Showing posts with label russ feingold. Show all posts
Showing posts with label russ feingold. Show all posts

Saturday, March 03, 2012

John Nichols: "Feingold offers a global vision rooted in Wisconsin values"


John Nichols (The Cap Times-WI):

Nothing about Russ Feingold's just-published book, "While America Sleeps," will diminish the belief of Wisconsinites — or the tens of millions of Americans who are cheering on Wisconsin's struggle to restore protections for working people and democratic rights — that the former senator should be the Democratic candidate in the coming election to recall and remove reactionary Gov. Scott Walker.

In fact, this book about foreign policy is so infused with regard for Wisconsin values and traditions that it reads in many ways as an homage to the state and its contribution to the national discourse.

Yet, Feingold is not positioning himself for a gubernatorial run. In fact, he has said again and again that he does not intend to run for any office in 2012 — passing up opportunities to run not just for governor but for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by his longtime colleague Herb Kohl. MORE...

Monday, October 10, 2011

Feingold to GE CEO: "...you root for corporations when corporations are making sure your jobs stay here in the United States,” (with video)



RAW STORY with video (03:59) from CBS's The Early Show:

In an interview that aired Sunday, General Electric Chairman and Obama job czar Jeffrey Immelt told CBS’ Leslie Stahl that the notion that Americans were against big companies was “just wrong.”

“I want you to root for me,” Immelt said. “Everybody in Japan roots for Toshiba. Everybody in China roots for China South Rail. I want you to say, ‘Win, G.E.’”

Not only has G.E. shipped thousands of U.S. jobs overseas, the company also reportedly paid no taxes in 2010. Protesters at Occupy Wall Street and across the country are calling for corporations to be taxed at least at the same rate as individuals.

Former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold (D) responded to Immelt Monday. MORE...

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

"Feingold says Obama shouldn’t be primaried"

Sam Stein (HuffPo), via John Aravosis:
"I strongly disagree with Ralph Nader. As I've said many times before, I believe that re-electing President Obama is an absolute imperative for our economy, our judicial system, for progressives and for our country," said former Sen. Russ Feingold, who announced recently that he was not running for Wisconsin's open Senate seat. MORE...

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

"Thoughts on Netroots Nation 2011"

Gaius Publius (AMERICAblog):
Feingold, in contrast, seems to have broken loose. Before the conference, I caught this piece from TPM, in which he accuses Dems and Repubs of "corruption" (defined correctly as letting campaign cash cast your vote). In the piece, he's quoted as calling out Steny Hoyer and Claire McCaskill (her). Not the party-loyalist thing to do. And his keynote address rung the same bell. MORE...

Saturday, June 18, 2011

"Feingold At Netroots" on 'corporate influence on elections' (video)


UpTakeVideo, video (27:08):
Former Senator Russ Feingold (WI-D) attended his first Netroots Nation today. At the conference, he presented a keynote speech. In his speech, he said that he was "eternally grateful" to everyone at Netroots Nation for their support and their "singleminded" pursuance of truth in complicated issues. In his speech, Senator Feingold noted that the most important thing, right now, is to overturn Citizen United, the Supreme Court Decision on campaign finance and corporate influence on elections. He also says that the Disclose Act needs to be passed through Congress. Near the end of his speech, Senator Feingold said that he feared for the identity of the Democratic party.

Friday, April 29, 2011

"Feingold blasts new pro-White House money group"

Ben Smith:
Former Senator Russ Feingold, a campaign finance purist who refused outside support in his own campaigns, sharply criticized Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, the new groups that will take unlimited, and partly undisclosed, money to support President Obama's re-election campaign.

"Democrats who mirror the right-wing tactics of Karl Rove and David Koch do our nation no favors. Our democracy is best served by rejecting the fundamentally corrupt strategy of embracing unlimited corporate influence," said Feingold, who now heads Progressives United.

Reflecting the abruptness of the Democrats' pivot on the question of secret cash -- a central talking point in the 2010 election -- a group that backs Democrats on campaign finance issues put out a press release this morning headed, "Campaign Watchdog: Priorities USA Not Hypocritical."

"In order to change the rules of the game, we need to engage in the rules as they are, not as we wish they were. To act otherwise after Citizens United is to take a knife to a gunfight," David Donnelly, the national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, said in the release.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Can you say "Governor Russ Feingold"?


Steve Kornacki (Salon):
The question isn't really if Scott Walker and his fellow Wisconsin Republicans will suffer fallout from their surprise maneuver Wednesday night. It's how severe the fallout will be.

Walker and the state's Republican senators, as you've surely heard by now, decoupled their proposal to strip public workers of their collective bargaining rights from a budget bill, allowing them to push it through the upper chamber with the entire Democratic caucus still holed up across state lines in Illinois. The GOP-controlled Assembly will presumably pass the bill today and Walker will then sign it.

Politically, this represents a wholly reckless move. Wisconsin's state government has been paralyzed for weeks because of the collective bargaining impasse, and in that time public opinion swung sharply against Walker and his plan. All of the noise generated by the Democrats' resistance seemed to have convinced a majority that Walker's plan is out of the mainstream. That these same voters will now hear that Walker and the GOP resorted to an extraordinary measure to jam it through will only harden this assessment -- and, potentially, make GOP legislators and the governor himself vulnerable to recall efforts.

