MyDD :: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive?

Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive?

by adamterando, Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM EST

Let me start out by saying that Senator Feingold is a good progressive senator and has done a lot of good over the years. But his recent comments about Senator Edwards are just wrong-headed and a little ridiculous given that the man is guilty of some of the same things.

First off Jonathon Singer claims that Senator Feingold is the most progressive senator and his comments attacking John Edwards should be heeded (not surprising since Singer leans towards Obama). Well Mr. Singer is actually just wrong on the facts. Feingold is not the most progressive senator anymore (if he ever was). Russ Feingold is not the most progressive senator in the Senate. He is the 22nd most progressive senator in the senate according to progressivepunch.org. We have two new senators that are hands-down more progressive: Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders. In fact if you look at some of the votes that bring down Feingold's score, you see that he is guilty of doing the exact same things that Edwards did when he was Senator that Feingold is now criticizing him for.

What you ask? Well take corporate subsidies. Feingold gets a score of 76.47 (27th out of 98) solely because of his support for the 2005 energy bill (and related bills) that have to do with ethanol. Feingold supported this industry give-away because he voted with his constituents who emphatically support any government subsidies for ethanol use. Oh but Saint Feingold! Conscience of the senate and progressives, this is not the progressive position! You voted against requiring states to use an environmentally neutral forms of ethanol. Why! Why! I guess you must be some soulless politician without a core ideology who's just trying to get elected right? And yet you criticize Edwards for some of the more conservative votes he had in the senate when he was trying to represent a very conservative state as a Democrat. How's that black pot and kettle Senator?

So we can put that canard to rest. But more importantly, what is so patriotic about throwing under the bus the candidate with the most progressive stances in this campaign? Even if you believe that Senator Edwards is completely lying and is actually just a red-state conservative cloaking himself in FDR's ideology just to get elected, you have to admit that he's shifted the tone of the primary campaign significantly to the left. Does anyone think Hillary would have proposed such a progressive health care plan if not for JRE coming out with his first and the attendant warm reception it got from Democrats? Feingold's own plan is apparently a hodge-podge state-based approach that would most likely mimic the MA approach. Very progressive indeed. I guess Mr. Scruples has decided that abandoning support for a single-payer type system is the progressive position nowadays.

Where would be the voice of labor without Edwards in the race? Obama and Clinton continue to pay lip service to unions, as if they are a constituency to check off as having groveled to, before moving on to talk about how much they and they alone will be able to run a bureaucracy or grab hope from the ether and instill into our hearts and minds. Edwards is the only candidate who has made unions more than something to say "thanks for your support". He realizes that they are part of a progressive movement; something Feingold has done precious little to further I'm afraid.

So Senator Feingold may think it's fine to personally attack the candidate who is single-handedly dragging this party (kicking and screaming all the way) to the left, but I for one refuse to associate myself with Feingold ever again. Perhaps that's why Senator Feingold felt the need to go on such a baseless screed; John Edwards has succeeded in accomplishing in 12 months what Russ couldn't for all these years.

Update [2008-1-18 12:39:15 by adamterando]: I changed the main entry a little to show that yes I do think Feingold is progressive. It was distracting from the main message of the diary. So rest assured all, I think Feingold is a progressive, but he is not perfect and does no favors to the progressive movement he claims to represent by making these attacks on Senator Edwards.

Tags: Feingold, blowhard, arrogant (all tags)

Permalink :: 85 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive (1.66 / 3)

If you're trying to show Edward's bone fides as a progressive by trashing Feingold, that is a tactic destined to fail.

by highgrade on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive (2.00 / 6)

I don't think you read the diary.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe it's not all about tactics (2.00 / 5)

for Adam. In any case, I'm not sure I'd say that Feingold isn't all that progressive. His record on trade and civil liberties are stellar.

What I will say is this, that his praise for Hillary confounds me, considering she cast the same votes for which Russ knocks Edwards, considering her corporate-kissing should offend Mr. Clean, considering she supports NAFTA-expansion, considering she supported Lieberman-Kyl...

