Pacific Northwest For Feingold

The Veepstakes III: Disappointing !!

2008-07-11T08:56:00.000-07:00

The likelihood of Senator Feingold being selected as VP is pretty remote. But I think two recent actions by Senator Obama have (ever so) slightly increased the odds he could be picked.

My previous post discusses Senator Feingold's assets as a potential VP. Points #1 and #2 are salient here because of Obama's recent decision to (1) opt out of public funding for the general election, and (2) vote in favor of the new FISA law that expands warrantless wiretapping powers and grants telecom companies immunity for helping the government illegally wiretap its citizens. Both decisions have brought down criticism and called into question whether Obama is a transformational politician, or just a regular politician with a tremendous oratorical gift. Selecting Senator Feingold as his running mate should effectively quell these concerns.

Senator Obama's decision on campaign financing was probably not that damaging. However, it does raise the question of whether he would seriously try to reform campaign financing, should he win in November. Senator Feingold on the ticket would send a message that, indeed, he is serious about reforming our political system to limit the undue influence of money.

Senator Obama's vote on FISA, on the other hand, is seriously outraging a lot of folks, and is, to me, his most disappointing move so far. I'm not sure what the senator or his advisers were thinking, because recent ELECTORAL results show that this issue does not benefit Republicans. The folks at Daily Kos are covering this angle quite well, but in short, Republicans tried to use this particular "soft on terrorists" argument throughout 2006, and in all the special elections so far in 2008. The end result? They lost everything. Let's not forget that in 2006 the Republicans did not flip ANY seats. They lost EVERY race against Democratic incumbents and against candidates seeking to hold Democratic open seats. That was an historic routing. Furthermore, in 2008 they've lost 3 very RED districts, including the former Speaker of House's district.

Now I don't believe the electorate gave this drubbing to the Republicans because they were inspired by the Democrats' position on warrantless wiretapping. That's not the point. Rather, the voters IGNORED all the dire predictions of terribleness that the Republicans were claiming would happen if Democrats won. There has been no evidence to suggest that this November the voters are suddenly going to start buying an argument they've already rejected.

By endorsing the new FISA law, Obama has, at best, insulated himself against a political attack that has no effectiveness. At worst he's cleaved a huge wedge within his base. This is not irreparable, but it means that every future tack to the center will further exacerbate these tensions. Unless... he makes prominent tacks back to the left.

Picking Senator Feingold would not only help heal that rift, it would signal his re-commitment to a new kind of politics. Senator Feingold is a maverick within the Democratic Party, with a history of trying to change "politics as usual." His selection would validate the faith and hope that I have placed in Senator Obama's commitment to do things differently, and to shake off the shackles of the mainstream and conventional wisdom's framework of Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican, weakness vs. strength, and "the way it is" vs. "the way it should be."

We STILL Want the Ball and We're STILL Going to Score!!

2008-01-11T16:48:00.001-08:00

Go HAWKS!

The Veepstakes II

2007-08-23T20:10:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile since I came 'round these parts. Things in my non-blogging life have been VERY busy, including new responsibilities at work. So blogging has taken a MAJOR backseat to everything else.

But we're entering the serious season for the '08 presidential campaign (some would say we're already there, but I'm not so sure). Now I'd expressed my feelings about the VP slot and Senator Feingold some time ago. The field has changed somewhat since I wrote that, and it might be time to evaluate how well the Senator would fit with the various potential nominees.

The first thing to consider, though, is what are the assets and demerits that Senator Feingold would bring to a Democratic ticket. That is what I propose to start doing in my brief blogging stints over the next few months as we head into the first primaries and caucuses.

So let's start with the pros. Here are the top 3 reasons I supported a Feingold '08 presidential run. It seems logical to begin there for why a Feingold '08 VP run also makes sense. I wrote the following back in '06 and may have posted it as a comment on MaxSPEAK!

3. He opposed the Iraq War and was the first senator (and probably the first prominent Democrat) to call for withdrawal of our troops. In truth he does not propose an immediate withdrawal, but he calls for a timetable that will allow us to pull out most or all by this Christmas (I think). He supported the Afghanistan invasion which takes him out of the pacifist camp, for good or bad, and I think he supported Kosovo (yes, you would think a Feingold '08 supporter would have the facts more closely at hand, but damnit I'm a blogger, not a reality-based reporter).

2. He is practically the sole Senate Democrat who takes threats to our civil liberties seriously. His lead role in opposing both the Patriot Act and the NSA spying program are clear examples of this. He clearly understands that the Bush Administration (aided by both parties in Congress) has eroded the safeguards provided by the Constitution, and that if we do not draw the line here and fight for these freedoms, we risk losing them forever.

1. He understands the threat posed by an unregulated campaign financing system. To me this is the first step a poltician must take to demonstrate that they understand the larger problem of growing power of corporations to influence (i.e. dictate) the terms and conditions of the Social Contract. I place this at #1 because it is a problem that predates #2 & #3, and will be with us long after we've "won" the war on terrorism. Also, most problems (unrelated to fighting terrorism, and possible a few related to it) we have today flow from this larger problem. The '90s were a gigantic giveaway to corporations (starting with NAFTA), at the expense of protections for working people. This trend started before Clinton's tenure in the White House, but it certainly was accelerated during that time, and obviously Bush has not seen fit to let up on the accelerator. I don't know the extent to which Feingold can or will stem this tide, but the fact that he chose as his first major legislative effort the issue of campaign financing suggests he's on the right track.

So there's the start. While a VP candidacy would not allow Senator Feingold the same freedom to explore these issues as a presidential one, they still stand as the most compelling reasons to support him for just about anything.

Well SOMEBODY Gets It!

2007-06-13T22:38:00.000-07:00

I've been arguing this for years! Glad somebody put it in book form. You can bet it will rocket to the top of my reading list just as soon as I get my hands on it.

UPDATE: I finally bought this from Amazon and it arrived a few days ago. I'll get started on it as soon as I wind my way through the tragedy that was the Spanish Civil War with George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.

Still the Man

2007-05-24T14:06:00.000-07:00

Explain to me again why this guy is not running for president?

He followed that up with this on MSNBC. (Via Atrios).

His comments nail this, and any Democrats saying otherwise are just engaging in wishful thinking.

Markos has some good analysis here and here.

I don't have much to add to what they say, but this is extremely disappointing. I'm not sure what's to be done about it. Hopefully we'll see a dramatic shift in support towards Dem presidential candidates who oppose this bill, and away from those who support it or equivocate on it.

Now is not the time for weak resolve.

What's Been Goin' On

2007-01-15T16:40:00.000-08:00

Hey folks (assuming any of you are still out there).

Things have been typically hectic with the holidays and all. Plus, with Senator Feingold out of the presidential race, the raison d'etre of Pacific Northwest For Feingold seems to be called into question.

The Senator was nice enough to send a thank you note to the folks at Run Russ Run. It was a kind gesture to folks who spent a lot of time working to make President Feingold a reality.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share a little of what's been happening 'round these parts for the last month and a half.

JUNIOR

He turns 5 months old today. I've been spending a lot of time with the little one. It never feels like enough, but I'm pretty happy to have as much time with him as I do. Above is a quick snapshot of the little fella at Christmas time. No, those presents weren't all for him. His pile was so big we had to put it at his grandma's house. Seriously, we're still going through bags and running across unopened toys for the tyke.

In more recent news, he took his first bite of "solid" food yesterday. He's growing up, which is wonderful to watch, but it does really feel like it's happening all too quickly.

POLITICS

What can I say about the world of politics? It seems that so much has happened, yet so little. The President wants to escalate the Iraq War with 20,000 more troops for a purpose that is not entirely clear, and with an outcome that is completely uncertain. While the mood of the country is decidedly opposed to this effort, it hasn't translated into widespread street action like we saw during the Vietnam War, or even in the build-up to this war.

The Democrats have retaken Congress and are pushing forward with their agenda. Nothing terribly remarkable or exciting has shaken loose yet, and it's unclear if the work the House does in its first 100 hours will be taken up by the Senate, but at least stuff's getting done that doesn't involve meddling in people's end of life decisions.

2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE

We all know the '08 campaign is in full-swing, and we all know that this will indeed be one of the most interesting presidential races in a long time. This is a function of the issues that are dominating our lives (Iraq, the environment, econominics), and the fact that the primaries are (theoretically) wide open with no president or vice-president in the race or even talking of getting into the race.

We also all know the bitter disappointment of losing our favorite candidate. At the moment I don't feel I have a political home for 2008. I am favorably disposed towards Edwards, moreso now than in 2004, because he speaks to the issues that motivate me the most, and he has forthrightly admitted his Iraq War vote was a mistake. I also like what Obama says when I listen to him, but his brief tenure in the Senate has been marked by a few disappointing votes. I sense there's a struggle within Obama between the principled and the practical, and rather than resolve that struggle one way or the other, he tries to split the difference. Now, he does it with an eloquence and vision that is incredibly compelling. But I'm skeptical of candidates who sound good, but don't do good.

