Some Highlights on the Inspiring Senate Career of Russ Feingold

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-17-10 09:03 PM
Original message

Some Highlights on the Inspiring Senate Career of Russ Feingold

I wanted to see whether some regular guy who wasn�t rich or connected had a shot at doing this � Russ Feingold to his campaign manager, running in his first campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1992, after being told by his campaign manager � incorrectly � that he was �going to get his ass kicked�

Why bother discussing Russ Feingold�s Senate career at this time � other than the fact that he�s currently locked in another tight race for re-election for the U.S. Senate from Wisconsin, in a mid-term election that is looking bleak for the Democratic Party? Well, at a time when so many of our elected leaders � of both parties � have been co-opted and corrupted by wealthy and powerful special interests, Feingold stands out as a breath of fresh air. I find the story of his entry into national politics and many of his subsequent actions in the U.S. Senate to be very refreshing and inspiring.

Feingold decided against running for the U.S. presidency in 2008, citing the long odds against his winning the nomination, the disruption to his political and personal life that a run for president would entail, and the fact that he was happy in the Senate. A review of some highlights of his Senate career speaks to why I would like to see him reconsider that decision in 2012.

Feingold�s previous races for U.S. Senator from Wisconsin

1992
Sanford Horwitt describes Feingold�s first campaign for the U.S. Senate in his book �Feingold � A New Democratic Party�. When Feingold first decided to run for the U.S. Senate in 1992, he was a virtually unknown state senator with very little money and small prospects of raising much. By June he stood at 11% in the first poll, against two much better known Democratic primary opponents with much more money than him. They ran hundreds of TV ads before he ran his first one. With six weeks to go before the primaries he was virtually ignored by the news media. With only $185,000 in cash, his campaign manager told him that he was �going to get his ass kicked�. In response, Feingold laughed and said:

I�ve spent every free moment of my time on the phone trying to get money. I�ve done the best job I could. I wanted to see whether some regular guy who wasn�t rich or connected had a shot at doing this. I�ve done the best I can, and if that�s what it is, that�s what it is.

A little later, the Feingold campaign produced its first TV ad:

Hi, I�m Russ Feingold, the underdog who�s running for U.S. Senate. Underdog � that�s the story of my life� Now they say I won�t be your next U.S. Senator. That I don�t have a fortune to spend on expensive TV commercials like my opponents. But I don�t think that wild spending is what people want in a Senator anyway. I think people want a Senator who�s in touch with the problems of ordinary families� I live right here in Middleton, Wisconsin� My wife and I work hard to pay for this� But money isn�t what I need. What I need is your vote.

The two minute ad aired just once in every Wisconsin TV market, beginning August 20th. Then debates were held, where Feingold was able to point out distinctions between him and his opponents, such as his proposed tax increases on large corporations and wealthy Americans, though he opposed a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.

The other two candidates were locked in an intense battle of negative campaigning and virtually ignored Feingold. In the last debate, one of his opponents said �If it can�t be me, I believe Russ Feingold would better represent the people of Wisconsin�. Feingold received a late unexpected endorsement from Gaylord Nelson, Wisconsin�s highly regarded former Senator. He received a hearty late endorsement from the Wisconsin State Journal, which praised him for �boldly attempting to slaughter some of Washington�s sacred cows�.

Feingold won the Democratic primary with 70% of the vote, a remarkable turnaround from 11% in only a few weeks. He then went on to become one of two Democratic challengers to defeat a Republican incumbent for U.S. Senate in 1992 � despite being outspent 3:1 and getting attacked with a push poll that accused him of favoring legislation that would make mass-murderer Jeffrey Dahmer eligible for parole.

1998
By 1998 Feingold was passionately involved in trying to further the cause of campaign finance reform � an effort that culminated in the McCain-Feingold legislation a few years later. To demonstrate his devotion to that cause during his 1998 campaign, he voluntarily placed a cap on his own fundraising for his re-election bid and agreed to all the limitations specified in the McCain Feingold proposed legislation, though it had not yet been passed, and despite the fact that Republicans had targeted him for defeat. Pam Belluck describes how that turned out in a New York Times article titled �The 1998 Elections: The Nation � Wisconsin; Feingold Defies Party And Retains Senate Seat�:

Saying he was determined to stick to his principles, even if it meant sacrificing his career, Mr. Feingold refused to allow the national Democratic Party to spend money to run ''issue ads'' on his behalf. Mr. Neumann took no such pledge and the money poured into his campaign, fueling television advertisements that drilled at Mr. Feingold, who was initially 10 to 15 points ahead in the polls. The advertising blitz was so effective, analysts believe, that for weeks, polls showed the candidates in a virtual dead heat.