Now, if Russ had simply come out and endorsed Obama, I'd say, all right. But the fact that he's open to Hillary and sharply critical of Edwards tells me something else is at work. Maybe he doesn't like him. Maybe he's protecting the Club. Maybe he doesn't want Edwards to be the leader of the progressive movement, a position he might want himself.

by david mizner on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe it's not all about tactics (2.00 / 2)

Exactly. Feingold is progressive. But his statements do not help the progressive movement.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe it's not all about tactics (none / 0)

I would say Edward's schizophrenicly conservative record and liberal campaign is what's not good for the progressive movement.

Also, Feingold was a beacon for the progressive movement during some very dark times, and just because what he says is inconvenient for the candidate you seem set on supporting (no matter what), does not mean you get to rewrite history.

by alipi on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

maybe you don't want to see (none / 0)

the truth? Russ made is clear why he was criticizing Edwards and it is about the flip flopping on almost everything since he ran last time.
And sorry Edwards and Clinton do not share the same voting record. Clinton's was more progressive when they were both in congress.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: maybe you don't want to see (2.00 / 2)

But she was more conservative than her state.

Feingold has been very critical of the Clintons and their consultants in the past (see the Fix interview). So why now is he so enamoured with her?

This is a raw political (and or personal) move. Not a move of conscience.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: maybe you don't want to see (2.00 / 6)

Mollie, there were three specific examples that Feingold cited: China's trading status, the Patriot Act, and the war. Edwards and Clinton had the same position on all three of those things. So it was a little weird to see him name those as the reasons why he doesn't like Edwards, without saying a word about Hillary.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive (2.00 / 3)

Feingold apparently thinks more of himself than progressives and the progressive movement given these attacks.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:06:41 PM EST

don't be silly (2.00 / 1)

John Edwards is not the progressive movement. Nor was he progressive in the senate or during his last campaign in 2004. What concerns Russ is his about face to run as the liberal populist this time around.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:13:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't be silly (2.00 / 2)

Did I say Edwards is the progressive movement? But if you want to further the progressive movement, and by that I mean move the country more to the left towards a socially democratic society, then Edwards is by far the only (non-Kucinich) presidential candidate who is espousing the tone and positions that will get you there.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't be silly (none / 0)

yes, you implied it quite clearly.

by alipi on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't be silly (2.00 / 3)

Beginning with Reagan, poverty was removed from the middle class consciousness, mine included.

It was only with Bush and Cheney's selfish arrogance, and the handling of Katrina, that I began to understood how bad the economic and class situation really was for other Americans.

Bush and Cheney treated the middle class as some of us treat the poor -- an inconvenience to be pandered to, and scorned, if thought of at all.

This brought me back to reality, understanding this country still has a lot of work ahead of it.

Perhaps the same was true for you, perhaps for Edwards, too.

If he were trying to get elected, in my view, he would be pandering as Obama is, instead he is sticking to his ideals.

And ultimately, if our country is to remain competitive, it must adopt Edwards real message, which is hope, unity, and equality, and the continued struggle for tolerance, and improvement in our treatment of others.

by Marsha1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please stop trashing Feingold (none / 0)

You'd have been singing praises had he lauded or endorsed Edwards, of course.

Feingold's ratings do take somewhat of a hit from ethanol-related votes, but Edwards has far far worse votes with his war hawking co-sponsorship/vote, China MFN and all around DLC/Centrist senate activity.

Feingold has significantly better ADA ratings than Edwards (even during 1999-2002 when Edwards doesn't have the excuse of running for President):

ADA rating links: 99, 2K, 01, 02, 03, 04.

Feingold Edwards AvgDem

1999 100% 90% 96%
2000 100    85    79
2001 95    95 91
2002 90    70    85.5
2003 95    65    82.7
2004 100    60    89.6

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop trashing Feingold (none / 0)

I refuse to believe that Feingold was right one hundred percent of the time.

