Feingold Won't Seek Democratic Nod

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who many progressive activists had encouraged to seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008, has decided against making the race.

In a letter to be sent to supporters on Sunday, Feingold writes, "I want you to know that I've decided to continue my role as Wisconsin's Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008."

Feingold, the sole senator to oppose the Patriot Act in 2001 and the first senator to advocate a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, stoked speculation about a possible presidential run during the 2006 congressional campaign season. His call for the censure of President Bush for authorizing warrantless wiretapping was wildly popular with party activists -- even if most of his fellow Democratic senators shunned the move. Feingold's addresses to state party conventions and campaign events across the country were well received. And he began to develop the infrastructure for a candidacy by setting up a new campaign group, the Progressive Patriots Fund, which aided candidates around the country who shared his anti-war and pro-civil liberties positions.

But Feingold was always torn between the lure of a presidential run and his love of the Senate, where he has served since 1993.

The Wisconsinite, who has spent most of his Senate career serving as a member of the minority party, decided after Tuesday's decision by the voters to shift control of the chamber to the Democrats that he was more interested in making the Congress work than in spending a year or more on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Iowa and other early primary and caucus states.

"I'm sure a campaign for President would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees," the senator explained. "Although I have given it a lot of thought, I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for a race for President while I am trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me. And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008."

Feingold's decision gives a boost to the all-but-certain candidacy of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president, who has positioned himself to the left of the current field. Of course, if Illinois Senator Barack Obama decides to run, he could well eclipse Edwards as the choice of progressives who worry about handing the nomination to the presumed frontrunner, centrist New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Last week, another centrist, outgoing Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack launched an exploratory bid for the Democratic nod. Vilsack's move was seen by some as narrowing the options for Democrats, such as Feingold, who might have hoped to jumpstart an outsider campaign with a strong showing in Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses. But Feingold had developed as much support in New Hampshire, the traditional first-primary state, where anti-war candidates ran especially well on Tuesday.

In the end, Feingold came to the conclusion that the enthusiasm he detected as he visited states across the country in 2006 had more to do with the boldness of his progressive positions than with his own potential candidacy.

"(While) I've certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, 'Run Russ Run,' or 'Russ in '08,' I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I've taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations," mused Feingold. "This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (13)

1. See? I told you. The dems aren't as progressive as nobody here claimed they were.

   Republicans suck too.

   You're screwed either way.

   But, I think it's funny. he he. See? I'll be right and you'll be wrong either way. Because I say so.

   Posted by Veil at 11/12/2006 @ 02:07am

2. Veil,

   Are you Mask or just his twin?

   Posted by vvvenus at 11/12/2006 @ 03:05am

3. Posted by VVVENUS 11/12/2006 @ 03:05am

   Poor FROMRED, WILL, and LILLIAN couldn't handle TWO of me...hehe

   Posted by Mask at 11/12/2006 @ 07:16am

4. This must have been coming for some time, as Mr Nichols (a MAJOR Feingold booster upto last spring) had started talking "Obama".

   Plus, Russ probably saw the handwriting on the wall...two examples-

   1. "Speaker Nancy" makes a "woman in charge" more comfortable to people, so it would naturally lead to the idea of a woman for President.

   2. Bill Clinton still drawing major fundraising.

   Now, if Bill Clinton (along with fellow DLC'er Rahm Emmanuel) has got the "purse-strings"...and "a woman (one charged as being a "San Francisco liberal" no less) in charge is no longer a problem"....

   who does that help for 2008?

   Posted by Mask at 11/12/2006 @ 07:19am

5. This is very sad news. Feingold was one of the few senators who voted against the illegal Iraq war and the unconstitutional Patriot Act. While I certainly can not blame him, this limits candidates who are actually publically against the Iraq war and the Patriot Act to zero?

   In other words, not much will change in 2008.

