Yes, that one member of the audience crossed the line a week ago by about her take on the Lewinsky scandal. But since she is a campaign surrogate speaking on her mom's behalf, she isn't immune to all scrutiny.
During a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, Chelsea Clinton falsely claimed that her mother was the first person to call the situation in Darfur a "genocide."
Actually, it was Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) who in March of 2004. Clinton said nothing about genocide before then, and it wasn't until May of 2004 when she finally that condemned the situation there.
This Tuesday, the Iraq war debate will take another interesting turn. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) wants the Judiciary Committee to of cutting off Iraq war funds:
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has scheduled a hearingnext Tuesday in his Judiciary Committee subcommittee to explore whetherCongress has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. militarycampaign in Iraq. The move comes as Congress prepares to vote on acongressional resolution opposing President Bush's escalation of thewar.
Feingold, a fierce war critic, will force Democrats to consider anoption many consider politically suicidal: cutting off funds for themilitary campaign in Iraq.
Politically speaking, what Feingold is doing is suicide. All of us want our soldiers out of there ASAP. So the question then becomes how do we achieve that objective? Holding these hearings would give the President an excuse to go on the attack against Democrats, which could buy him more time to stay the course. Yes, we have to fight this policy. However, like it or not, public policy is a gradualist's line of work. Over-stepping ourselves politically could buy the President an extra month of political capital on his war strategy, therefore ultimately prolonging the amount of time that our troops would remain in the line of fire. Harry Reid said it best:
Republicans "would like this debate to be as whether ornot we are going to be cutting off money for the troops," SenateMajority Leader Harry Reid recently told The Politico.
The President is looking for every excuse possible to shift the spotlight onto someone else. His approval rating is at 28%, according to . He is desperate. On Tuesday, Feingold's tactic might actually give the President extra breathing room.
I don't dislike Russ. He is one of the few remaining senators with a spine. We need more people like him. But you watch: this proposal, unless it is done one month from now, will be a net negative and buy the White House more time. We aren't quite there yet in terms of having the political capital to cut off funds. We can chip away at the Iraq policy little-by-little. Yes, it is frustrating. But if we want our troops our ASAP, then we had better not over-play our hand. We will get there eventually.
A bill that would create an independent arm to investigate Congressional ethics is meeting strong resistance from some.
Senators (D-IL) and (D-WI) have unveiled a major ethics reform bill that will create an independent body to keep tabs on members of Congress. The Office of Public Integrity will be to the Legislative Branch what the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is to the Executive Branch -- well, sort of. While the GAO deals more with policy, the Office of Public Integrity would focus squarely on the ethical conduct of Congress. But like the GAO, the OPI would act as an independent entity.
Until now, Congress has been allowed to investigate itself whenever there were any allegations of wrongdoing. Judging by the way that the House Ethics Committee gave a blind eye to Tom DeLay's ethical misdeeds, Barack Obama believes it is about time that the bar be set higher for lawmakers. Still, the Illinois Senator is worried about the that the bill is getting from some members of the Senate:
"A lot of members are concerned about the use of an independentcommission as a political club to beat them over the head," Obama saidat a news conference Monday as debate on ethics legislation opened.
But Senator (D-AR) thinks the Obama-Feingold legislation is not necessary:
"Our ethics process in the Senate works very well," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., another ethics committee member.
You will find that members of Congress who oppose the legislation receive a lot of special interest money. For example, , only 68.8% of money given to Mark Pryor came from individual donors. A whopping one-quarter of all Pryor's money came from PAC's. 34.8% of all that PAC money ($723,484) was thrown his way by large corporations -- most of which oppose ethics reform measures of this kind. On the flip-side, Barack Obama, who is sponsoring this legislation, received 90.9% of all his contributions from individual donors. Unlike Pryor, the Illinois Senator is not indebted to special interest groups.
Obama and Feingold already have put together a core group of supporters for this legislation:
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Claire McCaskill (D-MI)
Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
As you can see, many of the bill's supporters are freshman senators. But not in all cases. Both (D-PA) and (D-MT) that the existing rules are good enough:
“I would rather see the enforcement done by an existing body,†Tester said. “But there needs to be teeth in enforcement.â€
This ethics bill will be offered in addition to the one passed last week by the House, which was the broadest ethics package .
Ned Lamont, Russ Feingold and Howard Dean went out in full force on the Sunday talkshows and confronted Joe Lieberman head-on for using the latest terror threats as a pandering opportunity.
Joe Lieberman acting a lot like Dick Cheney. Let's look at the similarity between the comment Dick Cheney made last week and what former Democrat Joe Lieberman also said.
First, :
"And as I look atwhat happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunateand significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party ... I think there's a significant bodyof opinion that wants to go back -- I guess the way I would describe itis sort of the pre-9/11 mind set, in terms of how we deal with theworld we live in."
Now compare that with what said:
"If we just pick up (and leave Iraq) like Ned Lamont wants us to do, itwill be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted toblow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It willstrengthen them and they will strike again."