Please, read John's policy book. I see no reason to believe that he would break his campaign promises. Do you?

give me a wall! check out one of the best indie bands out of england in a while, ¡Forward, Russia!

by Sean Fitzpatrick on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop trashing Feingold (none / 0)

"Please, read John's policy book. I see no reason to believe that he would break his campaign promises. Do you?"

Yes. If the political winds turn for some reason, Edwards will turn with them based on his electoral needs of the period. That's what his political career bears out.

You should check out these video of JRE and HRE hawking the Iraq war: link (Hillary's March 2003 doesn't work. You'll need to use the link given below the videos to check it out). Those videos tell us quite a bit about their character.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong again, NL (2.00 / 1)

Certainly if he indicated a preference for Edwards, then Edwards supporters such as Adam or me wouldn't be criticizing him. So that statement is just plain silly.

But the criticism here and elsewhere about Feingold's statement largely because he chose a petty tone to rebuke Edwards and chose 3 specific votes as examples where one of his "preferred" choices voted exactly like Edwards. He could have chosen to indicate his preference for Obama and Clinton without attacking Edwards, and I doubt you would have heard a peep out of Adams. In this case, tone and substance indicate something more personal than politics or policies.

by edgery on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold is questioning Edwards' integrity (none / 0)

"Certainly if he indicated a preference for Edwards, then Edwards supporters such as Adam or me wouldn't be criticizing him. So that statement is just plain silly."

No it isn't silly. It goes to objectivity of Edwards supporters/promoters.

On this aspect, it's the portrayal of Feingold as being progressive/unprogressive that I was referring to. Whether Feingold is progressive or not should be essentially independent of what his opinion of Edwards, justified with rational facts (about Edwards' crappy record on major ticket issues), is.

Had Feingold lauded Edwards, I have no doubt whatsoever that Edwards supporters would be singing praises of RF as one of the greatest progressives ever, compared to the trashing we see Edwards supporters now doing.

Here is my opinion of Feingold's record: Feingold has a stellar progressive record on some major issues such as the Patriot act (on this he was phenomenally good), the Iraq war, constitutional matters in general and political reform. He also voted against almost all trade deals (which many people consider to be progressive, esp. when Edwards supporters tout Edwards' rhetoric and bashing Obama on his Peru FTA vote; which rhetoric is contradicted by Edwards' China MFN vote, anyhow), although in my view what constitutes progressive trade policy (beyond the vague "we must enforce labor and environmental standards", now boiler-plate, line ) is not easy to define. His ethanol votes could be considered to be un-progressive from an environmental POV, and that reflects in his low PP.org ratings. Overall, assigning proper weights to the big ticket issues, he comes out as having a strongly progressive record.

That opinion of mine is based on objective facts about his record and congressional record, and does not and would not change based on whether he supports or opposes Obama.

As for your second paragraph, based on what I have seen, Feingold is big on integrity in people. I have known for quite sometime that if one places Edwards' senate career record, his 2004 run and his 2008 run, and the rhetoric, then it's crystal clear that Edwards lacks integrity.

Feingold is essentially saying the same thing: that Edwards lacks integrity and should not be trusted.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

Yah Feingold is a conservative republican just like Obama!!!!!!!! WOO HOO! I've heard it all now!

Slash and burn politics baby! Say anything do anything lie cheat steal railroad the opposition into submission: CLINTON FORMULA FOR 2008.

by crackityjones on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:11:34 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 4)

Just like Edwards is a conservative Republican according to Feingold right!?!

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Dont' be ridiculous. Feingold is a progressive and a very good American. You ought to think about the fact that he's sayign these things and reflect a bit instead of kneejerkin to put up negative diaries and hit pieces on the guy. SHame on you.

If he's not a progressive then there's no cheese in Wisconsin.

ANd last time I looked they had plenty of cheese!

