By not only opposing the anti-family ballot measure coming up this November, but stating his affirmative support for same-sex marriage.
Good on ya, Russ, but damn I woulda liked to have seen you on the ballot in 2008.
I wish that that particular stance WOULDN’T destroy someone’s chances at president in this country. Makes me sick, actually, that gays are still being denied the same rights that straight people are.
I think we NEED someone like good ol Russ to get in there and try to get some change. I don’t want to have to see my friends not be able to marry who they choose when we get older and start getting to that point. It’s just not right, IMO.
Look at that, an honest man. I don’t care if he lost the Presidency, he probably just won my vote.
I agree. I think that how we, as a society, are treating “others” is going to be a dark streak on our history after it’s written.
If anything, this would make me want to go out campaigning for Senator Feingold. So far, he’s my frontrunner.
At least someone has scruples and is willing to fight for what they believe in.
I’d vote for him. I don’t know that he’s DOA, he may be able to pull off some grassroots support like Dean did. Then again, a lot can happen in 2 years.
As of right now, if he runs and gets the nomination, he’s got my vote. The only person who can take that away is McCain, and even then it’s only under the right circumstances.
The thing about McCain is that he strikes me as the type of guy who decided to be a maverick, not out of any sort of idealism, but because he decided it would be a boon to his political career.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we’re off!
Quick, move this to the Pit, stat!
I support gay marriage personally but I believe that it doesn’t have any place in federal level politiocal commentary right now because states are the ones that grant marriages and, more importantly, it would be much harder getting something passed at the national level so it just sucks huge resources away from other things that need attention.
I don’t want to hear any candidate utter a word about gay marriage, gun control, abortion, affirmative action, abortion or whatever smoke hazing shit that people like to throw out these days despite the fact that they are socially deadlocked at the national level and there are better channels to work on them.
We need an executive as in somebody that understand economics, the military, foreign relations, and bi-partisan politics. We don’t need someone that is going to get deer-eyed at the social cause of the day. That stuff is fine to work on in someones spare time but gay marriage is about as soft an issue as you can get.
What would you think if someone interviewed for the CEO position at a multi-national company and the only things he/she talked about were diversity initiatives, proportionate vacation time among employees, pay inequality in a few areas, and moral programs?
Fluff is find when you can spare it but it isn’t when you can’t and liberals cannot seem to grasp that. The core strength has to come first and then you can work on secondary an tertiary issues once you get a strong foothold there.
Well, that would be fine and dandy, but it’s the opponents of marriage who have made it a federal issue. They started in 1996 with the so-called “Defense” of Marriage Act and continued it in the wake of the state-level rulings in Vermont and MA by introducing a federal anti-marriage amendment to the Constitution. I’d be more than happy to have everyone on the national level shut the hell up about same-sex marriage, with the exception of a majority of the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right.
It’s completely appropriate, however, for a public official from a state considering state-level action on the anti-marriage front to comment on that state’s action. Wisconsin has an anti-marriage initiative on the ballot in November and Feingold is a Wisconsin politician.
God damn that Feingold for being honest and standing up for civil rights.
What an idiot!
Now I want to marry him not just vote for him.
Now I’m no heavyweight political brawler around here, but it is my opinion that eventually someone of the same persuasions of Russ Feingold will be able to successfully turn an issue like the support of gay marriage into a positive for a campaign by exposing conservative bigotry and discrimination for what it is. Intolerance is a powerful tool, but only in the short term. I think that social conservatives will eventually run out of gas, or fall on their own swords. You can only hide something for what it really is for so long. If they keep pushing an anti gay legislature eventually you’ll find yourself at such an extreme, the ugliness that lies beneath such policy will break through and turn against them.
Feingold looks to me like the only Democrat with a pulse. The rest of them seem to be cowering under various imaginary rocks – as if that was a winning strategy for 08.
Well, Feingold’s got my vote if he makes it far enough in the primaries for it to count. Screw electability, electability gave us Kerry and Gore. We need someone with balls and vision. More than that, we need someone who’s right more often than wrong. Call me a naieve optimist, but I don’t think this country is quite as conservative as recent elections would ahve us believe. I think that if a well-run campaign calls for what is right, and says it loudly and without equivocation, he can win. Even if the message leans to the left.
I’m not sure if Feingold matches all of that criteria, but this is very encouraging, and a lot more than I’ve seen from other Democrats.
I completely agree. I really think he is standing out in the waveless sea of 'Crats and actually being progressive.
Hell at least he is doing something.
Russ Feingold didn’t destroy his presidential chance because he never had one to begin with. His name is too Jewish.
Jewish or not (and Lieberman’s showing in 2000 maybe indicates that the nation has maybe moved past the Jewish thing), I think it would be a mistake for the Dems to nominate another Senator to the top of the ticket in 2008. Feingold would I think be an excellent choice for the bottom of the ticket. For the top it would be nice if there were a popular Southern governor or former governor. I don’t know a lot about Warner out of Virginia, but on paper, a popular big-state Southern former governor replaced by another from the same party, looks like a strong choice.