Everyone else in the race bores me to greater or lesser degrees. I would love nothing better than to see the glass ceiling of presidential politics shattered, but Clinton is substantively far from what I would want in my standard-bearer. Biden and Dodd reek of the DC status quo, even though they come to it from different political vantage points. Richardson is mostly unknown to me, and while I am thrilled at the prospect of another artificial barrier being broken, but I'd have to learn a lot more about him to become enthusiastic.

It goes without saying that the Republican candidates offer nothing redeeming.

For now I am adrift in the sea of the 2008 race, and I hope to take a long and hard look at whichever candidate I decide to suport. I may just sit out the whole primary altogether, but given the issues I mentioned before, I don't feel right doing that.

BLOGGING

Similar to my 2008 ambivalence, I am still uncertain what I want to do blogging-wise. I like the idea of blogging, and I generally enjoy myself when I do it. If I continue (beyond periodic posts here), I'd want to do so with a less focused blog. I'd like to spend time writing about politics beyond the presidential race, and I'd also like to write about things beyond politics (movies, books etc.). But one of the things that I continually ask myself is: What Would You Say? At the moment, I'm not convinced that I have much intelligent to contribute to the dialogue. And when the likes of billmon call it quits, it's difficult to see how my voice will enhance anything. I haven't made a decision, and probably won't for a while longer yet. But that is my thinking so far.

SEAHAWKS

Some of you may remember my mea culpa when the Hawks lost the Super Bowl last year. Well, this year I did everything I could think of to avoid the same fate, and they still loss. A rational person would deduce that that means his menial rituals on game day are irrelevant. HA! What do you know!? Trust me, I'll be back next year with even MORE ridiculous rites and rituals, and what's worse, I'll be instilling them in my son!

This season was painful to watch in many respects, and now it is mercifully over. But the guys did a lot that made me proud of them, and definitely showed that they were a team to be reckoned with, despite what the national sports media thought. I also discovered Field Gulls, and have enjoyed reading the folks over there. They're the kind of fans I can relate to because they take a critical eye to everything, both pro and con for the Hawks.

Like they say, there's always next year, and I'm looking forward to it already.

BLAZERS AND MARINERS

I just want to go on record as asserting that I am, and have been, a long-time Trailblazers and Mariners fan, and though my intensity for both teams has waned, I do keep tabs on them and watch how they're doing. For the Blazers, I am thrilled that we traded for Brandon Roy, and I look forward to watching him rebuild this team.

MOVIES AND TELEVISION SHOWS

Best movie I've seen in awhile: The Departed.
Second best movie I've seen in awhile: Brick.
Best television series I'm watching on DVD: The Wire (season 2 at the moment)
Best television series I'm watching on TV: The Office

That's all for now. Sorry for the long post.

The Veepstakes

2006-11-28T22:27:00.000-08:00

The possibility that an '08 Democratic ticket will have Senator Feingold on it is still open.

Obviously I would welcome this eventuality, and it might revive this and other Feingold blogs. But I've refrained from discussing or speculating about this because this is/was a Feingold for PRESIDENT blog. I wasn't interested in second banana.

But since the good senator has left us no choice, now I suppose it can be open season on all the bananas.

For many, myself included, Senator Feingold would be the perfect balancing choice for VP, given that the presidential nominee will be some mushy faux-centrist type. On the issue of Iraq (which may loom as the issue of the day) the Democratic nominee will almost certainly have voted to allow President Bush to start this war (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, etc.) or at least supported the war in principle (Vilsack). Edwards at least has admitted he made a mistake, while the others now pretend they weren't really for it before they were against it.

Unfortunately Feingold is unlikely to be selected, even though there are good reasons to pick him. Why? Well there are a number of reasons that anyone could point to (twice divorced, too liberal), but I'm pretty sure the one major reason will be his vote against dismissing the impeachment charges against President Clinton. It was a vintage Feingold move, showing his independence of Democratic orthodoxy and his willingness to let the Republicans make fools out of themselves if they wanted to. But the Democratic Party is very much in love with President Clinton, and Feingold's vote may have shown too much independence for the party establishment to forgive and forget.

Regardless, it gives those of us in Feingold land something to be cheerful about!

Is Nothing Sacred?

2006-11-28T22:03:00.000-08:00

Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. I did, and I am very thankful for that.

However, while I was busy enjoying time with my family, both immediate and extended, some of the folks at the local Safeway were busy working. I had to run to the store the night before to pick up some last minute items for T-Day, and what do I learn? That Safeway is open on Thanksgiving Day from 6am to 11pm. Which means that some poor saps had to spend our national day of thanks toiling instead of being able to enjoy the day with the people they love.

I am kinda old fashioned about some things, and this is definitely one of them. It is downright un-American to be open on Thanksgiving or Christmas Day when you don't have to be. Obviously some people can't have the day off (cops, firemen, etc.), but most everyone else can, so why not give your workers a break?

Could the workers use the money? I'm sure they probably could. But here's a radical idea: Give them a PAID holiday! Could the folks who actually work be making more money than normal (i.e. time and a half, double time). I would f***ing hope so, but again, if the company is interested in seeing its workers with more money, they can give them a raise or a bonus.

The bottom line is that there is very little need for most places to be open on Thanksgiving or Christmas. And even if they feel compelled to be open they at least should have the decency to close early and let their workers go home and be with their families. Anything else is un-American.

Remember, The Good Guys Won

2006-11-18T13:38:00.000-08:00

Now that the first salvo in the "Democrats War Against Themselves" has been fired, let's take a moment to remember and reflect on what actually happened on Election Day:

The Good Guys Won! (via Talking Points Memo)

The backing music on this? My buddy Billy Bragg playing a Woody Guthrie tune called: All You Fascists.

Update: I added a title to this post.

What DanK Said!

2006-11-14T00:22:00.000-08:00

If you're inclined, take a stroll over to Missouri for Feingold and read DanK's thoughts on the premature end to Senator Feingold's 2008 presidential run. I think he captured almost everything I have thought and felt since yesterday.

I will only augment his fine statement to say that Senator Feingold is not just good on a lot of liberal/progressive issues. He is good on issues that really count (to me), and he has chosen to fight on those issues.

On issue after issue after issue Senator Feingold has shown that he "gets it" about what are the greatest threats to the health and well-being of our democracy. From his leadership on campaign finance reform to his resolution to censure President Bush over domestic spying, he has demonstrated that he understands how fragile our democracy is, and how easily it can be hijacked by those who have agendas inconsistent with the good of the people.

While I am definitely disappointed about the senator's decision I am also reminded that things could be, and have been, worse. At the end of the day we are fortunate to at least have him in the Senate doing good work.

Like DanK I'm not sure what I plan to do with this blog. For now I'll continue to post the odd thought here and there, and probably make a more concrete decision after the holidays.

For the next few days (or maybe minutes) just sit back and continue to savor the Democrats' victory on Tuesday, before the infighting makes us forget what Tuesday night and Wednesday morning felt like.

Feingold's Out

2006-11-12T15:37:00.000-08:00

Whoa! This was a bummer to wake up to this morning.

Via Run Russ Run, below is what the man himself had to say:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

On Sunday, November 12th in Racine, I will hold my 1000th Listening Session with the people of Wisconsin. Before reaching that milestone, I want you to know that I've decided to continue my role as Wisconsin's Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.

Like many Americans, I am excited by the results of the November 7th election. My fourteen years in the Senate have been the greatest privilege of my life and I am extremely pleased with what we have accomplished. During so much of that time, however, we Democrats have not only been in the minority but have often been so deeply mired there that my role has often been to block bad ideas or to simply dissent. That is a very important role but I relish the thought that in this new Congress we can start, not only to undo much of the damage that one-party rule has done to America, we can actually advance progressive solutions to such major issues as guaranteed healthcare, dependence on oil, and our unbalanced trade policies. The Senate of the 110th Congress could also well be a place of greater bi-partisan opportunities for change; something I am very proud to have been effective at in both Republican and Democratic Senates.

I hope all of you know how much I have appreciated the incredible response you have given me and the efforts of our Progressive Patriots Fund since January, 2005. In addition to all of our work in Wisconsin and D.C., I have traveled to seventeen states trying to promote the election of progressive Democrats in all states. At every stop from Birmingham, Alabama to Burlington, Vermont, to Ft. Dodge, Iowa, to Las Vegas, Nevada, people have agreed with my view that we need to stand up for a strong, principled Democratic party that is willing to replace timidity with taking the risks of promoting a platform of bold solutions to our nation's problems. Unfailingly, people responded well to my positions: opposition to the Iraq war; calling for a timeline to redeploy our troops from Iraq so we can focus on those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001; my opposition to the flawed provisions of the USA Patriot Act that threaten the freedoms of law-abiding Americans; my call for accountability for the Administration's arrogant disregard for the law especially with regard to illegal wiretapping; fighting for fiscal responsibility including tough common sense budget rules that will help end the reckless policies that have heaped a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren; as well as my strong belief in guaranteed healthcare for all Americans and substantial investment in alternative energy sources and technologies.