Slash and burn politics baby! Say anything do anything lie cheat steal railroad the opposition into submission: CLINTON FORMULA FOR 2008.

by crackityjones on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 5)

Uh huh. Well maybe you should think that I've thought about these things long and hard before I picked my presidential candidate. In 2004 I was a Dean and Kucinich supporter because they had the most progressive positions and I thought they were the best for the party at the time.

Well, Edwards is more progressive than Dean ever was and actually has a chance to win unlike Kucinich. So after months of thinking I threw my hat in with him and given the litany of policy proposals and the tone of his campaign, he has not let me down once.

So it's not a knee-jerk reaction. Contrary to what Feingold insinuates, I'm not an idiot and I can make judgements for myself as to how genuine Senator Edwards is about what he proposes.

I don't need a lecture from Feingold (or you) about "thinking about these things". I've thought about them long and hard.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

A chance to win???

What planet are you on??

Slash and burn politics baby! Say anything do anything lie cheat steal railroad the opposition into submission: CLINTON FORMULA FOR 2008.

by crackityjones on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

and Dean was a moderate Vermont governor... and became a pretty progressive candidate for president, yet do we call him a hypocritical flip-flopper without a soul?

by KainIIIC on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:54:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

i guess that means i like conservative republicans.

who knew?

by d on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

It's really not an "attack" when it's accurate. Russ does what he thinks is right, and in recent memory he's been right far more often that most Democrats. Nothing that you cited in this diary changes that.

Now, to be clear I'm not saying John Edwards is a bad man or that the changes he's had in thinking are anything but principled. On balance, I suspect that what he's saying now is what he believes. But it's more than fair to note that his record doesn't show him to be the fierce populist that his current campaign is based on. Lets face it, it is easier to talk about what's right when you're not actually voting in the Senate. That's why Senators usually don't win the presidency.

by HSTruman on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 3)

Ok, but if you're going to go that route, then we have to take Russ to task for basically decrying Edwards while Russ did the same thing with ethanol subsidies; namely voting with his constituency.

The point is, that Russ decided to attack and only attack Edwards when Clinton's record in the senate has largely been the same. There was no reason for it and it's just odd to me that for someone who claims to be such a progressive, that it would be that easy for him to go after the man who is most forcefully putting out the issues in this campaign that Russ says he cares so deeply about.

It's about putting the movement above your own petty feelings. And I don't think Russ has done that.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 2)

I'm an Edwards supporter, and I deplore what Feingold said about Edwards, but come on.

That said, I probably won't be giving any more money to Feingold's PAC as I have in the past.

Feingold is a great progressive in my book, but this confirms that movement-building is really not his strength.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

It's kind of tongue-in-cheek because obviously Feingold has a pretty progressive voting record. But when you're in the senate anything can be used to show how "un-progressive" someone is. I intentionally didn't make that point very clear though because I"m so pissed at Feingold and tired of his crap.

Feingold did with ethanol subsidies exactly what Edwards did while in the senate; voted with his constituency. Edwards just happened to come from a much more conservative area and had to get out of the DC consultancy racket before he really had the courage to promote a true progressive core.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 3)

I think there is a difference between sucking up to a local interest in your state (like being against cigarette taxes if you're from North Carolina) and saying "well, my state is conservative, so I have to vote kind of conservative." Not that there's no truth to the latter, but you can excuse almost anything if you go by that standard.

I support Edwards because I think he has the best understanding of the current political situation and the things we can achieve in the next eight years. Obviously I'd love it if it were someone with Russ Feingold's track record saying all these things instead, but ultimately I see the possibilities of the moment as more relevant than the past.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

You'd think Feingold would see it the same way. But personal animosity seems to get in the way of the greater good here.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

I have no idea what accounts for Feingold's statements. I think it's jumping to conclusions to call it personal animosity.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

I agree. I'm jumping to conclusions and I retract that. But it is frustrating to say the least what he's doing. And bewildering to no end.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:34:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

"I think there is a difference between sucking up to a local interest in your state (like being against cigarette taxes if you're from North Carolina) and saying "well, my state is conservative, so I have to vote kind of conservative.""

