Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Feingold Will Vote to Protect Wall St. from Financial Reform

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:36 AM
Original message
Feingold Will Vote to Protect Wall St. from Financial Reform
Feingold Will Vote to Protect Wall St. from Financial Reform

Sen. Feingold is continuing to do the bidding of his friends on the Republican side of the aisle and will vote to filibuster the Financial Reform Bill. He claims he opposes the bill because it does not go far enough. Feingold and his loyal supporters consider that a victory. Those that have to operate in the real world know that his vote is a vote for the status quo.

Feingold has become one of the most reliable Republican votes in the Senate. In the current session, Feingold has voted with the Republicans 22.16% of the time. That ranks him the 5th most conservative Democrat in the Senate. Progressive Punch also does a ranking based on what they determine to be crucial votes. Feingold proves to be an even bigger enemy of the Democratic agenda when the votes really matter. He votes with the Republicans 37.33% of the time, ranking him the 4th most conservative in the Democratic Caucus. The list of Senators with a better voting record reads like a netroots hit list Specter, Baucus, Pryor, Landrieu. Joe Lieberman, the most hated man in the caucus, votes with the Democrats 84% of the time on crucial votes and 89.5% of the time overall. At this point, Feingold has more in common with Scott Brown than Sherrod Brown.

Russ Feingold likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Paul Wellstones legacy. Those of us who admired Paul Wellstone and understood his philosophy find the Feingold/Wellstone comparisons offensive. Wellstone fought for liberal principles and wasnt afraid to criticize bad policy and bad bills. Thats where the similarities end. Wellstone understood the basic fact that all no votes are equal. He understood that a pragmatic half of a loaf was better than the purity of no loaf at all. As his friend writes:

More here:
http://bluewavenews.com/2010/06/28/feingold-will-vote-t... /
------------------------------------

If he votes with the Republicans that much of the time, even more than Leiberman, who some loathe around here, I really question his sincerity in refusing to vote for the bill because it doesn't go far enough. We need Wall Street Reform NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is actually shameful. Russ will have some 'splainin to do back home.
I said this earlier tonight and was assailed for it. Russ sides with Repubs nearly 40% of the time, and is hailed as some liberal stalwart, while the president merely mentions "reaching out" to the other side, and is labeled a corporate sellout. What is wrong with this picture?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I know!! Right?
It appears that alot of people think that Feingolds actions are shameful too, just look at the unrecs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. It can never be worth passing a weak bill.
This isn't something that can be "fixed later".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Really? Legislation does it all the time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Not on anything involving Big Finance.
Face it, this bill is a permanent victory for the rich, and even bothering to try to pass it means giving up our dignity as a party.

"Victory in name" is never of value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Really? Wall Street is above the US Laws? Who knew?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
94. Wow! I just confirmed his voting record, and I have even more respect for him!

It turns out that he voted against EVERY major deregulation bill since the early 90s! He always fought against the very policies and legislations that enabled the financial crisis.

Standing Up to the Unholy Alliance Between Washington and Wall Street
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-russ-feingold/standin...

Shortly after I came to the U.S. Senate we considered a national interstate banking bill, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act of 1994, which accelerated the concentration of financial assets, and the creation of "too big to fail" firms. I was one of only four senators to oppose that legislation. Five years later, I was one of only eight Senators to oppose the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall and paved the way for this disastrous recession, which has been an economic nightmare for so many Americans.

Those two measures -- the 1994 law and the 1999 law -- accelerated the trend toward increased concentration of financial assets, aggravating the problem of "too big to fail." Before those two laws were enacted, the six largest U.S. banks had assets equal to 17 percent of our GDP. Today the six largest U.S. banks have assets equal to more than 60 percent of our GDP.

Ultimately, it was the threat of the failure of the nation's largest financial institutions that spurred the Wall Street bailout. I opposed that measure as well, in part because it was not tied to any fundamental reforms of our financial system that would prevent a future crisis and the need for another bailout. We could have had a much tougher reform package if the bailout had been tied to such a measure.

Every single one of those bills caved to Wall Street and the biggest financial interests, and so does the current regulatory reform bill. Economist Dean Baker called this bill a "fig leaf," and former IMF Economist Simon Johnson has slammed the bill's failure to address "too big to fail." These experts paint an accurate picture of this bill's failings, and frankly those failings shouldn't come as a surprise. Many of the critical actors who shaped this bill were present at the creation of the financial crisis. They supported the enactment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, deregulating derivatives, even the massive Interstate Banking bill that helped grease the "too big to fail" skids. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the final version of the bill looks the way it does, or that I won't fall in line with their version of "reform."

This bill caves to Wall Street interests, it doesn't meet the test of preventing another financial crisis, and it won't get my vote.



He is a true hero and he's been consistently fighting for the interests of the regular working people.


(Now the question is if he's going to pull a Kucinich on this one.)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
118. You have no basis for your statements.
Progress in many areas has been made, and will continue, incrementally:

civil rights
environment
health care
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
142. Agreed! Feingold deserves kudos on this n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. We will see if he has a Kucinich moment and does the right thing at the last minute
His logic is simply flawed. For example, if I was an anti-abortion purist who wanted all abortions in America banned, would I vote no on a bill that only bans some abortions and imposes more restrictions upon others? Especially if the alternative was no bill at all? That would be poor legislative strategy, which is what he is doing here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. bluestate, I sure hope he does the right thing here
Your analogy is great!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. All you care about is "victory in name"
We saw how little that was worth on healthcare(when we ended up passing the insurance industry's wet dream legislation).