Yet, while I've certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, "Run Russ Run", or "Russ in '08", I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I've taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations. This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured.

I'm sure a campaign for President would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees. Although I have given it a lot of thought, I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for a race for President while I am trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me. And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008.

Most important, I want to continue my work as a Senator from this wonderful State of Wisconsin. Our fourteen year ongoing conversation that has taken place in hundreds of communities in Wisconsin in the form of open Listening Sessions is the principal reason I have been perceived as "ahead of the curve" on many key issues. Simply listening to the reasoning and passions of Wisconsinites remains the best source of good ideas and common sense I've ever encountered.

I love this country very much and am so lucky to be able to serve it in the United States Senate. My heartfelt thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement.

Sincerely,

Russ

Russ Feingold
Middleton, Wisconsin

I'm going to take some time and process all this.

Two Wrongs Make a Right, Lisa

2006-11-09T23:40:00.000-08:00

Bart: Somebody ought to ruin Gabbo's career the way he ruined Krusty's.
Lisa: Two wrongs don't make a right, Bart.
Bart: Yes they do.
Lisa: No they don't.
Bart: Yes they do!
Lisa: No they don't!
Bart: Yes they do!!
Lisa: Daaaad!
Homer: Two wrongs make a right, Lisa.
-- ``Krusty Gets Kancelled''

It was with a wry smile that I sat watching Senator Schumer lecturing now outgoing Senator Allen about being a "gentleman" and conceding the election without forcing a recount. Apparently Allen got the message because he finally threw in the towel, and the Democrats did the near impossible by retaking the Senate.

I couldn't help but think back to Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 where the Republicans got all in a snit and accused Gore and Kerry of being spoiled sports for taking a close look at whether or not they may have actually won the election. So now they got their comeuppance.

Not that it matters now, but I would not have begrudged Senator Allen a shot at the recount. Here in Washington we went through 2 recounts before we got Governor Gregoire, and somehow we survived.

Anyway, good riddance to you Senator Allen. Perhaps you now have more time for your confederate flag and noose obsession.

The Franchise

2006-11-07T00:32:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not talking about Steve Francis.

I just exercised my right to vote, and thought I'd ruminate about some of my choices.

The most agonizing was for the US Senate. It was the last item I voted on and I needed all that time to decide what I could live with more: voting for Maria, or having her lose in a nail-biter election where my vote might actually have made a difference. In the end I voted for Maria, but I'm far from happy about it. I'm very concerned that if she wins she'll take the victory as a validation of her position on Iraq. Although here we are at the end of 2006 (the "year of transition"), and she should find herself well positioned after Election Day. If anti-war sentiment remains high, she can declare that there hasn't been enough transitioning. Or, she can declare that sufficient transitioning has occurred and continue to rubber-stamp whatever the White House wants. She will have arrived at this position without taking a definitive stand on Iraq at a time when the political fall out of a definitive stance is unclear.

Anyway, while I still think she's bad on Iraq, and I don't really trust her on most other issues, she has been surprisingly good in some areas. She voted against the Bankruptcy Reform Act, she stared down Senator Ted "NO!" Stevens and his Bridge to Nowhere, and she voted against Bush's Supreme Court nominees (including a vote to filibuster Justice Alito) (caveat: I personally agree with Feingold on Roberts, but I give Maria credit for understanding that her base was/is restless and she needed to tend to them). So throw all that in a pot, cook it for 52 minutes, and give her another 6 years I guess.

Other noteworthy items from the ballot, I voted against I920 and I933. I voted for I937, less because I agree with this formula for energy conservation, and more because a poor showing on this initiative could set back conservation efforts for a number of years.

There you have it! Here's hoping for a good Election Day. The Seahawks won last night, so that got the week off to a good start. I hope the Democrats can make it 2 for 2.

2006 Elections

2006-11-05T23:59:00.000-08:00

I haven't felt good on election night since 1992 (incidentally, the year Feingold won his first term in the Senate, but I wasn't really aware of that back then).

1994 was excruciatingly painful.

1996 held little joy for me after Clinton signed the welfare reform bill (which was merely the culmination of a number of betrayals leading up to that final straw).

1998 was ok, but Democrats failed to take back either house of Congress, and some of the other victories set the stage for later defeats (See, Gray Davis in CA).

2000, we all know, was a mess.

2002 was the most demoralizing election I've ever observed (compounded by the tragic loss of Paul Wellstone) with the exception of . . .

2004: Worst. Election. Ever.

All the talk about 2006 is about how big the Democratic wave will be. I hate to be a killjoy, but I'll believe it when I see it. Don't get me wrong, I think all the reasons that people cite about why this should be a Democratic year are true. But, to varying degrees, they're the same reasons why Dems should have won in 2002 and 2004, namely that people are finally fed up with the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress.

Maybe it's taken 6 years for people to finally get fed up. I hope that's true, but I'm not expecting it.

Here's hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst!

Newest Feingold Supporter

2006-10-19T21:44:00.000-07:00

Well, ok, there may be a newer one, but this little guy is pretty damn new!

Say hello to Kumar Jr.!

As you can see he's resting up for the Revolution. But he's got the outfit and the dramatic revolutionary pose down pretty well.

Mrs. Kumar and I are thrilled and overjoyed! He's a total ray of sunshine for us, and we treasure every moment with him.

Anyway, he's part of what has been keeping me otherwise occupied from this blog, but in a good way.

Updates!

2006-10-19T21:37:00.000-07:00

Hey folks!

I just wanted to draw your attention to a couple of updates.

First, I've added a link to Pennsylvania for Russ Feingold. If you've got a Feingold blog, and I haven't got it listed, just let me know and I'll put it up there. Which leads me to . . .

Second, I've added an e-mail address to my profile. Predictably it's pnwfeingold at hotmail dot com (ok, I'm kind of a Luddite and don't fully understand why e-mail addresses are written that way on the web, but since I've seen it that way I'll follow suit). Drop me a line if you're so inclined. Thanks to pajewel for bringing the lack of a way to reach me to my attention. Actually, I knew about the lack, but her comment prompted me to do something about it.

So there you have it folks! More will be coming later.

Keeping His Eye On The Ball

2006-10-06T18:01:00.000-07:00

Democrats are doubtlessly gleeful over the Foley/page scandal, and doubtless many of them harbor deep bitterness towards Republicans for the fun and games that was the impeachment trial of President Clinton. So it is understandable that they would take time out to either deservedly rake Republicans over the coals, or sit back and watch the raking.

But I was relieved to see that at least one Democrat understood that there are more important issues to be discussing, even if they don't generate a great deal of short-term political gain. That Democrat? You guessed it! Senator Russ Feingold.

The Iraq War is a mess, and it needs to end. And someone needs to keep us focused on that. I'm just glad that someone is Senator Feingold.

Feingold On Habeas Corpus

2006-09-28T11:01:00.000-07:00

Senator Feingold's statement against the Military Commissions Act can be found here and here.

Thanks Atrios for the heads up!

Requiem for a Friend

2006-09-20T22:19:00.000-07:00

My family has been blessed with great dogs over my lifetime, and of these dogs Mars was the greatest. He was a black lab, and sadly he died yesterday at 13 years of age (like 91 in dog years).

He was an amazing dog. He was loving and affectionate, but could be fierce and protective when he wanted. While he was certainly an obedient dog by most measures, it was an obedience that I felt we, as his human caretakers, had earned from him; not an obedience born out of shaping him to our will (although there was an early tussle between him and my dad that erased any doubt in Mars' mind who was boss around the house). He was, in all of the truest and best ways, a friend.

Mars was the first dog I knew as an adult. He came to my parents and brother while I was in college. Although I didn't live with him on a daily basis until after law school, I felt an instant bond with him of mutual love and respect. He was always there when I needed him, and he always knew how to make me feel better.

Mars was a family dog, but there can be no denying that he was my brother's dog first, and my father's dog second. My brother was not yet in high school when we got him, and of course the two instantly fell for each other. They never tired of one another, and when my brother had the opportunity to get a place in Portland to be nearer his grad school, he opted not to, so he could be around for Mars, who was showing signs of his age.

My father was not at home when Mars first arrived, and as I mentioned earlier there was a bit of a challenge of the wills between them. But once that was sorted out to the mutual satisfaction of both of them (dad knowing he was the boss, and Mars knowing he let dad be the boss) they got along famously. My dad is a captain of an oil tanker and so he would be gone for long stretches of time, but then he would be home for long stretches as well. When he was home with Mars he would spend hours throwing tennis balls, sticks and even rocks (truthfully, Mars' preferred play thing) for the dog. Watching Mars run down something tossed for him was a truly beautiful sight, like watching poetry in motion, and dad could never get enough of it.

