Is Feingold the Maverick the Left is Waiting For?

Russell Dana Feingold may give Hillary some grief in the 2008 presidential bid. He's almost "left" enough for me. He seems made to order for the democrat's liberal base yet won't offend the more conservative demo-plicans. The man has officially cornered the tag/label "Progressive Patriot." Very smart move as the rallying cry since 2000 has been "progressives" are on the march to take back the country. He has been described as a "maverick with courage." (The reluctant hero, like James Garner as my old pappy would say.)

Feingold became a US senator in 1992 after a decade in Wisconsin state politics. He has much in his favor :

He stands for reductions in pork barrel spending and corporate welfare. (Although when pols reductit in one barrel they pork it into another, and corporate welfare certainly seems alive and well). Can you find a senator who claims publicly he wants and we need more pork barreling and wealthyfare?

He was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when first voted on in 2001. And led a successful filibuster against renewal last year - which led to a compromise on some of its provisions (those 16 provisions none of us give a fart about or could name without googling; oh wait, I think one of the provisions protects us from librarians).

Feingold has a mixed record on gun rights and control. Sometimes voting in favor of gun control legislation, while at other times voting to expand gun rights (could be wishy-washy rather than "mixed" but lets not mince words, or is it "mincing" and lets not mix words?).

He's known as a budget hawk. He promised not to accept pay raises while in office and so far has returned $50,000 in such raises to the U.S. Treasury (recently divorced for the second time he may need those raises for alimony). But congress has shown that even a horrendously ill-deficited budget can be balanced and show a surplus almost overnight – just ask Clinton how to cook … I mean, how to balance the books.

He co-authored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 which took 7 years to pass. Last year he introduced the idea to ban lobbyists from giving gifts to senators, paying travel expenses for senator trips or traveling on corporate jets, require quarterly lobbying reports rather than semi-annually (won't pass but looks good and honest). Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 the 7 year ordeal to reform, signed by Bush, was the "soft money" issue that held our undivided attention. The Act closed "loopholes" and I'm certain no one will find a way around what has now become "the law of the land" as far as "soft money" goes, and campaign finance is cleaner. I know I sleep better at night with the knowledge that 7 years were consumed with bringing about this change in campaign law. Thank god there are limits to the "soft" money those pols can panky with.

His focus, according to internet gospel, has been on campaign finance reform, fair trade policies, health care reform, environmental protection, a multilateral foreign policy, Social Security, abolishing the death penalty, and eliminating wasteful spending.

I really don't see that for all the good senator's effort any of the above focusing has been reformed, protected, abolished, or eliminated. Of course one could say more candidates like Russ would be the answer – but will we live long enough to see several dozen Feingold-ish senators sending back pay raises and refusing trips on corporate jets with nifty gifts next to the champagne on ice; snubbing the rewards for congressionally eliminating corporate porking and the newly passed free healthcare and higher education for all Joe Blows? Just after they have reformed the Pentagon and CIA and eliminated the Patriot Act and saved the Homeland.

Russ leads the news today with proposing to censure Bush for spying. Let's all give a big sigh of relief. That'll stop that Zionist cabal of evil neocons. Smack, smack, oh the wrist pain of it all, smack smack, take that and that. Did I mention Russ is Jewish? Are American liberals liberal enough to elect a Jewish president, or even American conservative Baptists? I don't think so, but don't bet your diebold on it.