Feingold Seeks Strong Public Option in Health Care Reform

Howard Dean has a petition online where you can send a letter to your Senators telling them to support a public option in health care reform. Sen. Grassley needs to hear from you.

No more automatic pay raises for Congress

Russ Feingold (D-WI) only accept a pay raise after he wins reeclection. Every other year, Feingold returns the pay raise that Congress gives themselves. Feingold is fighting to end these automatic pay raises for member's of Congress.

I’m sure that you, and every single other person across our country, would like a job that gives you an automatic, few thousand dollar, pay raise every year. Doesn’t matter the state of your company, doesn’t matter how well you’ve performed, you just get the pay raise every year no matter what. Sounds great right? Currently, if you’re a member of the House or Senate, that’s what happens and after years of fighting this flawed, back-door pay raise system, we’ve finally made some progress on this issue.

As you may know, I don’t take pay raises during each of my six-year terms in office, and I return such increases to the Treasury Department. And I'm pleased that this year during a time of major economic woes Congress voted down a 2009 pay raise for itself. But trust me, after pressing this issue for a number of Congresses, that’s usually not the case, and if we don’t act, Congress is scheduled to get another raise come 2010.

Last evening, Senator Harry Reid and I were able to pass through the Senate legislation that ends the automatic pay raise system. If this legislation makes it through the House, and is signed by the President, that means that when Congress wants to give itself a raise in the future, it must do so through legislation, in the light of day.

But this bill has to make it through the House first and while I’m hopeful that members will do the right thing, I’m concerned that far too many still don’t get it.

Now is the time, when Americans in every state are hurting economically, when we all outraged by the taxpayer funded bonuses paid to executives at AIG, to once and for all end a corrupt automatic pay raise system that only spurs distrust with people around the country.

Feingold on Obama's Executive Order to Close Guantanamo and Ban Torture

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has been an outspoken critic of the abuses of the law by the Bush administration. Yesterday, Feingold wrote at the Huffington Post about Barack Obama's executive order to close Guantanamo and ban torture...

Just hours after his historic inauguration, President Obama has made history again, by signing executive orders that undo, with the stroke of a pen, some of the Bush Administration's worst mistakes. President Obama is off to a great start on restoring the rule of law, and he's giving the country the fresh start we desperately need after the last eight years.

President Obama has rejected the policies of the last administration, both in his words and in his actions. In short order, he has signed orders to close Guantanamo, suspend the military commission system, subject all interrogations to the guidelines in the Army Field Manual, end long-term CIA detentions, require humane treatment of detainees consistent with the Geneva Conventions, and guarantee the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all prisoners held by the U.S. government, and announced a return to the presumption of FOIA disclosure under the Clinton administration. That is a breathtaking list, and the beginning of change that is long overdue.

The new President's quick actions to end both excessive secrecy and flawed detention and interrogation policies are very encouraging. I have long opposed the Bush administration's policies in these areas. As chair of the Senate's Constitution Subcommittee, I held a hearing shining a light on the secret laws that last administration created - keeping OLC opinions under lock and key, for instance - and called for a major overhaul of these policies. I also held a hearing in September 2008 on restoring the rule of law, at which John Podesta and others testified about what changes should be made by a new administration. In December, I wrote then President-elect Obama urging him to take these and other vital steps to restore the rule of law. I applaud his quick action on these issues. It's a great sign of his commitment to working on the other issues that still need to be addressed, from the separation of powers to domestic surveillance and privacy.

Feingold Says Thank You for Action on FISA

From True Majority...

Feingold: Telecom Immunity Could be a Cover Up of an Impeachable Offense

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.”

Feingold and Dodd on the FISA Cave In

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.”

Feingold: Government in Secret

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.

Feingold Hiring For His Patriots Corps

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.

Feingold Votes for Obama

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."

Feingold explains FISA

From Open Left...

Feingold Disses Edwards, Still Considering Obama and Clinton

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 time frame 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 to run for President. It isn't a surprise , though, 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.

Still Undecided Part 2

With 2 weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses, I am still undecided. I am seriously considering 3 candidates and hope to see all 3 once again before the caucuses. I think I have the same problem as Chris Bowers at Open Left does...

If it were possible to combine the Richardson Iraq policy and blogger outreach with the Obama activism and background with the Edwards advisors and rhetoric and with the Dodd leadership in the Senate, then we might have something. Maybe we would just have Russ Feingold, who I supported behind the scenes for nearly two years before the primary ever began. And maybe that is my problem: I had a clear-cut top choice for a very long time (like, from the day Kerry conceded to the day Feingold announced he wouldn’t run), and that person didn’t run. Or maybe my desires for the progressive movement have moved beyond something that any single individual could ever offer.