Late last month, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee tried to circumvent Mr. Feingold's dictum by running its own campaign commercials on his behalf. He objected and persuaded the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, to put a stop to the spots.

Strong showings in Democratic strongholds allowed Feingold to win that election by about two percent of the vote.

2004
In 2004 Feingold defeated the Republican Senatorial candidate 56%-44%. More than 90% of the money Feingold raised in that election came from individuals, who contributed an average of only $60.

Feingold against the PATRIOT Act

Senator Feingold is perhaps best known for being the only U.S. Senator to vote against the original USA PATRIOT Act following the September 11 attacks on our country. Given the fearful, even hysterical mood of our country at the time, that was quite a courageous decision on his part. In voicing his opposition to that Act, he not only incurred the wrath of the Republican Party, but he bucked his own party as well. Sanford Horwitt describes the situation:

Provisions of the Act violated basic constitutional protections, or at least raised serious questions, Feingold believed, and he planned to offer amendments to remove them� But suddenly, the Democratic leadership announced� that the legislation was going straight to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote, no amendments allowed. �What?� Feingold blurted in disbelief when he heard the news� �I was so shocked, and I objected,� which resulted in a heated shouting match� with Tom Daschle, the Democratic majority leader. �He was demanding that I not pursue these things,� Feingold says� Daschle pushed for a vote on the PATRIOT Act, but Feingold blocked it until he was allowed to offer his amendments. But each of his amendments was quickly tabled�

Before his vote on the final legislation, Feingold spoke on the Senate floor� The Constitution� was conceived to ensure �fundamental constitutional guarantees� when the temptation to suppress civil liberties was greatest � namely, when governments fear that constitutional guarantees �will inhibit government action� I believe we must redouble our vigilance� to ensure our security and prevent further acts of terror. But we must also redouble our vigilance to preserve our values and the basic rights that make us who we are.��

Feingold told the Senate he found disturbing signs that the Bush administration was heading down a road littered with historic violations of constitutional rights� Feingold said, �The Justice Department is making extraordinary use of its power to arrest and detain individuals, jailing hundreds of people on immigrations violations� The government has not brought any criminal charges related to the attacks with regard to the majority of these detainees.� And he expressed great concern about a new, dangerous kind of racial profiling that had emerged. Feingold said� �We must strive mightily� against racism and ethnic discrimination. Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.�

How prophetic! Feingold didn�t know at that time how badly the attacks on our Constitution would become under the rule of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Feingold on the Constitutional abuses of the Bush administration

Following revelations of Bush administration illegal warrantless wiretapping, Feingold had this to say:

I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on. It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?"

I don't have to tell you how important this issue is. It gets to the core of what we as a country are all about. We all agree that we must defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. Why does this President feel we must sacrifice our freedoms to fight terrorism? This is a gut check moment for members of Congress. Do we sacrifice our liberty? Do we bow to those who try to use security issues for political gain? Do we stand and applaud when the President places himself above the law? Or, do we say enough?

Stop the power grab, stop the politics, stop breaking the law.

It's time to stand up - not to cheer, but to fight back.

Not long after that, as President Bush failed to show the slightest shame or remorse for his unconstitutional actions, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/30/the_gops_stake_in_checking_the_president.php">Feingold advocated that the Senate censure him, and he also admonished Republicans for failing to stand up for our Constitution and the American people:

Today, as the President admits, even flaunts, his program to wiretap Americans on American soil without the warrants required by law, we need more courageous Republicans to stand up and check the President�s power grab.

When the President breaks the law, he must be held accountable, and that is why I have introduced a resolution to censure the President for his actions. Yet, as we face a President who thinks he is above the law, most Republicans are willing to cede enormous power to the executive branch. Their actions are not just short-sighted, they are a departure from one of the Republican Party�s defining goals: limiting government power�

A party that prides itself on limiting government, and supporting individual freedom and the rule of law, should think twice before it allows any President to ignore the laws that Congress passes. By supporting the President now, Republicans are making it tougher for members of their own party to challenge the power of future presidents and departing from their own values in the process. That�s a short-sighted strategy that won�t serve either party, or the nation, in the long run. What would serve the nation, and support the rule of law, is for a few courageous Republicans to follow the example set during the Watergate scandal by standing up to a President of their own party, asking tough questions, and holding the President accountable for his abuse of power.