Other than the simplicity in their statements, the two are feeding into Ken Mehlman's belief that Lamont's victory reflected a defeatist attitude on the part of the Democrats. But just in case they didn't realize it, Connecticut voters, not Ned Lamont, decided the outcome. Either Cheney and Lieberman reject democracy, or they are clearly out of touch with a majority of taxpaying Connecticut voters.
On , Russ Feingold came out and defended Ned Lamont from Lieberman's attack:
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) responded toLieberman’s remarks. “Joe is showing with that regrettable statementthat he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get it,†Feingold said.
of the race:
"I know how hard this is for Joe, and he is a good person, but thetruth is I lost one of these races and I got behind my party's nomineeand I think that is what you have to do if you want to help thiscountry," Dean, former governor of Vermont, said on NBC's "Meet thePress."
and rebutted Lieberman's Cheney-like tactic of using national security to scare people:
"It surprised me," he said. "It seemed almost orchestrated. It's sortof demeaning to the people of Connecticut. … I thought the senator andthe vice president were both wrong to use that attack (strategy) on thevoters of Connecticut."
Yes, Connecticut voters -- you are exactly who Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman were attacking. They were trying to insult your intelligence. They think you don't understand anything about how to keep this country safe. This November, you can send Lieberman and Cheney the right message by kicking the bums out of Congress.
The Republicans have pretty much backed Lieberman in this race. When RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman was asked to set the record straight on Sunday's Meet the Press, he and would not endorse Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger. Gee, I wonder who Cheney, Mehlman and Rove are rooting for! --------------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
Let's take a break from the 2006 midterm elections for a moment. I know that just about every post on this blog for the last few weeks has focused on the Democratic bid to take back the Senate and House this November. But I'd like to address an issue that other progressive blogs -- especially the big ones like , and -- will have to deal with as the 2008 primaries approach (and yes, the Iowa Caucus is only 18 months away).
The unsettled debate among progressive blog authors is whether or not to officially endorse a candidate either right before or during the primaries. On one hand, if you do endorse a candidate, as a daily publisher of content you run the risk of being thought of as partial and unreliable. On the flip side, by not endorsing a candidate you are essentially keeping a secret from your loyal visitors -- because, let's face it, everyone following politics has a preference right before an election. After much thought, I have decided that once I have thoroughly made up my mind beyond a reasonable doubt, I will not hide that opinion from any of you. This decision might come as early as October of 2007 or as late as a few days before the vote in January of 2008.
For the most part, I think of the blogosphere as a breath of fresh air that is a sharp contrast from the filtered content that the mainstream media throws at us each day. It goes against the whole point of a blog for its author to think one thing and say another.
Obviously, after I make my endorsement (unless for some weird reason I don't like any of the candidates), I will do my best to be as impartial as I possibly can towards the other contenders. If I support "Candidate A," that does mean I will focus all my energy on trashing the living daylights out of the other candidates. In other words, there will be no personal attacks against other Democrats (unless I am responding to an attack that they make against me, of course).
With the exception of the unlikely possibility that Joe Lieberman would run for president in 2008, I do not think that any of the current 2008 Democratic hopefuls would make a bad president. For example, even though I have been sharply critical of Hillary Clinton, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh and John Kerry and Chris Dodd from time to time, I would still support any of them if they won the party's nomination.
As of now, I will say that I am leaning towards Barack Obama, Mark Warner, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, or Bill Richardson (assuming that all of them will run, even though a few probably won't). Obviously though, things will certainly change between now and then, and I do not expect to gravitate too close to any of those contenders for the time being.
So, as a little heads-up, just know that as 2008 approaches I will not have any hidden motivations when I write any post about a Democratic candidate. I think that all of the 2008 Democratic hopefuls have excellent leadership qualities that would help them lead our country in a more positive direction than it is today. Once I endorse a candidate right before the Iowa Caucus, you will know about it. The thirst to present unfiltered honesty is a large reason why I author this web site every day. Don't expect that to change anytime soon. ------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about the 2008 race: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
On NBC's Sunday talk-show Meet the Press, Tim Russert questioned possible 2008 presidential candidate Russ Feingold about the Democratic position on Iraq, following Dick Cheney's intense rhetoric last week. The Wisconsin Senator explained that getting bogged down in Iraq unfortunately has helped allow an Al Qaeda-friendly government to emerge in Somalia:
---------- Partial Transcript ---------
FEINGOLD: "Our number one moral responsibility is to protect the American people; to focus on those who attacked us on 9/11; to not be distracted into a situation where even the Administration did not have Iraq as one of the 45 countries that was connected with Al Qaeda...But the idea of standing up and keeping a military involvement forever in Iraq will actually weaken the American people's ability to go after terrorists, who frankly look like they are taking over Somalia right now. You know Tim, today it was announced that a guy named is now the head of the government that has taken over in Mogadishu, Somalia. He is on the State Department's terrorist list. He is known as an Al Qaeda operative, or somebody that is connected with Al Qaeda. While we are asleep at the switch; while we are bogged down in Iraq; while we are all focused on Iraq as if it is the be all and end all of our American foreign policy; we are losing the battle to Al Qaeda because we are not paying attention."