The recall campaign will first target the handful of Republican senators who have already been in office for a year and are therefore eligible to be recalled. Petitions are already circulating in their districts. Walker himself is insulated through next January, when his first full year in office will be complete. Only then will his opponents be able to take out petitions to recall him. But that hasn't stopped more than a few Democrats from promoting their dream recall candidate: Russ Feingold, the former three-term senator who was flushed from office in last fall's anti-Democratic tide. MORE...

Friday, November 05, 2010

Even More Post Midterm News and Views

"Grayson: Democratic ‘appeasement’ cost us the election" (Raw Story):
Alan Grayson, the defeated Democratic congressman of "die quickly" fame, went on the offensive Thursday, telling reporters that the Democrats' "appeasement" of Republicans cost them the election.

In an appearance on MSNBC and an interview with Salon.com, Grayson argued that the "enthusiasm gap" that prompted millions of liberal voters to stay home Tuesday happened because the Obama administration and congressional Democrats did not fight hard enough for progressive values. MORE...
"Blue Dogs Dumped" (Joe Klein):
Normally, I don't have much patience for the whining on the left about the Blue Dog democrats--who were sliced in half on Tuesday, losing at least 28 of their 54 seats. When they lose, the Democrats lose control of the Congress. This year, however, I do feel that there is an argument that, to an extent, the Dogs brought this on themselves by being penny-wise, dogpound-foolish. The argument goes like this: a larger stimulus package might have helped the economy recover at a faster clip, but the Dogs opposed it on fiscal responsibility grounds. A second argument: the public really has had it with Wall Street, but the Dogs helped water down the financial regulatory bill, gutting the too-big-to-fail provisions. There is real merit to both points. MORE...
"Howard Dean Rules Out 2012 Bid" (Wall Street Journal):
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the unofficial general of the liberal movement, has ruled out posing a primary challenge to President Barack Obama, according to his office.

Mr. Dean, who energized the left with his unsuccessful 2004 presidential bid, has been a frequent critic of the president – most notably for the White House’s decision not to push for a so-called public option on the health care legislation. MORE...
"In Feingold’s Loss, Independents Turn on One of Their Own" (NY Times)
The irony was lost on no one. Senator Russ Feingold, a liberal with a fierce streak of independence who crusaded against the influence of money in politics, was toppled Tuesday in a campaign awash in the kind of unregulated cash he had struggled to keep out of the system.

And in a poignant twist, the loss came, in part, because independents flocked to his opponent, despite Mr. Feingold’s record of one maverick vote after another.

He was the sole senator to oppose the USA Patriot Act after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. He also broke with President Obama on several occasions, opposing the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, the bailing out of financial institutions in 2008 and the regulation of Wall Street this year, saying the restrictions did not go far enough.

Most prominently, he battled his colleagues to overhaul the campaign finance system; the resulting law, passed in 2002, bore his name and that of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican (who won re-election Tuesday). MORE...
"Nancy Pelosi, undone by her own success" (Eugene Robinson):
Pelosi did what was right for the country, and what's right isn't always what's popular. Democrats may decide they need a less-polarizing figure as minority leader; if they do, well, that's politics. But I'd love to see her stay in the Democratic leadership - and I'm betting that eventually she'd find a way to take back the gavel that she pounds with such righteous authority. MORE...
"Rich Media, Poor Democracy" (Amy Goodman):
As the 2010 elections come to a close, the biggest winner of all remains undeclared: the broadcasters. The biggest loser: democracy. These were the most expensive midterm elections in U.S. history, costing close to $4 billion, $3 billion of which went to advertising. What if ad time were free? We hear no debate about this, because the media corporations are making such a killing by selling campaign ads. Yet the broadcasters are using public airwaves.

I am reminded of the 1999 book by media scholar Robert McChesney, “Rich Media, Poor Democracy.” In it, he writes, “Broadcasters have little incentive to cover candidates, because it is in their interest to force them to publicize their campaigns.” MORE...

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Ambinder: "How Wisconsin Got Away From Russ Feingold"

Marc Ambinder (theAtlantic):
Voters this year are in a mood. That mood is reflected in their willingness to take chances on newcomers without political experience. Fortunately for Johnson (and unfortunately for Feingold), this newcomer has a pretty clean background. His "gaffes" have been of the type that drive elites crazy, like opposing global warming science. I think the science is solid, but voters don't really care about that stuff this cycle.

Still, this race SHOULD be closer. But then again, maybe the common denominator is simply that Feingold is unafraid to be the avatar of an argument that Wisconsin residents are just going to reject this cycle. Health care isn't popular. The stimulus is considered wasteful. The economy is tough and jobs aren't coming back. The profile of the electorate is much more conservative. Wisconsin has been run mostly by Democrats for eight years. It's not in very good shape. Feingold represents all of that. He's with the in crowd. Johnson's with the out crowd. Case closed. MORE...
Howie P.S.: This strengthens my resolve to do GOTV for Patty Murray.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

NY Times Editorial: "Uphill in Wisconsin"


NY Times Editorial:
The public’s lack of attention to detail, and Mr. Johnson’s willingness to exploit it, could end the career of Mr. Feingold, who in three terms has distinguished himself for trying to bring fairness to campaign finance and decency to national security, among other achievements. He has routinely crossed party lines to work with Republicans and has had the courage to break with his own party more often than almost any other senator.

He voted against confirming Tim Geithner as Treasury secretary, citing Mr. Geithner’s personal tax issues. He refused to support the Wall Street reform package because it did not go far enough. He was the only senator who voted against the misguided Patriot Act in 2001. He has supported gun rights — more than we like — and has opposed hate crime measures.

Mr. Feingold’s independent mind, and his refusal to follow the big-money line on issues like trade, campaign finance and Wall Street reform, should have endeared him to Tea Party members and other independents who are angry at Washington conformists. If they had taken the time to listen. MORE...
Howie P.S.: I wish I didn't feel like I was reading Feingold's political eulogy.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Cantwell and Feingold Block Bank Reform: "WE NEED TO MAKE IT BETTER"

Arthur Delaney and Ryan Grim (HuffPo):
There were some unusually Johnsonian moments of wrangling on the floor during the nearly hour-long vote. Reid pressed his case hard on Snowe, the lone holdout vote present, with Bob Corker and Mitch McConnell at her side. After finding Brown, he put his arm around him and shook his head, then found Cantwell seated alone at the opposite end of the floor. He and New York's Chuck Schumer encircled her, Reid leaning over her with his right arm on the back of her chair and Schumer leaning in with his left hand on her desk. Cantwell stared straight ahead, not looking at the men even as she spoke. Schumer called in Chris Dodd, who was unable to sway her. Feingold hadn't stuck around. Cantwell, according to a spokesman, wanted a guarantee on an amendment that would fix a gaping hole in the derivatives section of the bill, which requires the trades to be cleared, but applies no penalty to trades that aren't, making Blanche Lincoln's reform package little better than a list of suggestions.MORE...

Sunday, December 20, 2009

"Senate Overcomes Key Health Care Hurdle--Reform Now On The Horizon"

TPMDC:
By a vote of 60-40, the Senate agreed to end debate on a major package of health care amendments--and by doing so, signaled that the Democratic caucus is unified, and ready to pass a far-reaching reform bill straight down party lines.

The Senate is now expected to hold more procedural votes on Tuesday and Wednesday before finally voting on the bill late Christmas eve. Keep your eyes on TPMDC for all developments.
Howie P.S.: Feingold speaks
“I’ve been fighting all year for a strong public option to compete with the insurance industry and bring health care spending down. I continued that fight during recent negotiations, and I refused to sign onto a deal to drop the public option from the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle. Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included.

“But while the loss of the public option is a bitter pill to swallow, on balance, the bill still delivers meaningful reform, and the cost of inaction is simply too high. This bill significantly expands coverage and helps protect Wisconsinites from high costs and insurance company abuses, such as denying or restricting coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The bill also improves a flawed Medicare formula that denies Wisconsin fair reimbursement rates, encourages the kind of low-cost, high-value care practiced in our state, increases access to home and community-based long-term care, and reduces federal budget deficits by $132 billion over the next decade.”

Monday, December 07, 2009

"Feingold: Afghanistan Strategy 'Doesn't Make Any Sense To Me'" (with video)


Ben Frumin (TPM) with video (00:51) from ABC News' "This Week":
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said on This Week today that President Obama's Afghanistan strategy "doesn't make any sense to me" and "defies common sense."

Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.
If anything, Feingold said, the escalation of the Afghanistan war will further embolden the Taliban and push the Afghan population to embrace America's enemies. "This boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest," Feingold said.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

"Feingold blasts logistics, costs of new Afghan strategy" (with video)

Tony Romm (The Hill) with video from ABC News "This Week" (00:46):
The White House's recently announced troop surge in Afghanistan "defies common sense," Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), one of the war's most outspoken critics, charged on Sunday.
The strategy costs too much money and continues a military effort that "doesn't relate in any way to our fight against al-Qaeda in 2001," the senator told ABC's "This Week."

"Well Pakistan, near Afghanistan, on the border region, is perhaps the epicenter [of al-Qaeda]... why would we build up more than 100,000 troops in [Afghanistan], an area not even near the border?" the senator said.

"It doesn't give anybody what they want," Feingold added, noting the troop surge will help neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan restore stability. "It doesn't give the American people any confidence we might actually end this."

A number of lawmakers in both political camps have signaled utter dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama's new Afghan war strategy, which he announced on Tuesday in a televised addressed.

Some Republicans lament the president's decision to specify a tentative transition date of July 2011, many liberal-leaning Democrats fret any war escalation whatsoever and an emerging, bipartisan, third group of skeptics oppose the strategy because of its potential effects on the federal deficit.

Feingold belongs to the latter two camps. He told ABC on Sunday the entire war effort "flies right in the face of the American people," and he renewed his threat to do "whatever we can" to stop the troop increase or block its funding.
"I think that's something we're going to oppose, not only on the grounds of it being an unwise policy but because its financial irresponsible," Feingold said of both the surge effort and Democrats' attempts to pay for it.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Russ Feingold on the Obama speech

Russ Feingold via Greg Sargent:
“I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.”

Sunday, May 24, 2009

"Senate Votes For $91.3 Billion In War Spending"

TPMDC:
The Senate voted last night by an 86-3 margin to approve a $91.3 billion spending bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The bill will now go to House-Senate negotiations, with an expected final passage some time in June. The three dissenters came from the left and right: Progressive Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, independent socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- and conservative Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
Howie P.S. I'm a day late with this post (the vote was on Friday), but yesterday was mostly taken up with moving my HQ back home from my undisclosed health care location.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

"Senator Russ Feingold on Obama’s Escalation of the War in Afghanistan, Torture, State Secrets and the 100th Anniversary of the Progressive Magazine"


Democracy Now, with audio and video:
President Obama’s first 100 Days in office was the subject of much scrutiny last week. Pundits offered analysis, criticisms and even grades on the president’s record so far on a range of issues such as the economy, the environment and health care reform. But what about other issues like torture, wiretapping, his use of the state secrets act, and his plans for the withdrawal from Iraq and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan? We speak to Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Feingold: "First, Do What We Must in Pakistan"

Russ Feingold:
President Obama's strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan, unveiled last week, finally focuses the government's attention and resources where they are most needed. After years of our country being bogged down in Iraq, the president recognizes that the key to our national security is defeating al Qaeda, and that to do so we must address both Pakistan and Afghanistan. But while the president clearly understands that the greatest threat to our nation resides in Pakistan, his new strategy has the potential to escalate, rather than diminish this threat.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. made the right choice to invade Afghanistan because it was from there that our nation was attacked. Our brave troops successfully toppled the Taliban, but the Bush administration soon turned its attention elsewhere. Distracted by Iraq, that administration allowed efforts in Afghanistan to languish while al Qaeda and Taliban leaders found safe haven in the western part of Pakistan. As a result, al Qaeda has reconstituted and strengthened itself while the Taliban, operating relatively freely in Pakistan, launches cross border attacks into Afghanistan, including lethal attacks on Americans.

The Obama administration's plan and rhetoric recognize the vital need to confront this threat. However, the decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan -- and possibly an additional 10,000 troops next year -- before fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan could very well prove ineffective, or worse, counterproductive. So long as the Taliban can flee into Pakistan and operate from there with relative ease, any gains against them in Afghanistan may well be temporary at best. Meanwhile, our troops would be threatened by forces who are largely beyond their reach, in Pakistan, while our increased military presence in Afghanistan could stoke resentment among the Afghan people.

In addition, and perhaps even more troubling, increased military engagement against the Taliban in Afghanistan could push it further into Pakistan while worsening the militant extremism that has spread to more and more parts of Pakistan. New Taliban safe havens could emerge from which attacks in Afghanistan or Pakistan, like recent bombings in the Khyber Pass and Lahore, could be planned. More Pakistanis could fall under the control of those who would violate basic human rights, particularly the rights of women and girls. Already weak government institutions could deteriorate further, undermining the legitimacy of the Pakistani state. And a country with nuclear weapons could be dangerously destabilized.

President Obama has stated clearly that we cannot prevail in Afghanistan without addressing Pakistan -- but that recognition alone is not enough. Before deciding to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should be ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistani leaders to curb militant extremism. The Pakistani government must not sit idly by as the Taliban and other militants operate freely, in some cases with the support of individuals in the government. Increasing U.S. assistance to Pakistan is an important step, as is the insistence that it be conditioned on a commitment to confronting al Qaeda and the Taliban, but we must be explicit about the serious consequences if this commitment is not met. We can't walk away from Pakistan altogether or abandon those fighting alongside us against this threat. At the same time, we must not turn a blind eye to those in the government who tolerate and support militant extremism and whose actions threaten Americans and Pakistanis alike.

We also need to push Pakistan to make democratic reforms because, until it does so, it is unlikely to be a true partner in fighting extremism -- no matter how much assistance we provide. An effective, responsive and representative government will help Pakistan achieve the political and economic stability that are sorely needed there. Moreover, if Pakistan is going to undertake a sustained effort against militant extremism, it will likely need a civilian government that derives popular legitimacy through a respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Stability and elections are no guarantee of an aggressive counterterrorism policy, of course, but they may be a necessary requirement.

Finally, we must work with both Pakistan and India to reconcile the historic tensions between their countries. As we saw in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, those tensions continue to fester. India's security concerns must be addressed -- and they can be, once Pakistan finally turns its attention to the al Qaeda, Taliban and militant threats within its own borders.
None of these needed initiatives will come easily, but they may be even more difficult if we first escalate militarily in Afghanistan. If, as the president said, another terrorist attack against the U.S. would likely come from Pakistan, then that is where we must start.

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Russ Feingold talks to Bill Moyers about progressives and Obama (with video)

PBS with video:
BILL MOYERS: Welcome, Senator, to the Journal.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Good to be on the show.

BILL MOYERS: In modern terms what does it mean when you say, "I'm a progressive?"
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, our Wisconsin progressive tradition is one of a very serious commitment to farmers, small business, people that do manufacturing. But we also have a commitment to clean government, to open government. That's what "Fighting Bob" La Follette was all about. And some of the major reforms in the history of the country in terms of ethics, in terms of unemployment compensation, in terms of child safety laws, were all part of that great progressive movement that was started in the late 19th century and early 20th century in Wisconsin. And by the way, progressivism in Wisconsin also means fiscal responsibility. So it's an interesting twist. But that is sort of some of the things that have gone into this belief, that we don't like government to be involved unless it has to be. We believe in people's liberties and their freedom. But sometimes, government has to step in, in order to make sure the community is working together.

BILL MOYERS: Especially-

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Especially Wisconsin progressives.

BILL MOYERS: -especially when the market doesn't deliver what people need, right?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: This is one of those moments when a progressive belief in the ability of government to fix things when it has to fix things, only when it has to fix things, is something that is part of Wisconsin tradition.

BILL MOYERS: Now, here's the conundrum to me. If you read all the polls, clearly the public is for ending the war in Iraq, and it's for a sane, just economic level playing field. So is the public at large progressive, or are we making a mistake when we frame their concerns around a progressive label that enables say, the Democratic leadership conference, the centrists, to marginalize that progressive concern?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, I think the public is interested in protecting their families. And that's where they go. I don't think they're interested in ideology. So what happened during the '90s, and to some extent, the '80s, people were told over and over again, it's anti-business to vote against bad trade agreements that are going to hurt American jobs. This is the new era. It's going to be good for all the families if we sort of eliminate the rules that protected us from abuses on Wall Street. You know, pushing this kind of legislation through.

Of course, now this is all falling apart. And now, people are realizing that all the way back, of course, to the progressive era and Teddy Roosevelt era, we needed legislation to bust the big monopolies. We needed legislation to make sure that the marketplace could actually work in a fair way. And I think people now realize this was a big mistake that was made during the '90s, to undo all the protections that were there and were put in place largely after the Great Depression.

BILL MOYERS: What do you want from the Obama administration?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, I would like the new president to do exactly what he said he's going to do, first of all. He wants to bring the country together as much as he can. And that doesn't mean, I think, giving up your principles. But I think it does mean saying even though the Democrats have the House and the Senate and the presidency, that we should engage Republicans who are willing to work with us as much as possible. Because the public is so turned off by the fighting and by the sniping that goes on. Those of us who really believe in progressive government have got to portray a government that can work together with as many people as possible.

At the same time, I would like to new president, of course, to stick to the kind of things he campaigned on, such as making sure that we close down Guantanamo, making sure that we do end the war in Iraq in an orderly manner. He should not go away from this to simply look like he's in the middle. And I don't think he's going to do that

BILL MOYERS: I had dinner the other night with Ted Sorensen, who's 80 years old now. He was John F. Kennedy's alter ego, soul mate, the author of so many, with Kennedy, of those great speeches. And I said to him, "Ted, you know, the one thing people remember from Kennedy's inaugural address was I'm — you know it, as you were a young man listening at the time — 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.'" And I said, "What's the one thing that you think Barack Obama could say that would be the most memorable, the most riveting, and the most compelling, and the most urgent? And he said, echoing Russ Feingold, "Restore the rule of law." You've been talking about this for some time now. Why is that so important for Obama to put it on the marquee early on?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, of course, the new president, minutes after he's sworn in, in this wonderful moment — it will be cold out there. It will be short speech. But included in the speech, I would hope, would be some attempt by this new, wonderful president to renounce the extreme claims of executive power. To simply renounce these claims that were made by the Bush administration. If he does not say it in some way, at least there, or soon thereafter-

BILL MOYERS: Such as? What do you mean? What claims do you think are most abusive?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: The most important thing — there are many examples, such as torture issue, Guantanamo, detainees, many other things — the fundamental thing is to get away from this argument that under Article Two of the Constitution, the president can basically look at a clear statute, such as the wiretapping statue, and say, "You know, actually, I can do whatever I want in this. I don't have to follow the clear laws of the Constitution, because under the Commander-in-Chief powers, I can basically do whatever I want." That is essentially the argument, the extreme and dangerous argument that the Bush administration has advanced.

So I would like to see this new president say, "You know, that goes too far. I believe in presidential power. I will protect the prerogatives of the president." But at some point — and I think this is where the Bush administration went too far — they've actually undone the basic balance that our founders believed in.

BILL MOYERS: But he must be heading to the White House concerned that there could be a 9/11 on his watch.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: And that he can't be as prudent or as prudish as a constitutional lawyer, as he might have been before 9/11. What would you say to him if he asks you about that? "Russ, I don't want 9/11 to happen on my watch." Bush didn't want it to happen again. He turned to John Ashcroft and said, "John, don't let this happen again." So what would you say to Obama about the balance between the fear he has that Mumbai could happen here, and your concerns, all of our concerns, for the Constitution?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, he would be absolutely right to have that concern. And I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee-

BILL MOYERS: Right.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: -and the Intelligence Committee. There's-

BILL MOYERS: And the Judiciary Committee.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: And judiciary.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: And these are all — the three committees that really relate to this issue. My top priority is to stop us from being attacked again, is to protect the physical safety of the American people. That's my top priority. That's going to be President Obama's top priority. Though he will do nothing — and I will support nothing — that will undo the ability of us to go after those that we have a reasonable reason to believe are going after us, that are going to harm us. What he will do as president, and what he understands, is you can do that without going after people's library records, where there's absolutely no evidence they've done anything wrong. Or, for example, allowing, as the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does, the bulk collection of every single international conversation that anyone does, even though there may be no proof at all that anybody's done anything wrong.