There can't be any good reason to pass any more watered-down bills. Watered-down bills stay watered-down forever these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Do me a favor, don't tell me what I profess to care about
I will tell you that I care about getting much needed reform done NOW! This is better than sitting on our backsides and letting Wall Street run wild. A better bill can come later, but right now I want ACTION!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Only RADICAL change was worth passing.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 01:24 AM by Ken Burch
There's nothing in any "moderate" legislation that ever slows down the banksters.

Slight change is never "action".

There's nothing but slaps-on-the-wrists in this. Every pinstripe will just laugh this off, just as the medical industry laughs about making the healthcare bill meaningless.

The moral is...this is what happens when you tell the activists and the base to shut up and leave it to "the pros". The pros always fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Well get a "Radical" Congress then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. Some of us are working for that.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 01:30 AM by Ken Burch
You can't get real change by settling for less. With this AND healthcare, that leaves nothing at all that hasn't been pissed-down-to-nothing, and done so with the cooperation of Rahm and the Admin.

Centrism is NOT "change". Neither are tiny increments.

Look at how well "centrism" "responsibility" and "incrementalism" are doing in getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Good, this is a perfect example as to why we need to keep working on that
Until we lean more to the left, we will never get everything we want. This bill is all we are going to get in the meantime.
I'm a realist, I would love a better bill. That is just not realistic at this point, with the Congress we have now. This is Progress, not a slam dunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. Feingold is a member of congress.
DUH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. But he isn't Radical
DUH! Otherwise he wouldn't vote with the Repubs that much of the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. He doesn't vote with the Republicans much of the time.
Lame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Yeah 33 + % isn't much
on crucial votes no doubt :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. LOL! Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time!
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 02:08 AM by girl gone mad
:rofl:

How dumb do you think we are?

Obama's votes were in line with President Bush's position 40 percent of the time in 2007.

"Obama told a TV interviewer that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush."

In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time.

You wanna revise your statements??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
107. Any proof of this assertion?
It's not black or white and all or nothing. Regulation is not like that.

You'd have opposed Medicare, since it does not cover everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #16
71. But you just told us what Feingold's motivations were ...
... he's not standing for his ideals, he's doing the bidding of his republican friends. How do we know that Ken doesn't have the same magical ability to see into the hearts of others that you think you have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #71
127. No I didn't Nice try though really.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 06:16 PM by SunsetDreams
I didn't write the article, so those words are the authors.

What I did say is it causes me to question his reasoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #127
160. My bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Russ, I love ya, but DAMN! And this goes for you, too, Kuch.
How long have you been doing this? You fight to make it the best bill you can. No, you're not going to get everything you want. Yes, EVERY bill brought to the floor could be better.

But when it gets down to the wire, ya gotta vote for what ya can get.

If ya think ya can get better - ok. Then fight for it. But if you want a Ferarri but all you can afford is a Chevy, well, a Chevy is better than walking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. love the analogy john
"if you want a Ferarri but all you can afford is a Chevy, well, a Chevy is better than walking"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. There are NO gains in this bill.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Dang,
this really got to ya didn't it? You are responding to every post I make on here to someone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
35. this bill isn't a Chevy; its a Ford Pinto.
right when the economy is about to go into recession again they are gonna pass this crap bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Hey those got great gas mileage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #38
52. I had a friend in college that had a Pinto with a Rolls-Royce grill.
Actually, he wasn't really a friend. He was a rival. But I ended up engaged to the girl! But it didn't work out. But it was a mutual break-up. As a matter of fact, I was trying to think of a way to break-up with her when she broke-up with me! Years later, when I was regretting our break-up a mutual friend help me get back in touch with her. After a long conversation, my final thought was "Damn! I'm glad I didn't marry her!"

Anyway, I always thought that was a pretty cool car. Not what I would have wanted, but I wouldn't have been upset for having to "settle" for it. Which brings me to al old Stones' tune:

"You can't always get what you want,
But if you try sometimes, you just might find,
You get what you NEED!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #52
63. LOL
I think we all have those stories we could tell.
Love the Stones tune. There is nothing wrong with a pinto, my sister used to have one in her younger days. It wasn't much in the looks department, but it got great gas mileage, and at least she was able to get to where she needed to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
153. Pintos also had an unfortunate tendency to burst into flames
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #35
50. It's still better than walking. And let's be honest, we do run the risk
of a double-dip recession or even a long depression. This bill doesn't address that at all. That is another matter entirely. When the next Recession occurs it will be for different reasons that none of us anticipated. BUT, if this bill passes it will be for DIFFERENT reasons.

There is no guarantee against the future. All we can do is learn from our mistakes. This bill helps us from repeating the same mistake again.

Notice that I didn't say GUARANTEES that we won't make the same mistake - only that it HELPS.

This is real life. There are no guarantees. You do what you can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
58. Thanks! Although I'm sure that there are some "purists" here
That will say "well, you should be walking, anyway!"

The closest store is 7 miles away. My work is 35+ miles away, one way. I would love to work from home, but my job requires me to be on-site and face-to-face. I would LOVE to be able walk or bike wherever I need to go, but it simply isn't practical. As it is, I have 20 acres of woods and another 40 acres of "easement" property that I am protecting.

