Excerpt:

From True Majority…

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Sen. Russ Feingold spoke yesterday at the New America Foundation in Washington about the nation’s intelligence needs. Feingold was asked the latest FISA bill that includes immunity for telecom companies.

“I do think this is a total farce with regard to the immunity [for telecommunications companies]. It basically guarantees the immunity,” Feingold said. “It doesn’t simply have the impact of potentially allowing telephone companies to break the law. It may prevent us from ever getting to the core issue … which is the president ran an illegal program that could’ve been an impeachable offense.”

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Yesterday, Sen. Russ Feingold released a statement about the Democratic leadership caving in on the FISA to allow Telecom immunity.

The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.

And from Sen. Chris Dodd…

I cannot support the so-called ‘compromise’ legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name.

“As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting American’s civil liberties by rejecting this measure.”

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) wrote an opinion piece about the secret laws the Bush Administration has passed and are following.

The Bush administration recently announced it will allow select members of Congress to read Justice Department legal opinions about the CIA’s controversial detainee interrogation program that have been hidden from Congress until now. But as the administration allows a glimpse of this secret law — and it is law — we are left wondering what other laws it is still keeping under lock and key.

It’s a given in our democracy that laws should be a matter of public record. But the law in this country includes not just statutes and regulations, which the public can readily access. It also includes binding legal interpretations made by courts and the executive branch. These interpretations are increasingly being withheld from the public and Congress.

Perhaps the most notorious example is the recently released 2003 Justice Department memorandum on torture written by John Yoo. The memorandum was, for a nine-month period in 2003, the law that the administration followed when it came to matters of torture. And that law was essentially a declaration that the administration could ignore the laws passed by Congress.

Sam Seder interviewed Sen. Feingold this week on Air America about this topic.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Sen. Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund is hiring people to be part of Patriots Corps. In 2006, this program trained organizers and sent them to work in campaigns across the nation (include for Bruce Braley’s campaign in Iowa’s 1st district).

Senator Feingold has long believed that a strong grassroots field program is the key to electoral victory. As such, Senator Feingold started the Patriot Corps in 2006 as a way to support important races across the nation. In the lead up to the 2008 election, Senator Feingold will again be hiring, training and sending field staff to key races across the country.

We’re looking for at least 20 energetic, personable activists from across the country to participate in our second Patriot Corps program. Once chosen, Patriot Corps members will participate in an extensive, multi-day training program in Milwaukee, WI the first week of September. This training will focus on volunteer recruitment, organizing a canvas, running a phone bank, working with local activists, advanced GOTV training, and staffing a candidate. Patriot Corps members will then be placed on targeted campaigns across the country for the last two months leading up to the election.

While we’re looking for organizers with experience, we’re also hoping to hire activists with a willingness to work hard to bring victory home this fall.

For more information or to apply for the Patriots Corps Program, please contact Paula Zellner at zellner@progressivepatriotsfund.com or 715-735-7811. All applications must be submitted by Friday, July 25th.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Last month, I wrote about Sen. Russ Feingold being undecided on who he would vote for. After Wisconsin’s primary last week, Feingold was asked who he voted for and as usual he gave a direct answer…

“I voted for Barack Obama,” said the senator, who indicated that he was “extremely likely” to cast his superdelegate vote at the Democratic National Convention for his colleague from Illinois.

Feingold had this to say about Obama…

“I really do think that, at the gut level, this is a chance to do something special,” Feingold said of the Obama campaign and the potential of an Obama presidency, which he said has “enormous historical opportunities for America and for our relationship with the world.”

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

From Open Left…

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Two people emailed me the story about what Russ Feingold said about John Edwards and the presidential race.

I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

I am a huge fan of Sen. Feingold, having started a blog supporting him. It isn’t a surprise what he said about John Edwards. Feingold probably wished he had more support on these issues back when it was unpopular in the Senate to do so.

Feingold was asked about who he would endorse…

I’m having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously.

I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I’m torn on this whole issue of who’s more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who’s ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind.

I don’t see anyway he could endorse Clinton. At the beginning of the book Feingold: A New Democratic Party, it discusses Feingold and Hillary Clinton clashing over campaign finance reform with Clinton saying that cutting off soft money would kill the Democratic Party. If Russ endorses Clinton, I’d be very disappointed.

The only reason that I could see for Feingold to support Clinton would be to maintain and enhance his influence as a Senator if she were elected President. Feingold didn’t run for President because he wanted to work on important issues in the Senate. With past disputes with the Clinton’s (both Bill and Hillary), Russ might be thinking that if he supports Obama and Hillary wins, then he will left out on major issues.

Feingold has more in common with Obama on the issues. They both were against the Iraq War from the start and they introduced lobbying reform together.

The Wisconsin Primary is on February 9th and could be a big contests if Obama and Clinton split states on February 5th.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

This is noteworthy because Feingold usually votes for the President’s nominees because he says they should have the right to choose they work witht. In the past Feingold has voted in favor of John Aschcroft, John Roberts, and Condileeza Rice among others.

Here is Feingold’s statement on why he is not supporting Mukasey…

I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation.

At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward.

The nation’s top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country’s history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Longtime readers of this blog know that I am a big supporter of Sen. Russ Feingold and had hoped he had entered the Presidential race.

This story from a campaign memo emailed out by the Chris Dodd campaign caught my attention…

FEINGOLD’S ALLY ON IRAQ IS DODD

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has been a true hero in the struggle to bring an honorable end to the nightmare that is the American occupation of Iraq.

But he has not stood alone.

When the Senate has voted on questions of using the power of the purse to constrain President Bush’s war of whim, Feingold has had the support of most of the Democratic senators who are seeking the presidency. But don’t think that the front-runners, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, came willingly.

Clinton and Obama sent decidedly mixed signals early on.

Then Chris Dodd YouTubed them. Using new technologies to produce and distribute video messages that left no space for the leaders in the race to dance around the debate on forcing Bush to bring troops home from Iraq, Dodd forced Clinton and Obama to do the right thing.

Dodd, the Connecticut senator who is a long-shot contender for the party’s nod in 2008, used a YouTube video early in May to highlight his support for Feingold’s plan to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days. That video, and associated TV ads in early caucus and primary states, led Clinton and Obama, who had been wavering, to join 27 other Democrats who voted to advance Feingold’s exit strategy.

After Clinton, Obama, and Edwards failed to say if all our troops would be out of Iraq by 2013, I started to look harder at other candidates. Like Feingold, Dodd’s leadership on many important issues in the Senate has stood out.

Related Posts: