Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, who served four terms as Wisconsin governor, is securing financial pledges and ramping up his outreach to longtime political aides in preparation for a possible campaign against Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
Thompson has alerted his Washington-based law firm of his moves and is contacting key clients about the prospect of challenging Feingold, the most tangible signals yet that he's seriously exploring a 2010 campaign.
"The governor has taken additional steps in the past week and will continue to do so over the next several weeks. If the meetings go well, you can expect to see an exploratory committee set up near the end of March," former state commerce secretary and Thompson campaign manager Bill McCoshen told POLITICO.
The thought of losing Feingold is just... scary. In addition to his well known fight against the Patriot Act, and being the first Senator to introduce legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq, Feingold was one of only two members of the Senate to vote against the 1999 financial services deregulation, the Iraq war authorization, and the 2008 bailout (Bernie Sanders was the other, and he voted against the de-regulation act while in the House). Even beyond his votes, he is a public leader for his causes, and manages organize other Senators behind them.
Russ Feingold is worth about five Senators, or more. It might be time to organize some sort of huge, $3 million + money bomb for him to ward off Thompson's entry into the campaign.
After a meeting today with Senator Feingold, Open Left reader PR writes in:
Feingold is in for P.O. through rec
That makes 34 supporters of using reconciliation to finish health reform, and 20 in favor of the public option. See the whip count here.
Further, I have received confirmation from Senator Reid's office that "all options are still on the table," including reconciliation. The aide with whom I spoke also reiterated to me that Senator Reid supports the public option. While that is a "yes" and a "maybe," given the way we are counting votes, they are still positive.
The House could just pass the Senate health care bill, and President Obama could sign it into law. Problem is, the House doesn't have 218 votes unless there is a promise to pass a cleanup fix to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process.
Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure - or a "cleanup" bill - to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.
There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn't materialize, insiders said.
"The Senate moderates' viewpoint is, 'We passed our bill. We're not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,'" said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.
Large numbers of House think this response is unacceptable. They believe the Senate has acted on so few bills that the House has passed--jobs bill, climate bill, financial regulations, student loans, etc. As such, they feel it is very wrong for the Senate to demand that the House pass one of the few bills they did act on verbatim.
So, that is the current impasse on health care. The House might be able to pass the Senate bill with a promise of a reconciliation fix, but the Senate doesn't want to pass the reconciliation fix.
So, who are the Senators that oppose reconciliation at this point? Figuring that out, and making them change their minds, might be the best path forward on health care at this point.
I spoke to someone from Feingold's campaign about his position on reconciliation in light of the Massachusetts special election. She informed me that while Sen. Feingold is no fan of reconciliation, now that it's reconciliation or nothing (apparently), he would be willing to support reconciliation if that's what it took to get a good bill passed. It wasn't the slightest bit equivocal or hedgy; it was a straight "yes". So that's a bit of good news. Hopefully the House can get their act together.
Could the Massachusetts special election actually make things better for progressives? That would be very surprising, but it isn't out of the question.
If you think there a chance one or more Democratic Senator will filibuster the health insurance bill from the left, or if you think that the left should be blamed if the bill fails, then you need to think again. Recent actions and statements from Roland Burris, Bernie Sanders, and Russ Feingold make it clear no such left-wing filibuster will take place. As such, if the bill is defeated, it will be entirely because of right-wing opposition.
Cross-posted at Daily Kos, Docudharma, and MyDD
-------
In the Wall Street Journal on September 13, the two Repubs and one former Democrat wholeheartedly endorsed sending more of our troops to eat $#!t sandwiches in Afghanistan.
We are confident that not only is it winnable, but that we have no choice. We must prevail in Afghanistan.
snip
However, we need more than the right team and the right strategy. This team must also have the resources it needs to succeed-including a significant increase in U.S. forces.
What happened today in Washington was, as Senator Russ Feingold called it, "historic." Thirty-eight years nearly to the day when a young John Kerry shocked the nation with his fiery anti-Vietnam war testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rick Reyes, a former US Marine Corporal, delivered an equally puissant testimony in which he expressed his disenchantment with the war in Afghanistan. How appropriate Kerry should be sitting directly across from Reyes as Committee Chairman, listening attentively as Congress heard one of the first major voices of dissent on this war.
The son of Mexican immigrants who joined the Marines to escape a violent gang life in Los Angeles, Reyes served as an infantry rifleman in Afghanistan and Iraq. He upheld his duty to serve our country honorably, and immediately after 9/11, he was deployed to Afghanistan "with the conviction of fighting for justice and the American way." All of that changed when Reyes realized US military forces faced the impossible task of fighting militant Taliban members who blended in with the local Afghan population, routinely resulting in the injuries or deaths of innocent civilians.