If it weren't for me, this beautiful acreage that I don't own - but that owns me - would be "development".

It's hard to explain, but when I first moved here the woods "called" to me. My house needs lots of improvements that I can't afford, but I live here anyway. There were no birds here, but with sunflower seeds and simple Hummingbird nectar they have returned - which restored a balance that was lost.

I'm sorry that I have to use carbon-based fuels to maintain "Hummer's Haven" as I like to call my little piece of heaven. I wish I had a choice.

I do try to do what I can, regardless. But there is only so much you CAN do!

And that is my message to ALL members of the Congress.

There is only so much you can do. But when you see the chance, then fucking DO it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
32. He's been fighting for better. The problem is that..
Obama has only been willing to negotiating with Scott Brown and other Republicans to weaken reform.

In fact, they went even further than Scott Brown asked them to in an effort to appease him.

Things that make you go "hmmmmm..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #32
48. Excuse me? So now it's all Obama's fault?
Unbelieveable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #48
61. He could have tried to get Feingold's vote.
All he would have to do is stand up to the banks.

He went the other direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
85. We got single payer too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
68. No, this was a bill that was only ever intended to be basic transportation to get from A to B
The exotic Italian sports cars were never under consideration but after the car was totaled out a couple years ago we didn't replace it and have been getting by on rides.

When we finally get out the bargain mart and start looking for some kind of wheels but some people seem to just want to buy something no matter if it gets us where we need to go or not.

Now we are hearing that a fucking Huffy is too crazy and that a nice dorm fridge "can be built upon later".

I don't deny the little ice box will be handy but it does not help with the transportation issue at all but we have folks crying that someone insists we at least get a bike, preferably a scooter since the trip is so far but at least a bike and we got a pep squad with their knickers bunched because the dorm fridge is SOMETHING. They care exactly 0% about actually dealing with the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
72. I see know evidence that Feingold requires getting "everything" he want's ...
... it could be he's very willing to compromise but this much compromise is too much for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. Lawmakers dump bank bill's fee to woo GOP
Haven't we been down this path before, and what did we get out of it if anything?

Lawmakers dump bank bill's fee to woo GOP

House-Senate conference commitee acts after Brown's objection


WASHINGTON Top Democratic House and Senate negotiators who worked out a deal on a sweeping overhaul of financial regulations regrouped Tuesday to eliminate a $19 billion fee on banks that had threatened to derail the legislation.

Eager to salvage one of President Barack Obama's legislative priorities, lawmakers replaced the bank fee with money generated by ending the $700 billion bank bailout and by increasing bank premiums on deposit insurance.

The bill's fate was thrown into doubt this week following the death of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and after Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts vowed to abandon his support for the bill if it retained the assessment on large banks and hedge funds. The money would have been used to pay for the costs of the legislation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38000701/ns/politics-capito...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Oh is that why they lost Republican support for it then?
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 01:18 AM by SunsetDreams
The act of assessing or an amount (of tax, levy or duty etc) assessed; An appraisal or evaluation

"Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts vowed to abandon his support for the bill if it retained the assessment on large banks and hedge funds."

"The legislation would rewrite financial regulations by putting new limits on bank activities, creating an independent consumer protection bureau and adding new rules for largely unregulated financial instruments"

"Besides Brown, Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, both of whom also voted for the Senate bill last month, said they also had qualms about the bank assessment that negotiators inserted into the bill last week."

Seems to me they are not wooing, they are losing Republicans


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bullshit. A weak bill is not a victory.
When something gets this watered-down, it can't be worth passing anymore.

LESS than half a loaf is defeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
12. How's that grandstanding working out for
you, Russ?

This is Gold.. "Russ Feingold likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Paul Wellstones legacy. Those of us who admired Paul Wellstone and understood his philosophy find the Feingold/Wellstone comparisons offensive. Wellstone fought for liberal principles and wasnt afraid to criticize bad policy and bad bills. Thats where the similarities end. Wellstone understood the basic fact that all no votes are equal. He understood that a pragmatic half of a loaf was better than the purity of no loaf at all. As his friend writes:.."


Well, well, well..do tell! Wellstone was "Pragmatic"..just like our President Obama. Sweet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
20. Of course. For some reasons, people on the left actually believe that he is a "man of principles"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. If Feingold voted for this bill, he'd be giving up ALL his principles
There's no way he could vote for a watered-down bill and STILL work, with any credibility, for a real bill later.

Voting for this bill is caving-in to Wall Street. Why can't you see that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave29 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. why is it that those who are blind demand others see?
it's not that we don't get the words coming out of your mouth, it's that we disagree with them, wholeheartedly. We hear you, we see what we see, and you are the one screaming that we are blind. You can demand all you want, and lash out all you want. You don't see it as progress.... too bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #27
158. No WE don't see it as progess ,TOO BAD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
22. Blue Wave News...
written by a guy named Tony who won't even include his last name. Do I have this right? Tony conveniently recruits the deceased Paul Wellstone to his cause of smearing Feingold's principled stand. It's too bad Wellstone is not around to debunk this trash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #22
40. About Blue Wave
What is the purpose of this site?
Blue Wave News is a community of Democrats working to further liberal causes, expose untruths, and draw attention to important local, national, and global issues. In true Democratic fashion, our blog is a big tent, welcoming individuals with diverse backgrounds, cultures, expertise, and opinions. Were happy to engage with citizen journalists, liberal activists, critical thinkers, and other like-minded pragmatists to educate ourselves, discuss issues, and find ways to be more active in our communities. At Blue Wave News, we support the Democratic Party and value smart discourse, honesty, inspiration, and knowledge. As avowed liberals, we believe an approach that incorporates real-world factors offers the best opportunity to realize our goals.