Our system of government is based on the belief that we have a rule of law. And although, as Justice Goldberg once said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," it is our faith. That doing things under our system of government is not only the right thing to do, but is also the efficacious thing to do, the thing that will actually produce the most result and cause people to feel free. For example, in a minority community in the United States, where they might know somebody in their midst who is potentially a problem. They're going to be a lot more likely to talk to us about that if they believe that their fundamental rights as innocent Americans are being protected. That's the balance we need to have.

BILL MOYERS: What do you think happens if Obama decides that this can't be his top priority? What happens if he doesn't act to reverse what President Bush and Dick Cheney have done?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: He's in the amazing position of having to have about fifteen top priorities. And nobody envies his job. Look, he's got to deal with the financial issues. He's got to deal with the stimulus issue. He's got to deal with energy and health care. So he doesn't need to sort of make this the number one issue.

Hillary Clinton, when she called me after her appointment as Secretary of State because I'm a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "We have to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time." Well, that's exactly what President Obama's going to do. He can change these things in the rule of law, relatively quietly. He can get rid of Guantanamo by executive order. He can get rid of the bad torture policies by executive order. He can get rid of the practice of assuming that something's a classified document, and bring it back to what it was under the Clinton administration, where the presumption is in favoring of opening information.

So he can do that quickly and quietly. And then, he can be supportive, as he's doing the other major projects, of legislation that I and others will introduce to try to fix these things about the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that went too far. So this doesn't have to be sort of the marquee issue. But it does need to be something that gets attention right away.

BILL MOYERS: I don't want to put you on the spot, but I'm going to put you on the spot. You admire Hillary Clinton. Have you ever asked her to explain why she voted for the Iraq resolution that you opposed? Joe Biden, too. Two of your colleagues sitting not far from you on the Senate floor both stood up and argued to give the president the authority to go into Iraq. You stood against them.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: I was with them in the caucus, when each of us spoke, both privately and publicly on this. I was in the intelligence committee briefings. I heard the questions being asked. I mean, it was a scary time. And it was a judgment call that each of us had to make. I listened carefully to the CIA when they talked about some of the arguments that were made. And I thought they had a very tepid argument that they didn't even believe in, was the way I read their body language and way I read their argument, that this really wasn't something that had to be done, and didn't have to be done right now, and didn't relate to 9/11.

BILL MOYERS: So you-

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Other people took a different conclusion from it.

BILL MOYERS: Looking at the same material, you reached a different conclusion?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: Did you try to argue with say, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: I argued vigorously in caucus and on the floor, that this didn't make sense, that the connections to 9/11 were phony, that there was not solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction. That even if there were, there wasn't necessarily the kind of evidence you would want that he could deliver, or that he would even want to do it. I remember most is the belief we got from the intelligence people, that they didn't really think Saddam Hussein was going to come after us with weapons of mass destruction even if he could. And how other people came to the other conclusions, I don't know. I give Hillary Clinton credit. She was pretty consistent on this. There were others who frankly, I won't get into the details of who they were, who-

BILL MOYERS: Democrats?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Democrats, who said this was a terrible idea, we shouldn't do this. And then, when the push and shove came, they switched. Those are the people that troubled me the most, who knew, I think, in their gut, that this was a bad idea.

BILL MOYERS: Barack Obama told a mutual friend of ours that he intended to model himself in the Senate after you. This was 2004, when he came to the Senate, was running for the Senate. And I think he may even have told you something to that effect, although you're too modest to acknowledge it. And he actually went the way on Iraq that you did. He has used his opposition to that Iraq resolution to separate himself from Biden and Clinton. But now, Obama, who wanted to be Russ Feingold in the Senate, has put Biden a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, and Clinton in charge of his foreign policy. Since they were wrong then, what gives you the assurance they'll be right now on Iraq and Afghanistan and these other policies, which the hawks in Washington, Republicans and Democrats, are urging him to do?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: I'm not sure anybody's going to be right in the future. I can't guarantee that. But I'll tell you something. Whenever I made a decision, I listened to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, too. I wanted to hear what they had to say. I didn't always agree with them. And so I think that's good that he has people that might have a different perspective or a different way of looking at things, advising him. They're not going to make the policy. The most important thing is who is the president. The president is the one guy in the whole race. And I wanted to be, to vote for somebody — I said this repeatedly — who had the wisdom to understand this was a bad idea. Now, that person is going to be our president, the person who got it. The person who said, "I'm for wars when they're necessary, but not dumb wars." So I'm not worried that Barack Obama can't listen to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and disagree. And frankly, they both have indicated some concerns they have about the decision they made.