Although the with rivaling groups throughout the country, it is already setting up a anti-democratic government based on the strict teachings of the Sharia (Islamic law).
Feingold is right that we are currently on the defense in Iraq. Only when we change course and go on the offense against Al Qaeda in other countries can we crush the extremist network. A pragmatic foreign policy coupled with accountability and real leadership at home is the key to making our country more safe. Feingold articulated that very well. He understands, as all of us do, that the longer our forces remain in Iraq, the easier time Al Qaeda will have when it comes to recruiting radical followers. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , .
After Republicans stalled yesterday, the Senate is getting ready today to hold a fierce debate on the Iraq war, and ultimately vote on two resolutions. The first resolution is supported by Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democratic leadership. The second resolution, the one written by John Kerry and Russ Feingold, sets a specific deadline to remove all forces and will be voted on later in the day.
The first resolution is nonbinding, and asks the Administration to :
It would call for -- but not require -- the administration to begin "aphased redeployment of U.S. forces" this year, and would not set a firmdeadline by which time all forces must be out of the war zone.
Even though the resolution will obviously not pass, it is supported by almost all Democrats.
The second resolution is the more detailed one, and is -- which was why it will be voted on later in the day:
One proposal offered by Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusettsand Russ Feingold of Wisconsin would set a hard pullout deadline ofJuly 2007.
Many are criticizing John Kerry and Russ Feingold for offering this second resolution. But as John Murtha explained Sunday on Meet the Press, will not hamper the efforts to help the Iraqi government combat terrorism. For example, the air strike that killed Zarqawi was based out of Qatar, and the intelligence gathering that led to the air strike was conducted by Iraqis.
18 months from now, Iowa Democrats and independents will meet in precincts all over the state to determine who will emerge victorious in the 2008 Iowa Caucus. Not only is Iowa the first on the list of primary destinations, but last time around it was the most important. In 2004, John Kerry came from behind to surpass both Howard Dean and John Edwards to win Iowa, and he never looked back.
The earlier this month of likely voters in the 2008 Democratic caucus. Here are the results:
All those appearances in Iowa over the last year have paid off for John Edwards. It was as if the 2004 campaign never ended. Fittingly, as this poll was being talked about on Meet the Press yesterday, . He understands that the state is the key to a huge early advantage in the race for the Democratic nomination.
The death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi offers a great opportunity for the Democrats to do a better job outlining to the American people in this election year exactly what their foreign policy strategy really is. Senator Russ Feingold is onto something. Here is an excerpt from his column that was posted on the Huffington Post web site thie morning, where he calls for to fight terrorist cells across the globe:
The first step in creating a strong national security policy isrecognizing that our massive presence in Iraq weakens our nationalsecurity. Our Iraq-centric policies are diverting resources andattention from other places around the world where terrorist networksthat threaten the U.S. are operating. We need to redeploy troops fromIraq so that we can focus resources on global terrorist networks andthe conditions throughout the world that allow them to take root andthrive. I have repeatedly called for our troops to redeploy from Iraqby the end of 2006, and have filed an amendment to the Department ofDefense authorization bill - which the Senate will be taking up nextweek - that would give that deadline the force of law.
It's time to return to our true national security mission in thewake of 9/11 by crafting a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism.Our approach must be global, taking into consideration that our enemiescan move easily in places with little or no governance, and can use21st century technology to communicate, plan, and even execute attacksagainst us. This strategy must focus on developing strong partnershipswith countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Mali, focused notonly on security assistance, but on the development of a strong rule oflaw, respect for human rights, and fighting corruption.
A comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism must also addresscountries like Somalia. Failed states like Somalia are the breedinggrounds for terrorism and instability. We know that this East Africancountry is home to a range of terrorist and criminal networks thatoperate throughout the region. Yet, the U.S. government currently hasno strategy to eliminate the conditions that allow these terrorists totrain, equip, rest, and plan. Our budget for programs to counter theseconditions is a mere $2 million per year, excluding food aid. That'sroughly $1.6 billion less than we are spending on Iraq every week.
Some vision is always better than no vision at all. Russ Feingold, John Murtha, John Kerry and Wesley Clark have been the only Democrats to offer a comprehensive plan, as opposed to merely trashing the status-quo. If you think that the Administration and their Republican counterparts do not offer a strong long-term national security strategy, then say so and critique what is wrong about it. But in the end, be sure to lay down an alternative -- not just because it would help the Democrats in an election year, but more importantly because the United States is at a point where it needs a clearly defined set strategy to combat worldwide terrorism in this fast-paced information age.
Recent Comments