I'm Disowning Russ Feingold

Russ Feingold gave up on his 2008 presidential fantasy months ago, before Thanksgiving 2006.

Even though he's doesn't have front and center status anymore compared to the Dem presidential candidates, Feingold refuses to accept being in the back seat.

He longs to be in the spotlight. It probably kills him to see Dennis Kucinich getting more press.

It's as if Feingold is appealing to every fringe lib kook to start a draft Feingold for 2008 movement. He might be hoping that Hillary taps him to be her running mate, to get a real extremist on the ticket to appease the radical Left and make placing a vote for Hillary easier to swallow.

Maybe he's positioning himself to take part in a third party campaign, perhaps as Michael Bloomberg's VP.

Whatever end Feingold is pursuing doesn't matter. What counts is that he's putting his massive ego ahead of the good of the country.


He keeps coming up with new troop withdrawal deadlines for the war in Iraq. He tried to censure President Bush once already and now he's going to try again.

It's all the same: LOOK AT ME. LOOK AT ME. LOOK AT ME.

Feingold talked about his latest attention-getting plan on Sunday's Meet the Press.

I have to believe that Feingold asked for the air time. Other than the censure thing, there was no reason to have him on the program. It all seemed staged.

His performance yesterday was similar to his others on Meet the Press. He said outrageous things and talked of his outrageous schemes -- all attacking the President.

A Feingold appearance on MTP is a creepy glimpse of an ego run amok.

Some highlights:

ON GENOCIDE IN IRAQ

Feingold doesn't worry about a potential humanitarian disaster if U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq abruptly.

MR. RUSSERT: You were—used the word redeployed. John Burns, the bureau chief in Baghdad for The New York Times, who’s lived there for some time, offered these words this week: “It seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence. And I find that to be widely agreed” among “Iraqis, including Iraqis who strongly opposed the invasion.” Is—are you concerned that we leave behind violence, catastrophe, genocide?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Let’s be clear what we have now. We now have cataclysmic violence. That’s the status quo. It is possible that things would get worse if we left; it is possible that things would get better. But this is what I believe: Right now we’re holding the bag in Iraq. The other countries in the region—Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait—they have an interest in stability in Iraq because, if what you say will happen, it will cause great instability in their countries and danger for them. The only way we get them engaged, the only way they put up the money and the resources to stabilize this situation is if we stop what they consider to be an occupation of Iraq. So I think the only way to avoid the situation getting worse is for us to orderly redeploy our troops and get these other countries engaged in what is in their own interest, which is a stable Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: So, if the country explodes, you think you get the attention of people in the region?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I’m, I’m saying it would not necessarily get worse if we, if we took the step of redeploying. I’ve heard a number of experts on the Foreign Relations Committee come in and say, in fact, it’s just the opposite. It is our occupation, as it’s perceived, that leads to so much of this free- floating violence throughout the country, not through any fault of ours, but it creates an environment that leads to more and more violence, more and more possible genocide, more and more tribal tension. Our getting out in an orderly way at least gives the opportunity for a new start in Iraq, and that’s what it’s time for us to do.

What a convoluted mess!

Feingold says that "cataclysmic violence" and genocide are happening in Iraq. It's the status quo.

His plan to address this disaster?

Leave.

That's straight from the Obama school of managing genocide.

ON CENSURE OF THE PRESIDENT

MR. RUSSERT: President Bush is determined to continue the war in Iraq, he’s made that very, very clear. Is there anything that Democrats can do to get him to pay attention or to hold him accountable, in their minds?

What a set up!

That question sounds as spontaneous as a Jay Leno exchange with a guest.

Russert's follow-up questions are just as scripted.

Really lame.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, I’m shocked by the administration, in particular the president’s response to the November election. Usually, when presidents are repudiated in elections, they say, “Well, maybe I ought to reassess.” Instead, he did just the opposite. He did this surge, which went contrary to the will of the American people. I think we need to do something serious in terms of accountability. And that’s why I will be shortly introducing a censure resolution of the president and the administration. One, on their getting us into the war of Iraq—in Iraq and their failure to adequately prepare our military and the misleading statements that have continued throughout the war in Iraq. And the second, on this administration’s outrageous attack on the rule of law, all the way from the illegal terrorist surveillance program to their attitude about torture, which we heard a little bit about today on this show. This administration has assaulted the Constitution. We need to have on the historical record some kind of indication that what has happened here is, in the words of Director McConnell, as you just quoted him, disastrous. Somehow we have to address that. And I think it’s a good time to begin that process.

MR. RUSSERT: A censure resolution against the president?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Correct.

MR. RUSSERT: Anybody else?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Potentially yes. I think when it comes to Iraq, obviously the vice president. Vice President Cheney has been one of the worst actors in American history in this situation. There may be others. On the rule of law issue, on the attack on the Constitution, the current attorney general has had one of the worst records of not being honest with the Judiciary Committee, of being intentionally misleading, and of not taking responsibility for everything from the disastrous consequences of the Patriot Act to the U.S. attorneys debacle. So, yes, potentially others. But, of course, the president. Since the buck stops with the president, that is the number one.

This is all shameless grandstanding.

Russert challenged Feingold, suggesting that Americans might not respond well to his censure plan.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the American people will look on this saying, “Here go the Democrats just trying to create something sensational by censuring the president rather than trying to solve the problem of Iraq”?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, there’s a lot of sentiment in the country, even the polls show it, for actually impeaching the president and the vice president. I think that they have committed impeachable offenses with regard to this terrorist surveillance program and making up their own program. What I am proposing is a moderate course, not tying up the Senate and the House with an impeachment trial, but simply passing resolutions that make sure that the historical record shows the way they have weakened our country, weakened our country militarily and against al-Qaeda, and weakened our country’s fundamental document, the Constitution. I think that’s a reasonable course and does not get in the way of our normal work. But the American people are outraged at the way they’ve been treated. They are outraged at the dishonesty that they have been subjected to. The American people—we deserve better than the way we’ve been treated, and somehow this has to be reflected.

Good grief.

Feingold says that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses.

That's the way he sees it. However, Judge Feingold has decided that it would be too messy to go through an impeachment. Instead, he thinks censuring Bush and Cheney will be enough.

If Feingold really believes that the President and Vice President have committed impeachable offenses, then it's his duty to pursue impeachment.

His explanation that a censure would provide plenty of humiliation for the history books is just stupid.

He sounds like a girl in junior high seeking revenge on her arch-nemesis.

Feingold says, "[T]he American people are outraged at the way they’ve been treated. They are outraged at the dishonesty that they have been subjected to.The American people—we deserve better than the way we’ve been treated, and somehow this has to be reflected."

What a load!

I think Wisconsinites deserve better than Russ "John Doe Amendment killer" Feingold.

As a resident of Wisconsin, I am embarrassed that Feingold is my senator.

His most recent censure effort is a disgrace.

It's particularly pointless since he admits that a censure "does not have legal consequences to my knowledge."

So it's just a feel good measure?

A sloppy wet kiss planted on the radical Left?

Look at this from Feingold's U.S. Senate website:

Feingold is encouraging people to email suggestions of what to include in the censure resolution. People can email Senator Feingold at Russell_Feingold@feingold.senate.gov or visit his webpage at http://feingold.senate.gov.

He's inviting every lib nutjob to give input on his censure resolution.

Way to get them eating out of how your hand, Russ!


I can't go on like this. I hereby formally disown Russ Feingold.
___________________________

Read the complete transcript or watch the netcast here.