Politi"Fact" continues its big, sloppy kisses to Republicans

by folkbum

I am not sure how much the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel paid to buy the PolitiFact brand, but if they were expecting their own brand to be buoyed by a true independent voice this election season, they got ripped off.

Take the last two Politi"Fact" Wisconsin stories. On Tuesday, they examined a claim in a TV spot from Republican candidate Ron Johnson about Democratic Senator Russ Feingold's vote on health care. Here's a bit, with my bold (italics in the original):

A closer look at the language [in the ad] shows Johnson frames the issue around a question the polls did not ask.

The pre-vote polls used straightforward references to the "health care reform plan" or "proposed changes to the health care system." That is in contrast to the Johnson ad, which says a majority of Wisconsinites opposed--and Feingold voted for--a "government takeover of health care." [. . .]

That two-word phrase--government takeover--became Republican shorthand in opposing the legislation, even though Democrats dropped the "public option" approach under which the feds would have run a plan to compete with private health insurance.

Our PolitiFact colleagues have repeatedly probed the truth of the government takeover charge, and found it ridiculously false--a Pants on Fire. In truth, the health care law creates a market-based system that relies on private health insurance companies.

So looking around the page there, you might be wondering: Where are the dancing flames? Where is the honest labeling of what Johnson has done, as determined by PoltFact's own standards?

Indeed, in missing the opportunity here to call Johnson's ad a pants-on-fire lie, Politi"Fact" keeps its streak of only awarding flames to Democratic candidates alive. (They awarded one pants-on-fire rating to a statement by a conservative yakker at a competing media conglomerate, true, but no Republican candidates even when they clearly deserve it.)

Then today's Politi"Fact" awards the first and to date only 100% "True" rating in the feature's near two-month-long history. And what claim was rated as true? That Scott Walker, Republican candidate for governor, gave back a large chunk of salary in his first six years on the job as Milwaukee County Executive. Here:

For years, folks in southeastern Wisconsin have heard about Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive, giving up thousands upon thousands of dollars of his salary. [. . .] The returned money was part of a 2002 campaign promise to cut the job’s salary by $60,000 per year. Walker, the Republican candidate for governor, made the pledge in the wake of a scandal over lavish county pensions.

His Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, has taken a jab at Walker, pointing out Walker has reduced his annual giveback from $60,000 to $10,000. The Barrett campaign points to a 2002 Walker flier, which includes the promise to reduce the county exec salary by $60,000 per year.

That promise, however, didn’t specify for how long Walker would reduce the salary by $60,000. And in April 2008, he was re-elected after telling voters he would reduce the giveback to $10,000. (Walker joked at the time, according to a news report, that his decision to give back nearly half of his $129,114 salary had been unpopular with his wife.)

It goes on from there to talk about just how precisely accurate the number touted by Walker is.

But do you notice anything missing? That's right--no one has challenged Walker's salary claim as untrue. Politi"Fact" is literally answering a question no one has asked. It's one thing to take a disputed item--like whether or not the Affordable Care Act of 2010 is a "government takeover of health care"--and arbitrating the truthity or falsity of that claim. It's another thing to take an item that no one has claimed to be false and declare it true.

And the part of this Walker claim that is disputable--whether or not he broke a promise--is glossed over with a glib "whatevs" when a nearly identical semantic distinction made by Russ Feingold was awarded pants-on-fire status. Can the bias be any clearer?

Ron Johnson: Vote for me, because I don't understand how Social Security works, either

by folkbum

How long is this list, now, of things millionaire Senate candidate Ron Johnson doesn't seem to understand how they work? There's global warming, which he thinks is "just" caused by sunspots. There are industrial revenue bonds, which he thinks have no government subsidy attached. There's being a "self-made" man, which he thinks happens by marrying into wealth.

Now, he boldly and unequivocally tells teevee watchers that he doesn't know how Social Security works. "Russ Feingold and politicians from both parties," he intones, "raided the Social Security Trust Fund of trillions and left seniors an IOU. They spent the money, it's gone."

See, that "IOU" of which he speaks is a collection of US treasury bonds that, like all the other treasury bonds ever issued in the history of this country, will be honored by the federal government because the US is not, by law, allowed to default on its debt. The money for the Social Security trust fund is no more "gone" than the money Ron Johnson has invested in BP stocks, although you can rest assured that whatever specific dollars Johnson handed over to BP years ago have long been spent.

And why is the trust fund an "IOU" of t-bills? Because of decisions made long before Feingold--indeed, long before most of the current batch of Senators--was elected. Reagan, Greenspan, and Democrats in Congress in the early 1980s made the decision to over-tax the working class now (the payroll tax has, for 30 years, consistently raised more than it needed to, meaning you and I are overpaying) to prepare for the demands of later. It's a system that is working just fine, and even if we do nothing, it will pay out full benefits to retirees for 30 more years, and then still pay out 75% of promised benefits pretty much indefinitely thereafter. If we do nothing. If we make small tweaks, such as asking millionaires like Johnson to pay the payroll tax on their full income, the way you and I do on ours (I'm assuming the bulk of my readers earn less than $100k a year), then Social Security can pay full benefits for pretty much ever.

This is not complicated and it's something we've discussed here before (click on the "Social Security" label below). Why Ron Johnson, who's asking us to trust him because he's some kind of whiz at this whole finance thing, can't get it is beyond me. And he wants you to vote for him so he can be in charge of this program he doesn't understand? Good luck with that.

Start the general election with a Cheddarbomb

by folkbum

UPDATE: We have blown past 100, 125, and 150 by 5:00 already today. Let's try for 200! If you haven't clicked yet, do so now!

So the results are in (I assume; I'm scheduling this post in advance since my bedtime is 9:00 these days), and the general election is now officially underway.

Join me and bloggers all around the Left Cheddarsphere in assisting with the inaugural "Cheddarbomb." You've heard of the "moneybomb," right? One day, as many donors and as much as possible? This is Wisconsin, ain'a, and so we have to do it our way. Cheddarbomb.

So click on the thermometer to the right and drop some Cheddar on Russ Feingold. Married-into-millionaire Ron "Sunspot" Johnson has a personal fortune he's willing to spend on this election. Russ has us. Today the plan is "15 on the 15th"--15 being the number of thousands of donors for today.

The bloggers have set a reasonable goal of 100 donors from our collective readership. If we can double that number, I would be a happy man. Click. Give. Let's show Sunspot that his millions are no match for the netroots.

YOU are the reason

by folkbum

(SEE ADDITIONAL UPDATE BELOW. Special update for those of you joining us via BadgerBlogger: Please note that one commenter here has personal experience with the kind of harassment I'm talking about in this post, perpetrated by regulars from BadgerBlogger itself. See John Foust's comment below. [JOKE REDACTED TO MEET GOOGLE'S POLICIES.] Thanks!)

The latest mini-dustup on the right half of the Cheddarsphere is that in Russ Feingold's new commercial, there's a fake name on a nameplate. The ad's about job creation, you see, and the righties are now convinced that this fake name is Feingold's tacit admission that government stimulus hasn't created any real jobs. This is merely desperate ideology in search of confirmation when faced with the overwhelming fact that they're wrong. And, clearly, that is not the reason why Feingold used a fake name.

Consider: How do we even know it's a fake name? Because as soon as the ad appeared, the right-wing smear machine flew into action to see if they could find this "Elizabeth M. Ackland." Google searches, Lexus-Nexus searches--Charlie Sykes even went so far as to search cemeteries. This is not just a casual "I wonder who that is" curiosity. This is obsession. So if you want to believe that the motives of people like Charlie Sykes in digging obsessively for information about Ackland were entirely pure, be my guest. But you have to ask yourself: Why were the right wingers so hell-bent on finding Ackland, if she were real? Of what possible use to them would the information be about where she worked? Where she lived? Where her children went to school?

Yeah, scary. When you consider the way that the Charlie Sykes stormtroopers (not a Nazi thing--they embrace that for themselves) treat the personal and professional lives of those of us who are real and do attach our real names to what we do and our support for candidates, it would have been irresponsible for Feingold to subject an innocent person and her family to the hell that was sure to follow.

Seriously: You, my friends and neighbors in the right blogosphere, you are the reason why Feingold used a fake name there. Think, and think honestly, though sometimes I imagine that's hard for you, think about what you would have said, done, and advocated if and when the real Elizabeth Ackland were revealed. That's it right there. That's the reason.

(Illy-T reminds us of the rabid right's history of doing exactly that, and points us to a reminder that Charlie Sykes's BFF Scott Walker uses fake people himself, a post which itself references Mark Green doing the same thing.)

UPDATE: The Chief points out that in Ron Johnson's recent "Tipping Point," Johnson used stock footage of a "family" packing up and driving away, rather than a real Wisconsin family as Johnson's voiceover would have you believe.

In Name Only

by folkbum

Russ Feingold is not as, um, direct as I was:

On Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’ Health Care Proposal: My goals for health care reform include a strong public option, long-term care reform and reform of the Medicare reimbursement system that has disadvantaged Wisconsin for far too long. I am disappointed that the Finance Committee bill, as written, comes up short on all three fronts. I hope my colleagues on the Finance Committee will change the bill to ensure it is not just health care reform in name only.

Time Magazine Hearts the 17th Amendment

By Keith R. Schmitz

Karen Tumulty on Time's Swampland site this morning gives Russ Feingold's idea to elect senators rather than appointing them to open seats, especially after some of the recent debacles.

George Will hates it, which makes it a really good idea.

Again, as they say in the slogan, Something Special from Wisconsin.

Sure some of the elected Senators haven't worked out, but a least for the people of that state they are Their Senators.

Obama, FISA and the Politics of Puffery

Update: Contact Barack Obama.
Update: See Compromising the Constitution and August 8, 1974 v. July 9, 2008.
***Bush is using the Nixon crimes-inspired FISA to immunize the very executive abuse which FISA was crafted to prevent.***

Barack Obama has taken much heat for his qualified support for the FISA capitulation to be debated and possibly voted on in the U.S. Senate this week.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (1978) was one of numerous post-Watergate reforms intended to check the vast executive power, in this matter of concern the power to wiretap and spy on American citizens under the invoked umbrella of national security.

A president wants to spy on Americans and claim national security rationales (misleadingly like Nixon and Bush), then a president has to answer to the FISA court as a check on the executive power preventing the president from becoming an Orwellian tyrant, dispensing with citizens’ rights at will, FISA mandates.

Bush, like Nixon before him when there was no FISA, is attempting to codify an unconstitutional executive program, violative of (among other liberties) the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and the First Amendment right to engage in free speech, chilled when “(t)he price of lawful public dissent (is) dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power” [Landmark Supreme Court decision striking down Nixon’s claims of unlimited power to wiretap Americans under presidential claim of “domestic security;” UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)].

But one of the rare points of light in the new FISA bill (that addresses modern technological methods of communication), it is claimed, is the mandate that a court will be in place to check illegal executive branch monitoring of citizens, and that any monitoring must take place exclusively within the FISA court-approved sphere, effectively negating the power of a Bush-Cheneyesque, out-of-control presidency.

“The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court,” said Barack Obama in a statement of his support for the bill.

These things you say we have, we already have.

That’s one of the problems of the FISA bill. As Slate and others have pointed out, FISA is already the exclusive legal authority checking executive surveillance on American citizens that are made on national security grounds, and the new FISA bill, ironically, retroactively codifies the most flagrant FISA law-breaking since its inception.

Bush, and his conspirators in the telecommunications industry, have throughout his presidency utterly disregarded FISA and broken this federal statute in presidential acts of lawlessness unrivaled since Nixon.

Bush is using the Nixon-inspired FISA to immunize that which FISA was crafted to prevent. And the Democrats believe opposition to this disgusting act is too politically risky.

As Patrick Radden Keefe explains:

The Democrats' most pathetic bit of self-deluded posturing involves the inclusion of a clause suggesting that the new law represents the "exclusive means" by which 'electronic surveillance and interception of certain communications may be conducted.' According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., this means 'the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president.' But, then, FISA always said that it was the 'exclusive means.' And in 2001, pretty much on a whim, the president set it aside. …

From 2001 to 2007, the NSA engaged in a secret program that was a straightforward violation of America's wiretapping laws. Since the program was revealed, the administration has succeeded in preventing the judiciary from making a definitive declaration that the wiretapping was a crime. Suits against the government get dismissed on state-secrets grounds, because while the program may have been illegal, it was also so highly classified that its legality can never be litigated in open court. And now suits against the telecoms will by dismissed en masse as well. Meanwhile, the new law moves the goal posts, taking illegal things the administration was doing and making them legal. … Whatever Hoyer and Pelosi—and even Obama—say, this amounts to a retroactive blessing of the illegal program, and historically it means that the country will probably be deprived of any rigorous assessment of what precisely the administration did between 2001 and 2007.

The Politics of FISA

The political track for candidate Obama, who undoubtedly despises out-of-control chief executives like Bush and Nixon, is to project a nuanced presidential candidate laboring under the weight of his national security commitments, and then quietly help strike the absurd passages from the House-approved FISA bill under Senate consideration.

President Bush will ultimately veto such an amended FISA if passed, leaving the issue on the backburner as gas pushes five dollars/a gallon and middle America goes further in debt leaving FISA about as relevant and compelling a political story to struggling American families as the movie Jaws II.

The compulsion driving this maneuver, rather than just calling the House FISA bill what it is, is to prevent a harebrained national media (ever desperate to assist John McCain) from creating a campaign narrative (false though it be) of McCain and national security versus Obama and fuzzy Fourth Amendment (whatever the hell that is).

But Obama need not engage in this strategy, though he is not doing so casually. There is a long and distinguished tradition of American Constitutional thought on liberty and security that can inoculate Obama from even the most craven Republican and the most foolish of talking heads.

And Obama can, in essence, plausibly assert that anything Bush and his cronies tell you on anything is wrong. That would be the politically safe and Constitutional thing to do.

We'll see what happens this week.

For a more detailed examination on the unadulterated idiocy of the FISA bill, see Glenn Greenwald at Salon.
- via mal contends -

Wherein I criticize Obama

by folkbum

One of my six regular readers, Dan, complains that I never criticize Democrats. Well, I have a slate of posts in the pipeline criticizing Republicans, so let me offer Dan a bone.

Barack Obama is wrong on FISA. Russ Feingold is right.

Feingold Reminds US to Stay Outraged

by bert

Good for Russ Feingold for continuing this week to protest against the warrantless wiretapping bill. Too bad no one is listening.

We're all tired, I know. It's summer for god's sake. And this is just one old, rotting piece on a messy pile of constitutional outrages that were built up in the guise of fighting terror.

But Feingold, along with Sen. Christopher Dodd, is still out there this week on the Senate floor and in interviews with messages that are in effect paddling upstream. They are pushing against a strong current of indifference. (UPDATE: Note, for example, the buried wire story on this that the Journal Sentinel ran Thursday morning.) This shows that both men are working from principles, and not craven political posing. You don't pose when you know no one is watching.

At issue is the bill that will exonerate phone companies for opening communications to the executive branch of government without the (heretofore) required judicial permission, and will weaken protections of our privacy against one government branch's unilateral decision to snoop.

What sticks in Feingold's craw -- besides the fact that the existing rules to act fast and give judicial oversight would work fine against terror -- is that this administration knew the wiretaps were illegal, and just did them anyway.

Bush's defenders try to attack Feingold's position by saying Feingold doesn't want the government to fight terror. I remember Jessica McBride urging Feingold to watch the movie "United 93". But obvious to anyone is that the administration's motive is not terror, it is a belief in unfettered executive branch power and in the divine right of corporations.

Here's Feingold today during an interview with Amy Goodman's Democracy Now:

But I think a censure resolution [against George Bush] that essentially lays out the same case, that for the first time since Andrew Jackson says this president has
actually violated the laws of the land and has disregarded our system of government, is a very important step. I know it won’t happen. I know it’s not going to be brought up. But I do think it would be the appropriate step . . .

Feingold recognizes that our mass fatigue and a conservative media are working against a clear view of the damage wreaked by the Bush administration. In fact, lately sensing an opportunity, right-wing dead-enders have been working stealthily to exploit this indifference -- -- to try to burnish the lame duck's outgoing image while no one is looking. For example, Mark Belling last week called Bush's war on terror a "glorious victory".

So Feingold deserves credit for pushing back a little -- for lighting a candle rather than cursing the apathy.

One Further Feingold Irony

I know Russ repeatedly said he'd wait until after the midterms to make his decision. I'm guessing that had the US Senate stayed Republican, Russ would be running right now. But his new power as a member of the majority--and in the majority on the Judiciary and Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees--is, I would bet, what made up his mind.

Damn you Jim Webb!

. . . and see Glenn Greenwald.

Feingold's not running. Ruins my day.

John Edwards just keeps getting luckier and luckier:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

On Sunday, November 12th in Racine, I will hold my 1000th Listening Session with the people of Wisconsin. Before reaching that milestone, 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.