   Posted by liviaturner at 11/12/2006 @ 08:53am

6. populism tempered by progressivism - recipe for dem success. people know what a pack of liars the hard core right wingers are and dont trust them. dems gotta ride the wave...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2006 @ 11:23am

7. greenwald on feingold this morning:

   Why the Beltway class can't comprehend the Russ Feingolds of the world (upadted below)

   When Russ Feingold announced in March that he would introduce a resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law by eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, a clear two-pronged consensus immediately arose among Beltway pundits and politicians -- including Republicans and many Democrats as well:

   (1) Feingold had just disastrously handed a huge "gift" to Republicans, because opposition to Bush's warrantless eavesdropping would doom the Democrats politically, and,

   (2) Feingold had introduced this resolution not because he really believed anything he was saying about it, but only as a "political stunt," selfishly designed to advance his own political interests (at the expense of his party) by shoring up the "liberal base" for his 2008 presidential run.

   As for premise (1), Democrats spent all year opposing warrantless eavesdropping (mostly mild and reluctant opposition, though in some cases passionate). That opposition culminated in a House vote just 6 weeks before the election where 85% of Democrats voted against a bill to legalize warrantless eavesdropping.

   Thereafter, Republicans did everything possible to make that an issue in the campaign, and Democrats just crushed Republicans in the election. As but one example, 12-term GOP incumbent Nancy Johnson made her support for warrantless eavesdropping (and her challenger's opposition to it) a centerpiece of her campaign. She was easily defeated.

   As for premise (2), Russ Feingold announced today, definitively, that he is not running for President in 2008.

   It is hard to overstate how ignorant and wrong Beltway pundits are about everything, and how barren and corrupt inside-Washington conventional wisdom is.

   Russ Feingold has spent his entire idiosyncratic political career espousing views because he believes them, even when those views are so plainly contrary to his political interests. He infuriated his entire party by being the only Democratic Senator to vote against dismissal of the Clinton impeachment charges prior to the Senate trial. He pursued campaign finance reform hated by incumbents in both parties.

   And in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, he seemed to be the only elected official immune from irrational pressures, as he not only was the only Senator to vote against the "Patriot Act," but was also the only Senator who refused to blindly pledge his loyalty to limitless presidential power, emphasizing on the Senate floor as early as September 14, 2001:

   Like any legislation, this resolution [authorizing military force in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda] is not perfect. I have some concern that readers may misinterpret the preamble language that the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism as a new grant of power; rather it is merely a statement that the President has existing constitutional powers . . . .

   Congress owns the war power. But by this resolution, Congress loans it to the President in this emergency. In so doing, we demonstrate our respect and confidence in both our Commander in Chief and our Constitution. . . .

   Our response will be judged by friends and foes, by history, and by ourselves. It must stand up to the highest level of scrutiny: It must be appropriate and constitutional.

   Within this confusing scenario, it will be easy to point fingers at an ever increasing number of enemies, to believe that the ``the enemy'' is all around us, that the enemy may even be our neighbor. The target can seem to grow larger and larger every day, before the first strike even occurs. And this, of course, is exactly what the terrorists want. They seek to inflate their numbers and their influence by retreating into the shadows. They seek to turn us against each other, and to turn us against our friends and allies across the world, but we will not allow this to happen.

   Despite all of that, when Feingold stood up and advocated censure -- based on the truly radical and crazy, far leftist premise that when the President is caught red-handed breaking the law, the Congress should actually do something about that -- the soul-less, oh-so-sophisticated Beltway geniuses could not even contemplate the possibility that he was doing that because he believed what he was saying. Beltway pundits and the leaders of the Beltway political and consulting classes all, in unison, immediately began casting aspersions on Feingold's motives and laughed away -- really never considered -- the idea that he was motivated by actual belief, let alone the merits of his proposal.

   That's because they believe in nothing. They have no passion about anything. And they thus assume that everyone else suffers from the same emptiness of character and ossified cynicism that plagues them. And all of their punditry and analysis and political strategizing flows from this corrupt root.

   Not only do they believe in nothing, they think that a Belief in Nothing is a mark of sophistication and wisdom. Those who believe in things too much -- who display political passion or who take their convictions and ideals seriously (Feingold, Howard Dean) -- are either naive or, worse, are the crazy, irrational, loudmouth masses and radicals who disrupt the elevated, measured world of the high-level, dispassionate Beltway sophisticates (James Carville, David Broder, Fred Hiatt). They are interested in, even obsessed with, every aspect of the political process except for deeply held political beliefs -- the only part that really matters or that has any real worth.