Where is the public outcry for congressional oversight hearings on the war in Afghanistan? Granted, the words "congressional oversight hearings" aren't particularly sexy--certainly not as alluring as "shock and awe," "insurgency," "counterinsirgency," "airstrikes," and "Hellfire missiles." But one thing that is always sexy is power, and Congress has the power to prevent these airstrikes and missiles from killing thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, thereby removing some of the hostility toward our country and reasons for joining the Taliban's insurgency. As Tom Hayden wrote his week, Congress has the power to bring in experts to examine the overall goals for this war; costs and budgeting; skyrocketing casualty rates; use of private contractors; human rights violations and torture. If that kind of power isn't sexy, I don't know what is, but the fact of the matter is Congress won't call for oversight hearings until we make them.
Now there are some true leaders in Congress who have already shown a willingness to oppose the Obama administration, the Pentagon, and a corporate press that has remained largely uncritical of the administration's plans for military escalation. Senator Bernie Sanders is one of those leaders. Though he doesn't approve of President Obama's decision to send an additional 17,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, here's how he tactfully voiced his dissent:
The last thing in the world that I want to see is our new President -- who I have a lot of confidence in in many respects -- we don't want to see him bogged down the way LBJ was bogged down in Vietnam. We don't want to see another war in Iraq, which was so disastrous in so many respects.
Via commenter "the new" in quick hits, we learn (surprise) that long time foe of democracy George Will opposes mandating special elections for senators. Will's column is amusing because he can't constrain his rage against the proponent of this Constitutional amendment, Senator Feingold (D-WI) for his past work on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. Let's take a look at what the brightest light of the conservative intellectual movement has to say this Sunday.
Sen. Feingold's Constitution By George F. Will
Sunday, February 22, 2009; Page
A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.
You'd think a guy who was just proven a liar over his column denying global warming would be shy about demanding that other people apologize for things, but that's the utterly shameless true conservative, George F. Will for you.
Krugman explains that the executive branch had to originate this complex financial rescue because Congress couldn't. And Paulson screwed it up, but something had to be done, and the bill became 'better than nothing, but not good'.
So am I for the bill? Yuk, phooey, I guess so. And I'm very angry at Paulson for putting us in this position.
What did he expect? Paulson is a Bush administration official.
Jim Webb pulled his usual 'I'm a populist and don't like Wall Street' line earlier in the debate, and then voted for a piece of reactionary legislation. A bunch of Rs said no to this bailout, truly an odd bunch. On the bright side, Dorgan, Feingold, Wyden, Tester, Cantwell, and Sanders voted no.
The Merkley Campaign just released a new ad addressing the problem of unfair trade deals and tax policies that pad the pockets of the big corporations while leaving American workers behind. Here's what Jeff had to say about unfair trade deals and the lack of job creation in America:
"Not only has Washington failed to create jobs and get our economy growing again, they've actually made the problem worse," said House Speaker Jeff Merkley. "Our government should not be giving tax breaks to companies that ship American jobs overseas. We need to end the same, old failed economic policies and start creating jobs and cutting taxes for American families."
Full disclosure, I am the netroots director for OR-Sen candidate Jeff Merkley
This began as a comment on Matt's diary How a Liberal Becomes a Lieberman. I took issue with Matt for likening Mark Udall's softening of some of his environmental positions to Lieberman's virtual defection to the Republicans. I think that there is too much emphasis placed on ideological purity and too little emphasis on the need for progressives to remain united and loyal to one another. I've expanded it into this diary in the hope of making my position more clear and to add some supportive evidence.
A successful democratic political movement doesn't need to demand ideological purity from its members. The New Deal coalition succeeded because of its ideological flexibility. One can argue that the FDR democrats were too willing to accept southern opposition to integration - they certainly were - but I don't know if the goal of civil rights for African-Americans could have been achieved without the foundations created by the 'New Deal' democrats.
Unity does not require ideological purity. It requires loyalty to the overall movement. There are many different causes represented within the movement. Some people are focused on environmentalism, some focus on pro-choice issues, for others gay rights are most important. We all have our own unique mix of issues which are preeminent. Everyone who champions Progressive causes, needs to be willing to compromise on an overarching agenda for the movement.
We should certainly judge politicians by their adherence to Progressive principles, but we must allow some room for both principled disagreement and practical political consideration.
Update: A lot of people in the comments seem to think that Feingold went 'off message', and are arguing about whether that's reasonable or not. My problem with Feingold is that he's not just off-message, he's totally wrong and evidencing a serious error in judgment. McCain is a crazily mean lying scumbag. If you think he's an honest maverick who is young at heart, is fully dedicated to reform, and has the judgment to be a good President, you're a sucker.