Like many Americans, I am excited by the results of the November 7th election. My fourteen years in the Senate have been the greatest privilege of my life and I am extremely pleased with what we have accomplished. During so much of that time, however, we Democrats have not only been in the minority but have often been so deeply mired there that my role has often been to block bad ideas or to simply dissent. That is a very important role but I relish the thought that in this new Congress we can start, not only to undo much of the damage that one-party rule has done to America, we can actually advance progressive solutions to such major issues as guaranteed healthcare, dependence on oil, and our unbalanced trade policies. The Senate of the 110th Congress could also well be a place of greater bi-partisan opportunities for change; something I am very proud to have been effective at in both Republican and Democratic Senates.

I hope all of you know how much I have appreciated the incredible response you have given me and the efforts of our Progressive Patriots Fund since January, 2005. In addition to all of our work in Wisconsin and D.C., I have traveled to seventeen states trying to promote the election of progressive Democrats in all states. At every stop from Birmingham, Alabama to Burlington, Vermont, to Ft. Dodge, Iowa, to Las Vegas, Nevada, people have agreed with my view that we need to stand up for a strong, principled Democratic party that is willing to replace timidity with taking the risks of promoting a platform of bold solutions to our nation's problems. Unfailingly, people responded well to my positions: opposition to the Iraq war; calling for a timeline to redeploy our troops from Iraq so we can focus on those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001; my opposition to the flawed provisions of the USA Patriot Act that threaten the freedoms of law-abiding Americans; my call for accountability for the Administration's arrogant disregard for the law especially with regard to illegal wiretapping; fighting for fiscal responsibility including tough common sense budget rules that will help end the reckless policies that have heaped a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren; as well as my strong belief in guaranteed healthcare for all Americans and substantial investment in alternative energy sources and technologies.

Yet, 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. 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.

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. 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.

Most important, I want to continue my work as a Senator from this wonderful State of Wisconsin. Our fourteen year ongoing conversation that has taken place in hundreds of communities in Wisconsin in the form of open Listening Sessions is the principal reason I have been perceived as "ahead of the curve" on many key issues. Simply listening to the reasoning and passions of Wisconsinites remains the best source of good ideas and common sense I've ever encountered.

I love this country very much and am so lucky to be able to serve it in the United States Senate. My heartfelt thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement.

Sincerely,


Russ Feingold
Middleton, Wisconsin

Breaks my heart. I had a series of ads half-written in my head I was ready to give him. I'll still type them up at some point because they're (I think) hilarious, and could work for somebody--but they had that Russ vibe, you know?

So I'm now officially unafiliated. Warner, who I had pegged as Most Likely to Succeed, courted me before he dropped out, and Russ was the one I had my little blog-crush on. Vilsack's people have also courted me, but Vilsack, I thought, was very premature in announcing his candidacy for the bottom of the pack--Most Likely to Concede. Edwards clearly now has the upper hand--it'll be him and Hillary. Richardson still looks kind of good, I think. No way I'll get behind Evan Bayh. And there's some former governor of Alaska who thinks he'll be the next Howard Dean but won't.

So, anyway, suggestions? Make a case for your guy or gal in comments.

(Journal-Sentinel story here.)

Paid by the oversimplification?

Dickens and Tolstoy were paid by the word. (Some day, I dream I can be, too, since there's no word limit I can't blow through.) But it's clear that's not how Jessica McBride gets paid. Here's post of hers from this week, in its entirety:

They do?

New Saint Russ press release:

“Democrats support wiretapping terrorists..."

It then, predictably, goes on to oppose Congressional measures to wiretap terrorists.

What exactly has Russ Feingold ever done to support the wiretapping of terrorists? Opposing wiretapping terrorists doesn't count.

If you read Feingold's press release, you actually see that he still fully supports FISA, the law that allows the president to wiretap terrorists, in fact protesting that Arlen's Specter's "compromise" bill guts the current statute. If he opposed wiretapping terrorists, he'd be busy trying to eliminate FISA, rather than protect it. What McBride has penned here is an oversimplification of the worst kind--one that provides a false sense of what is actually going on.

What Feingold opposes is not "Congressional measures to wiretap terrorists," but rather Congressional attempts to both 1) retroactively excuse the president's violation of the plain language of the FISA law and 2) remove the administration's activity from the oversight of either the judicial or the legislative branch.

Perhaps McBride thinks that short paragraph above (me? write a short paragraph?) is too complicated for her readers so she feels the need to simplifiy it to a version that doesn't reflect reality. But that's a pretty cynical view of her and her fan base. Perhaps that short paragraph is just too complicated for McBride herself to understand. That also seems unlikely. That's why I've come down on the side of thinking that she gets a little bonus every time she writes up a misleading oversimplification.

She must be raking it in.

Islamic Fascism vs. Christian Zealots: A lesson in conservative hypocrisy

(Bumped from Tuesday night, where it got lost among the elections stuff, and updated with more examples. I'm bumping it because I think this deserves more attention, particularly from the conservative portions of the Cheddarsphere. New examples added to the text below are in gray.)

I didn't spend all of Tuesday night watching poll results come in. I also toodled around the Cheddarsphere a little bit and I found--with some measure of predictability--that the right is displeased with our Russ Feingold. Here's what Russ said:

I call on the President to stop using the phrase “Islamic fascists," a label that doesn’t make any sense, and certainly doesn’t help our effort to build a coalition of societies to fight terrorism. The President has often correctly referred to Islam as a religion of peace, but this reckless language, much like his prior reference to the fight against al Qaeda as a ‘crusade,’ completely cuts the other way. Fascist ideology doesn’t have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam.

There are two key elements to this paragraph. First, there's the all-important question of whether fascist is the right term to describe what it is that we're facing. I say no, as does David Neiwert, who goes further than I would in identifying some calling-the-kettle-blackism. And Neiwert has the background knowledge and the links to prove that it's not fascism at all:

"Islamofascism" is also, as I've pointed out a couple of times, a generally inappropriate term. This is especially so because fascism, as we have known it historically, only arises from a democratic state in a state of decay or crisis. Indeed, fascism, as I've explored in some depth, is a specific pathology constituted of a constellation of certain traits, only some of which are described by Islamic radicalism, and some of which are specifically repudiated by it. Perhaps they intend "Islamic totalitarianism," which would be accurate; but fascism is a very specific kind of totalitarianism, and what we see in the Islamic world today does not fit the description.