Check out Still Undecided Part 1

Feingold to Vote Against Mukasey

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.

Feingold's Ally on Iraq

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.

Democrats Need to Stand On Principle and Show Strength on Iraq

Drew Westen, author of the Political Brain, explains why Democrats in Congress need to be stronger on Iraq policy and tells why they have failed so far.

The way to win the center on national security is not to try to craft centrist positions on national security. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, Americans want leaders who will decisively pull the trigger. But "pulling the trigger" today doesn't mean rattling our sabers almost as loud as the GOP, or complaining that we don't have the votes when we have the majority. Americans may not understand the subtleties of cloture, but they get the gist: that they handed the ball off to the party that's now in the majority, who they expected to run with the ball instead of consistently playing defense. The way to project strength on national security and to win back the Reagan Democrats who voted for Bill Clinton (despite his draft record) and flirted with the Democratic Party again in 2006 is to exude strength, particularly in the face of aggression, whether that aggression is from al Qaeda or from a bully in his bully pulpit.

Basically he says to grow a spine and stand on principle and people will respect you even if they don't agree with everything you say. There are too few Democrats actually doing this. Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, and Patrick Leahy are the ones that come to mind in the Senate.

Too many Democrats think they have to move to the center or think there is a magical Third Way. What these Democrats are actually doing is undermining their own principles by reinforcing the Right's arguments.

Two Questions from Feingold and Warner from the Petraeus Hearings

I was watching Hardball's coverage of General Petraeus testifying in Congress today and these two statements really stuck out at me.

The first one is by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) who said (emphasis added)...

I strongly supported the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, which served as a sanctuary for Al Qaida. The war in Iraq has been a terrible diversion from Afghanistan and from what should be a global fight against a global enemy. As this summer's declassified NIE confirmed, Al Qaida remains the most serious threat to the United States, and key elements of that threat have been regenerated or even enhanced. While our attention and resources have been focused on Iraq, Al Qaida has protected its safe haven in Pakistan and increased cooperation with regional terrorist groups.

So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq, but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat Al Qaida. That is the lesson of 9/11, and it's a lesson we must remember today, and I would say every single day.

The second statement comes from a question by Sen. John Warner (R-Virginia) where Warner asked if the Iraq War is making America is safer.

Here's the exchange...

"Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?

Petraeus paused before responding. He then said:

"I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."

That was, of course, a non-answer. And Warner wasn't going to let the general dodge the bullet. He repeated the question:

"Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"

Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.

To figure out what to do in Iraq, all we need to do is answer these two questions: Is the Iraq War helping our efforts to defeat Al Qaida and does the Iraq War make America Safer?

Unfortunately, it seems the answer to both is no.

My President Will Be...

From Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund...

Feingold: Democrats Must Do More Than Criticize Bush

Sen. Russ Feingold was appeared on the Young Turks radio show this week and spoke about his call to censure.

More on Feingold's Call of Censure

Sen. Feingold has issued a statement on his Senate website about the censure resolution he is planning on introducing...

“Censure is about holding the administration accountable,” Feingold said. “Congress needs to formally condemn the President and members of the administration for misconduct before and during the Iraq war, and for undermining the rule of law at home. Censure is not a cure for the devastating toll this administration’s actions have taken on this country. But when future generations look back at the terrible misconduct of this administration, they need to see that a co-equal branch of government stood up and held to account those who violated the principles on which this nation was founded.”

The Progressive Patriots Fund has sent out an email and has more information on the censure where Sen. Feingold says....

Regardless of whether you are for or against the impeachment of the President, Vice President, and other administration officials, Senator Feingold's censure resolution is a powerful way to hold this administration accountable.

Congress needs to stand up and condemn this administration for their actions.

Americans are demanding accountability and censure is a step in that direction.

It's time for the President and his administration to return to the law.

And finally, here is video of Sen. Feingold on Meet the Press talking about the censure resolutions.

Feingold to Introduce Censure of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales

Just now on Meet the Press, Sen. Russ Feingold has said he plans on introduce measures to censure President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Attorney General Gonzales for their...

...misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law.

Feingold said...

"I'm shocked by the president...I think we need to do something serious in terms of accountability, and that's why I will be shortly introducing censure resolutions of the President and the administration.

Feingold cited a quote that was previously on the show by National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and says...

This administration has assaulted the constitution. We need to have on the historical record some kind of indication that what has happened here has been....disastrous.

Feingold added that he believes the President might have committed impeachable offenses and cited a poll that showed nearly 50% of Americans believe impeachment proceedings should be brought forth. Feingold said a censure is a way to hold the administration accountable without bogging the Senate down in impeachment hearings.