Even some progressives are questioning Feingold's resistance to FinReg..

[DCBob]

He’s been a hero to liberals for voting against big banks, the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. But Sen. Russ Feingold’s decision to become the only Democratic vote against Wall Street reform has left many questioning his strategy. Progressives figured the Wisconsin Democrat would be first in line to sign on to the financial regulatory overhaul. Instead, he’s been stubbornly, defiantly opposed to the legislation — Feingold calls it a cave-in to Wall Street — almost single-handedly delaying the final vote and denying, at least temporarily, President Barack Obama’s second legislative triumph.

But what really galls some on the left is that Feingold’s resistance opened the door for deal making — and Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown walked right through, making Brown the kingmaker on the bill that many on the left thought Feingold could have been. “If he had said loudly and clearly during recent conference negotiations that he’d vote yes if, and only if, the strongest version of the Lincoln proposal and ‘Volcker rule’ were in the final bill, it would have made Scott Brown irrelevant and dramatically changed the negotiations,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, referring to Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives crackdown and former Fed chief Paul Volcker’s limits on risky bank investments.

“Instead, he remained silent, let the bill get watered down and then spoke out after the negotiations were over. That’s not bold; it’s weak and unstrategic — and it helped Wall Street rip off the public to the tune of billions in the future,” Green said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39635.html#ixzz0tYW5GYhU

Wonder what Russ is thinking this morning now that the Dems still need one more vote?

[rucky]

1. This move may cost him his reelection. n/t

[DCBob]

2. Perhaps, but conservative groups in WI love him for it..

It might help him get some independent votes.

[midnight]

32. So do the rest of us here in Wisconsin. He is taking the drill

the great lakes guy to task for having over 300,000 with of BP stock. Some liberals also are happy that the loop holes for Brown to walk through was side stepped by Feingold. He actually was the one who said no way to anymore of the loopholes by standing up for regulations. I realize that regulations are as outdated , but they kept this country from the havoc that is being unleashed on it now. My vote is with Senator Feingold, and scapegoating Feingold for that tool Brown who allows himself to pose for any thing that brings him attention/fortune is really not Feingold fault, but those who created the loopholes in the first place. I'm probably thinking those lobbyist for the banks can be very effective in turning pretty boy browns vote to whatever they want.

[vaberella]

3. He's a jerk.

The bill wasn't great before but his resistance made them water it down to ensure Brown's vote and a few people. I don't care if he's been a hero--now a days he's grandstanding for publicity.

[rpannier]

4. And you know this how?

Please enlighten everyone on how you know he's grandstanding for publicity

And while you're at it, please tell us what great things you've accomplished to push the progressive movement forward

[DCBob]

7. His own recent campaign ads in WI claim he's doing it to be fiscally conservative..

That does not sound like any progressive agenda to me.

[Wilms]

14. The bill does not sound like any progressive agenda to me. n/t

:shrug:

[rpannier]

17. But the person above said he is grandstanding

I'm curious how he knows this
and I'd like to know what great Progressive issues the above person has been promoting

I don't live in WI, but I will donate to his campaign and a lot of others
I like Russ and if it's a choice between him or Blanche, well it's a no-brainer for me... Russ

As to the bill.
People come here and make the argument that he could have done more if he had been more open to compromise -- that's all progressives have done is compromise while the Blue Dogs live up to their name...
They sit in the corner and hold their breath until their faces turn blue and they get what they want

[DCBob]

19. Who knows... Russ is facing a tough battle for his seat.. he needs some good headlines..

I agree the bill is weak.. I am mostly bothered there is little to nothing about the problem with the credit ratings agencies who played a big role in the finacial debacle. But this is bill we've got now and its better than nothing.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Brown, TB - MA wasn't open to compromise and got what he wanted.

Funny how that works.

[HughMoran]

39. Yes, he could have more of what he wanted if he didn't take a rigid ideological stance

Now we'll end up with a worse bill because of his intransigence.

This shows exactly why the arguments of the ideologues here are so utterly wrong-headed.

[kennedyphan]

35. I don't think Feingold linked the FinReg bill to fiscal conservatism

He touted his fight against earmarks as fiscal conservatism. Which ad are you referring to so we can examine it?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. I like rightwing analysis of what the left's strategy should be.

I find it very helpful. Feingold is voting no because he thinks this bill sucks ass in the 'reform' department. He has made that clear.

As for the negotiations that even further weakened this bill:

"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.

In fact, reports indicate that the administration and conference leaders have gone to significant lengths to avoid making the bill stronger. Rather than discussing with me ways to strengthen the bill, for example, they chose to eliminate a levy that was to be imposed on the largest banks and hedge funds in order to obtain the vote of members who prefer a weaker bill. Nothing could be more revealing of the true position of those who are crafting this legislation. They had a choice between pursuing a weaker bill or a stronger one. Their decision is clear.

On this bill, like the others that preceded it, the biggest financial interests have won."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-russ-feingold/standing-up-to-the-unholy_b_630834.html

The administration was too busy courting Teabag Brown to bother with Feingold's concerns.

[KeyWester]

6. He is fighting for the status quo

the bill is better than the status quo.

thats all he needs to know right now.

[DCBob]

8. His campaing ads in WI says hes doing it to be "fiscally conservative"..

Is that the kind of "reform" progressives want?

[DCBob]

9. The comments in the article came from the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee..

Adam Green.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. politico is a right wing propaganda outlet

I don't really care who they quote. Their ideological slant is quite clear. Feingold's objections to this bill are also clear, and not addressed by your OP.