And yet conservative Cheddarsphereans have latched on to fascist; it's hard to escape it when even such normally-measured blogger types as Marquette Professor John McAdams seem to have embraced the term. And the debate over fascism's appropriateness precedes Feingold's statement. For example, it came up last week at Michael Caughill's From Where I Sit. My favorite--and don't miss the comments to this one, either--may be last month at Fred Dooley's Real Debate Wisconsin:

Instead of being critical of the President's language, why don't you direct your outrage towards those who are continuing to plan and atempt to put into place terrorists plots. [. . .] Frankly I don't care how you feel about language while other Muslims are trying to kill me.

But focusing on this takes away from what is, to me, the most important part of Feingold's statement and, in fact, represents a serious misreading of it.

This reckless language, Feingold says, [. . .] doesn’t have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam.

There is a strong case to be made about the imprecise language, but I think what Russ is asking for, instead, is a certain level of sensitivity to the world's second largest religion. Associating fascism, accurate or not, with Islam is not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people across a large swath of the civilized world. But the conservative Cheddarsphere only sees a target. Missing that point entirely, Owen goes off on the Senator, quoting Dictionary.com and, based on some complex linguistic argument, declares Russ "unfit to be President." The Asian Badger wonders if Feingold went "off his meds." Kate pointedly blames Muslims, saying

If they do nothing to help stop the "hijacking" of their religion, then they have no right to be offended. If people claiming to be Christians were behaving in such a barbaric manner, there would be such a backlash, there would be no traction, and they would be extremely lonely in their endeavors.

And finally, Peter DiGaudio, with his usual charm and grace, proclaims that "RUSS LOVES THOSE ISLAMISTS" and calls Islam--not just radical Islam, but all Islam--"a bloodthirsty cult of murder, violence and death."

It took me a couple of days to remember exactly what this whole debate over "Islamic Fascism" reminds me of. But it is, in fact, something that happened right here on the pages of this very blog. Last New Year's Eve, Bryan Kennedy guest-posted about his progressive religious values. Here's how he opened his post:

How is it that conservative religious zealots have seized my Savior and determined His values? Why do they try to tell me how to live my life and how to follow Him? How did they come to the conclusion that Christ was pro-war, pro-business, and that He spouted hatred for people who were not like Him?

I admit, it's no "bloodthirsty cult" kind of talk, but it sure raised hackles! It became the subject of the Spice Boys' second post ever, garnering a terse dismissal. But it was enough to catch Owen's eye:

Ah yes, we can’t be judgmental, can we? Unless, of course, you are a liberal and you are judging conservatives as hateful zealots. Then it’s okay. [. . .] I think it’s funny how so many liberals love to wax moral over the virtues of tolerance and acceptance while rejecting as intolerable a philosophy held by a large portion of the population.

Professor McAdams was also miffed:

[Bryan Kennedy] has posted a tantrum, directed against “conservative religious zealots” on folkbum’s rambles and rants blog. [. . .] There is an excellent Yiddish word to describe what liberals are showing when they talk about religious tolerance. The word is chutzpah.

And should we even talk about how much Fred blew up?

Let me tell you something, in the first 7 words of his "essay" Brian Kennedy managed to insult Christians. That might offend some people, would you not think? Brian Kennedy is running for Congress in a VERY conservative district. What he published here at the very least was monumentaly stupid, though obviously an honest reflection of his beliefs. To Spiceblog, it was just an essay with an odd disclosure.

By the way the 7 words, How is it that conservative religious zealots. I do not really care what else he had to say. My point is in 7 words he managed to insult bunches of Christians by calling them zealots. Not a great way to start an open dialouge is it?

Here's what I see:

• Bryan Kennedy speaks out against a narrow group of fundamentalists who seem to have hijacked an entire political party and ruined, for many of us, a peaceful and loving religion. Owen, Fred, and Prof. McAdams--all Christians who feel unfairly maligned--find that unacceptable.
  
• George W. Bush throws around the emotionally charged word fascist, which may or may not accurately describe a narrow group of fundamentalists who seem to have hijacked and ruined a religion of love and peace. Owen and other Cheddarsphereans (I can't even imagine what the national bloggers are saying) find that not only acceptable, but deem Senator Feingold insane or something for daring to think that perhaps Muslims might feel as unfairly maligned as they did when Bryan Kennedy spoke.

I can suggest two new words to look up on Dictionary.com for these Feingold critics: empathy and hypocrisy. Not necessarily in that order.

Feingold's small-donor strength

by folkbum. I'm really going to stop blogging now and let my guests take over. I promise.

A new analysis out today of Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund--and the leadership PACs of eight other potential 2008 Democratic candidates--shows that Russ is appealing to the same kind of small-dollar donors that a lot of us remember (and a lot of us were) from Howard Dean's quixotic 2004 run. No one else even comes close to the kind of success Russ is having in that regard.

Craig Gilbert's got the story in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

As he explores a 2008 presidential bid, Sen. Russ Feingold has raised a little more than $2 million this year, putting him ahead of some potential Democratic rivals and well behind others. But in one respect, Feingold's fund raising sets him apart. Unlike any other '08 prospect in his party, his early money is coming mostly from small donors.

In the first half of 2006, the Wisconsin senator raised 62% of his funds from people giving $200 or less, a much higher share than any other potential candidate. His total of roughly $1.3 million in small donations is topped only by Hillary Clinton, by far the dominant Democratic fund-raiser. [. . .]

Feingold's recent campaign filings offer a glimpse into his likely strategy: to tap the growing, Internet-fueled power of small donors, who propelled Democrat Howard Dean in 2003 and pumped more than $200 million into the last presidential campaign, according to one study of small donors in the 2004 election.

"The strength of (Feingold's) candidacy will depend on his catching a wave powered by Internet donors, much like the Dean wave," said Michael Malbin, a campaign finance expert who helped write that study. "I think it's impressive to have a following of small donors this early," said Malbin, who noted that even Dean began his campaign by raising mostly large contributions, as most presidential hopefuls do early in the election cycle. [. . .]

Spokesman Trevor Miller said more than 25,000 people this year have given to either Feingold's Senate committee or his political action committee, the Progressive Patriots Fund. Miller would not say what share of Feingold's small donations have been made online, which costs a campaign little. In an interview last month, Feingold expressed confidence that if he ran, he'd be able to tap the growing potential of the Internet as a fund-raising tool.

"I think it would explode if we went in that direction," he said. One small example of how that can work occurred in March, when Feingold came out with his well-publicized proposal to censure President Bush over wiretapping. March remains the best month ever for Feingold's political action committee; it took in a little more than $280,000. In only one other month has the committee taken in more than $200,000. [. . .]

A small-donor strategy fits into Feingold's political style (he co-wrote the 2002 campaign finance reforms), and it would also seem to be his best shot politically at building a fund-raising base. He lacks the national networks of big-name Democrats such as Clinton and Kerry and is not the sort of powerhouse fund-raiser among large donors that Warner is turning out to be.

This graphic has them all; note that only Kerry and Clark have more than 25% of their donations from small donors:


In one sense, I think Feingold's early small-donor strength is incredibly impressive. While it may be true that he's not pulling in Hillary or Warner kind of dough, the small-dollar donors are sustainable--something not true of people who can give $2100 in one shot. If Russ can keep tapping those donors, he'll be able to make up a lot of ground later.

But in a second, larger sense, this also speaks to the broad appeal of Feingold's message; people aren't donating to him because they are big-money folks who want to back a winner, but rather because they are your average joes who like what Russ has been saying and doing. Russ's support for presidential accountabilty and universal health care, among other things, resonates with voters. That's something not all of the people beating Feingold in the money race can say.

Whether or not Russ can win (two divorces, anyone?) is a completely separate question. But right now, it looks like Russ has everything in place that he needs to build a broad movement. I, for one, look forward to watching it take shape.

SpiceWatch: The Flub That Wasn't

I don't think I'll send McIlheranWatch on vacation for the summer, or anything, but here's an extra-special Russ Feingold-related edition of SpiceWatch.

The Spice Boys (who read local blogs "so you don't have to") branch out to read a national blog about a local guy. In a post titled "Feingold Flub," they write,

The good news is that Feingold has liberal bloggers from coast to coast singing his praises during his quixotic run for the White House. On top of that, he gets real face time on Meet The Press.

The bad news is that conservative bloggers also are hanging on Feingold's every word, looking for him to step in it.

The result: The National Review Online may have caught the junior senator from Wisconsin making a factual mistake during his recent appearance on Meet the Press.

When (if, since the whole point is "so you don't have to") you click through, you find, in fact, that Feingold did no such thing.

The NRO blogger tries to spin it that way, though, and Spivak and/ or Bice have bought it. Here's what Feingold said on "Meet the Press":

You know, Tim, today it was announced that a guy named Hassan Dahir Aweys is now the head of the government that has taken over in Mogadishu in Somalia. He is on the State Department’s terrorist list. He is known as an al Qaeda operative, or somebody that is connected with al Qaeda. While we were asleep at the switch, while we were bogged down in Iraq, while we were all focused on Iraq as the be all and end all of our American foreign policy, we are losing the battle to al Qaeda because we’re not paying attention. I asked [Coordinator for Counter Terrorism in the State Department] Ambassador [Henry] Crumpton at a hearing the other day, how many people in our federal government are working full time on the problem in Somalia? He said one full time person. We’ve spent $2 million in Somalia in the last year while we’re spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. This is insanity if you think about what the priorities are of those who have attacked us and those who are likely to attack us in the future.

None of that, based on the transcript of the Senate hearing that NRO quotes extensively, is untrue. The NRO is trying to pretend Russ said something more than he did. Here's the Senate hearing:

SEN. FEINGOLD: How many people does the State Department have working on Somalia full-time? I just want the full-time figure.

MR. CRUMPTON: Yes, sir. There is one dedicated Foreign Service officer in Nairobi that looks at Somalia, but there are a multitude of others, not just in the State Department but across the U.S. government, that work the issue.

When Feingold says there is one full-time person on Somalia, that's exactly what he was told by the ambassador. Full-time staff is a measure of how seriously the feds take the problem; clearly, a decade after "Blackhawk Down," Somalia has essentially slipped from the radar screen, despite the occasional task force. We're letting terrorists have a safe haven while we fritter away Iraq--and, as Russ has been talking about all along, that's not the way to run our foreign policy or our national security. We need to be where the terrorists actually are, doing everything we can to stop them. The nonsense notion that we're fighting them in Iraq so that we don't fight them here is belied every time al Qaida hits a Western target or we bust a terror cell on US soil.

When will the Bush administration start fighting the "war on terror" they so care about?

And when will the Spice Boys learn that passing off half-assed insinuations is about as close to real journalism as I am to winning "American Idol"?

Vote Kennedy!

You may or may not have noticed the BlogAd in the sidebar there for the Forward Together PAC's "Map Changers" promotion. The PAC is former Virginia Governor Mark Warner's thing (comparable to Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund PAC. It is a way to 1) curry favor with other Democrats and B) gather email addresses.

So go give Mark Warner your email address for this one. Why? Is it because I think you need another eight or ten emails a week for the next two and a half years? No--it's so you can vote for Bryan Kennedy.