   For that reason, when Feingold announced his censure resolution, the merits of it were virtually ignored (i.e., should something actually be done about the President's deliberate lawbreaking? What are the consequences for our country for doing nothing?). Instead, Feingold's announcement was immediately cast as a disingenuous political maneuver and discussed only in cynical terms of how it would politically harm the Democrats.

   This was the first line of the AP article on Feingold's resolution:

   While only two Democrats in the Senate have embraced Sen. Russ Feingold's call for censuring President Bush, the idea is increasing his standing among many Democratic voters as he ponders a bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008. . . .

   And as is so often the case, Beltway Republicans and Democrats worked in tandem with this cynical, substance-less storyline -- because it's how they all really think. Thus, the Post reported that Republicans "denounced the censure resolution as a political stunt by an ambitious lawmaker positioning himself to run for president in 2008."

   Many Democrats (though not all), petrified by Feingold's stand, made the same accusation. As David Limbaugh gleefully recounted:

   Feingold's move is not one of moral courage, but raw political ambition. In the words of Democratic senator Mark Dayton, Feingold's move is "an overreaching step by someone who is grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country."

   And the AP article also reported this:

   "This is such a gift," Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show. The National Review came to the same conclusion. In an online editorial titled, "Feingold's Gift to the GOP," the conservative magazine wrote that Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman would hug Feingold if given the chance.

   Marshall Whittman insisted that Feingold was dooming the Democrats and if Democrats didn't drop the whole issue of warrantless eavesdropping, it would ensure GOP victory:

   The Moose avers that Russ Feingold is the GOP's man of the hour. . . . . Here is the bottom line - the American people are not going to penalize the President for being overly zealous in preventing a destruction of an American city. That is what the Republicans know and they are gleeful about a debate on this issue. And they are co-dependent on the Democratic left to keep this issue alive.

   And then there was this most wretched column by Eleanor Clift, vividly echoing all of those brilliant Beltway insights with one textbook case study on how our Beltway political class, across the board, "thinks":

   Republicans finally had something to celebrate this week when Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold called for censuring George W. Bush. Democrats must have a death wish. Just when the momentum was going against the president, Feingold pops up to toss the GOP a life raft.

   It's brilliant strategy for him, a dark horse presidential candidate carving out a niche to the left of Hillary Clinton. . . . . There is a vacuum in the heart of the party's base that Feingold fills, but at what cost? . . . .

   The broader public sees it as political extremism. Just when the Republicans looked like they were coming unhinged, the Democrats serve up a refresher course on why they can't be trusted with the keys to the country.

   [The same thing happened when Feingold announced that he favors same-sex marriages. He can't possibly be motivated by actual belief, so AP tells us why he really did it: "Sen. Russ Feingold, a potential presidential candidate, said Tuesday he supports giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, again positioning himself to the left of possible 2008 rivals."]

   All of this Beltway certainty about the motives of Feingold's Censure Resolution and the political consequences of it could not have been any more wrong. Feingold obviously hadn't decided to run for President and apparently wasn't planning on it. And 2006 saw endless controversy over the NSA program -- from hearings to court cases to Feingold's resolution to a final House vote in which Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the President's NSA program -- and Americans stomped on the Republicans and put the Democrats in power.

   The Beltway pundit class and the premises which generate conventional Washington wisdom are corrupt to their core and always wrong. And this Feingold announcement illustrates a major reason why that it so. They operate from a set of completely unexamined, empty premises that reflect their own character and belief system, but nobody else's. They have no core convictions and no passion and think that those attributes are the marks of sober, responsible people. And they project those character flaws onto everyone else and assume that nobody other than unserious lunatics are motivated by real belief.