Staff
Elise Owner, Managing Editor, Writer

Leanne Owner, Design Editor, Writer

Tony Owner, General Manager, Writer

askew Writer

Nancy Writer

Pixie Writer

Rock Writer

M.Sheridan Writer

wmtriallawyer -Writer
http://bluewavenews.com/about/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. You're talkin garbage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #46
51. If you would have clicked on the link
you would have seen that it wasn't my "garbage" as you put it, so I guess another Democratic site purpose is "garbage" to you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
117. Gar-ba-DJA
heavy on the -DJA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
92. And guess where "Blue" Wave "News" is located?


Well whattya know? Another fine product of Message Discipline LLC :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #92
114. *OUCH*
Touch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #114
128. not really an OUCH moment
Just more of that OMG OH KNOWS It's Chicago, they are mean in them parts you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
26. What a piece of shit article.
"Will Vote to Protect Wall St. from Financial Reform"

Suuure. Standing up for real reform = voting for Wall Street.

And licking Scott Brown's asshole all year long = taking on Wall Street.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Real reform is not going to happen with the congress we have right now
That's the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Then there is no point to continuing the charade.
Passing a bill to say we passed a bill is stupid.

Let it die and use the need to pass reform to hammer Republicans in the mid-terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. oh yeah lets let it die for political purposes.
I'm so sick of anyone D or R doing something for political reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. "I'm so sick of anyone D or R doing something for political reasons."
That's the very definition of passing a hollow bill posing as a fix to our very real financial crisis.

Come spend some time in the economy forum, in the daily stock market watch thread or the weekend economist thread. Talk to people who understand economics and finance. You might learn a thing or two and see why this bill is so despised by progressives and true moderates who have been working so hard for real reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. "you might learn a thing or two" LOL
Personal attacks never support ones argument.

Have a nice day :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. That's not a personal attack.
I learn a thing or two every day, too.

I don't know what your credentials are on economics, finance, Wall Street or banking reform, because I have never seen you in the places where these things are discussed on a daily basis here on DU. You haven't demonstrated to me that you have even a rudimentary understanding of the issues, and until you do, its hard to give much consideration to your position with respect to Feingold's vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Uh hum....
(taps on shoulder) What happened here? Why did you and o.p. abandon your handiwork here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #41
115. Personal Attack???
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #37
95. You mean like passing a massive bailout of a corrupt insurance industry
and calling it "health care reform"? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #95
155. lol
If that's what you think it is, apparently you have lots of money, and are not in the group who needed it most. They now have access to health care coverage. Did it go far enough? of course not. Why did the insurance industry need to be "bailed out"? They already are screwing the insured, and uninsured right and left. That is a right wing talking point I might add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #26
43. Upset that it didn't come from wsws.org? And talk about asshole lickin'.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. What does that even mean?
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 02:29 AM by girl gone mad
Speak English, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. Make Me!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Okay, you have nothing useful to say.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. "Ignore", the last refuge of a scoundrel? Goodbye, it's been real. NOT!
:hi: I wish I could give you a parting gift. :rofl: You got pwned in two separate threads, you're embarrassed. You won't be able to see my responses to you, but everyone else will. That's just as bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. I got "pwned"
Yes, indeed.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. Hey, didn't you just tell me 10 mins. ago "welcome to my ignore list"?
So, among your many deficiencies, you don't skirt the truth as well, do you? Make up your mind..ggm...or at least do the best you can. There...There...I understand. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. Well I'm crushed. You have cut me to the quick. Where's my fainting couch?
Oh, the vapors. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #65
81. Quck, somebody get the smellin salts!!!! And the clutchin pearls!!!!!
Can't have the vapors without the clutchin pearls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #81
88. Did you take my pearls? I cannot find my pearls!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. I bet they slipped into the cushion of your your faintin couch
the last time you had a fit of the vapors. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #90
99. Good answer, but what about the smelling salts? Have you seen my smelling salts?
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. Here they are but I warn you, they're pretty strong...
:nuke:

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Industrial strength...eh?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. ...
:hide:

yeah, she says sheepishly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #62
145. I don't mean to get involved in this (you're handling yourself beautifully, TD)
but I just absolutely LOVE it when someone screams "I'm putting you ignore!!one!" and then two days (or in this case 5 minutes) later "mistakenly" responds to one of your posts. I mean, if you are going to take the time to announce that you're putting someone on ignore as if they or anyone else gives a hot, fresh damn, how hard is it to click the Red X and actually do it???

I really, really love it when that happens. Classic comedy, right there... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
54. What ridiculous and intelligence-insulting garbage.
To smear Feingold as some sort of a "reliable Republican vote" is just vile. To call him "the biggest enemy of the Democratic agenda" is.... well, creepy as hell.

His record speaks for itself; he has more conscience, guts, principles and integrity than probably anyone else in the Senate.
(Paul Wellstone imediately comes to mind...)


* Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when first voted on in 2001. (He also voted against the renewal in 2005 and 2009).

* Feingold was one of 28 US senators to vote against the Iraq War Bill in 2002.
He became the first senator to call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and urge that a timetable for that withdrawal be set.

* In 2006, Feingold introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure President Bush for illegal wiretapping on Americans in violation of FISA. Feingold again called for Bush's censure in July 2007 for his management of the Iraq war, accusing him of mounting an "assault" against the Constitution.

* etc. etc. etc. Always a strong advocate for civil liberties, human rights, universal health care, campaign finance reform, environmental protection, Social Security and New Deal policies, fair (not free) trade, and progressive policies. Always anti-war, anti-deregulation, anti-privatisation, anti-NAFTA, anti-corporate welfare, anti-lobbying/corruption in government, etc.


He's the biggest advocate of financial regulation, so... if that bill is so bad that he won't even vote for it... that clearly indicates that the "reform" is a worthless (and possibly even harmful) piece of crap. Oh, and don't forget, he voted against Geithner and the whole NAFTA/Summers/deregulation thing. Feingold is one of the very few Senators who can be actually trusted to defend the rights of the working people, and to represent the American people, not banks and corporations.

Paul Welstone would certainly be proud of him.


"Russ Feingold likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Paul Wellstones legacy. Those of us who admired Paul Wellstone and understood his philosophy find the Feingold/Wellstone comparisons offensive."

That whole ridiculous smear of a post is offensive, quite frankly. This is truly the most disgusting OP I've seen in a long time.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. Yeah he did some good things, but in this bill, not so much
I'm just...what's the saying around here? Holding his feet to the fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #55
67. Why hold Feingold's feet to the fire.....
when there are are so many others who deserve the same for taking the "good" part of reform out of this legislation? Russ is sticking to principle, a little something that more Democrats should be doing.

Personally, I applaud him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. "Most Disgusting"? You feel that this article slanders a good Dem, right?
Hmmmmmm.....If only that sentiment were applied equally. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #54
69. Same Here, It's Bullshit (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #54
163. well-said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
66. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
70. "Feingold has voted with the Republicans 22.16% of the time."
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
73. or to protect Americans from bullshit masquerading as reform?
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 08:18 AM by stray cat
however americans like chasing shiny balls congress throws for them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
74. From looking at the votes, there are patterns - it may be that Feingold is more a libertarian than a
liberal. He is clearly on iconoclast, who is willing to take lonely positions.

Here's my take on the reason that he was so loved in the Bush years, and people are questioning him now. He said of the original Patriot Act that he agreed with 80 percent of it. He worked with like minded Senator to fix those parts, But, when no more changes had adequate support, the other Senators in the same position worked to put in a sunset clause and voted for it. The 80% contained important provisions like legislation to deal with international money laundering.

Feingold is being consistent - in the Bush years he voted against many things because he strongly disagreed with parts of the bill. Now, when all the legislation starts with the Democrats, he does the same thing - and votes against Democratic legislation.

Months ago, when an organization that called itself "progressive" was posted giving Senator Kerry a pretty mediocre score and Feingold one of the highest, I looked into where there votes differed. (I knew before I started that it was their designation of "good" votes that had to be the problem as Sherrod Brown had the same score as Kerry.) Here was what I wrote then:

I decided to look at where they differed in the first half of last year (I started with the intent to look at all - but after a half year, it was tedious and patterns were clear. Here is the record of ALL votes. The list below contains every disagreement. I have rearranged them to lump votes on related issues together.

Confirmation of Geitner - Feingold, who voted for Condi Rice etc "because the President should have his choice" voted NO Here, Kerry is giving an Obama nominee the benefit of the doubt that Feingold gave Condi Rice, who was not honest in her SFRC hearing. That said, this is the one vote I agree with Feingold over Kerry on.

Votes that reflect that Feingold is more fiscally conservative:
4 Republican (and one by Feingold) stimulus amendments:
Coburn amendment to eliminate money for Hollywood - Feingold and many conservative Democrats voted for, Kerry against
Feingold amendment to increase accountability - again, Feingold was with Republicans and a few conservative Democrats.
Coburn amendment that was said to eliminate waste - Feingold voted with the Republicans.
Graham amendment on home foreclosures in TARP - Feingold voted with the Republicans
Grassley amendment - Feingold voted with the Republicans.
Budget Amendments
Coburn amendment for competitive bids - Feingold for, Kerry agaisnt
2 Colburn amendment on earmarks - Feingold for
motion to yable Vitter amendment to repeal automatic Congress pay raises - Kerry for, Feingold against
Reed amendment to use the remaining TARP fund for the benefit of consumers - Kerry - for, Feingold - against
Vitter amendment to use remaining TARP funds towards the deficit - Feingold -for

Feingold voted against: the omnibus appropriations act with the Republicans and against the
supplemental budget- the bill to invoke cloture and the bill itself (Senate and conference report)- Feingold - 4 noes

Feingold voted three times to weaken gun control
Ensign amendment that cut back DC gun laws - Feingold for, Kerry against
Coburn amendment to "keep people safe in National Parks" by allowing them to bring guns - Feingold for
Gregg amendment to require various forms print info on the national dept - Feingold for
Wicker amendment that let people take guns in checked baggage on Amtrack - Feingold for