I suppose, but then what's Hillary's excuse? She represents freaking New York! And by association what's Feingold's excuse for going ballistic against Edwards for his votes but saying he can't decide between Hillary and Obama for president!

Seems like a very big double standard to me.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 7)

I think we don't have a sense of what a progressive really looks like in the senate because they all become members of the club.

I have always thought well of Feingold but was not really convinced he was a progressive.

He had the right ideas but not the passion to convince others. He also was willing to go along.

The others were fine with his votes because he made no difference in the final result.

So he was the pressure valve for the frustrations of the progressive wing of the party but he did little to move our cause forward.

We need a leader to build a movement. Edwards could be that leader. I think he really thought he could still win in a rigged system.

I hold the hope he still can but I am dismayed how entrenched it is.

I think there is no hope to see change within the senate.

We need a miracle for Edwards to win and miracles do happen. At the very least I want his influence to be felt at the convention.

And Feingold came off my list of most admired people. He is a good senator but not a progressive. We have none there.

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives

by pioneer111 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just removed myself from Feingold's list. (2.00 / 7)

That is the price you pay, loss of support, for attacking a progressive candidate in favor of one who is reaching out to Republicans.

Reaching out both, in print, and on the radio.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics

by Robert P on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:18:23 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

Can you tell all us Wisconsinites who have voted for Feingold for years how else he isn't progressive?

by UWM College Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 3)

Feingold is a good man and represents his state well as a senator who his part of that club.

But the more I look at the Senate and the government the more I see how the entrenched interests run things and Feingold is not about to upset them.

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives

by pioneer111 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:29:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 3)

Did you read the diary?

Feingold is progressive. But he is not God and he is not the only one that gets to decide whether someone is genuinely progressive or not. All I'm saying is that Feingold has been guilty in the past of doing the same things that he criticized Edwards for and that it is not progressive to attack the most progressive candidate in the race.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, that's the point (2.00 / 3)

Russ is pol, a really good, maybe great, pol but still a pol. Not infallible.

His positions on welfare reform and Israel could've been a lot better, and he supported John Ashcroft. Mistakes.

And attacking the boldest progressive in the race was another mistake.

by david mizner on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, that's the point (2.00 / 1)

It's just frustrating because these are mistakes that hurt the movement. I can forgive off-putting comments or votes here and there that don't follow orthodoxy (hell I'm for freakin' ethanol subsidies since I'm from a farm), but to be so mean-spirited towards someone who obviously has single-handedly moved this primary contest to the left is just wrong wrong wrong.

Feingold is being vindictive here and it's caused him to go down a peg in my book.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, that's the point (none / 0)

hahahahaha... I can see that the "movement" is clearly your concern here, not the Edwards campaign.

ludicrous.

by alipi on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WHat an ASSININE diary (2.00 / 1)

I am just amazed. Attacking Feingold because he tells the truth about Edwards?

For shame.

by dataguy on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:29:36 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Please Please, tell us how Russ Feingold represents the establishment?

by UWM College Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:32:04 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Where did I talk about the establishment?

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

that was actually your fellow edwardsian, rssai, who responded to my earlier post about the Feingold remark by calling him the "establishment candidate".

But please, don't be too hasty in distancing yourself from her remark, because claiming that he's not a real progressive is JUST as preposterous.

by alipi on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha (2.00 / 1)

by Obama08 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

of course is progressive. I think he has a valid concern about Edwards. It is the exact concern I have. In other words I don't really believe him. He has done an about face on too many issues and votes he made in congress. The problem is I didn't believe him in 2004 either. I think he runs whatever campaign he thinks will win him the nomination in that particular year.
He was wrong then and he is clearly not running the right campaign now.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 2)

So why didn't Feingold criticize hillary? Because he values her being consistently more conservative over Edwards evolving to be the most progressive candidate?