BILL MOYERS: Senator, as the Reagan people used to say when they were populating the United States government with Reaganites, "Personnel is policy." Isn't there some concern on your part that a hawkish foreign policy that was followed the last eight years, with the support of many Democrats, may be the subliminal agenda of these people who are coming to the foreign policy establishment?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, as a progressive, I have a little concern about that. I do believe that the people we're talking about here, and others that are in the administration, understand the terrible problem that has come from the foreign policy that's been pursued with regard to Iraq, and not really understanding the global threat that actually exists out there. So I do have a little concern about it. But I do think and hope that the president will bring in progressives in one way or another to make sure that it's balanced. I think he needs to do that. But by itself, the fact that these two distinguished Americans are in these positions, people that I think really see the errors of the last few years, I think they've learned from those errors, and I do not think they're going to push a hawkish policy that is different from the fundamentally progressive attitude that Barack Obama has shown in almost every statement he's made on foreign policy. I feel good about the direction he wants to take this country. And I also think that if these folks don't follow his lead, they're not going to be in there any more, regardless of who they are.

BILL MOYERS: Given the fact that you've been saying we should withdraw from Iraq sooner than even Obama is saying this, how do we do that, given the political and humanitarian concerns in Iraq right now, which could easily turn to kind of a bloodbath of people who opposed whatever's going on there.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: We have to stay engaged on those things. We have to stay engaged in terms of-

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean engaged?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, we have to get our troops out of there. But that doesn't mean we just abandon the area. This is a mistake we've made before. We find things going badly militarily in Somalia, we just leave, lock, stock and barrel. We have nothing there. We get the job done in Afghanistan, work with, you know, the Al Qaeda people and all this, with regard to the Russians, and we just pull up stakes and we abandon the area. That's not what you do. You engage the countries in the region, and all the countries that have a tremendous interest in the stability of Iraq and the funding and activities, to fix the judicial system, to make sure the borders are secure, to have a decent effort to rebuild the country and to make sure that it gets the benefit of some of the changes that are made. That's the kind of engagement that has to continue, not having 150,000 Americans posted there. That isn't going to change the situation. It's not going to help. That country's ready to stand on its own now. And it won't be pretty in every case. But we as Americans need to keep our commitment to the Iraqi people. But it does not mean a military occupation of Iraq has to continue.

BILL MOYERS: What about Afghanistan? No empire that's ever gone in there has come out with its reputation intact, whether Alexander the Great, the Persians, the Russians, the British, all of them.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: It's amazing that people don't look at the lessons of history. These are the most ancient lessons. I mean, just the notion that invading Islamic countries and staying there for very long periods of occupation doesn't recognize the feeling of humiliation and anger that's created not only in the country that's invaded, but throughout the Islamic world. We're basically manufacturing our own enemies when we do that. Now, I thought it was necessary to go into Afghanistan. I thought it was unnecessary to go in Iraq. But the idea that you just stay there and stay there until things are exactly the way you think they ought to be, is an invitation to cause hatred not only of the government that's in power, for example, the Karzai government in Afghanistan, but also enormous resentment toward the United States. So I think we have to have a strategy that involves transitioning away from a military occupation into a multilateral effort to help Afghanistan be as stable as it can be. But it may never be a completely stable place. And we may have to simply think about how we contain that, rather than believing that we can do nation building in a place that has found it so difficult throughout time to have that kind of a government.

BILL MOYERS: You're probably best known to people around the country as the Feingold in McCain-Feingold, which everybody understands.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: McCain says that people think my first name's McCain.

BILL MOYERS: I think a lot of people, Republicans, wrote in "McCain Feingold" on their ballots. But you're known as a of campaign finance reform. And here we've just come through the most expensive campaign, federal campaign, president and Congressional, ever. Obama, the "New York Times" says this morning, raised $750 million more for his campaign than all the candidates in 2004 together. I mean, what happens now to the notion of — do we deep six the idea of campaign finance reform?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Absolutely not. Look, expensive is bad. But corrupt is worse. And the system that existed before John McCain and I passed our bill was one where members of Congress could call up union leaders, corporate leaders or individuals, and ask them for unlimited contributions, 100,000, 500,000, million dollar contributions. We got rid of that system. We turned that into a federal crime. You can't do that any more. What was the result? Well, it allowed a certain candidate to go to the internet. And to, instead of asking for unlimited contributions, to say, "Hey, I'm this type of candidate. Send in $10. Send in $20 through the internet." And it created a much more populist, much more democratic system. Now, I think there's still too much money in it. But we've gotten rid of one of the most corrupting elements of the system. And now, what we need to move on to is real public financing.

BILL MOYERS: Public funding?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Absolutely. The presidential system had a good public funding system for decades, until recently. And even though Senator Obama did not adhere to it, which I expressed my disappointment about at the time, he is a co-sponsor of my bill, along with Republican Senator Susan Collins, that would modernize the presidential funding system. And we're getting indications that we might get support.

BILL MOYERS: It must have broken your heart when he broke his pledge.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Didn't break my heart, but I wasn't happy about it. Look, this is politics, and things happen. And you have to look to the next battle. But we do need to fix the system. We also need public funding of Congressional and Senate races.