Foreign policy votes - these incidentally surprise me because I have watched the SFRC for years. I suspect that Feingold voted for the AIPAC ones because he is up for re-election. They all failed incidentaly due to Kerry's leadership:
Inhofe amendment against the UN - Feingold for
Three counterproductive Kyl amendments against Iran/Egypt/Gaza/Hamas that Kerry and Lugar successfully defeated - here Feingold backed AIPAC and Kerry didn't.
To strike the provision funding IMF - Kerry and Lugar leading the fight against this, Feingold for

environment related bills - here I agreed 100% with Kerry
Omnibus Public Land Management bill 2009 cloture vote - Feingold was the ONLY Democrat to vote against it - but both than voted for the bill when cloture succeeded.
to waive the CBA on Whitehouse's amendment for a deficit neutral fund for clean energy - Kerry for
to prohibit reconcilation for cap and trade (Johanns bill) - Feingold for, Kerry and Boxer strongest against
Graham amendment - to protect middle class from an energy tax - Feingold for, Kerry against
Bond amendment - anti future climate change bill if it affects coal - Feingold for, Kerry against

Fairness Doctrine Here, I am with Kerry

Demint amendment to prevent the FCC from ever promulgating the fairness doctrine - Feingold FOR, Kerry, AGAINST
Thune amendment to prohibit funds to the FCC to repromulgate the fairness doctrine - Feingold for

earmarks - Feingold seems to have McCain's phobia of earmarks - though an out in the open ear mark very often funds good and needed projects Kerry's stand even under Bush for a legal line item veto where the set of strikeouts would require approval is a better way than not having earmarks.
Coburn anti earmarks amendment to public works bill - Feingold for
DeMint Amendment to implement "Obama's earmark reforms" - Feingold - for (along with Lieberman, Mccasgill, Bennet and Republicans)
Johnans, Vitter and DeMint motions to instruct the conferees - Kerry no, Feingold yes - it passed
Thune amendment - to require any repaid TARP funds to reduce the authorization limit - Feingold for
McCain amendment attacking an earmark - Feingold for
Feingold amendment to require no earkmarks for disaster bill - Kerry against

National security:
Mccain amendment to eliminate the Over-the-road Bus security act - Feingold for
DeMint amendment to require at least 700 miles of fence on SW border by Dec 2010 - Feingold for


Others that don't naturally fall into categories:

Kyl Amdt. No. 793 - I don't completely understand but it involves data collected to assess best medical - Feingold for and Kerry and most liberal Democrats against.

Joint Resolution S J 5 - Feingold voted with Bayh, Lincoln, Nelson, Dorgan, Shaheen and most of the Republicans FOR the bill while Kerry voted against it.

to waive the CBA on Carpo's amendment to increase the borrowing authority of the FDIC - Feingold - for ???

To strike the provision relating to the Loran-C signal, as recommended by the Administration. - Feingold for with Republicans

Conclusions
Kerry was a key ally to Obama in passing the budget and the supplemental budget. Failure to pass them would have doomed Obama's Presidency. Feingold was frankly not helpful.

I suspect that this site has a libertarian definition of "progressive". Being against gun control and against dealing with the problem of climate change are NOT progressive values. I also think that progressives should value having a diverse mass media - instead of the sea of RW radio and cable. On foreign policy, Kerry could be best described as an internationalist and someone committed to diplomacy.

I already knew Kerry's positions last year and, for the most part agreed. I had followed Feingold less closely - and it is his positions I have a problem with in many cases.



I debated rewriting this leaving out any reference to Kerry, but it would have been more work and, in this time period, Kerry's votes are, for the most part, a reasonable proxy for the liberal wing of the Democratic party.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
75. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
76. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
77. Upon review,
it appears that the rule cited in the lock was not applicable in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. thank you for the review of this lock. It serves to show that your system works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #77
83. Sorry I Missed It. Which Rule Was That?
Thanks :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #77
84. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #77
87. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #77
89. Thanks Skinner. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #77
134. Thanks Skinner,
I didn't see the lock. Feingold is great on some things, but this vote is really harmful IMO
We have to get a bill passed, and while I agree it doesn't go far enough, we need something on the table. It can always be improved upon at a later time. Throughout history, new Legislation has been brought forth to improve upon Old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
79. This is a really important article. I had no idea he votes with pukes that often.
Thank you. K&R. And thank you, Skinner, for unlocking this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
80. I am guessing that Feingold who is both a good guy and very smart would be surprised by these stats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. I was certainly surprised. And hopefully he'll take some reform over no
reform in the end. Because those will be the only 2 choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #80
135. I think he would too, let's hope he changes
his mind in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
86. If it was "reform" he would vote for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
91. unrec - he is not voting to protect Wall St. and I would not personally...
put a lot of weight into the ranking on that site.

Strong Dems voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq, which has cost us dearly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
93. Unrec for Goebbels-calibre spin. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. lol, thanks!
"Goebbels-calibre", exactly! I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought that. And how dare they to even bring up Paul Wellstone! :mad:

For some reason, that article really annoyed the heck out of me; I don't usually react to threads in this way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
97. Unrec for this dishonest attack on a REAL Democrat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. "Unrec for this dishonest attack on a REAL Democrat"? And you get to make that determination?
I bow to your superior discernment, oh high & mighty one. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #100
133. No I get to call this headline a vicious lie
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 06:12 PM by Smashcut
more liberal-bashing from the "centrist" wing.