Maybe Feingold doesn't like Edwards stealing his thunder.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Because she is not running as a progressive. If your going to base your support on the progressive community, you damn well better act (AND VOTE) like one.

by mattmfm on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

she is a progressive and she is running as one. But she is not any different than she has ever been. That is the point.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

That makes no sense at all.

So then there should be no choice for Feingold. He should endorse Obama if he thinks he's more progressive.

That also means that Hillary can't ever be more progressive in the future because it'd obviously be a pander and a lie. Her talking about the need to be more skeptical of free trade agreements now? A lie. Her opposition to Don't ask don't tell? A lie.

What you can't deny is that Edwards has moved the primary debate to the left. But Feingold cannot even give him credit for that. His personal feelings/ambition/whatever apparently trump the progressive movement in this case.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

no his values have NOT been consistently more progressive. His rhetoric has been populist and angry but that doesn't make him more progressive and ranting about corporations doesn't make him more progressive either.
The reason Russ is still considering her and not Edwards is because she is who she has always been, a common sense pragmatic progressive who doesn't pander to the koolaid drinking left to make them think she is "more radical than thou".

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

I think that's a problem here.

People still attach whatever they want to the word progressive (kind of the same with Obama).

So what does progressive mean to you?

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

..."more radical than thou" is a 60's stereotype, not really indicative of the discussion here.

The move toward the progressive left was borne of a need to address the subversion and destruction of the American economic and legal system by the right.

This was hardly radical, Clinton, too, changing her positions in response to Edwards leadership, and the emerging definition of the problems.

by Marsha1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

now you're just starting to piss me off. Hillary's RECORD, which for all you edwards clowns IS WHAT COUNTS, is noticably more progressive than Edwards'.

by alipi on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

You folks should be embarrassed that such a diary as this is actually recommended on a progressive blog.

These comments regarding Feingold are childish and ignorant. Your blind support of Edwards is troubling, to say the least.

Feingold's comments should send a shiver down Edwards' supporters...not because they are hurtful but because they are truthful. Nothing Feingold said is a stretch of the truth.

by mattmfm on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:09:41 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Please tell me what was ignorant. I made no comments that can't be backed up.

And no I'm sorry, I don't think that what Russ says really makes a difference to Edwards supporters in terms of who they support. Feingold may wish it were so, but his influence just really isn't that great anymore since Edwards, Obama, and even Clinton have taken the party to a new level and left Mr. Feingold in the dust.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:23:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Russ is one (2.00 / 1)

of my heroes. Shame on you for attacking one of the most ethical people we have in this party - no country. Edwards made his millions and THEN became a progressive - I not saying he is bad - I love Edwards and will vote for him if he is the nominee - but lets get some perspective here.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:10:21 PM EST

Re: Russ is one (2.00 / 1)

Where did I attack Feingold? I pointed out his record and that the same standard that he applies to Edwards could be put to him to and could cast him in an unfavorable light.

Edwards is about moving the country to the left and he has already moved the party to the left. Something Feingold has not been able to do in all his years in the Senate.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:25:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is such crap (none / 0)

this point alone makes me wonder if you know anything at all.

Where would be the voice of labor without Edwards in the race? Obama and Clinton continue to pay lip service to unions, as if they are a constituency to check off as having groveled to, before moving on to talk about how much they and they alone will be able to run a bureaucracy or grab hope from the ether and instill into our hearts and minds. Edwards is the only candidate who has made unions more than something to say "thanks for your support". He realizes that they are part of a progressive movement; something Feingold has done precious little to further I'm afraid.

Clinton has a great rating with union support. She doesn't need to pander to them. Showing up to march at a union event is nothing but pandering. Why do you think Clinton has more union support than Edwards? It's not just because they think she will win.
When you make such ridiculous claims it just makes you look clueless.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:17:25 PM EST

Re: this is such crap (2.00 / 1)

Um yeah. That's why Edwards has no labor support. I see. And saying that showing up at a union event and walking picket lines for two years means nothing to labor actually shows how clueless you are when it comes to labor issues.

Maybe you should talk to Jonathon Tasini about who is pandering and who truly gets the labor movement. But then again, you probably don't know who Mr. Tasini is.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 2)

Edwards' admission of a "mistake" over the Iraq Vote has largely glossed over the fact that he was a co-sponsor of the War and spoke out in favor of it in very aggressive terms. In many ways Feingold is being polite in his rejection of Edwards without giving much details. But I don't think it is much of a leap to think he and other Senators see a big difference between Edwards embrace of all of the Hawkish talking points and Clinton's much more nuanced and lower key support.

by Piuma on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:32:10 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 2)

Supporting Kyl-Liberman is not nuanced nor is it progressive.

For Feingold to gloss this over shows that he is applying quite the double-standard in how he evaluates the candidates.

by adamterando on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

You're acting as if there is some standard he must apply. He knows all three of these people personally and knows what they've said and done behind closed doors. Think about it a second, how many Senators who worked side by side with John have come out and endorsed him?

by Piuma on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Are you really saying that you can't see any distinction between Kyl-Lieberman and Edwards' co-sponsorship and aggressive support of the AUMF?

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 2)

Edwards repudiated Reagan early in this campaign, when it was dangerous to do so, when it would have been far more fashionable, and easy, to embrace Reagan, ala Obama.

He also took on the lobbyists, and therefore big business, again, a position that could guarantee defeat, and maybe has.

He took a significant chance.

That tells me his stand is most likely not disingenuous, not a back door attempt to discredit the intellect of the voters.

Secondly, continuing with his theme from the 2004 election, Edwards reminds us about the class and economic inequalities in America, despite the PC crews telling us minorities need no special protections, ala Cheney and Bush.

The South was devastated by NAFTA, the loss of the textile jobs and the economic effects made a significant impact on those with the empathy and intellect to understand the consequences.

by Marsha1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:32:42 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

What? Please let me know how it was ever fashionable for a Democrat to embrace Reagan. I'm at a loss to remember any time in this race when it was "dangerous" to be opposed to Ronald Reagan. Give me a break.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

Really though. Ethanol subsides? Thats all you've got? Edwards voted for the Patriot Act and a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. I'm a soft Edwards supporter who hesitated when Feingold made that statement. When I see his supporters start trashing the only courageous progressive voice in the senate then I begin to think I should just flip to Obama right now.

Defend, Edwards. Explain why progressives should support him despite his conservative voting record. But don't accuse Feingold of launching personal attacks (and lets be clear, whatever you think of Feingold everything he said was the absolute truth).

Congrats. You're one step closer to sending this Edwards supporter to the other side. Hope you're happy.

by js noble on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

Feingold's remarks worried me, too. But here is my take on Edwards' less than stellar voting record:

He went into Washington with high hopes. But the system controlled him. For a few years in the Senate, he put his ambition first. He did what the political consultants told him.

Then he realized just what was going on. He remembered where he grew up. He rededicated himself to the cause of his life: ending poverty. Now he is running for President as a man who is free of the weight that Washington put on him. He is running as the most progressive candidate, and I see no reason that he would break his campaign promises.

The number one thing to remember is that this campaign is about the message, not the messanger.

give me a wall! check out one of the best indie bands out of england in a while, ¡Forward, Russia!

by Sean Fitzpatrick on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

If I wanted to vote for the message only and not the messenger whose job it is to carry it to Washington and implement it, then I would vote for Dennis Kucinich.

by Piuma on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Obviously the candidate is important. But as Eugene Debs said, 'It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get that.'

By the way, polls have shown Edwards as a very electable candidate. Kucinich, not so much.

give me a wall! check out one of the best indie bands out of england in a while, ¡Forward, Russia!

by Sean Fitzpatrick on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:16:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (2.00 / 1)

I think by the time this is all over, some people on the blogosphere will be convinced that there are no true progressives except John Edwards. Ned Lamont? Good by. Pat Leahy? Good riddance. Now Feingold. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

ROFL.