As for mom and me, Mars never discriminated in his affection or love. So while dad and my brother got most of the face-time with Mars, he had plenty of himself to share and was more than happy to give us what we wanted and needed.

While Mars was great to my family and our friends, in the dog world he would definitely have been a grumpy old man, even when he was young. For some reason, he did not like other dogs at all, and would not hesitate to let them know it regardless of how large or small. There were exceptions, most notably the two other dogs we had during his life (one died a year after we got Mars, and the other showed up on my parents' doorstep roughly a year after that). Then in his later years we (my parents) got a bona fide neighbor (a person who's house was closer than 100 yards from ours). He had a couple of small terriers and to my great surprise Mars seemed to get along with them. Now by "get along" I mean in an "I acknowledge your right to exist" sort of way. But woe betide any other random dog who saw fit to trespass upon (or within sight of) our property. At best such a hound would leave (quickly) with a severe tongue lashing.

In his younger years Mars himself was something of a wanderer. There were close to a half-dozen times we went to bed having shouted ourselves hoarse calling him, not knowing where he was, and fearing the worst. Somehow, each time he made his way back to us. A few times he wandered back as happy as a clam at high tide. A couple of times, though, he wore the cuts and bruises of some altercation we could only speculate about (coyotes were the #1 suspect). But we could tell that he gave as good as he got, all (we believe) in an attempt to keep us safe.

Truly he was a great dog, and he will be sorely missed.

Mars, we love you.

Why Senator Feingold Should Be President, Reason #47

2006-09-15T21:37:00.000-07:00

Senators Feingold and Dorgan have come up with legislation that would encourage companies to increase their exports from America. (via Russ For President on 9/14). This would reduce our trade deficit, and stop the "race to the bottom" that job-killing free trade agreements have started.

This effort by Senator Feingold eviscerates the lie that NAFTA/CAFTA/FTAA supporters contstantly trot out, namely that opponents of such agreements are "protectionist." This proposal cannot honestly be called protectionist.

This also shows that the only people interested in solving the intractable problems we face are liberals. Or I should say, interested in solving these problems in ways that equitably apportion the benefits and risks amongst all Americans. Free traders are more than willing (gleeful in fact) to let the American working class bear all the costs of their policies, while consolidating the benefits in the hands of the corporate elite. At best they don't care about the havoc they wreak, at worst they deliberatly intend to cause this suffering and pain.

Don't get me wrong, I find this legislation to be a truly modest proposal. But it's the kind of issue that let's you ask the question: Which Side Are You On? If centrist Dems cannot be supportive of this idea (or ones similar to it) then they are hopelessly lost to the corporations who fund their campaigns (I'm not even going to allow myself the hope that Republicans could break free from their sycophantic ways on this issue).

Yet another reason why we need to promote Senator Feingold to the White House.

Local Love For Feingold

2006-09-13T16:10:00.000-07:00

The good folks at Democracy for Vancouver give some love to Senator Feingold.

I'm glad to see that. I'm not surprised that the activist wing of the party both knows of and approves of Senator Feingold, but it's good to see them talking about his presidential campaign.

The list bushtool enumerates shows that Senator Feingold will not lose the nomination on the merits. His positions are in line with most Democratic voters on all those issues. The obstacles that the senator faces are completely superficial. They will be either non-issues or false issues. Some will have a seductive logic to them, while others will appeal to little more than bigotry. They wil ALL be irrelvant.

The bottom line is that Senator Feingold's record speaks for itself, and in this day and age of a decaying (yet still powerful) conservative movement, that is more than enough to win.

Paradise

2006-08-02T21:26:00.000-07:00

Need I say more?

Madness

2006-07-31T22:48:00.000-07:00

The World Is Ugly.

And The People Are Sad.

I cannot believe the sorry state of affairs around the world today. It is just sickening.

My uncle and his family live in Mumbai (Bombay to me), but thankfully none of them were harmed in the bombings. However, that train line was the line my uncle takes to work. Fortunately he did not have to go in that day.

The Middle East situation is just so terrible. I have friends from Lebanon, and I know they are just beside themselves with worry and concern for their friends and family. I imagine that there is much worry and concern on the part of those with friends and family in northern area of Israel that sits in harm's way of Hizbullah's attacks.

The Israeli-Arab conflict is one that inspires many conflicting feelings for me, but I think Billmon summed it all best when he wrote this:

I've felt many emotions about the Israelis before. I've admired them for their accomplishments -- building a flourishing state out of almost nothing. I've hated them for their systematic dispossession of the Palestinians -- even as they smugly congratulated themselves for being the Middle East's only "democracy." I've pitied them for the cruel fate history inflicted on the Jewish diaspora, respected them for their boldness and daring, honored them for their cultural and intellectual achievements . . . .

He goes on to describe how he now feels contempt. Now this was July 27th, 3 days before Qana II. I can only imagine how he feels today.

I'm not the expert he is on these matters (frankly, I'm not an expert at all), but I cannot watch what is going on without feeling despair. I never thought I would pine for the days of Bill Clinton's faux even-handedness, but that would be a WELCOME relief to President Frat Boy's bemused disengagement.

Since all this news is so depressing, I was going to end this with a picture of what I think Paradise looks like, but I can't get Blogger, or my computer or both to work properly. Maybe tomorrow.

Saturday In The Park

2006-07-08T17:17:00.000-07:00

Today is/was Saturday In The Park, a yearly GLBT festival held at Esther Short Park here in Vancouver. It was a very good event. My wife and her friend remarked that it was a lot bigger than last year, which is good. I honestly don't remember how big it was last year, but there definitely were a lot of people there.

State Representative Jim Moeller told us about how the state legislature had FINALLY outlawed discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation. It was very moving to hear him describe how last year, after a similar bill had been defeated by 1 vote, he had stood before the Saturday In The Park crowd and told them "there will be another spring," and that we should not lose hope. I was so pleased to see him stand before us today and tell us how our hope and faith had been rewarded!!

I was particularly struck by his language in describing this new law. He spoke about how it provided "freedom" to the GLBT community. I found this interesting, and inspiring, because civil rights issues are normally discussed in the language of "fairness." I agree that civil rights is about fairness, but I think we have drifted away from the central idea that is and was the backbone of every civil rights struggle; freedom. Let us not forget that the early slogan of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was "Freedom Now!"

That's what we're talking about with anti-discrimination laws: that people should be free to operate in this world, obtain housing, employment, access public accommodations, without fear that something they have no control over will be used to deny them that opportunity. That is the essence of freedom, and we should never forget that.

P.S. The icing on the cake of this momentous victory was that Tim Eyman failed to gather enough signatures to challenge the Legislature's action through a referendum to the voters. The people of Washington have spoken loud and clearly in favor of freedom and fairness!

GQ Smooth

2006-06-22T21:30:00.000-07:00

How interesting that GQ, of all places, has an interview with Senator Feingold (via Political Wire).

Politically he covers his basic critique of the Bush Administration. Nothing those of us who follow him didn't already know. I did find his discussion of who he likes to hang out with in the Senate interesting, and true to form he was somewhat unpredictable. McCain was an easy one, but Collins, Cantwell, Graham, Sununu and Conrad? Who knew? (Although he does say that anyone who can make him laugh scores points. One wonders whether these folks are making him laugh intentionally.)

We also learn that he likes golf (sorry Senator, now YOU lose some points) and Tiger Woods. He packs like a girl (well, he gives a political non-answer answer to the question, but the implication seems clear). And between Jennifer and Angelina he chooses... Sharon Stone (all due respect to Ms. Stone, but the answer we were looking for was Jennifer. Jennifer.)

He briefly non-discusses his potential 2008 candidacy. The interesting thing he says is that he wants to see if "we" make progress. By "we" he's referring to the Democrats, but he doesn't explain how that will influence his decision to run. In my opinion, the Democrats could take back ALL of Congress, and we'd still need Senator Feingold to run.

I'll talk about this more later, but simply replacing the Bush Administration with a Democratic one is not going to be sufficient. Given how far President Bush has pushed the envelope in foreign policy, and in asserting an expansive set of powers for the Executive Branch (as well as many other audacious and incompetent acts) we really need someone in there who will be dedicated to reversing course. Sadly, not just any Democrat will do.

So, Senator? We need you!

Feingold Smackdown!!

2006-05-18T10:02:00.000-07:00

Blogging from work so this will be short and sweet.

Sometime this morning Senator Feingold stormed out of the Judiciary Committee meeting after the committee voted to send the anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to the full Senate for a vote.

According to the report Senator Feingold's decision to leave was met with the gnashing of the teeth of Senator Spector who concluded by saying "Good riddance," to which Senator Feingold retorted "See ya."