   All of that combines to produce a worldview that is as inaccurate as it is bereft of integrity and principle. The excitement over new politicians like Jim Webb and Jon Tester -- and the passion inspired by Russ Feingold and even Howard Dean -- has nothing to do with long-standing and increasingly obsolete liberal/conservative stereotypes (the only prism through which the media can analyze the election results, which is why they are so confused). Instead, the excitement is due to a widespread hunger for people who are outside of and immune to the entire, soul-less Beltway machinery -- a system which, in every aspect, is broken and empty at its core.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/12/2006 @ 11:40am

8. the people have spoken. the people figured it out. they gagged on the bullshit, yakked it up, and realized what a pack of crooked incompetants "they" are.

   the people DONT love the dems...yet...

   but the dems have a golden opportunity to do what they do best - be everything to everybody, and do so honestly. the dems love being loved. when they temper this with wisdom they are unstoppable, especially after that horrid bunch of inept closet fascists screw up everything. i feel sorry for the rebublicans, but they should not have all jumped on that nasty snake oil salesman neocon wagon...

   time for the emergence of populist, progressive republicans?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2006 @ 12:01pm

9. thats the real story here - we look at the numbers of dems/pubs and say we have dem control of the legislative branch. the pub naysayer spins it by pointing out that many of the dems are kind of conservative and that the picture is skewed. but this does not take into account another reality...

   the republican party is in TROUBLE...

   how many secretly moderate-ish pubs will be happy to side with moderate-ish dems? with the implosion of the ayn rand/oliver cromwell unholy alliance that dictated every action and word of every pub pol for over a decade, we can look forward the the refreshing sight and sound of good old fashioned country clubber and loveable grumbling common senser style republicans to come to the forefront of the republican party or at least to challenge the oppressive, corrupt, petty, ideologized, and incompetant ancienne regime.

   slimy nihilists...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2006 @ 12:16pm

10. DARLADOON

    Thanks!!! I hope Feingold's announcement is not the first of many let-downs we will experience in the next two years.

    Posted by felicity at 11/12/2006 @ 6:34pm

11. Feingold dropped out because he was intelligent enough to know that he had no chance in hell of winning. The Dems are putting up Hillary and he knows it. He is young enough to wait until 2012 to lose against the Republican incumbant.

    "but the dems have a golden opportunity to do what they do best - be everything to everybody, and do so honestly. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/12/2006 @ 12:01am "

    What a load of crap. Tell me... when the Dems were in control...

    Did they help reform welfare to actually HELP people get off of welfare?

    Did they help reform social security to make sure it would still be solvent when our kids want to retire?

    Did they do a damn thing to reduce healthcare costs?

    Did they do anything to stop the genocide in Rwanda?

    Did they do anything to hold Saddam to the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement?

    The answer to ALL of the above is NO. They did not.

    Now given the Reps maddening ability to screw things up over the past four years, I am willing to take another look at what the Dem leadership proposes... but somehow I have a feeling it will be the same type of crap the Reps have been doing... just with a new spin.

    Posted by John B at 11/13/2006 @ 11:54am

12. My sympathies, Nichols. I could tell by your previous articles that you had a 'thing' for Mr. Feingold. Say; what about George Clooney? He sorta looks like Russ and he's just as, if not more, loony, er, liberal. Clooney for President!

    Posted by woodyee at 11/13/2006 @ 3:37pm

13. "... if not more, loony, er, liberal..."

    Posted by WOODYEE 11/13/2006 @ 3:37pm

    For the record, liberal does not mean loony(sic). Nor is it a "bad" word. Here are actual definitions. (Cover your ears woodyee, facts being discussed): Liberal;

    1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism. 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. 6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies. 7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. 8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. 9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor. 10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation. 11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule. 12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts. 13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

    Vs. conservative;

    1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. 2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate. 3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit. 4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party. 5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism. 6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.

    Hmmm...which one better describes any rational, forward thinking individual?

    This might explain conservative hang-ups on what has past...the cold war, communist threat, ICBM defenses, clintons penis etc.

    Actually, I think it more apt to label as looney, anyone who refuses to acknowledge change or stops trying to stay ahead of the curve. This is why "conservatives" will make America a backwards ass, third world country. And also, why they have no coherent plan for foreign policy.

    It also explains, why they love the term "stay the course"...even as the rest of the world moves on.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/13/2006 @ 7:06pm