Will Russ Feingold Run?

Russ Feingold is playing coy about if he will run for Senate in 2012 or against against Scott Walker for governor.

“I am looking at it, but I feel I should take some time to think this through,” said Feingold, the former senator who was defeated last fall for re-election after three terms. “For me the question right now is whether it’s a good idea for me to go back into this sort of life.”

After spending 28 years in the Wisconsin Legislature and U.S. Senate, Feingold called his break from politics “a healthy one for me to be doing something different at this point in my life.”

Feingold said he has been approached by Democrats in Wisconsin about running either for Senate or for governor. Republican Gov. Scott Walker isn’t up for re-election until 2014, though Democrats may try force a recall election next year. The Senate seat will be open because Kohl, a four-term Democrat, plans to retire after 2012. Feingold has had little to say until now about his potential interest in the seat.

Asked which of those two jobs -- senator or governor -- held more interest for him, Feingold said “I don’t have any specific thoughts about the different offices.” He said his first decision is whether he wants to be a political candidate again, when “not being in office has certain appeals to it.”

Said Feingold: “I’m not down to the level of which office or when, but I realize I have to come to grips with whether I would be a candidate for Senate in 2012 in the reasonably near future.”

The New Progressive Alliance is seeking Feingold as a possible primary candidate against President Obama. There is zero chance Feingold would commit political suicide by running against Obama and the Democratic establishment.

If Feingold wasn't interested he would say he wasn't running. It sounds like Feingold is more interested in running against the unpopular Walker than another Senate run.

Russ Feingold on Disclosure and Transparency in Elections

So much for Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown being centrist Republicans. All 41 Republican Senators voted to not allow a floor vote on the Disclosure and Transparency in Elections bill. The bill would require 527 and other political groups to publicly disclose being behind ads. Obviously, there was no way Senate Republicans were going to let voters know that BP and the NRA are behind their ads.

Longtime campaign finance reform champion Russ Feingold sent out this press release.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

On Efforts to Block Disclosure and Transparency in Elections

Washington, D.C. – Today, a minority of Senators blocked the Senate from taking up the DISCLOSE Act, legislation requiring political advertisers to disclose their donors and stand by their ads, as well as barring foreign-controlled corporations from making political expenditures. Following the vote, Senator Russ Feingold, a cosponsor of the bill, released the following statement:

"It is very disappointing that a minority of senators decided to block the Senate from even considering this bill to increase transparency and disclosure in elections. While the bill is not perfect, it was our best chance to provide voters with adequate information about exactly who is behind the onslaught of political ads they can expect to see this fall. Instead, a minority of senators sided with wealthy special interests and wouldn’t even allow the bill to be debated, and potentially improved. While today was a setback, I will continue working to protect the integrity of our elections in the wake of the Supreme Court’s misguided Citizens United decision.”

Feingold: Constitutional Amendment For Senate Vacancies

Senator Russ Feingold is unhappy with the back door deal-making for how Commerce Sec. nominee Judd Gregg's vacancy is being filled. Feingold wants constitutional amendment allowing voters to decide Senate replacements. It is a good idea. The chances of the amendment getting tho-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of states are slim.

“I congratulate Senator Gregg on his nomination to be the next Secretary of Commerce. I served with Senator Gregg on the Budget Committee for many years and worked together with him to advocate several budget reforms. Moreover, his service for several years as Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State has given him a solid grounding in Commerce Department programs. He is well qualified for this position.

“But the apparent behind-the-scenes deal-making that went on to determine who will fill Senator Gregg's vacancy is alarmingly undemocratic. Once again, Americans will be represented in the Senate for nearly two years by someone they had no hand in electing. As the number of Senators appointed to their seats continues to rise, it’s increasingly clear that we need to fix this constitutional anachronism. It is time to pass a constitutional amendment to end appointments by governors and the political gamesmanship they encourage.”

The Constitution gives state Governors the power to select Senate replacements. Those replacements either step down or run in the next official election.

In Minnesota, state legislators Rep. Ryan Winkler and Senator Ann Rest introduced legislation to allow voters to decide Senate vacancies. Even if the bill passed, the Supreme Court would rule the bill unconstitutional. The Feingold bill is the most viable option.

NRCC Fearmongering on FISA Bill

I'm on the NRCC email list. It's painful reading, but occasionally I catch nuggets like this fearmongering message sent out by Chairman Tom Cole. The latest email is titled "The Terrorist Threat to America Never Expires."

Even though our intelligence agencies have helped us successfully avoid attacks on our soil, in a few days from now, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire. If Congress lets this bill expire, our intelligence personnel, both here and abroad, will be extremely handicapped and will have a harder time saving American lives from terrorist threats.

The President and Republican leaders in both the House and Senate believe it is long overdue for Congress to pass and send to the President a long-term bill that updates the FISA laws vital to our national security.

Do you agree with your Republican leaders that we need permanent FISA legislation?