This is yet another example of how Senator Feingold is showing leadership at a time when Democrats are completely ambivalent about what they should do, or how they should do it. Furthermore, Senator Feingold takes this stand in public and in front of an unreceptive crowd (or at best marginally receptive). He does not wait until he is in front of political allies to speak out against injustice, unlike some other "leaders" of the Demcoratic Party.

One final update, see the comments to the post below for details on Senator Feingold's trip to Washington State this weekend. Unfortunately he's not visiting Southwest Washington where I live, but the folks in Seattle are in for a treat I'm sure.

Have a great day folks!

!HUELGA!

2006-04-30T22:12:00.000-07:00

That's right! Tomorrow is the General Strike. This is the most ambitious call for a national general strike that I have ever witnessed.

Locally there is a rally and march tomorrow in downtown Portland. I'll try to be there for part of it, but doubt I'll make the whole march. The meeting is at the South Park Blocks. Starting at 10 AM they'll have music, and the rally is set to go at 11 followed by the march at 12.

I'm very eager to see the results of the General Strike. I'm sure the media will downplay the importance and impact of tomorrow's events. Still, it is pretty heady stuff. I'm pretty excited, and hope this is only the beginning.

See you on the picket line!

Still Kicking!

2006-04-17T00:24:00.000-07:00

I'm still here! Not to worry. Things have been a little hectic recently, and so most of my free time has been spent in front of the television where I don't have to think very much.

But I'm still here, and I'm still keeping tabs on our good Senator Feingold's efforts to maintain some sanity in the Senate. Here's a preview of some of the topics I plan to address in the coming weeks:

1. Senator Murray's response to my e-mail urging her to support Senator Feingold's censure resolution (no word from Senator Cantwell, yet);

2. The first in a series of posts wherein I hope to explore the various arguments in opposition to a potential Sentaor Feingold presidential run;

3. The first in another seris of posts on some, if not all, of the other Democratic candidates in 2008;

4. Something I should have done a long time ago: A "Why I'm Supporting Senator Feingold for President in 2008" post.

That's all I'll preview today. Events may alter this list, and new things may take priority over old things. But that's what I'm thinking about so far.

Have a great week!

We Must Be on the Front Page!

2006-04-02T21:48:00.000-07:00

This morning I was purusing The Columbian to see what they had to say about our little get together outside the Hilton yesterday afternoon. For some reason I started with the Clark County section, thinking that since our protest was local, it would get local coverage.

What did I find? Nothing. Nothing except an article about Senator Cantwell's call for the Pentagon to resupply the National Guard for their lost equipment in Afghanistan and Iraq (way to put a band-aid on a severed artery, Senator). I skimmed the article to see if there was any mention of the protest. There was none.

Now I started to get a little miffed. I'd seen a reporter and photographer at the protest, I had assumed they were from The Columbian, but I didn't see anything written about the protest. I was beginning to wonder if some of my conspiracy theorist friends were right, and "the powers that be" had kyboshed any mention of dissent.

So I turned to the front page section (reading it first would have been so, like, linear). Well surprise, surprise, surprise! There, on the FRONT PAGE, below the fold, was an article about the Cantwell/Biden affair, with a sub-headline about the protest. All in all I thought the article was pretty good and fair. It did a decent job of juxtaposing the folks outside the Hilton with Senator Cantwell and the folks inside.

I have two quibbles with the article, though. First, it says state Senator Craig Pridemore "defended" Senator Cantwell's vote to go to war. I was standing about 5 feet away from Senator Pridemore when he made these comments, and while the quote is accurate, I believe it mischacterizes the context of his fuller statement, the jist of which was that Senator Cantwell's vote was a mistake and she needed to address that with the folks outside (and inside) the Hilton. I have followed Senator Pridemore since before his state senate campaign and he has always been outspoken in his opposition to the war in Iraq, and his reservations about the Patriot Act. I also think it bore mentioning that Senator Pridemore was there to attend the fundraiser, but took a good 15-20 mintues to stop and talk with several of the protesters (although not me personally... maybe next time Senator).

My second quibble is less about the reporting and more about the emphasis of the protest. It was overwhelmingly an anti-war protest. That's fine and to be expected, and there were a few people with pro-censure signs. Unfortunately, the article did not talk about the censure issue. Anyway, I wish the pro-censure faction had had a larger presence, and that the reporting had taken note of that.

Still, censure is a recent issue, while the Iraq war has been with us for awhile. Hopefully censure will gain both popular and political support, and will be the subject of many more demonstrations and news articles.

Finally, I do recommend the article in full to you. It contains what I think is Senator Biden's roadmap for dealing with the Iraq issue as he campaigns for the 2008 Democratic nomination. But I'll talk more about that later.

Takin' It To The Streets!!

2006-03-29T20:36:00.000-08:00

Calling All Patriots!!

What? Tell Maria Cantwell and Joe Biden how you feel about... Iraq... Warrantless Wiretapping... Senator Feingold's Censure Motion

When? April 1st from 3:00 to 5:00

Where? Esther Short Park and the Vancouver Hilton Hotel in Vancouver, WA.

Who? You. Along with your good friends Democracy for Vancouver, Vancouver for Peace, and Code Pink Vancouver.

Why? Because you've had enough. You've had enough of President Bush and his disdain and disregard for the Constitution. You've had enough of go-along-to-get-along Democrats. YOU'RE MAD AS HELL AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!

So come exercise your rights while they last! Think of this as one of the last stops on the 1st Amendment Farewell Tour.

Personally, I'm not much of a demonstrator. The spirit has to really move me. It has in the past, and it will do so again this Saturday. I hope to see y'all there.

Si Se Puede!!!

From Red to Blue

2006-03-16T23:05:00.000-08:00

If your acid-tripping roommate won't shut up and leave you alone then have him or her check this out and just . . . chill . . .

It'll also work if you'd just like to fantasize about what the electoral map of a Feingold victory could look like on Election Night 2008.

via Delaware Dem at DKos.

Start the Drumbeat

2006-03-15T11:04:00.000-08:00

I am home today recovering from a nasty bout of the stomach flu. But through my NyQuil induced haze I managed to send off the following to Senators Cantwell and Murray:

I am writing to urge you to support Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush over the president's illegal wiretapping program. The failure of the president to obtain warrants before engaging in domestic surveillance is deeply troubling. His justifications for this program are also troubling. The president insists that he has the inherent power to ignore what laws (FISA) and consitutional provisions (the 4th Amendment) he deems necessary to prosecute the war on terror. This is an unsettling view for any elected leader to take, and it is time that the Congress take its constitutional role seriously and put a stop to the president's abuse of power.

I urge you to stand with Senator Feingold, and demand accontability of our president.

It's not Shakespeare, but I hope all Washingtonians who pass this way will take time to drop a note themselves. For all you Oregonians, contact Senators Smith and Wyden.

COURAGEOUS

2006-03-13T19:17:00.000-08:00

Courageous: adj; Having or characterized by courage; valiant. See, Senator Russ Feingold.

'Nuff said.

MaxSPEAKS!!

2006-03-08T09:40:00.000-08:00

My buddy Max Sawicky over at MaxSpeak nails several of the differences between what he describes as "Clinton progressives" and "paleo-lefties."

Being an economist, he focuses on the differences in economic policy. I think it's one of the best descriptions of the divide on the Left that I have read. Max's illustration of the objections many of us on the Left had to the Clinton era (juxtaposing NAFTA and Clinton's Health Care Reform) is perfect. The bottom line, Clinton advocated for good and bad policies. Unfortunately, the negative impact of his bad policies (e.g. NAFTA) surpass by miles the positive impact of his good policies (e.g. raising the minimum wage).

As we head into the 2008 presidential season, these issues are going to lurk under the surface. It saddens me that they will never get the kind of treatment they deserve except by people like Max. But these differences are VERY real and VERY important.

This doesn't have much to do with Senator Feingold. I'm not 100% where he stands on all these issues. I'm also sure his candidacy will be besieged with coverage of his stand on the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping and withdrawing from Iraq. That's ok, 'cause he's good on all those issues. But I hope he will seek to reverse the trend President Clinton started, and Gore and Kerry followed, where Democrats propose the business-friendly stuff first, then later (like an afterthought) they propose the worker-friendly stuff.

To paraphrase Langston Hughes: Let Democrats Be Democrats Again!

Happy Birthday Senator!

2006-03-01T20:59:00.000-08:00

March 2nd is Senator Russ Feingold's Birthday!

Let me just take time out from the hurly-burly of politics and wish him the best on this day. It's a difficult and frustrating time, but I hope the Senator can take a few moments out for himself.

I also hope he relishes the thought of spending his 2009 birthday in the Oval Office!!

Happy birthday, Senator.

