Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


i heart russ
July 26, 2005 5:07 PM   Subscribe

Draft Russ. Some people would like Sen. Russ Feingold to run for president. I'm all for it, I mean, it'll give Obama time to get some experience....
posted by taumeson (20 comments total)

 
This shouldn't matter, but he's been divorced twice. The press will eat him alive.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:28 PM on July 26, 2005


For a moment there I saw Osama instead of Obama and thought, hsn't Dubya already done that?
posted by nofundy at 5:31 PM on July 26, 2005


> The press will eat him alive.

Yep. Gone :-( Next?
posted by NewBornHippy at 6:33 PM on July 26, 2005


Screw the press. Feingold? He's too Jewish to get elected.

Not to saw that he wouldn't be good if he were elected. From what I can tell, he'd be quite a good choice. But he'd never win with this country the way it is.
posted by kafziel at 6:54 PM on July 26, 2005


Actually, if you've seen him debate, he's very, very good. Certainly, the right-wingers will find something (2 divorces, for example), but the reason he keeps winning in Wisconsin, is because, though he's so damned liberal, he still conveys a true statesmen like vibe.

In the debates, he pulled no punches, yet in his campaigns, he's always been genteel. It's what's earned him respect. He's a lawyer, yes, but he fights for the little guy. (Wait, does that sound just like Edwards?)

Thing is, he can hold his own, and I think he stands a chance.

However, I don't want him to run, because I believe we can't lose him in the Senate. If he were elected, Wisconsin might just elect another half-hearted "Democrat" (a la Herb Kohl), or worse... A right-wing, god-fearing Republican. And I do NOT want a Republican representing me/my state.
posted by symbioid at 7:02 PM on July 26, 2005


too Jewish for Wisconsin? doesn't that count for something?

but you know, i'll just shut up. because i'm incapable of enthusiasm for nearly anyone.
posted by RedEmma at 7:05 PM on July 26, 2005


Hmm.... McCain v. Finegold, now that would be an ironic matchup... Actually it would be nice to see after the insipid choices offered in 2000 and 2004 by the major parties.
posted by gyc at 7:07 PM on July 26, 2005


Ironic though it may be, McCain vs. Feingold is currently my dream election matchup. No matter who wins, I think we could expect an administrative culture of honesty and transparency, and maybe even get a break from the irrationally partisan politics that are HURTING AMERICA.
posted by Galvatron at 7:30 PM on July 26, 2005


Russ is, quite simply, brilliant. He knows how to be progressive without coming across like an outsider. I first met him in Chicago when he was doing fundraising for his first Senate campaign, and he spoke to a very small audience for almost an hour of intense, never boring policy wonkery, always coming back to a punchline of basically What's the big obstacle here to doing the right thing? (At that same fundraiser, alas, I had a nice talk with Mel Reynolds, whose prospects did not turn out so bright.)

He really brings to mind Gary Hart -- the same blend of starry-eyed idealism and eyes-on-the-prize pragmatism. I think he'd be smarter than Hart at handling the divorce BS; I suspect the whole thing is hooey, like those people who thought we'd never elect a Catholic. A Jew, on the other hand ... really, he doesn't come across as Jewish. That might be a harder sell in the deeper red counties.

Still, I expect Hillary to take the nomination, at this point. I could be wrong, but Biden? Smart, but can't stop being a politician, sort of John Kerry's problem. Edwards? Not enough of a base in the party, and out of office.

I do think Feingold would elevate the primary process by his presence.

Oh, and I know his mom.
posted by dhartung at 9:48 PM on July 26, 2005


In the biblical sense?
posted by swell at 10:48 PM on July 26, 2005


God I hope hillary doesn't get the nomination. I don't want a pro-war, anti campaign finance reform, "family values" canidate for the democratic party.

I think the divorce issue is over blown. All he has to say is, "Reagon got divorced too." Anyway G.W. has already shown that if spun correctly your past history dosn't really effect your chances as a canidate.
posted by afu at 12:17 AM on July 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


I love Feingold, I contributed to his campaign. He doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming president though.
posted by drezdn at 12:28 AM on July 27, 2005


For all the talk, 2008 is going to come down to Clinton and Kerry, with the big fight being over who's going to make themselves look like the best choice for VP- include Clark, Feingold, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, and Brian Schweitzer.

Agreement on the divorce thing. Reagan, not to mention John McCain, were both divorced. Rudy Giuliani confessed to adultery ahd half the GOP considers him a national hero.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:34 AM on July 27, 2005


Feingold-Kucinich '08. And then I woke up.
posted by leapingsheep at 6:43 AM on July 27, 2005


Feingold-Kucinich '08. And then I woke up.

Sigh. Feingold would be awesome. Seeing Hillary or some other mediocre candidate get the nomination instead is going to suck.
posted by unreason at 8:14 AM on July 27, 2005


Feingold is fine and Kucinich is cool, but I'm not supporting anyone unless they first set out a practical plan to mitigate the disastrous impact of peak oil on world peace, prosperity, freedom and democracy.

Experts predict that it will take a 20 year lead time to avert massive social and economic disruption arising from peak oil. These distrutioins include a major world depression and decades of war over control of diminishing cheap oil reserves.

Guess what dictators and oil barons would control the flow of world oil supplies that will determine who prospers and who doesn't. (Hint) OPEC controls 61% of world oil and Middle East dictators hold 50%. The U. S.? 3%.

Congress and the President keep subsidizing faster U. S. oil depletion and higher peak profits for their oil slick buddies and Middle East partners.

Look at this: in the U.S. it costs roughly $10 per barrel to produce and sell oil. In the Middle East producing and selling oil costs roughly$1.50/ barrel. Oil is now selling for anywhere between $50 to $62/ barrel and the world consumes about 84 million barrels per day. (Do the math; see the light).

Does anyone think that Middle East oil revenues are not paying for world terrorism? Where else could the vast amounts of money needed to arm and sustain a multi-front war and an international terrorism network come from??? Bin Laden's piggy bank? How about tribute payments to terrorists for protection of oil fields.

Our next president must address peak oil in his/her campaign and administration or America's future and freedoms may have to be traded for a little more oil and a short reprieve from peak oil suffering.

You could start mitigating peak oil now: Tell your Senators and Congressperson to defeat the energy bill with their vote this week. Hold every candidate’s feet to the oil fires as elections approach. Just maybe the people can save America; the politicians seem uninterested.
posted by bill.cleanpeace at 12:18 PM on July 27, 2005


I'm not supporting anyone unless they first set out a practical plan to mitigate the disastrous impact of peak oil on world peace, prosperity, freedom and democracy.

Doesn't that mean that you won't support anyone? Or does it mean you'll support the first guy with a plan, even if that (practical!) plan is "nuke all humans so they don't consume more oil".

Not that I disagree with you about the importance of peak oil, but rather that it's better to consider a candidate on a wide array of issues. I wonder if this is why great people such as Kucinich and Feingold DON'T win elections -- because people like you say "well, I like him on every other issue, but because he's not perfect, I'll just not vote". Seriously, why is it that a candidate's belovedness supports their unelectability?
posted by breath at 1:01 PM on July 27, 2005


McCain vs. Feingold is currently my dream election matchup.

McCain vs. Feingold is my nightmare matchup.

Dennis "we don't need to do anything about Social Security because it's solvent through 2041" Kucinich is one of the worst possible options as well, at least for those of us who plan on still being alive in 2042.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:18 PM on July 27, 2005


McCain vs. Feingold is currently my dream election matchup.

Hmm. They did cooperate on a legislation, but they really don't have a lot in common.

Personally I think Feingold has too much integrity to actually win and election, and McCain has far too little. Not only has McCain supported every one of Bush's worst ideas, he has only stood up to a single one of the administration's filthy tricks. Where the fuck has he been as a voice of reason in the Republican party? Up Bush's ass, that's where.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:15 PM on July 27, 2005


Great people like Kucinch and Feingold don't win [some] elections because interest groups and the electoral system are biased against anyone who honestly favors people or change over powerful interest groups and money.

If a candidate made resolving energy issues and the consequences of failing to resolve them timely (recessions, depression, war, pollution, etc) a central theme of his or her election campaign, the power of these issues just may overcome the power of the money, the system, and the oiligarchy.

The energy issue impacts all other issues. Without abundant energy there is no prosperity to pay for Social security, medical care, jobs, national security, transportation, etc. Without abundant energy we will be helpless to address these other important issues. So will the next president.

Pointing this out and exposing other candidates as selling out America and world peace for the favor of powerful interest groups and big bucks just may overcome the system and those who benefit from the status quo.

I don't feel that we can afford another election that fails to effectively address the central issue of this century. The US may collapse from our over reliance on fossil and radioactive energy, but at lease we should have a choice and voice in the decisions that either save our way of life or give it away. The next presidential election could provide that, if people insist.
posted by bill.cleanpeace at 7:47 AM on July 28, 2005


« Older Marketocracy...  |  New FCC head seeks to quietly ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments