The REAL Russ Feingold

Presidential wannabe Russ Feingold jumped on board with the anti-war far Left radicals in mid-August, when he called for a December 31, 2006, deadline for the completed pullout of American troops from Iraq.

Naturally, Feingold was embraced by the extremists of the Democrat Party. He was a hero to them for having the nerve to be the first senator to go on record with an explicit date for a troop withdrawal deadline.

Of course, 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.

Without question, Feingold is of that radical far Left fringe "cut and run" mindset.

His Iraq policy is not the only reason the far left-wing of the party considers Feingold attractive as a potential presidential candidate. He is on the same page with them on a number of issues.

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 and they like him.

His YES vote in the Senate Judiciary Committe to confirm the nomination of John Roberts must have caught the fringe Dems off guard. I suspect they were counting on Feingold to tow the radical line and vote against Roberts.

Transcript

So, now what? What are radical Leftists to do, bail out on Feingold or stand by their man?

This morning Feingold said:

I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the chief justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one.

Judge Roberts' impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of chief justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.

Feingold then went through a litany of things that troubled him about John Roberts. He also admonished the White House for not releasing documents, as if 75,000 pages weren't enough.

Feingold continued:

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, I'd ask myself: What kind of a justice does this man aspire to be? An ideologue? A lawyer's lawyer?...A chief justice who will go down in history as the leader of a sharp ideological turn to the right, or a consensus builder who is committed to the court and its role as guarantor of basic freedoms?

Now, I have talked to a number of people who know John Roberts or to people who know people who know John Roberts. All of those -- all of those -- I have heard from directly or indirectly have seen him develop since 1985 into one of the foremost Supreme Court advocates in the nation, whose skills and judgments are respected by lawyers all across the ideological spectrum.

They don't see him as a champion of one cause, as a narrow ideologue who wants to impose his views on the country. They see him as open-minded, respectful, thoughtful, devoted to the law and truly one of the great legal minds of his time.

Now, that carries a great deal of weight with me. And it helps to overcome my frustration with Judge Roberts for not distancing himself from what he wrote in his Reagan-era memos, and with the White House for refusing to release relevant documents to the committee.

No doubt, some of the wackiest on the far Left will be unable to forgive Feingold for doing the right thing in this case.

Nonetheless, I would be surprised if that vote hurts him among the Leftists in the long run.

I do think it was a politically strategic move on Feingold's part and a wise one.

He has backed the extremists' agenda consistently. His liberal record is about as solid as it can be. He has their support tightly locked up.

The argument was made that the confirmation of Roberts would not tip the ideological balance of the court anyway. Plus, Roberts will be the next chief justice. That's already a done deal. Voting against him would not change the outcome.

As a result, Feingold really had nothing to lose by voting in favor of Roberts and everything to gain.

His YES allows him to claim maverick status once again. He can claim to be a man of principle and not beholden to outside pressure from special interests.

There's a likability factor that comes into play, too. Feingold has used it to his advantage in past senate elections. People who disagree with him on issues can still respect him and find him palatable. I personally know otherwise staunch Republican voters who have been tempted to vote for Feingold on the basis that he's a good guy. I find that to be a lame reason to vote for someone, but many do not.

The YES serves him well in Wisconsin, a state that went for Kerry in 2004 by only 11,000 votes. (There should be an asterisk next to that total, given the documented voter fraud that occurred in Wisconsin in the 2004 election.)

Although his senate seat is secure until 2010, his YES vote pacifies all those Republican voters in Blue, although borderline Red, State Wisconsin.

In his statement this morning, Feingold warned:

Future nominees who refuse to answer reasonable questions or whose documents the administration -- any administration -- refuses to provide should not count on my approval.

He made it clear that while he gave a thumbs up to Roberts, he is prepared to obstruct Bush's next nominee. That should be enough to keep his base, the far Left, happy. It should be enough to maintain his popularity on the national stage.

Feingold is definitely a shrewd politician, a shrewd, extremely liberal politician.