see an insiders club that is truly threatened by the truth telling of Edwards. They put on this charade for us to think we have a choice but then they do not do what the people want. Edwards was not a professional politician and so got tired of the game.

I hope more people realize that Feingold and his colleagues are the ones that are trying to take us in. We have to elect Edwards as our nominee. He really will represent the people. He is the David to the goliath of entrenched interests in the Democratic and Republican parties.

[factanonverba]

Huff Post Journalism Rules

1) Praise Obama.
2) Make Hillary look shrill.
3) Avoid issues.
4) Avoid positive stories of Edwards.
5) Publish silly stories on Edwards and always mention his haircut.
6) Overlook Obama's negatives
7) Attack pollsters.
8) Make Bill Clinton look combative.
9) Mention the Clinton's money but not Obama's
10) Don't write about Obama's ties to Rezko or how he is a dirty politician.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

If you're an Edwards supporter attacking Feingold for these words-- well, that's odd. Edwards *is* Feingold. Maybe that's why Feingold doesn't like Edwards running on his *his* record. Feingold has had to stand by his votes-- and would be "too liberal" to win the nomination.

Just *one* Senator (1 to 99) voted against the PATRIOT Act:

Feingold.

He can criticize my candidate all he wants.

[caywen]

I hear a lot of yappin from him, but Feingold will eventually endorse Obama.

[ft]

Agreed with all who point out that we wanted Feingold to run so as to make the case for progressivism, and with the post noting the Krauthammer-Feingold convergence.

Here are 4 more points to add to what's wrong about Feingold's criticism of Edwards:

1) Feingold's "for a liberal his past votes are a problem" attack is a more coherent variant on the "rich guy is a hypocrite because he helps the poor" argument that's been out there longer on JE. It's kind of like saying you couldn't support FDR in 1932 because he because he was wealthy, from a conservative family, and had a checkered legislative past. In fact, this is exactly what Republicans told wavering FDR supporters throughout the Depression in a cynical effort to undermine the New Deal.

2) Glass houses? Feingold was the only Dem to side with Republicans in bringing Clinton's impeachment to trial and he refused to vote no on both articles of impeachment. He voted yes on John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination, and was 1 of 7 Democrats to back Ashcroft for AG (Edwards voted no) in a 58-42 vote that was the Dems' main test of Bush's 2001 nominations. Feingold voted yes on other Bush loser-cronies including Rice at State, Leavitt at EPA, Chertoff at Homeland Security, and Norton at Interior. Also troubling were yes votes on Welfare Reform, Bush's prescription drug boondoggle (Edwards voted no), and a border fence.

Should progressives worry that Feingold's conning them? Of course not. These are a few bad votes measured against his incredible support for progressive issues. Even if Edwards has a higher ratio of centrist votes, Feingold's purity politics argument is an old, self-defeating habit that progressives need to abandon.

3) Are HRC's and BO's voting records better? Without going into detail, the frontrunners have many center-right votes to defend. I don't get why this is particularly damning of JE.

4) Given that Edwards is standing up for progressive issues more than Obama and Clinton, who the hell else should progressives support?

[sonofloud]

Edwards is Obama's lapdog....jump John jump

[lmore]

I respect your support of John Edwards. I just don't think his partisan approach will be at all successful. Look at what's been going on with the Senate for the last year. We must have a BI-PARTISAN majority to get things moving. John can't do it, Hillary certainly can't do it... Obama is the only one with a true shot at getting something done.

Please read his resume on what he's done for the last 25 years-- with more time in elected office than Hillary Clinton OR John Edwards. And the quality of his initiatives-- VERY ambitious-- is proof that he will do as he says. Because he already has.

And DO NOT under estimate the power of Barack in our international relations. Vital.

[OhPlease2007]

Feingold is working with his D.C. insider buddy Obama running tag team. Feingold has his own problems in being part of the problem why American citizens cannot publicly scrutinize government records in campaign finance transparency.

Remember when Obama told John Edwards in debate that the American public that they could publicly look at where his lobbyist/PAC/bundled money was coming from? Well, it turns out that Obama was not telling the truth to the American public.

Feingold and Obama blame Republicans overly congressional stalling of the necessary confirmation process to enable American citizens to have access to the records of where lobbyist/PAC/bundled money is coming from -and- to which candidates the questionable campaign finance money is going to, but the truth is that there is NOTHING stopping Feingold and Obama from either voting in all nominees as a 'group' -OR- picking the nominee that THEY want and confirming him/her to enable the American public to have access to these governmental campaign finance records of questionable lobbyist, PAC, and bundled money contributions.

Feingold maybe running point for Obama because Feingold has the reputation of being a 'progressive', but when you look a little deeper at the 'facts', Feingold is part of the politics-as-usual from Washington D.C. insiders that are purposely stalling to provide cover for currently elected and tax-payer salaried congressional members.

I strongly urge everyone reading this to write Sen. Feingold and DEMAND that he start 'walking his talk' and stop stalling on releasing governmental campaign finance records of federally elected democratic candidates so that there is finally honest transparency in government ethics as it pertains to campaign finance mandated by 'the people' of The United States of America.

Source: Politico(Obama blocked own 'top Senate achievement', Kenneth P. Vogel, Jan 16, 2008)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7929.html

[mooph]

A lot of dissatisfaction (and even anger) directed a Feingold here.

I guess one has to end -- like Paul Wellstone -- to not be bashed.

[BDLamb]

1) Why is Feingold taking a stand against people who agree with him? Seems dubious.

2) Look at a side by side comparison of John Edwards voting record next to Clinton's and Obama's. That is the relevant comparison.
Mr. Feingold is not a candidate for the Presidential election and his relative merit on voting record is beside the point, I think.

3) Just endorse someone already and quit your sniping from the sidelines already, Russ. With all of the actual problems in the world today we don't need our 'liberal' allies piling on as well -- this upcoming election is just too important to sacrifice to petty infighting.