Take a Number

2006-03-01T20:58:00.000-08:00

Right, so that "analysis" I promised? Didn't come through. But let me explain: After I started looking at the Washington poll results, I started looking at other poll results. Before I knew it I was comparing the current result to the past Washington result, and then going back through all the other states and comparing their most recent poll to the one before. I was in danger of REALLY nerding out on this.

Anyway, let me get to at least some semblance of "analysis" here before the 2008 election comes around.

Let me begin with some disclaimers:

1. I am not a poll-obsessed person. I take polls with a LARGE grain of salt. They are fun, like looking over the box score of an all-star game. But they don't necessarily mean anything.

2. I am not a professional political analyst. Of course not, I've got a blog! Seriously, though. I don't do this for a living, so my thoughts and ideas are shaped solely by what I've seen and learned.

That said, let's talk NUMBERS!!!

I looked at the last 7 state polls (WA, NJ, MI, WI, PA, GA, NY) done be Strategic Vision (which I think is a Republican polling outfit), and then compared those results with the 7 previous polls for these states. The more recent set ranged from early December (NY) to mid-February (WA). The older set ranged from late October (NY) to late December (MI & WI). So here are my uninformed observations:

Here in the Evergreen state, Senator Feingold places 4th with 8%. That's a 4% improvement over his performance in the same poll in December 2005. I would have to attribute that increase to the growing attention the Senator has received (and continues to receive) over the Patriot Act (bad news coming) and the NSA wiretap scandal. Interestingly Al Gore saw a 4% boost in his numbers from December to February (14% to 18%). Senator Clinton still dominates the field, but dropped two points from 38% to 36%. Not to be too rose-colored glasses, but I think that Washington and Oregon are fertile ground for Senator Feingold. Obviously it will take work, but I think it will pay off here.

The other big news is that Georgia LOVES the Senator! In early December, Sen. Feingold was not even on the list of candidates. But in late January, the Senator debuts at #7 with 5%! Wow! In GEORGIA!!

What else did I learn? 6 of the comparisons showed the Senator increases his support from the older poll to the newer one. In 5 of those comparisons, his was the greatest (or tied for the greatest) increase. His increase was only outperformed in MI (+1% vs. +4% to Gore) and NY (0% vs. +3% to Clinton).

In an interesting comparison, the folks in Wisconsin are more supportive of the Senator running for president than the folks in Pennsylvania are for their favorite son, Governor Rendell. In Wisconsin, Senator Feingold placed 2nd with 23% (an 8% increase). In Pennsylvania, Gov. Rendell ties for 8th with only 2% (Feingold ties for 4th with John Kerry at 7%). Now, Gov. Rendell has been having a hard time in the Keystone State with his re-election bid, so this probably reflects that dissatisfaction. My impression of 2008 speculation is that Gov. Rendell has been discussed in more credible and serious tones than Sen. Feingold. If further, independent polling bears out these results, I hope that talk will fade.

But that brings us to yet another comparison: Sen. Feingold and Sen. Clinton. There's good and bad news. First the good: In WI, Feingold only trailed Clinton by 5% (28-23). Now that may not seem important, after all WI is Feingold's home state. But taking a look back at PA we can see the favorite son does not always fair so well. Also, ALL the polling shows that Sen. Clinton's campaign will be a juggernaut (she is #1 in all 14 polls, and 10% or more ahead of the #2 in all but 1 poll). Now, I'm not a political analyst, but I would wager that a pre-requisite to any serious campaign would be that the candidate in question would win their home state. Well, this doesn't have Sen. Feingold winning, but it has him within striking distance. And this is in the face of what I'm sure, even in WI, is a name-recognition advantage for Sen. Clinton

Ok, that was the good. Here's the bad: With the exception of the February WI poll, Sen. Clinton wins all the polls by significant margins. NY seems really excited about her running (giving her 43% in Dec, 40% in Oct). In all but 2 polls she gets over 30% (Feb WI & MI give her 28%). Of the 7 comparisons, though, she lost 2% in 4 states and 7% in 1 (MI) (PA & NY give her 2% and 3% increases respectively). So there is not, yet, a groundswell of dissatisfaction with her.

That's ok, this is early. There's still time for Sen. Feingold to make inroads, and the increasing concern over all the issues where he has staked a leading role (Patriot Act opposition, NSA wiretap, withdraw from Iraq) should lead to increased support for him. Couple that with Sen. Clinton's go-along-to-get-along attitude on these issues, and things could get interesting.

However, Sen. Feingold is not alone. Obscured by his remarkable improvement was the improvement of Al Gore. He has sole possession of #2 in all but 2 of these polls (WI Feb [#3] & Dec [tied with Feingold]). More importantly, he improved in all but 1 of the comparisons (NY had him steady at 12%).

So Feingold 2008 has its work cut out for it, but I think this shows the task is doable. After all there are 6 candidates who have already been involved in a presidential campaign (Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Gore, Clinton, Biden) and have maintained pretty high national profiles.

Asleep at the Switch

2006-02-19T01:18:00.000-08:00

So while I was dozing for the past 10 days, apparently there was a poll of the 2008 Democratic field for WASHINGTON state!!! And how do I find out about it? By my good friends and neighbors in TENNESSEE!!!

Well, thanks to all you good Volunteers over there at Tennesseans for Russ Feingold. I commend you on being more aware of what's going on in the Pacific Northwest than I am.

I'll post a little more on the poll itself later. Short thoughts? It's definitely a sign that all of us in the Russ Feingold for President "movement" are definitely barking up the RIGHT (or left) tree.

WOW!

2006-02-08T12:25:00.000-08:00

If I didn't know better I'd think that Senator Feingold is a tad upset about the NSA illegally wiretapping American citizens (via folkbum at Daily Kos). I haven't read the whole thing, but glancing through it looks like a doozy. Here's a couple of choice bits:

The President was blunt, so I will be blunt: This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.

Then there's this:

Congress has lost its way if we don’t hold this President accountable for his actions.

Finally this:

So I don’t want to hear again that this Administration has shown it can be trusted. It hasn’t. And that is exactly why the law requires a judge to review these wiretaps.

Like I said... WOW!

The Game, Seriously

2006-02-07T23:29:00.000-08:00

Ok, now that I've fallen on my sword (see immediate post below), I can talk a bit about the game and how I really feel. In a phrase? We got screwed!

Well... we did get screwed by the refs, but we still could have (and should have) won the game. I don't have anything against Pittsburgh, and have rooted for them on several occasions. But they just did not play better than the Hawks. I'm sorry, it just didn't happen. Still, they scored more points and that's usually enough to get you the trophy.

Pittsburgh had 3 great offensive plays: (1) the pass to Ward that put the ball on the 1; (2) the 75-yard touchdown run by the little running back; and (3) the TD pass to Ward. Take away those 3 plays, and their offense really did nothing. The Seahawks defense owned them for the first 19 minutes. Some of that was probably due to poor Pittsburgh execution, but despite what Cowher said at halftime, Big Ben did not have that John Elway look in his eyes (for those of you who witnessed the debacle of Bronco Super Bowl visits in the '80s and early '90s you know what I'm talking about), and they weren't making many mistakes. They were just getting beat.

To be fair, Pittsburgh had 2 great (successive) defensive plays. The first was the sack on Hasselback after the ill-fated "holding" call on Locklear. The second was the interception on the next play. (Accuracy note: I'm talking from memory here; I remember the plays being back-to-back, but they might not have been). Both were huge for Pittsburgh because a team can overcome a penalty (even a bad call like that), but when you follow the penalty up with a sack and an interception... well... that's gonna take the wind out of your sails. But as with the Pittsburgh offense above, that was about it for the defense. That was the only turnover, and one of only two sacks (I think). There weren't any other "big" plays by the defense. In fact, the offense pretty much owned the defense. The Seahawks could definitely run throughout the game, and they could definitely pass. A number of drives that got bogged down because of Seahawk miscues (dropped passes, penalties). To a large extent, the Seahawk offense thwarted itself more than the Pittsburgh defense did.

But on both sides of the ball, the Seahawks definitely had an edge. The only difference comes down to the 3 great offensive plays Pittsburgh had, and really only 1 great offensive and 1 great defensive play for Seattle (the Herndon interception followed by the Stevens TD).

Now, the Seahawks HAD at least 2 other great offensive plays, and one great defensive play. They also had a terrible offensive play that got made worse. You know what I'm talking about. The Jackson TD and the Stevens catch at the 1 (both wiped out by penalties), the Big Ben TD (ruled a TD for reasons that escape me), and the penalty on Hasselback's "low block" on the ball carrier. I don't mean to be hard on the refs because I know their job is not easy, and no matter what they do, someone will be unhappy. But a bad call is a bad call, and a questionable call is, well, questionable. Let's take these in chronological order:

Jackson's TD. Now there clearly was contact from Jackson to his defender on that play, and it may be technical violation. But it's also a call that refs let go because the spirit of the rule has not been violated. The offensive pass interference they called is meant for situations where the receiver creates space between himself and the defender by pushing the defender away. That's just not what happened. The most that Jackson gained out of the contact was perhaps some stabilization has he changed directions. The defender was not "interfered" with in any real sense. I'd rate this call as questionable, but not bad or out of bounds.