American families deserve security and not uncertainty, and they understand that our terrorist surveillance laws help keep our country safe from attack. It speaks volumes about the national security priorities of congressional Democrats that they have failed to permanently close the terrorist loophole after six months. The time for excuses has expired, it's now time for action.

If you believe it’s time to draft responsible legislation that ensures that we quickly close the intelligence gap, sign this petition today.

Cole never mentions that the White House denied violating the Fourth amendment and spying on domestic calls. The Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. United States that national security and executive privilege does not allow the federal government to domesticly wiretap without a warrant.

Retroactive immunity would allow telecommunication companies to gather information and conversations on American citizens. A Mellman Group poll found 63 percent want to government to require a warrant before domestically wiretapping phone calls.

Support for this constitutional right is both deep and wide, cutting across every demographic segment. Whether they are old or young (age 60+ 61% warrants required, age 50-59 61%, age 40-49 66%, age 18-39 66%), more or less educated (college grads 67%, some college 65%, high school or less 57%), black or white (black 83% warrants required, whites 60%), upper class or lower (upper/upper-middle 63% warrants required, middle 66%, working/lower 57%) overwhelming majorities favor requiring warrants for government wiretaps of Americans’ international conversations. Eight-in-ten percent (80%) of Democrats, 56% of independents, and even half (50%) of the President’s own Republicans oppose tapping Americans’ international conversations without a warrant.

Public demand for requiring warrants for wiretaps of Americans’ international conversations also cuts across geography. Large majorities in every part of the country favor requiring warrants: 72% in the Northeast, 64% in the South, 62% in the West, and 57% in the Midwest. Both less religious voters (68% warrants required) and those who are very religious (59% warrants required) oppose wiretapping Americans’ international conversations without a warrant. The same is true of both households with veterans (58%) and non-veteran households (65%).

Public opinion is on the Democratic Party's side. That did not stop several Democrats from voting to extend FISA.

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV),
Evan Bayh (D-IN),
Daniel Inouye (D-HI),
Tim Johnson (D-SD),
Herb Kohl (D-WI),
Mary Landrieu (D-LA),
Claire McCaskill (D-MO),
Mark Pryor (D-AR),
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA),
Ken Salazar (D-CO),
Tom Carper (D-DE),
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD),
Jim Webb (D-VA),
Ben Nelson (D-NE),
Bill Nelson (D-FL),
Kent Conrad (D-ND),
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

No Democrat in Congress is arguing that terrorists should be protected from wiretapping. The argument goes to sheds when the Bush administration is forced to defend this assertion. The exchange between Russ Feingold and Alberto Gonzales is a perfect example.

Feingold: Do you know anyone in government who ever took that position?

Gonzales: No, but that is not what I said.

Feingold: It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I didn't have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.

Feingold: Oh, well it's nice that you didn't have us "in your mind" when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn't have Congressional Democrats in "mind" isn't significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the "TSP" did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I wasn't referring to Democrats.

The White House wants retroactive immunity because they are afraid what telecommunication companies will say about the administration in court. Bush may have foolishly thought going around the FISA court was protecting America. Bush is protecting his own self-interest. The President has made warrantless wiretapping and torture conservative values.

S.2248 Voted Down

The Russ Feingold amendment S.2248 is to "prohibit reverse targeting and protect the rights of Americans who are communicating with people abroad." The amendment only received 38 yea votes. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama dodged the controversial wiretapping issue by not voting.

Democrats voting against the Feingold amendment.

Jay Rockefeller
Dianne Feinstein
Tim Johnson
Mary L. Landrieu
Blanche Lincoln
Daniel K. Inouye
Mark Pryor
Ken Salazar

As usual, Joe Lieberman broke from the Democratic caucas. Joementum is stumping for McCain. There is less reason to let Lieberman chair the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In other exciting news: John "the Maverick" McCain did not vote on S.2248 or the economic stimulus bill. The latter bill failed to pass a filibuster 59 to 40. Harry Reid changed his vote for parliamentary reasons. So the tax rebate bill can be voted on again.

Political courage is in short supply. But the media can still call McCain a maverick.

Russ Feingold On Michael Mukasey

Senate Judiciary member Russ Feingold will vote against the Michael Mukasey nomination.

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.

That is good news. Senate Democrats shouldn't be a rubber stamp for Bush. If Mukasey can't give a straight forward answer about waterboarding then he doesn't deserve to be the nation's top law enforcement attorney.

Feingold Serves Gonzales

Here is a fascinating exchange between Senator Russ Feingold and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The latter explains he left the performance evaluation decisions of the U.S. Attorneys to others in the Justice Department.

"Well, so little to do with the basis for the decision or why it was done," said Feingold. "You really had no basis for telling the American people in your USA Today op-ed of March 7th that these U.S. attorneys had lost your confidence, did you?"

The whole video of the exchange is worth watching.

Hat tip to Lindsay.