[DCBob]

12. I know about Politico but a quote is a quote.. and the focus of my OP was on Green's quote.

not on Politico's spin.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. "a quote is a quote"

Ok. So you know politico is a rightwing hack job, but we should just accept their analysis because they quote some progressive PAC's spokesperson. Got it. Shouldn't look at what Feingold said about his vote, go with Politico's take.

[DCBob]

16. Ok, remove all of Politico's words and just leave Green's quote.. its the same story..

geez.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Uh - that is what you did.

You removed everything in the article that was contrary to your viewpoint and then presented that as the whole truth. Politico's interest here is to stir up shit. Your interest is to attack the left on this board. Feingold appears to believe that this bill is dubious in its details despite the 'Financial Reform' label, and you do not appear to want to discuss that aspect of this issue.

[DCBob]

22. Huh??

Never mind.. you are playing dumb.

[Dinger]

21. politico (puke)

You're right.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Administration preferred to weaken the bill rather than to accept Feingold's positions on regulation

And Feingold said that he spoke several times with administration officials, Senate leaders and members of the conference committee, but at no time did they show any interest in moving closer to his position. Once it became clear that his two biggest issues had no shot in the Senate, he said he couldn’t get to “yes.”

Feingold said criticism of him as less than involved is generated by those within the “axis between Wall Street and Washington, and I’m not part of that axis.”

“I don’t know what they are talking about,” Feingold said. “Why would I try to work with people who are trying to kill the things that I think are most important? They were asking me to cut a deal that was against the interests of the American people and the people of Wisconsin.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39635_Page2.html

[DCBob]

15. I think he voiced his opinions too late after deals were already made..

At least that is what Green appears to be saying in the OP.

BTW, Politico is right wing propaganda outfit.. careful posting anything from there on this board.

[zipplewrath]

24. That's what the assertion is

The question is whether the assertion is supportable. Russ is saying he was in constant contact with the authors, and watched the bill get watered down, after the senate debate. Green is suggesting that Russ didn't do enough BEFORE the end of senate debate. There's really not enough in the public record to know.

What we do know is that the senate, with the cooperation of the White House, has shown a preference to moving right to get legislation passed, rather than left. Last time it was Kucinich being left out in the cold, this time Feingold. We'll probably seen Obama getting on a plane to fly to Feingolds' district next for some rally.

It's the blue dog/conservadem problem all over again. You can blame the GOP but the reality is that the conservative democrats use the GOP as cover for pulling legislation to the right. The White House has cooperated. They don't want the conservative democrats exposed or challenged. And they support them over primary challengers. In the end I've come to the conclusion it is because they basically agree with the conservative democrats, and in fact are using them as an excuse to do what they want to do anyway.

[DCBob]

25. Ok, its Russ' word against Green's.. not sure who to believe..

Anyway, thanks for posting this "alternative" viewpoint.

[flpoljunkie]

26. Your OP links Politico, DCBob. Feingold's positions were known from the beginning.

And he's not alone in his cocern that this legislation does not end 'too big to fail.'

[DCBob]

27. Yeah I know..

That Politico comment was directed at WarrenStupidity who chastised me for linking there.

I hope Feingold's vote wont matter so we can put this to rest. I do admire the guy but I think he is wrong on this particular matter.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. but those are just quotes

The wrong quotes. The other quotes were more convenient. Solidarity Democrats don't address the issues Feingold raises about this bill, that is too complicated. The important thing is to win. Who cares what the details are? It is another check on the todo list.

[flpoljunkie]

28. Now Ben Nelson is holding out to weaken the CFPA--the opposite of Feingold who wants finreg stronger

The bad news: Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) explicitly told reporters this evening he's not committed to voting for the legislation, citing a handful of measures, and concern about potential future directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"You don't know who's going to be head of the consumer protection bureau," Nelson said after a vote. "You can't just send a rogue agency out on its own."

The suggestion is that Nelson wants input behind the scenes on who the White House might nominate to run the new agency.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/ben-nelson-leaves-dems-one-vote-shy-of-wall-street-reform.php?ref=fpb

[DCBob]

29. I dont think they are going to give in to Nelson.. I think they will wait for Byrd's replacement.

Nelson should be thrown out of the party. He seldom votes with the Dems anyway.

[Jennicut]

31. There will most likely be no replacement for Byrd, Manchin wants a special election.

I do respect Feingold but in this situation, he did allow Scott Brown to become important. Feingold can hold out all he wants, there is no perfect bill to be had. When you deal with all the egos in the Senate, that is usually what happens. Now it has been weakened further. His strategy here made no sense to me.

[DCBob]

33. But I thought he could appoint someone in the meantime.

??

[HughMoran]

40. He's "taking his time"

Fucking grandstander wants the seat for himself.

[NJmaverick]

30. This is what pragmatism is all about. If you rigidly hold an idealogical stand

you will often make things worse, this case being a good example.

[DCBob]

34. He could have kept his idealogical integrity if he just didnt agree to filibuster with the GOP..

then vote no when the bill came up for up/down vote.

[NJmaverick]

36. That's true. You make a good point

[HughMoran]

38. He could have been the kingmaker

Now he's the loser who didn't get the best bill possible.

[HughMoran]

37. "That’s not bold; it’s weak and unstrategic"

Tell me about it.

Feingold, get with it before it's too late.