It's funny to see people in the supposedly-enlightened liberal blogosphere mimic the MSM's habit of not letting inconvenient facts muddy up your pre-conceived narrative.

by mopper8 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:12:47 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

I think it is just silly to suggest that Leahy, Lamont and Feingold aren't progressive. But it is equally silly to say that because these progressives don't support Edwards that you couldn't possibly vote for him. Anyone who would vote for someone simply because they were told to shouldn't be allowed to vote.

give me a wall! check out one of the best indie bands out of england in a while, ¡Forward, Russia!

by Sean Fitzpatrick on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:21:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

there it is again. That is the second time today you have called Feingold "corporate" and "establishment".

I'm going to go ahead an label you as part of the Britney Spears wing of the democratic party - ie batshit crazy.

cheers.

by alipi on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:16:44 PM EST

I like that. (none / 0)

i am just afraid there are a lot of people around here that also belong to that wing.

by d on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha! (none / 0)

Russ Feingold IS the epitome of Progressivism. Slandering him for not supporting your candidate is INSANE and PITIFUL.

On Russ consin !

Go Pack Go !

...and yes. I read all of this including the update.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:01:25 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

This is the major problem with the liberal blogospher. We have these silly arguements about who's more progressive, when progressive is such a subjective term. Concider more than just how far to the left someone is. The fact is Feingold, Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are all good Democrats. Well I hesitate a second on Obama for the Reagan comment, but none the less he seems on the right side of most issues, even if he's going farther than I think Democrats should to try to attract more concervative voters.

by Christopher Lib on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:17:07 PM EST

get a grip, people. (none / 0)

Now feingold is not progressive because he endorsed Obama?

seriously. Can this really be considered a serious diary?

I suppose the witch hunt will continue until there is a nominee.

And then we can have another witch hunt after we lose the presidential election.

by d on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Adam, it is clear from previous posts you support Edwards. Ya know (and I footnote this as a previously disclosed Edwards supporter)the premise of this is bullshit.
If Russ would have supported Edwards you would have been tooting the other way.

If I am secure in the belief that the person I support would make the best President that is enough.
Perhaps for those that are confused (really easy)or undecided, endorsements might convince them to take a closer look at a candidate. That is fine.

I try to do my research. I try to attend anytime a candidate speaks in my area.
I try to discern the transparency of a candidate.
There are valid reasons why folks reject Edwards.
There are petty reasons.
The same can be said for all of them.
(note, yes I have on occasion referenced Michael Moore's support for Edwards' health plan)

There are three Senators who I admire at this time.
Kennedy, Dodd, Feingold. But who they support or do not support does not matter to me.
I have the same vote in a primary and General Election as they do..

Sorry I refuse to pretend Russ is not one of the good guys just because he brings up valid points.

(yes, I will swing my Denver precinct to Edwards on 2/5)

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:50:51 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

feingold calls em the way he sees em and you are free to agree with him or not. your choice. he was asked a question by a reporter about the P race and answered it directly. end of story.

by coach on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:00:42 PM EST

lol @ partisan supporters (none / 0)

John Edwards is not god, nor is he the embodiment of the progressive movement. He is just one person, a politician running for president. This is true of all the other candidates as well. There's a lot of kool-aid drinking around here.

by Korha on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:04:27 PM EST

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Uh...are we talking about the same Feingold?

by Josh Orton on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:15:39 PM EST

they must be talking about.... (none / 0)

...jerry feingold, russ's second cousin.

by d on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russ Feingold: Not really that progressive? (none / 0)

Actually...a review of the comments here may demonstrate that although many posters here support Edwards we dismiss the premise of the diary..
\
and please we we move beyond the term Koo-aid?

Don't know how many of you were above 20 when Jim Jones nightmare was happening...
but making snark references to kool-aid...is just ahh..fucking misplaced

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates /stories/november/18/newsid_2540000/2540 209.stm

image
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rantpix/ victims.gif

remember this the next time you are too feeble to create a metaphor other than the kool-aid bullshit.

This goes to all who have either forgotten or never knew.

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.