Big Ben's TD. I think the call on the field was wrong, but I think the call on the replay was correct. I know that sounds weird, but when you understand that a call can only be overturned if there is incontrovertible evidence that the call was wrong. No matter how many times I saw the replay, I just couldn't say with any certainty whether the ball broke the plane or not. However, I think the ref on the field should have ruled him down. I just think it's better to leave the game in the players hands, and ruling it 4th down would have done that. Look, Pittsburgh could have challenged the call then (but given how ambiguous the replay was, the call would have been sustained). But more importantly Pittsburgh still had another down to make the TD. You weren't taking the ball away from Pittsburgh, and you weren't giving them points that couldn't be taken off the board. By calling the TD, the ref takes the game out of the players hands. Nothing can be done about it because its so close the replay can't tell you one way or the other. Still, this is only a questionable call. It honestly could have gone either way, and I'm probably biased in how I saw it.

Stevens catch at the 1. They say that you can call offensive holding on just about any play. Which raises the question why do you call it when you do? I have no idea. I also have no idea why Locklear got hit with a holding call. The "hold" just wasn't there. What's really sad about this is that Stevens gets remembered in this game for his dropped passes. If that call isn't made it's, "Stevens dropped passes? Really?" 'Cause he would have made two of the biggest catches of the game for the Seahawks (his TD reception, and the catch that led to the go-ahead TD). Anyway, this, to me, was just a bad call.

Finally, Hasselback's "low block." Ok, this call was LUDICROUS. I have no idea what the ref thought he saw, but it just wasn't there. Craziness. Now, you might be justified in asking, "So what? The Steelers just intercepted the ball, and the penalty was not going to change that." Very true, but let's not forget that that penalty gave them 15 yards and put them in the range (40-40) where they could run the Randle El pass to Ward. If they're forced to start on their 25-35 they don't run that play. Remember what I wrote earlier, the Steelers were not lighting up the Seahawk defense, so that 15 yards could have made a real difference in Cowher's play calling. Ultimately this call was terrible, but despite what I just wrote about its significance, I don't think it really altered the game. It may have accelerated where things were already heading, but that's the point: they were already headed that way.

But alas, it was not our day. Congrats to the Steelers. They won. But man, it sure doesn't feel like they beat the Seahawks.

It's All My Fault!

2006-02-07T22:53:00.000-08:00

SEAHAWKS . . . lose?

Ok, that's not what I expected. But I've done a lot of reflecting, and I have to come completely clean: their loss was entirely my fault.

You can blame the refs (which I do), you can blame Holmgren's clock management (which was bizarre), and did I mention you can blame the refs? But ALL of those things are completely, totally and unequivocally MY fault.

For those of you who are not die-hard sports fans, you just won't understand this. For those of you who are, this will make so much sense that you'll shake your head in wonder at my hubris. Indeed, I thumbed my nose at the God of Sports, and lo did he smite me (and my armor clattered about me).

How did I accomplish this? Here are just a few of the main ways:

1. I rearranged my living room. Yup, in the two weeks between the NFC Championship Game and the Super Bowl I basically rotated my living room 45 degrees. Why is this important? CLEARLY while altering the feng shui of my living room may have allowed energy forces to flow through my house better, it just as clearly threw off the precariously situated pro-Seahawk Vibe that emanated from my house, traveled the 3 hours north on I-5 and permeated the Seahwaks sideline. Once the Vibe was altered, well, there was just no getting it back. Now, during the off-season I need to sacrifice my love seat to the Goddess of Good Sports Fortune. I think I'll set it on fire in my front yard and then throw Terrible Towels on it to fuel the flames. I'm sure the Fire Marshall will not be pleased, but this is really out of my hands now.

2. I did not sit on the right side of my sofa. Through the First Round and the NFC Championship, I dutifully sat on the right-hand side of the couch, and both times the 'Hawks won (not to mention I sat there through a sizeable handful of the 'Hawks regular season wins). Obviously, the right-side is where the pro-Seahawk Vibe originates. On Sunday my wife was sitting there. She was very sick, and I didn't feel like making her move, plus she thinks this superstition thing is a bit weird, so I didn't want to get in a long theological debate at the start of the game. That would only have interfered with the Vibe. So instead, I sat on the LEFT side. Of course, the game started out ok. The Seahawks looked competent, their defense had a strangle-hold on Pittsburgh. "Maybe the Left side is where the Vibe relocated after the rearrangement!" I thought. But there was something a bit off, I felt. The 'Hawks offense was good, but not great. They were close, but not close enough. Things weren't clicking like they should, but they looked like they could start any minute. When halftime came and the 'Hawks were down 7-3 I panicked. Which leads to:

3. I panicked. What can I say? The pressure of the Big Game got to me. I mean, this was my first Super Bowl, and the glitz, glamour, and media attention made me antsy. So, rather than thinking clearly, I panicked and switched sides of the couch. By this point I didn't care if my wife was suffering from consumption. SHE NEEDED TO MOVE! And move she did, bless her heart (albeit with a slight shake of her head and roll of her eyes; yes, honey, I saw that). Now, firmly ensconed on the RIGHT side again, I was convinced we were on our way. Then the little running back (c'mon, everyone compared to the Bus is little) ran for 75 yards and scored a touchdown. It was then I realized my mistake, but it was too late. See, the Vibe hadn't been lost. It was just taking awhile for it to re-orient itself. Had I stayed on the Left side, it would have found me and thereby the 'Hawks. Instead, I moved and confused it. By the time it did find me, it was so dissipated that it couldn't muster more than pulling the Seahawks within 4, and then getting them to that heart-breaking play that almost put the ball on the 1. When the penalty negated that play, I knew the Vibe was finished for the day. I'd tired it out with my antics.

4. To top it all off, I'd bought these football sugar cookies the day before thinking they'd make a nice snack during the game. What did I discover about 2 hours AFTER the game? I'd forgotten to put them out for us to eat (I also discovered that they didn't taste that good). I'm not sure if this contributed to the loss, but it was sort of a reminder of all that had gone wrong that day.

So there you have it. Seahawks fans, you can curse my name. You can picket my house. You can ban me from the city of Seattle (of course given traffic there I'm not sure how much of a punishment that would be). You're justified in it all.

But don't worry. I've learned my lesson, and if the 'Hawks should have the good fortune to return, I won't make ANY of these mistakes again.

A doin's a transpirin'!

2006-02-01T22:06:00.000-08:00

Goodness! It's been two and half weeks since my last post, and my what a difference that time can make.

Ok, so first THE SEATTLE SEAHAWKS ARE IN THE SUPER BOWL!!!! When I woke up on Monday morning I was relieved to see two things: First, I hadn't dreamt their win over Carolina, and second, the Rapture had not struck.

Then a few days later Senator Feingold announces that he will vote "no" on confirming (now) Justice Alito. Then, he goes that one better by voting in favor of the ill-fated filibuster of Justice Alito's nomination.

The Patriot Act (remember that?) seems destined for another month of life, although Senator Feingold's long-term opposition remains.

Senator Feingold topped the Dkos straw poll, besting General Clark for the first time... well... ever. And we all know that if the Dkos community is behind you, then the sky is the limit!! You know, like Howard Dean.

I kid, I kid... I kid because I love.

Anything else? Oh right! President Bush delivered his State of the Union address, to rave reviews. Ho hum.

Next Monday the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to start its hearings on the NSA wiretapping program. I'm both excited and nervous about this. Given the ham-handed efforts of several senators during the Alito hearings (and the Roberts ones before that) I seriously doubt our "A" team is being sent to safeguard our liberties. Not that I believe Senator Feingold has supernatural powers, but I definitely think that his method of questioning is superior to most other senators, and the Dems should really give him carte blanche to do the questioning. Actually, if it was only him and Senator Grassley I think the hearings could be informative. Of course, Senator Grassley might take us off on another discussion of qui tam, but I'd be willing to risk it. Seriously, I thought Grassley was one of the better Republican questioners.

Anyway, I'm completely ignorant of committee procedures and the like, so I don't know if the rules will give Senator Feingold the moment he deserves, but I really think this could be a definitive moment for him on the national stage. As the Dkos poll shows (to the exten that it shows anything) Senator Feingold's popularity amongst the lefty political junkies is growing. His performance in these hearings could begin moving opinion amongst those who are not political junkies or those who are not lefty, or both. Of course, this analysis presumes that the hearings will be public, which I suppose is a big "if" given this administration.

That's all for today. Hopefully enough to chew on and spit out.

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

Light Posting

2006-01-21T09:33:00.000-08:00

Tried posting this last night, but Blogger was having some issues.

I hope no one expects this blog to be updated on a daily basis. I just don't have the time for that. I'm really just learning about operating a blog (just look at the "edit-me" options under "Links").

Still, I plan to blog when there are important pieces of information, especially regarding Senator Feingold. I hope to blog frequently during the upcoming NSA wiretap hearings. I'm really hoping for the best from the senator.

For the best in day-to-day Senator Feingold activities check out Russ Feingold for President. They're your best bet for up-to-the-minute goings on. I swear I'll have actual links up soon.

That's going to be all for now, but I hope to have another post up this weekend (probably after the Seahawk game).

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

2006-01-16T00:03:00.000-08:00

Today is the day we celebrate the life and vision of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Since my day job is in civil rights, I feel obligated to post a few words. We'll see where this takes us.

As I will explain in a future post, my political awakening occurred during the presidential campaign of 1988. I was 16, not able to vote, but definitely interested in seriously following politics for the first time. Besides the presidential election, though, 1988 was the 20th anniversary of the assassination of MLK and RFK, and the 25th anniversary of JFK's assassination. Accordingly there were a number of television specials and retrospectives on those 3 men, and the '60s in general. I probably watched every single one.

Learning about Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement helped shape my view of the world, my sense of justice, and my politics. It had such a profound impact on me that I went on to write my college thesis (scroll to the bottom) on the Civil Rights Movement, and ultimately went to Howard University, the birthplace of the NAACP's anti-segregation strategy culminating with Brown v. Board of Education, for law school. Today I work for a civil rights organization that strives to make our world one where Dr. King's "Dream" can be realized:

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

link

There is still so much work to be done before Dr. King's dream can remotely be considered a reality. To be sure, much progress has been made on many fronts. But there are many areas where we are hardly any better off today than we were 43 years ago when Dr. King uttered those words. Sadly hatred, bigotry and ignorance still plague us. This fact was brought home to me with a sledgehammer when I learned that one, if not more, website designed to provide Katrina refugees with information about housing opportunities listed several posts that said "whites only."

This was in 2005, shortly after the worst natural disaster to hit our country in modern times had left thousands homeless. When I first saw these "ads" I was speechless. Even today I cannot fully get my head around how people, on the one hand, could be so compassionate as to open their door to strangers, but on the other hand be so blatant about their bigotry.

Discoveries like this make me realize just how far we still have to go. I don't mean to suggest that I'm naive about bigotry, but one of the "victories" of the Civil Rights Movement was to make it disreputable to give public voice to such beliefs and feelings. Clearly that is an assumption I can no longer make without pause.

Still, on days like that, when I realize the full enormity of the task before us, I am reminded of the following: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." I'm not about to wade into the quote attribution except to say that the exact quote is attributed to Dr. King, but if you'll follow the link you'll see he was paraphrasing Theodore Parker, an abolistionist minister.

It is this concept, regardless of who said it, that gives me solace and hope. But I think this idea cannot be considered by itself. It must be considered in conjunction with admonishment from Dr. King:

Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. (Emphasis added).

Put another way, justice is ours if we're willing to work for it. So on this holiday honoring a true American hero I encourage you all to reflect upon what part you are playing in the struggle. Take a breather if you'd like. Just be ready to gear up and fight on. But take comfort in the fact that you are not alone.

Alito Hearings

2006-01-11T03:37:00.000-08:00

Like I said above, I sat through almost all the senators questioning of Roberts. I have to admit that I thought the experience was very illuminating, but not in the way I was expecting. After listening, I certainly felt like I had learned a lot about the state of constitutional law in many areas I don't deal with (e.g. the "effects" test of the Voting Rights Act). But I came away feeling that I had no better understanding of Roberts own view, and no sense of how he would decide in the future (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but also no idea what sort of philosophy would guide his decision-making. I know he said a lot of stuff about "precedent" and "statutory interpretation" and so on, but most of the time he was just articulating the prevailing view or one particular school of thought. Roberts rarely said what he personally held to be true.

The Alito hearings are shaping up to be more of the same. The tough questions Democrats have to ask he has deflected and will continue to do so. Of course even those tough questions will be drowned out in a sea of inane questions that some senator was convinced to ask for reasons that defy my comprehension (like yet another question about Roe, because he hasn't dodged that bullet enough). Republicans, for their part, seem deathly allergic to asking anything approaching a tough question. I hold out hope, though, that Senator Coburn will get fed up and demand Alito pledge himself to overturning Roe.

To show that I too can engage in inanities, has anyone else found Alito's posture at the witness table....odd? Roberts (and most Senate and House witnesses I've seen) struck a very sincere and engaged, leaning on the table in front of him like whatever a senator was saying was the most thrilling and mind-blowing thing since the Sermon on the Mount. Alito is a distinct contrast in what I've seen so far. It looked to me like he was almost leaning back in his chair (although probably he was just sitting up straight). This kind of gave him a sort of laid-back and aloof look which could be good or bad. To some they'll see that as evidence the man has complete command of what's going on before him. To others, they'll see it as cockiness and arrogance. I just found it visually striking. Maybe it's a New Jersey thing.

One final note about Feingold and the Supreme Court nominee hearings. Many on the left will try to make hay out of his vote to confirm Roberts. Now, I still have no idea what kind of justice Roberts will be, but I completely agreed with his vote. Roberts delivered a tour de force of legal intellect. I'm no idiot, but listening to him made me want to call everyone one of my clients and apologize that they didn't have a guy like Roberts representing them. Since nothing incriminating (politically, ethically or otherwise) came out, voting to confirm Roberts was the only logical vote. Voting against him made little sense, and could (and was) easily cast as partisan bitterness. Feingold's vote was good on principal and was good politics. Sure die-hard lefties (of which I am probably one) will cry about it, but he's been "right" on so many other issues, especially on issues where other potential 2008 candidates have been "wrong," that I hope we can move past this one.

Feingold Boosterism

2006-01-11T02:44:00.000-08:00

I hope everyone is enjoying the Alito confirmation hearings. Truly it is fascinating stuff. I wish I could say I've listened to a lot of it, but after the Roberts hearings I'm a tad cynical about these things. But I'll get to that in the post below.

In Feingold news, I was very pleased that he was one of 3 Democrats whose questions were featured on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The other two were Leahy and Kennedy. For those wishing to read 2008 implications into everything, Feingold gets a miniscule boost, but at the expense of Joe Biden (the man most in love with the sound of his own voice, which for the Senate is saying a lot).

The more Feingold can stake his claim to be the defender of common sense civil liberties (like, you know, keeping the President from engaging in widespread warrantless wiretapping), and the more often the public sees him in that role, the better shape he will be in for the primaries and (hopefully) the general election.

For those of you who think this analysis is anything but facetious, I've got a bridge in New Mexico I can sell you for a steal.

On a serious note, I was glad (and a little surprised) to see them excerpt Feingold. The other senators excerpted were Specter, Hatch, Grassley and of course Leahy and Kennedy mentioned above. Feingold with 13 years of seniority in the Senate is a young pup compared to the 1000 years of combined Senate tenure in that group. Plus there's the old adage: any press is good press.

Greetings and Salutations!

2006-01-05T22:25:00.000-08:00

My New Year's resolution for 2006 was to help convince Senator Russ Feingold to run for president in 2008, and to do what I could to lay the groundwork for such a run. After spending some time touring the surprising number of "Feingold 2008" sites, I decided to give this blog thing a try. So far, no one from my area of the country has jumped in, so I figured I may as well try to fill the void.

I have kept tabs on Senator Feingold for the last several years. In the wake of that terrible day in October 2002 when we lost Sentaor Paul Wellstone (and his wife, daughter and three campaign staffers), Senator Feingold's presence in the Senate was the only thing that gave me hope or optimism about the political future of our country. I am pleased to say that he has been a complete joy to follow since then.

Senator Feingold brings to politics a rare quality of authenticity, and the rare ability to cross partisan and ideological lines in pursuit of the common good. I have never heard him speak in the pre-packaged "spin" tones so many politicians exhibit today. Neither, though, does he speak in the "off the cuff" manner that often lands so many other politicians in hot water. Rather his comments come across as thoughtful, informed and genuine. When he takes up an issue (e.g. campaign finance reform, Patriot Act reform, withdrawal from Iraq etc.) he makes it his own and communicates about it in a way that dispels any thought that he is a "johnny-come-lately," or somehow pandering to the audience. Few politicians these days can accomplish this feat.

I look forward to watching him in the coming year. I also hope that this blog will serve to inform people about Senator Feingold, and build support for a 2008 candidacy, but I also hope it will be a forum to debate all things political (and possibly some things not political) including the strengths and weakenesses (I'll grudginly admit there are a few) of a Feingold campaign.

Again, greetings and salutations!