An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Another Poll Shows Bush’s Post-Election Popularity Sag
Missouri Republican Panel Links Abortion To Illegal Immigration »
Non Contender Feingold Decides Not to Run for President
Russ Feingold withdraws
The Journal Sentinel reports that the hero of the far left, Russ Feingold, has decided that he will not run for President in 08.
Obviously this is quite big news for some, especially for the so-called netroots, but for just about every other person, this can hardly be a surprise. If there is one prominent Democrat who stands absolutely no chance of winning in 08, it is Senator Feingold. He is much too liberal, or at least – equally important – he is very easily depicted as too far to the left.
Good decision for Feingold and a good one for the Democratic party.
13 Responses to “Non Contender Feingold Decides Not to Run for President”
Like I said on my post on Why We Worry, it’s unfortunate that Russ Feingold won’t be running.
He is one of the few well spoken politicians that isn’t afraid to stand up for what he believes in. Even if it’s seemingly politically unpopular.
He opposed the Iraq war, he opposed the PATRIOT Act, he opposed the dismantling of Habeas Corpus and the Congressional authorization of torture. He supports universal healthcare and reforms of campaign finance.
It’s sad that he really had no chance to win because he is painted as some sort of fringe politician. What he really is, is a politician with integrity.
Chris touches on a point I’ve felt regarding Feingold for some time : the guy’s principled.
Due to how he’s been painted, he would be roasted over the coals, but I think he’s genuine, and regardless of political stance, I appreciate that.
Crazy side note – am I the only person who thinks personal freedoms are becoming more of a Left issue than a Right one? Look at the list above : (PAT-Act/Torture/Habeas) are Lib issues, and it seems like only the blue side of the aisle addresses concerns, with a few moderate reds as exception. I thought Libs were generally right-aligned?
Did the blue team become more concerned with these issues, the red team less, or some combination thereof?
All good comments here. Smarter than the comments on the webpage. Sen. Feingold IS very principled. He’s one of the few….
He knows what he believes and he stands behind it. Feingold voted against the patriot act because he wasn’t allowed to read it. He said on the senate floor before he voted that the text of the legislation wasn’t made available.
(take note MCcain lovers: Feingold wants to read major legislation before he praises it)
Feingold’s one of the few who read the classified NIE.
I have no problem with his politics. Mr. Feingold simply lacks the chrisma and flash necessary to make his nomination acceptable to the vetting of reporters and bloggers. Unlike our pal Noble Joe L and MrStraightTalk, Feingold works twice as hard but lacks a good solid fan base. In news articles and on TV he’s labled as a far left liberal. But it’s not true. For proof just look how he votes.
The good news is that he’s young.
Can you elaborate on just how it would be so horrible for America to have a Feingold administration? ‘Cause all I see is somebody who stands for what he believes in even when it’s not politically experdient to do so. Why again is that bad for our country?
Feingold’s biggest strikes against him from an electability perspective are that he’s Jewish and twice-divorced. I just don’t see America electing that combination, no matter what he believes in.
Is he presidential material? Does it really matter one way or another? Nonetheless, being POTUS is not the be-all-to-end-all. He does a fine job as a US senator.
I think it’s good news for some Democrats, those who won’t have to debate with him in the primaries. However, two issues.
First, your claim that he’s far left. Wrong. He’s a self thinker. If protecting civil liberties is far left, then he’s far left. However, would a far left individual vote against the assault weapons ban because he feels it violates the second amendment? Feingold did. This is just the most obvious of many moves that make it hard to paint him with any single brush. Well, unless you’re Karl Rove or you have fallen for his rhetoric.
The people of Wisconsin know the truth, he’s outspoken on many issues but the only reason he’s viewed by many as far left is because he’s the only one who is outspoken on some issues that others are afraid to speak out on. If he were so far left, how would he manage to gain 60-some percent of the Wisconsin vote in the same election that Bush managed over 49%?
It should be just as easy to paint him as moderate as far left simply by reviewing his voting record.
Second, I think he has a lot to gain in the coming years by working with (and against) the Democratic leadership. He may be a good candidate in 2012 or 2016 but he first needs to stand up against the Democratic leadership (which he will undoubtedly do) and show how much of a self-thinking moderate he actually is. It’s wise of him to not run in 2008. 2012 or 2016 could be a much better time for him. Another interesting thought: Obama/Feingold in 2012 or 2016?
ES, great point. One of the reasons he stated for not running was because he felt he could do more for the good of the country and for the good of Wisconsin by remaining Senator and obtaining some important committee posts than by running for President.
Please tell us the name of a Democrat who isn’t very easily depicted as too far to the left.
The Democrats are going to have to win on ideas, preferably with a great speaker who can parry the inevitable charges of “most liberal Democrat in the (Senate, State, Country…)”.
“Please tell us the name of a Democrat who isn’t very easily depicted as too far to the left.”
How about most of the members of the DLC?
Centrist Democrats Notch Big Win
Finding the middle pays off in red-state Virginia
by James Ridgeway
November 9th, 2005 1:41 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C.-If there are any real winners in yesterday’s elections, they’re the center-right Democrats gathered around the Democratic Leadership Council.
Look at the list above : (PAT-Act/Torture/Habeas) are Lib issues, and it seems like only the blue side of the aisle addresses concerns, with a few moderate reds as exception.
That’s also a good point. Liberals are depicted as the hippy, Hanoi-Jane, blame America first crowd. But thats a leftover from the late 1960′s and early 1970′s. That party is long gone. If they become the party of constitutional rights, freedom of expression, right to privacy, they move the bar substantially into middle America territory.
The Republicans abandoned all these ideas along with fiscal conservatism and small government. They’ve become an authoritarian, absolutist cult. I don’t think liberal is the slur it once was.
How about most of the members of the DLC?
Maybe you’ve heard of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Mikef, excellent examples. Neither one qualfies as “far left” when you look at their respective records, but both are easily painted as such.
In politics, as in most things, perception is reality, and if you’re careful to present only the facts that support the perception you’re trying to create, then you can effectively create reality. I find the process abhorrent, but it happens nonetheless, and every politician I’ve observed does it to some greater or lesser extent. Centrists, independents, and moderates are not immune.