BILL MOYERS: But if it's politics always to say that a man's word, a woman's word doesn't matter in a primary, and we can change our mind if we want to when it suits us to do so, even though we've given our word?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: I have always found that a difficult thing in politics, when somebody says that they're going to go a certain way and they don't. Everybody's entitled, I suppose, to change their mind. I think Barack Obama has shown himself to be a consistent, honest person in almost every instance. I have great faith in his integrity. And I believe he will demonstrate his integrity on this issue by helping us pass the bill that he co-sponsored that would fix this system. Even though it may be to his advantage not to fix it, I believe that he will help us fix it in time for the time when he presumably will run for reelection. That's my faith and belief about him.

BILL MOYERS: You opposed Bush's and Paulson's $700 billion bailout. And now, as I read the papers, you are supporting the bailout of the Big Three in Detroit, the automobile industry. How do you explain the contradiction there?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: It's not a contradiction. Of course, I have to see exactly what's going to be in the bridge loans for the auto industry. Here's my view: This $700 billion bailout had no real rules to it. First of all, it gave Paulson unlimited power as Secretary of the Treasury to do whatever he wanted. Secondly, it didn't do anything for the homeowners, or the bankruptcy courts, to allow a bankruptcy court, to allow some adjustment of those mortgages. Perhaps most importantly, it didn't do anything about the abuses that led to this in the first place: the derivatives and the leveraging, and all these things. It was essentially just a giant gift.

My thinking is if we can do $700 billion for that, how can you not take 25 or 35 billion for companies that actually employ people on Main Street in the United States, including my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and say to them, "We want to keep a domestic auto industry." I am a person who believes we still need to make things in America.

We still need to have jobs that are both directly related to auto manufacturing and all the suppliers, and all the connected things. Maybe this isn't the right formula. But forcing the auto industry to come up with a decent plan, which is what's going on, is far more serious than what was done with regard to 700 billion. The idea you can't have 25 to 35 billion dollars for something that has to do with the working opportunities of average Americans, to me, is frankly, a little offensive, and against the average American citizen.

BILL MOYERS: You mentioned your home town of Janesville, Wisconsin. Your grandfather was a grocer there, as I understand it.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: That's right.

BILL MOYERS: And bought the first car that rolled off the assembly lines there?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: It's a bittersweet story, because we're maybe facing the closing of the plant. In 1920-

BILL MOYERS: Before Christmas, right? I mean, GM said they're going to close this-

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: I just got interviewed about it yesterday in "The Janesville Gazette". My grandfather, one room, wooden grocery store, with his little apron on, you can see all the prices from 1923 behind him. He's standing in front of the first truck. It says under, "I bought the first Chevy truck. Max Feingold." And so, yes, I am going to fight to preserve the auto industry in this country.

BILL MOYERS: But the government didn't bail out the grocery business. And the government didn't bail out the horse and buggy industry when its time had come and gone.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: I understand. And I realize that there has to be a limit to this. You have to make a judgment about that. We have to get away from these bailouts. We can't do this indefinitely. But this is a particular thing that I think would cause such a tremendous shock into our economy, that we have got to try to preserve the ability to make autos in this country. I can't imagine a strong economy in this country if we're not making automobiles in this country. We are not going to make it if we let the rest of the world make the real things that people make with their hands.

If we're going to have everything based on services and funny money on Wall Street, as opposed to the ability of people to have good paying jobs back in the home towns, in places like Wisconsin and Illinois and Michigan — if we're going to have that kind of economy, we are going to be subject to the whims of the rest of the world. We will not have an economy that protects the American worker. And this follows on, of course, these trade agreements, all of which I voted against.

I voted against NAFTA. I voted against GATT. I voted against most favored nation status for China. Because all these decisions are basically calculated to move jobs overseas for the benefits of large companies. And in fact, it has been devastating to the working people in my home town and my home state.

BILL MOYERS: There is a profound sense in this country that something truly dysfunctional has gone wrong with our system. It isn't working. And they don't hear anybody really addressing the deeper symptoms of that. That it's not working for regular people any more. What's your take on what's wrong with the American political system right now?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: I think the main thing is that all the distinctions — when journalists did their work and politicians did their work, and people in companies did their work, there were separations. There were conflict of interest rules. Everything wasn't all a revolving door, in a social life between New York and Washington. What I notice on some of these television interviews, is everybody all knows each other. And they can't even relate to the reality of the place like Janesville, Wisconsin. And the rules that have to do with banking, and the distinction between investment houses and banks. All of this stuff — everybody decided in the 1980s and 1990s that these were silly old rules. Well, in fact, they were rules that were always meant to create checks and balances, much like our own system of government. The economy itself needs checks and balances. And when you start breaking down the distinction, and people can move quickly between these things, making all kind of money, go into government, go back, it creates a series of loyalties that has nothing to do with your home state, but has to do, frankly, with the dollar and making money. And I think our country has been co-opted by those who have pushed for these kinds of changes in so many parts of our system.

BILL MOYERS: Do you really think Obama understands this?

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: I don't know. I think he does. But I think that's something I want to work with him on. Because there is a tendency in this country of people to think in terms of the elites that run the country, and not enough about the people who actually, every day, get up and have very hard jobs, and produce the food and produce the products. And I'm worried that especially, frankly, on the East Coast, even though I enjoy being here, that there's a lack of sensitivity to what's really going on on Main Street, America.

BILL MOYERS: Senator Russ Feingold, thank you for joining me on the Journal.

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Bill, it's a pleasure.