If you want to compare to what isn't a real Democrat (since you've apparently forgotten) please see the reply below concerning Ben Nelson. Odd that you aren't posting smears against him.

If that isn't obvious to you, then yes, I probably have greater discernment than you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #100
166. It's a bullshit laden hit piece which closely resembles the bullshit laden hit pieces
leveled against the President by outrage-addicted ideological purists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #97
103. It simply states how often he votes with republicans. How is that dishonest?
If he votes with republicans on this one, that's how he votes. If he holds out for the perfect bill, then no progress will ever be made. I've never seen a perfect bill yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #103
136. And as someone else upthread pointed out
Obama voted with Republicans during his tenure with substantially greater consistency. And bragged about it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #103
167. "Continuing to do the bidding of his Republican friends"?
Was Obama "doing the bidding of his Republican friends" when he voted their way as a Senator or tries to compromise with them as President? I don't think so, and I think anybody who would make that assessment of the President needs to pull their head out of their ass. It's no different for Feingold. A sober analysis of the guy's voting record is good fodder for discussion. The article posted in the OP in contrast is a bullshit hit piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #97
105. It's Feingold's record...he's the one responsible if it's "dishonest"
or not. Feingold runs on his record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #105
109. I'll put Feingold's record up against ANY Democrat ANY day.
And that includes the current occupant of the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #109
121. "Occupant?"
Well, that clears a lot up. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #121
122. I doubt it clears anything up.
Is there another term that wouldn't upset your delicate sensibilities? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #122
159. That crowd is really anal about "words"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
98. Rec'd for a clear definition of what a "no" vote means
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #98
123. Really. Name a single reform that's being blocked.
Just one, in your own words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
106. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
108. Explain just one reform in the bill. Just one.
Voting against this bill is not voting against reform. It's voting against fake reform. Unless you can show that you understand even one provision in this bill, I'll have to assume you're just parroting a talking point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. And the answer is
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 03:09 PM by Catherina
*squawk*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. I've asked that question at least 5 times and I've yet to get a straight answer
The only people who seem to understand this bill are progressives who are against it. What does that tell you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. That the bill is junk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
112. The Senate crafts legislation to get Nelson's vote and they lose Feingold.
They craft it to get Feingold's vote, and they lose Nelson.

It's a bit amazing to me that so many DUers support Ben Nelson and blame Feingold. What's even more amazing is that they attempt to pass themselves off as liberals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #112
116. Amazing (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #112
119. Pretty telling statement from Feingold here....
....

Since the Senate bill passed, I have had a number of conversations with key members of the administration, Senate leadership and the conference committee that drafted the final bill. Unfortunately, not once has anyone suggested in those conversations the possibility of strengthening the bill to address my concerns and win my support. People want my vote, but they want it for a bill that, while including some positive provisions, has Wall Street's fingerprints all over it...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/30-9

And from The Nation:

As Tim Ferhnolz notes for The American Prospect, instead of strengthening the bill by negotiating with committed reformists like Democratic senators Maria Cantwell, and Russ Feingold, Senate leadership chose to cut a deal with Tea Party favorite Scott Brown. Brown's price? Allowing banks to gamble by running their own proprietary hedge funds. After Senate negotiators gave Brown what he wanted, he suddenly reversed his support for the bill on Saturday morning...

http://www.thenation.com/article/36833/brown-nosing-wal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #112
120. +1 Any excuse, any pretext to move to the right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #112
126. The issue is broader than Feingold's position on this partiuclar bill


In the Senate there is a role for indpendent actions of conscience. But that is not what this is all about. This is about Feingold establishing a pattern of undermining caucus discipline.

Do you want Democratic Senators that represent Republican states to take risks and support the caucus then you have to have a degree of caucus discipline. When Feingold FREQUENTLY goes against the caucus he is giving permission slips to all of the blud dogs and moderate members of the caucus to vote against the caucus and still say that they are more consistent than Feingold who is from a liberal state.

Now if it is a question of a few votes made in a symbolic way then people understand. In this case with Senator Byrd's passing Senator Feingold will be giving the Republicans the winning vote to defeat the caucus. There is an even more important point. When Feingold wants to go to the caucus on an issue he feels strongly about people in the caucus will tell him that they will vote their caucus.

Simply put if you want Senators from Conservative states to follow caucus discipline on issues that you feel strongly about then you have to help maintain it and not CONSISTENTLY vote against the caucus (again not talking about those rare points where you are compelled by conscience to vote against it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #126
157. Yes, it does indeed go further than just this bill.
Edited on Thu Jul-01-10 07:01 AM by Spheric
What I don't understand is why it should always be liberals who have to vote like conservatives in order to preserve the caucus. Why is it never the other way around? That is bad for the party, as it leads to Democrats falling out of favor with the voters, who consistently poll more liberal than conservative on the issues.

Nah, this one way street to the right ain't the answer, even from a strictly political perspective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #112
132. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
124. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. I know. Can you believe HeDidIt?
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. Aaand.... it's gone.
Nicely done, mods. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #125
130. You are not very clever with the "We"DidIt accusation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. It did the trick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #131
138. It doesn't really
matter to me. I don't get into wondering who posters are. If you accuse someone, who say really isn't that person, it could potentially drive away that person. It really isn't necessary, just an alert would suffice, and let mods and admin deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #125
137. ROFL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
139. Good, down to 7 recs, Kerry fares worse as far as not voting with the Dems...
from the link provided in the article.