Feingold stands up to the President from his own Party

Feingold�s criticisms of the Bush administration for its abuses of power, and his admonishing of Republican Senators for failing to stand up to the president from their own party was not mere political rhetoric. He proved that when he repeatedly sought to hold President Obama accountable to the same standards to which he sought to hold President Bush � even though he was an early supporter of Obama in the Democratic Presidential primaries.

Excessive use of the �state secrets� excuse
Like many of us, Feingold was very disappointed that the Obama administration not only failed to pursue investigations of Bush administration abuses of power, but it additionally invoked �state secrets� privileges to protect the Bush administration against investigations into their abuses:

I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration�s alleged misconduct... There is an urgent need for legislation to give better guidance to the courts on how to handle assertions of the state secrets privilege. The American people must be able to have confidence that the privilege is not being used to shield government misconduct�

In particular, Feingold was upset with President Obama�s decision to withhold the publication of photos picturing the torture of American prisoners, rationalized on the basis of �state secrets�:

I am generally opposed to keeping the American people in the dark for no other reason than to shield misconduct, avoid embarrassment or other reasons not pertaining to national security. From what I've heard so far, I'm not convinced there is a compelling reason these photos shouldn't be released.

Extraordinary rendition
Extraordinary rendition, as practiced by the Bush administration, was the illegal practice of sending American prisoners to other countries to be tortured. Feingold objected to that:

�I am troubled by reports that the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case brought by five men who claim to have been the victims of extraordinary rendition,� Feingold said� in a rare instance of criticism directed at Obama by a Senator in his own party.

The case has been closely watched as an early signal of how Obama would handle one of the Bush administration�s most controversial �war on terror� legal weapons � specifically, whether the Obama administration would uphold the Bush administration�s claims of state secret privileges, citing national security, to prevent courts from ruling on such matters. Feingold�s statement suggests he intends to maintain a controversial posture towards the White House on the issue.

Feingold�s office also confirmed that he is seeking a secret briefing on the case from the Obama administration � something that could put the administration on the spot and potentially ratchet up the confrontation.

Lax regulations of Wall Street
Feingold was the most scathing critic in the U.S. Senate of the weakness of the Obama administration�s Wall Street reform bill, even threatening to withhold his vote for it:

I opposed deregulating Wall Street and eliminating the protections of the Glass-Steagall Act, a position which put me at odds with many in Washington who supported the very policies that contributed to the financial crisis, and who now support these bills that simply don't get the job done. Without including stronger reforms, we're simply whistling past the graveyard.

One person whose opinions on this issue are similar to Feingold�s is Robert Kuttner, former chief investigator of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. In his book, �A Presidency in Peril � The Inside Story of Obama�s Promise, Wall Street�s Power and the Struggle to Control our Economic future�, Kuttner sums up an earlier version (the final version didn�t pass until after his book was published) of the �reform bill� that Feingold criticized:

At the most fundamental level, the Obama blueprint left largely intact the broader business model that had enabled the financial industry to take down the economy. There was no serious effort to shrink the financial sector back down to a scale that would leave it as servant of the rest of the economy rather than master, or to promote a comprehensive simplification of the system or a reining in of the exotic abstractions that produced such profit for the financial sector an such risk for the larger economy. Nothing would interfere with the long-term trend in which bankers and investment bankers� all tended to behave more like� engines of speculation for their own enrichment rather than sources of credit for productive investment� It was a reform effort worthy of a McCain administration.

2012

We desperately need a leader who is willing to stand up to the special powerful and wealthy interests that are destroying our country � someone who puts principle above politics and party. If the situation in our country doesn�t get a lot better by 2012, perhaps Feingold or someone like him may feel compelled to challenge an incumbent president from their own party for the Democratic nomination.

It is undoubtedly true that such a person would be mercilessly lambasted by our national media. Such a person would also, in my opinion, face a high risk of assassination if other methods failed to derail him or her. The risks would be great, and the chances of success relatively small. But continuing on our present course is not a viable option.