Via Greg Sargent, I think I've just read the single worst most inept set of statements by any elected Democratic official, ever, courtesy of Russ Feingold. If I didn't know better, I'd say that Russ Feingold is acting as a surrogate for the McCain campaign. There are so many horrible sickening quotes praising McCain for his maverick independent and honest persona that I've grouped them under themes.
McCain's an independent and a maverick.
Example one:
"I think the guy calls 'em as he sees 'em, and as president would call 'em as he sees 'em, and would make people mad all over the place because it wouldn't fit anybody's playbook," said Feingold, who teamed up with McCain to rewrite federal campaign laws.
Example two:
Feingold calls McCain "very original" and a "maverick by nature." McCain's own TV ads call him the "original maverick."
When I woke up this morning, I turned on C-Span to watch the inevitable. A handful of courageous Senators like Feingold and Dodd standing up for what's right while other Senators folded to political pressure. I remember when I first read the constitution of the United States. I was just a kid in public school, maybe 13 years old. We reviewed every amendment and why each amendment was an important part of our democracy. Never in my life did I believe that one day, not too many years later, the U.S. government would completely disregard that sacred document.
Full disclosure, I am the netroots director for OR-Sen candidate Jeff Merkley
Here's Elizabeth Edwards, in an email pitch for the DSCC.
Senate Democrats have tried to fix these glaring injustices, but Republicans have responded by filibustering over seventy bills in a single year - a record of obstruction unmatched in American history.
And Josh Orton and Matthew Yglesias disagree. They argue that final vote tallies are misleading, and that once you whip to 60 votes many more Senators break for a bill so they can add modifications. That's somewhat true.
Still, if Tom Coburn can hold up 100 bills on his own, or if Russ Feingold can spark a debate about the President by offering a censure resolution, perhaps we might consider that the 60 vote threshold is only one and a very narrow way of thinking about the Senate. It also happens to be a persuasive way to convince liberals to back conservative candidates like Kay Hagan, who has not come for net neutrality or FISA, and Ronnie Musgrove, who is featured on MyDD's Road to 60.
Amidst all the discussions about Barack Obama's potential running mate, the single most important consideration is being consistently overlooked.
The office of vice-president exists so that the president can be swiftly replaced in the event of his death, removal or incapacitation. Indeed, this is why we have vice-presidents. These individuals are only a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world.
This is such a stark consideration that it really ought to narrow things down somewhat regarding whom Obama should choose. Far too many discussions that I have observed treat the "running mate" as some kind of special electoral buddy, whose primary responsibility is to somehow grab votes that Obama could not secure on his own. Much of the reasoning behind the purported electoral impact of the running mate is ill-founded, speculative and secondary to our principal goal of electing representatives that we believe in.
Imagine that you're unemployed and need to get a job. It takes a lot of time these days. You call in all your favors, badger the FBI (friends, brothers and in-laws), send out your resume, go on some interviews. Some days, you replay a dead-end interview conversation over and over again in your mind, 'What did I say? What didn't I say? How could I have said that when I'd already rehearsed that question?' You worry, pace, lay awake and occasionally sit staring mournfully at your breakfast, wondering how much longer your favorite cereal is going to be on the menu.
Then the day you've been waiting for: you're hired.
One catch.
The HR rep puts a piece of paper on the desk in front of you and says you have to sign it to get the job. So you look it over. It's barely comprehensible, something about dispute resolution, but you see a word that makes you start reading a bit more closely.
In the event, wait ... what!? You'd probably wonder what country you were in, wonder if you were really reading English, as you had innocently suspected when you sat down. Surely, I mean, come on, that can't be right. Is it even legal to sign away your right to go to court if someone commits a crime against you?
Yes. Let's take it as read that it is.
So really, think about it. You need this job, your family needs you to take it, and you don't know when another one will be on offer. Would you sign that piece of paper?
I have been searching for a way to convey to Clinton supporters how offensive her attempts to change the topic from the Tuzla Fables to the Wright sermons ever since the former undercut her campaign. If fanning the flames of white racial resentment against Blacks is her only path to victory, she has no path to victory. It has struck me the old consciousness-raising technique of recasting acts based on race, gender, sexuality or religion as if they reflected one of the other dimensions of difference, may shed some new light here. Being a Jew who originally wanted Russ Feingold to run for President (despite some misgivings about his electability), it occurred to me that we can examine the legitimacy her actions are by imagining how they might translate to a situation where religion, not race, was the concern.
Join me, then, in the parallel universe where it is Russ Feingold rather than Barack Obama who won Iowa, drove John Edwards out of the race, and now had an insurmountable pledged delegate lead over Hillary Clinton.
In this universe, controversial sermons from Feingold's rabbi have recently come to light. How might the Clinton campaign respond?
