Russ Feingold

Wisconsin's junior Senator Russ Feingold, the maverick, is getting attention for his latest statements on Iraq. I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but he wants to be the President of the United States.

Who is Russ Feingold?

The name is probably familiar to many because he is John McCain's partner. Does the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act ring a bell?

Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 bans soft money contributed to candidates and parties, "thus closing the loophole that has significantly affected our national political priorities for the past decade."

Sure it does.

The bill is unconstitutional, squelching free speech. In addition, it proved to be completely ineffective.

Case in point: Election 2004.

Feingold intended to blunt the influence of "larger moneyed interests." That worked out well, didn't it?

The highly touted Reform Act didn't have much of an impact on George "Moneybags" Soros.

The McCain-Feingold Act is most likely the only reason Russ Feingold sounds familiar to many Americans. After all, he doesn't show up on TV every other day like McCain, nor does he appear on Late Night talk shows, nor has he hosted Saturday Night Live.

Familiarize yourself with the Senator from Wisconsin.

Among Feingold's Senate "accomplishments":

1) He was the ONLY senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act.

2) In 2004, he voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

3) In 2003, he voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

4) In 1999, he voted NO on banning partial birth abortions.

5) In 1996, he voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

6) In 1995, he voted NO on an Amendment to prohibit flag burning.

7) In 1999, he voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses.

8) In 2002, he voted NO on requiring photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

9) In 2003, he voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.

10) In 2001, he voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years.

11) In 2002, he voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

12) In 1999, he voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo.

This sampling of Russ at work provides an overview of where he stands on the issues. Clearly, Feingold stands with the radical far Left.

The latest from Russ: He wants a deadline set for troop withdrawal from Iraq, suggesting the end of 2006.

CRAIG GILBERT of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writes:
Stepping up his criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq, Sen. Russ Feingold has begun calling for an end-of-2006 deadline for the completed pullout of American troops. Feingold said he was proposing a target "end date" for withdrawal because "I think what we're doing now is feeding the insurgency."

Feingold's position goes beyond what virtually any other senator has explicitly proposed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Democrat said he was also trying to break what he called a "taboo" in the Senate on the discussion of specific dates for bringing troops home. He said lawmakers, especially Democrats, need to be less "timid" on the subject.

..."The situation is becoming more and more untenable because of a lack of a clear plan to finish the task and leave," Feingold said in a telephone interview while he traveled between listening sessions in northern Wisconsin.

...The Bush administration and even some critics of the war have argued that setting target dates for the withdrawal of troops would be artificial and would embolden insurgents in Iraq.

Feingold said he rejected that argument because he was convinced that the indefinite presence of troops and the lack of a withdrawal plan fueled the insurgency.

Feingold said a deadline for full withdrawal - he proposed Dec. 31, 2006 - should be flexible and subject to changing conditions. But he contended that setting even a target date would "help us to undermine the recruiting efforts and unity of the insurgents, encourage Iraq ownership of the transition process . . . and reassure the American people our Iraq policy is not directionless."

The lawmaker, who voted against the resolution authorizing the Iraq war, said he has been disappointed that more senators haven't spoken out about timetables for withdrawal.

He predicted that would change after the August recess.

"I think there's a groundswell of dissatisfaction with what's happening in Iraq. I'd be very surprised if people didn't come back (from recess) with much more of a sense of urgency," Feingold said.

Setting a deadline for troop withdrawal is absolutely idiotic.

Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has said that such a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq would have dangerous consequences.

“We would like to see the withdrawal of American forces as quickly as possible, because the presence of any foreign troops on our land means there is a weakness that we cannot by ourselves control the security situation,” Jaafari said.

According to Jaafari, setting a deadline for the withdrawal would “play into the hands of the terrorists.”

Feingold obviously disagrees. He doesn't have a problem with leaving Iraq before it is stabilized and putting the Iraqi people at risk. He doesn't hesitate to aid our enemies by trying to chip away at American public support for the mission of our troops in Iraq. He doesn’t care about undermining the U.S. military and emboldening the terrorists by handing them a victory.

Feingold is of that radical far Left fringe "cut and run" mindset, EXCEPT when it comes to Kosovo. Feingold hasn't set any deadlines for troop withdrawal from that “quagmire.”

Do you wonder about Feingold's timing in making his proposal?

I think he's hoping to garner attention for himself by seizing on the current media frenzy over Cindy Sheehan and the radical far Left's anti-war protest. I think he's hoping to get the MoveOn/Democrats for America/True Majority axis of extremists to claim him as their own. I think he's very shrewd.

So--

What is Feingold REALLY doing by proposing the December 31, 2006, deadline?

He is announcing that he intends to run for the U.S. Presidency.

Without question, Feingold has what it takes to be embraced by the radical Left-wing of the Democratic Party.

Simply put, that means he has what it takes to run America into the ground.