Bryan, you may recall, is running in the WI-05 against grumpy gavel-beater F. Jim Sensenbrenner. And the whole idea behind Warner's "Map Changers" is that you, the voting (and emailing) public, can nominate and help select candidates who will benefit from the PAC's fundraising and, with hope, change the map to blue.

Byran Kennedy is on the list for nominations now (through Tuesday June 13) in the "West" region. You can also nominate someone from the "East" region--I went for Illinois's John Laesch, who is challenging another grumpy gus, Dennis Hastert. So click on the ad (or the link above--I don't get paid per click, so it doesn't really matter), register, and nominate Bryan. He's the last one in the "West" region.

And, as a bonus, you can select "No" for the "email updates" question!

UPDATE: Xoff reminds us that you can vote Kennedy in two more of these contests: DFA's Grassroots All-Star (where Bryan was a finalist last time) and Feingold's PPF itself.

Feingold in 2008

Brian Fraley has asked me to weigh in on his call for presidential favorites for 2008. So far, no Democrats seem to have contributed anything at all to his comments thread, and the Republicans there are vacillating among neo-Icarus Newt Gingrich, neo-Confederate George Allen, and concert pianist Condoleezza Rice--none of whom, of course, appeal to me.

I've made no secret around here that I would like to see Russ Feingold take a run at the presidency. For one, I think he would be refreshing on the campaign trail: His criticisms of the current administration are not partisan but ideological (i.e., Russ believes in the fourth amendment, and the president doesn't); his complaints about Congress are not petty politcs but concern over the fact that that don't do their jobs any more; and every campaign he has run has been a triumph of substance over mudslinging.

For another, I also think that Russ would make a great president. He clearly has a strong moral compass has not been swayed--unlike other senators I could name--by the trappings of Washington. As much as Dem bloggers have been writing lately about the pod people who make up the DC establishment (see, for example, Digby and Greenwald), Russ seems to be avoiding the problem. This is in part, I think, because he does actually take the time to visit every county in the state at least once a year (when was the last time a president visited every state annually?). Personally, I think we've had enough Wisconsin representatives "go Washington" already.

Russ believes in fiscal restraint (see, for example, his near-lone support of PAYGO rules), protecting civil liberties, and fighting terrorists instead of unnecessary wars of choice. He supports most other boilerplate Democratic issues, too (even if he is a "maverick"), such as protecting a woman's right to choose and ensuring that everyone is insured. His agenda would be basically my agenda (especially after I get that call about Chief of Staff, natch), and I can get behind that.

So, there you go--a whole slew of reasons for Russ Feingold in 2008.

Plus, Peter's head will explode.

Censure remains popular

Am I being a broken record? Am I just banging on my drum (as a leader in the drum-circle left) until it breaks? Is it just an unreasonable obsession? I don't know, but I'm going to keep doing this until the right Cheddarsphere recognizes that Russ Feingold is solidly in the mainstream of American political thought. From the LA Times and Bloomberg (.pdf):

Q40. As you may also know, a U.S. Senator has valled for a Senate resolution to censure George W. Bush, which is a formal expression of disapproval, but does not carry any legal consequences. The Senator claims it was illegal for Bush to authorize government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant. What do you think? Do you think that George W. Bush should be censured by the Senate for this, or not?

Yes, censure 46
No, don't censure 45

(via myDD)

Among Democrats (remember, the right says that Russ is way on the left fringe), censure has support 3-1. A solid majority of independents--53%--support it, too.

The full poll results make for good reading, if you're bored, including questions about who can best handle the major problems facing the country, and who people want to vote for this fall.

Censure still a mainstream idea

It's going to break the hearts of all my conservative readers, but their contention that support for Russ Feingold's censure motion is the exlusive purview of the drum-circle left remains unfounded. I noted it here, when a poll showed support for censure at 46%; I did again here, when another poll showed support at 42%. Now the new ABC/ Washington Post poll shows support for censure at a solid 45%:

The depth of public dissatisfaction with Bush and the highly partisan nature of the criticism are underscored by public attitudes toward efforts by some in Congress to censure him or impeach him for his actions as president.

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders view both scenarios as remote possibilities. Still, more than four in 10 Americans--45 percent--favor censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects without court permission. Two-thirds of Democrats and half of all independents, but only one in six Republicans, support censuring Bush, the poll found.

Last month, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure Bush. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, said his move was driven more by politics than by principle.

I included that last part, knowing that if I didn't, it would be the first club trotted out to beat down my point. I say, so what? At least 11% of people polled seemingly don't care if the move to censure Bush for his disregard of a law that makes a felony out of exactly what he's admitted doing* is political. It may be that Russ is capitalizing on the matter for his own gain, but it's still apparently the right move in people's minds.

* And if anyone still thinks this "domestic spying" scandal isn't actually domestic should think again.

Warner Woos Wisconsin: Founder's Day Dinner Wrap-Up

All photos, unless as noted, by my friend and fellow blogger Scott Feldstein, who has them at much better resolution at his place.

It is no secret that former Virginia governor Mark Warner is running for president. So he's doing what candidates do--particularly candidates who are "unemployed," as he kept reminding us during his speech--he's talking to any assemblage of Democrats he can get his hands on. And trying to drum up all the buzz he can.

The buzz is where I come in: A couple of weeks ago I got an email from Warner's Forward Together PAC--and, yes, in introducing Warner, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle did joke about Warner's use of Wisconsin's motto ("Forward!") in the name of his PAC. Nate invited me to attend the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's Founder's Day (née Jefferson-Jackson) Dinner as a guest of the PAC and to blog the event. So here we go . . .

Events like this are always a who's who of the state Dem party, so it was a lot of fun to get to meet or get re-accquanted with some of the big names in the party from around the state. And then it was also good to see my state representative and a few of the candidates for the open Congressional seat in Wisconsin's 8th CD, including Dr. Steve Kagen and Nancy Nusbaum (I also saw but didn't talk to Jamie Wall). There were tables full of goodies, too, including some great merchandise from Russ Feingold's PAC, like a t-shirt with a snake-like phone cord and the tagline "Don't Spy on Me!" (I can't find those online.) I got hit with so many stickers I felt like a race car.

And the place was packed, too, sold out. It shouldn't be that big of a surprise in an election year, but everyone seemed quite overjoyed that that many tickets were sold. It was a good night for the DPW's coffers, I guess.

How much of those full coffers were due to Warner, I don't know. I joined up with him and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (that's them on the left, in a photo I took) as they left the extra-special VIP reception before the main event. Warner was mobbed even then, as Doyle tried to get him introduced to some more of the movers and shakers in the party. The speaking part of the night started almost half an hour late, in part because Doyle and Warner couldn't get into the room.



As I ate my buffet meatballs, veggie sticks, and cheese (it is Wisconsin, you know), the speakers for the night got up and did their thing: In order, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (not pictured), Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and Governor Doyle.

The speakers all made a big deal both about the high attendance at the event (Barrett credited Wisconsin's dissatisfaction with Bush and Republicans, though I doubt any real swing voters were in the room) and the great successes Democrats have had in the state. In particular, they highlighted two results from last week's spring municipal elections: 24 of 32 communities voting to start bring troops home from Iraq now passed, some overwhelmingly (see my take on that) and the election of Democrat (in a non-partisan election against a Republican state representative) Larry Nelson as mayor of Waukesha. That's Larry smiling there in the right in a picture I took; I've known him for a few years, and he's a teacher, a labor leader, and a strong progressive. What makes this important is that the city of Waukesha is the red center of one of the reddest counties in the country, and Larry was able to win with a strong populist message. I do think that bodes well for this fall, and in particular, the campaign of Bryan Kennedy, running for the congressional seat that includes Waukesha, currently held by Jim Sensenbrenner.

But you didn't click on this diary to hear about all of that: You want to hear about Mark Warner. Yes, well, first I want to tell you what Russ Feingold said, since the two were the two presidential candidates in the room. You're probably pretty familiar with Feingold's message, which started and ended with the notion that Democrats need to "stand up" to Bush. He called again for censure (something Herb Kohl conveniently forgot to mention), and for a timetable to bring our troops home from Iraq by the end of this year. And, of course, he talked about the NSA spying scandals and administration stonewalling, although, I will tell you, the best line of the night on that actually came from Tammy Baldwin, who said, "It cannot be a government of the people if the people are kept in the dark."

Warner, as the keynote speaker, was able to do a lot more in his speech, including the biography bits necessary to introduce himself to an audience that didn't know him. In contrast with Russ, he spoke with less fire and passion, but with an equal desire, it seemed, to rid the country of its current leadership and put us back on track. In that way, I think he hit a strong message several times. He kept talking about "seeing further down the road," while Republicans, he said, "put posturing and posing ahead of foresight and follow-through." Part of that biography that Warner stressed is that he was able to look forward in business, starting up the company that went on to become Nextel. He also stressed that as governor of Virginia, he looked toward the future, including strong investments in education and bringing technological development in to replace fading manufacturing ("If they can build it in Bangalore, they can build it in Lebanon, Virginia"). "Politics," he said, "should not be about Left versus Right, but about the future versus the past."

Warner also struck some familiar Democratic foreign-policy themes, saying that "no one thinks it is more important than Democrats to keep America safe," and reminding us that a sound energy policy is a key element of national security. He lamented what has happened in Iraq.

He also said a few things that, I think, shows the influence that Howard Dean's run in 2004 will be having all over the 2008 race. I can't tell you how many times I heard Dean's stump speech in that cycle, so I know it well enough, and in Warner's stump here I heard the familiar themes: "Being called a 'red-state governor' makes me cringe," Warner said, "because the Democratic Party needs to be competitive in 50 states." Even in the foreign policy section, Warner talked about how we need an attitude that will "unite our friends and scare our enemies, not the other way around." Mostly, I was very surprised to hear Warner end with a call to "take our country back."

As it was the DPW's dinner, Warner made sure to reinforce several things. One, of course, is how important it is to re-elect Jim Doyle this fall. He helped to frame some things that will be very important to that race, including Mark Green's identity as a member of a very do-nothing Congress and the importance that the issue of stem cells will play in the election (at least, if Doyle's smart, they will be the campaign issue). He also took the time to remind of why he is a Democrat, even if some might be tempted to call him a "centrist" or "moderate." "I'm a Democrat because," he told us, "the Democratic Party has never stood for the status quo, but for hope and optimism." And he's right, you know; the Republicans have monopolized fear and distrust, and we must get that message of hope and optimism across in all races, at all levels, in all fifty states.

Warner left the stage to a standing ovation (about equivalent to Feingold's standing O earlier), and was immediately mobbed afterwards, by every elected official in the crowd, and a whole lot of everyone else (including civil rights pioneer Vel Phillips). I asked Warner's people how much of this sort of thing--traveling around the country talking to roomsful of Democrats--he was doing. "A lot," I was told. I tried a little bit to gauge the sentiments of the crowd afterwards as well, and everyone seemed to like Warner's message. It's hard, of course, for Wisconsin Democrats to talk about anyone but Russ as a favorite for 2008, but I didn't find anyone who said they hated Warner.

I know that Mark Warner has a strong following on the internet, and now, having met him and heard what is clearly a compelling story, it is easy to see why. Certainly, with a field including the likes of Feingold and Warner, 2008 will be a great year for Democrats.

***

Two last things: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a fair take on the event here. I should also point out that the dinner was live-blogged by Zach Corey at CampusTavern.com. All that time taking notes in class must have paid off, because he's got a pretty accurate rendition of all the speeches: Mark Warner, Jim Doyle, Herb Kohl, Russ Feingold, Gwen Moore, and Tammy Baldwin.