:shrug:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #139
141. The recs really don't matter here,
the truth about his record is already out there.
He like all Dems, have some great things they do, and some not so great things.
When they do some not so great things, their feet need to be held to the fire.
I like Feingold, but he needs to vote for this bill. They can always improve upon it later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #141
144. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #139
146. delete. not appropriate n/t
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 09:04 PM by politicasista
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. When this article mentions Feingold's votes with Repubs and fails to mention others
who have a lower score on their ranking system then you have to wonder.

Just look at all the "strong Dems" who voted for the Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq. FISA etc and you have to doubt their "system"

I remember what Feingold said about the FISA bill when the vote happened and think he will ultimately be proven correct.













Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. Yep. He is a political genius and everyone else is dumb and spineless
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #148
149. You forgot to mention that other Dems fare worse in the link...
provided in the OP ....conveniently.

:shrug:

Look at the link and then think of how many in our party caved in on important votes for the people.

It is "Let's get Feingold week on DU" one of the only people telling it like it is, this bill could have been much stronger if our elected leaders had the courage instead of selling us the original bailout bill. And that definitely included Obama who said in 2008 - if only we had known and had more time - pure BS.

Six banks control over 50% of our GDP and nothing in this bill stops that consolidation from 2008. It will another historic bill.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #149
150. They do
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 09:04 PM by politicasista
Believe it, poli knows. :) Though Obama doesn't control Congress, this just goes to show us that no politician is perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #150
151. And it just goes to show that this article and thread is BS n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. There is nothing wrong with pointing out double standards
Maybe Feingold does not deserved to be bashed according to some, but the OP and others are pointing out that whenever Feingold votes against a bill only because it is not up to his or liberal standards, he is labeled "principled" or a man of courage and backbone, while Obama is constantly trashed for wanting to get things done (aka compromise) and labeled a sellout corporatist, just like Bush, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
140. Anyone who joins the GOP fillibuster refusing to allow a vote, is
an asshole. That means you Russ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #140
143. agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #140
154. Hmm... what do you think about a Democrat who organizes a GOP filibuster?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/doughnuts-for-...

Doughnuts For Dorgan: Drug Reimportation Killed In Deal That Might Get Cheaper Drugs For Seniors

President Obama and the Senate leadership can't whip up the votes necessary to pass a public option or even a Medicare buy-in compromise, but they didn't have any trouble persuading 30 Democrats to vote against prescription drug reimportation Tuesday night -- thus preserving the deal cut between the Senate Finance Committee, the White House and Big Pharma.

The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), was asked after the vote if Democratic leadership opposed his amendment in order to preserve the deal.

"Well, and they apparently did," said Dorgan. "The last seven days, we've seen a lot of votes stripped away. What did we get, 51 votes tonight for my amendment? I believe seven days ago we had sufficient votes to pass it, but I think what is happening in the intervening period is other things developed. It's a great disappointment because it seems to me very hard to do health care reform without doing something about the escalating prices for prescription drugs."

The amendment had been scheduled to come up for a vote last week, but was held up amid much speculation that Dorgan had the votes. The vote Tuesday was 51-48, or nine shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. A total of 30 Democrats and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #154
161.  And I'm quite pleased
that they kept that deal, thereby assuring the passage of healthcare reform. You stick with Arianna though. I'm sure she'll never steer you wrong!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanpalmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
156. If the bill doesn't address too-big-to-fail
-- and it doesn't -- it ought to be defeated. It's represents nothing more than posturing by politicians wanting to CYA and claim they beat up on Wall St. The purpose of the effort was to neutralize the causes of the meltdown so it couldn't happen again. Well, this bill doesn't get the job done. So it really doesn't make any difference whether it passes or not. Feingold is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
162. Feingold is my Senator and I appreciate his stance
As for the bullshit tactic that he's somehow in the company of Blue Dogs, that's bullshit.

Feingold is for real Wall Street reform:

I have spoken to Senate leaders, the Obama administration, and members of the conference committee and made my concerns well known. I opposed deregulating Wall Street and eliminating the protections of the Glass-Steagall Act, a position which put me at odds with many in Washington who supported the very policies that contributed to the financial crisis, and who now support these bills that simply don't get the job done. Without including stronger reforms, we're simply whistling past the graveyard.

- Russ Feingold

http://openleft.com/diary/19199/feingold-engages-on-wal...


Just as Feingold was correct on voting against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, he will stand correct historically for this vote.

This does not mean that Feingold is siding with Wall Street. It means he wants a stronger bill that doesn't just do window dressing toward the issues of derivatives and a strong Volcker Rule, which was stripped out of the current legislation.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
164. The suggestion that Feingold is really a conservative in disguise
is ridiculous. Especially stupid remark:

"If he votes with the Republicans that much of the time, even more than Leiberman, who some loathe around here, I really question his sincerity in refusing to vote for the bill because it doesn't go far enough."

Do you really question it? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #164
168. The article in the OP rests upon the ProgressivePunch methodology
yet conveniently neglects to mention that ProgressivePunch's methodology gives him a 5 star rating as a Democrat.

Do the folks here against Feingold's decision think that President Obama would be supportive of this kind of deceptive bullshit? I kind of doubt he would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
165. Obviously some didn't see this article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC