You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (930)

PLAYS: (1915)

From Face the Nation, Russ Feingold has to remind Bob Schieffer that the "public option" is not a "liberal" position on health care reform. It's a compromise. What liberals want is single-payer.

SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk a little bit about health care. Where do you think health care reform stands in the Senate right now? I know you want the public option, the government-run insurance program, like Medicare for older people. The majority leader now seems inclined to include that in the bill that he’s going to bring to the floor. Do you think that has any chance at this point of passage? Because for a while now, people have been saying the votes are just not there in the Senate.

FEINGOLD: Well, I want to give my majority leader, Harry Reid credit for seriously considering putting this public option in there. I think it’s very important. It’s a sign of strong leadership on his part that he has the guts to do that. Because the American people are for some alternative that will create some competition for the abuses of the insurance industry. So I believe that there’s a good chance it will be in the bill that comes before us in the Senate. I think we have some chance of prevailing in the Senate on it and if we don't I think there's a chance it will come through the House. So I’m becoming increasingly optomistic that we will have a health care bill that will not frighten the American people, that they'll be able to see as reasonable -- it's not a complete government take over health care, but will provide an option for those that don’t have health care or are unhappy with their health care to do something else and I'm frankly getting excited that we may have some momentum for something very positive.

SCHIEFFER: As I understand it, the liberals want the, want the public option. The conservatives don’t. Do you think there’s a possibility that this thing may just end up in a log jam, that liberals won’t vote for this plan without the public option and the conserves won’t vote for it if it includes the public option, and so we wind up with nothing instead of something?

FEINGOLD: Well, that could happen, but the truth is, what liberals want is a single-payer system. Medicare for everybody. So the idea of a public option is really a very moderate idea. Within the current context of a continuing private system, it’s a tough one to swallow for many people who want a single-payer system. So this is a very reasonable approach that I would think people who are both conservative and liberal and in the middle would say, let’s try this; let’s see if this can control and bring under some reason of measure that the insurance companies could finally improve their act.

That is exactly what -- what this is. It is not a liberal or left-wing concept at all.

Continue reading »

This is certainly good news. I don't know if it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but you never know:

Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced today that they will introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act, which eliminates retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.

“I believe we best defend America when we also defend its founding principles,” said Dodd. “We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizen’s privacy and due process right and we must not allow that to stand.”

Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “Last year, I opposed legislation that stripped Americans of their right to seek accountability for the Bush administration’s decision to illegally wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd to introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act. We can strengthen national security while protecting Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. Restoring Americans’ access to the courts is the first step toward bringing some measure of accountability for the Bush-Cheney administration’s decision to conduct warrantless surveillance in violation of our laws.”

“Granting retroactive immunity to companies that went along with the illegal warrantless wiretapping program was unjustified and undermined the rule of law,” Feingold said. “Congress should not have short-circuited the courts’ constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program. This bill is about ensuring that the law is followed and providing accountability for the American people.”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1161)

PLAYS: (1446)

Rush Limbaugh tried to lie about George Allen's racist "macaca" remark that cost him his Senate seat by claiming that it was all made up out of thin air by Democrats trying to destroy him. Yeah, we just knew that Allen was waiting to utter a racial slur and call S.R. Sidarth a type of monkey, and then pounced and took it out of context. How did we do that, RushBo?

That's more lying nonsense, but then he went off on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, saying that what she said was much worse than that. What a guy that Limbaugh. I mean, this is all they have to work with and I thank you. Limbaugh is re-digging a ditch to throw George Allen back into and burying him in the process.

Thanks Media Matters:

LIMBAUGH: So Russ Feingold: A couple of words that Sonia Sotomayor said taken out of context. You mean, like, macaca? George Allen saying macaca -- we heard about that for weeks and months as The Washington Post and the Democrats sought to destroy Allen; he'd been a congressman, a governor, and a senator.

Sotomayor's comments are much worse than macaca; and they're frequent, and they are long-held. You see how this race thing works, folks. If you're a liberal, nothing you say can be held against you."

I think Limbaugh is feeling the heat from DenounciaRush.

Presente Action released this statement today: "Rush Limbaugh has no shame -- launching more racist attacks on Judge Sotomayor during a historic week when her credentials are on full display and our community is beaming with pride. Our elected leaders cannot remain silent in the face of these inflammatory comments polluting the public discourse. We demand that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee denounce Limbaugh's latest remarks immediately."

Allen was thought to be the great right-wing hope to run for president in 2008, but being a racist wasn't very helpful to him now was it? Here's a reminder of what really happened to George 'macaca' Allen via The Situation Room back on Aug 14, 2006.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (509)

PLAYS: (2914)

Here's a recap in video of Judge Sonia Sotomayor Confirmation hearing from Monday just in case you missed it. Don't forget to check C&L's Video Cafe on a daily basis because the team is posting a ton of videos there that we don't front page.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Introduces Her Family Members

Senator Hatch Opening Statements Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Senator Feinstein Interrupted By Protester Judge Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing

Senator Sessions Opening Statements Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Judge Sotomayor No Republican Would Have Picked You! Senator Lindsey Graham

Senator Russ Feingold Defines "Judicial Activist" Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Jeff Sessions oblivious to the irony of calling Sotomayor 'prejudiced'

Judge Sotomayor's Opening Statement

Is it me or are all these authoritarian conservatives just losing their nuts now? George Will's latest column in Washington Post (*sigh* again? Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave. The same paper responsible for taking down the Nixon presidency is now serving up fact-free and bizarre rantings of regressive conservatives) jumps all over Russ Feingold for his proposed change to the 17th Amendment, ending gubernatorial appointments to Senate vacancies, and requiring special elections to fill the seats. Will thinks we'd be better off just getting rid of the 17th Amendment:

A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.

The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.

What? Hold on...are you kidding me? We don't want no stinkin' voters deciding their representatives now? For those unfamiliar with the history, prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, the individual states' legislatures (not the voters) elected Senators to represent the states. It worked reasonably well until the Civil War, and then all hell broke loose:

This process worked without major problems through the mid-1850s, when the American Civil War was in the offing. Because of increasing partisanship and strife, many state legislatures failed to elect Senators for prolonged periods. For example, in Indiana the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican Party in the northern half prevented a Senate election for two years. The aforementioned partisanship led to contentious battles in the legislatures, as the struggle to elect Senators reflected the increasing regional tensions in the lead up to the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature.[1] Stockton defended himself on the grounds that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when Senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. Beginning in 1899, Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

Now given all the games the Republicans have been playing in the two short years that they have not had the majority in Congress, does this seem like a smart thing to regress to? Of course, that could be Will's point/desire:

Although liberals give lip service to "diversity," they often treat federalism as an annoying impediment to their drive for uniformity. Feingold, who is proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin's preference on the other 46. Yes, he acknowledges, they could each choose to pass laws like Wisconsin's, but doing this "state by state would be a long and difficult process." Pluralism is so tediously time-consuming.

Irony alert: Feingold's amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies will owe any traction it gains to Senate Democrats' opposition to an election to choose a replacement for Barack Obama. That opposition led to the ongoing Blagojevich-Burris fiasco.

By restricting the financing of political advocacy, the McCain-Feingold speech-rationing law empowers the government to regulate the quantity, timing and content of political speech. Thanks to Feingold, McCain and others, the First Amendment now, in effect, reads: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech unless it really, really wants to in order to guarantee that there will be only as much speech about the government as the government considers appropriate, and at times the government approves."

Now Feingold proposes to traduce federalism and nudge the Senate still further away from the nature and function the Framers favored. He is, as the saying goes, an unapologetic progressive, but one with more and more for which to apologize.

Oy, there's so much disingenuousness and anger there, it's hard to believe this joker passes as A. Very. Serious. Villager.

Open Left dismantles Will far better than I could.

DOWNLOAD (51)

PLAY (81)

Russ Feingold talks to Rachel about the need for Congressional oversight and holding the Bush administration accountable for what they've done regardless of what the Attorney General's office does. Although having an AG's office that will actually prosecute contempt charges definitely would be refreshing to say the least.

Feingold doesn't give much creedance to the statements made by Kit Bond that he got assurances from Eric Holder on torture prosecutions (or the lack thereof). And he discusses his proposal to amend the Constitution to require special elections when there are Senate vacancies. After our recent fiascos I agree with him. If had to name one Senator that I truly had any respect for, Feingold would be the first and one of the few to come to mind and he's earned it, as much as the Bush administration has earned my disrespect.

DOWNLOAD (39)

PLAY (80)

It's disconcerting to me that we need to keep reiterating for Washington and the Beltway Punditocracy that the American people WANT for us to return to respecting the "rule of law" in this country. Was our vote not enough of a repudiation of the last eight years? Luckily for us, there are a few in DC and the media corps who DO get it. Right at the top of the list: Senator Russ Feingold and Bill Moyers. They sat down this weekend for a conversation on Feingold's hopes for the incoming administration and his desire to raise us out of the moral turpitude of the Bush administration.

Feingold also blogged about it at Daily Kos:

Our founding fathers laid down a basic principle -- that we are a nation of laws and that no one, including the president, is above the law. From Guantanamo Bay and warrantless wiretapping to torture and excessive secrecy, the Bush administration has turned this principle on its head. The Constitution states that it and the laws of the United States are "the supreme Law of the Land." Yet, the current administration has claimed unprecedented powers as it has ignored or willfully misinterpreted the laws on the books.

While Americans’ decisive call for change this election was a clear repudiation of the Bush administration’s conduct, failing to act swiftly to reverse the damage could essentially legitimize that conduct and the extreme legal theories on which it was based. That is why it is critically important for President-elect Obama to unequivocally renounce President Bush’s extreme claims of executive authority.

Full transcripts of the video clip below the fold. You can watch the full episode here.

Continue reading »

...John McCain will breeze into the White House. I love Russ and understand that he is a wonderful progressive voice that at times stands all alone in the wilderness to battle the BushCo. crime family, but I wish he would wait until after the election to make those observations. They feed into the McCain Media's narrative.

Have we heard any Republicans praise Obama like that? I think not. Their whole strategy is to smear his character and make him appear to be a light weight.

Today's vote in the Senate approving FISA legislation was a huge blow to our country, our Constitution and our rule of law.  Twenty-six Democrats stayed true to democratic principles and voted against the bill, which grants immunity to telecommunication companies who betrayed the American people by illegally spying on our communications without warrants.

  Download | play   Download | play

One of the Democrats who voted correctly today was Senator Russ Feingold, who appeared on Wednesday's Countdown with Rachel Maddow. Feingold has long been a staunch advocate for following the Constitution, speaking out against President Bush's illegal wiretapping program and fighting and voting against the anti-American Patriot Act. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama voted for the FISA legislation, and while Feingold says there is hope that as president, Obama could change the unconstitutional aspects of the bill, it was still "the wrong vote."

Maddow: "It is heartening to hear your optimism on the prospect of Obama's presidency on this issue, but of course, his vote today led a lot of us who see this as a real abrogation of the fourth amendment to be very concerned."

Feingold:"Well, it was the wrong vote. Any Democrat that voted that way was not voting according to what people in the Democratic Party clearly want, but, you know, we'll pull together after the election, we'll lay the case out again."

Senator Feingold took to the Senate floor today and, with the help of Sen. Arlen Specter, challenged his colleagues to wrap their minds around what granting retroactive telecom immunity would mean for the rule of law, and wondered how they could be voting on such a thing when 70 members don't even have access to the evidence of alleged impropriety.

Download | play Download | play

"This is an amazingly inappropriate use of legislative interference, a push by this administration, and Senators should take a real hard look at whether they want to be associated with such an attack on the rule of law."

Glenn Greenwald has more:

Once passed by the Senate, the FISA bill will then immediately be sent by the Democratic Congress to an eagerly awaiting and immensely pleased President Bush, who will sign it into law, thereby putting a permanent and happy end to the scandal that began when -- in December, 2005 -- he was caught spying on the communications of American citizens in violation of the law. The only real remaining questions are (a) whether Bush will host Steny Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller at a festive, bipartisan White House signing ceremony to celebrate the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law, and (b) whether Bush, when he signs the bill into law, will append a signing statement decreeing that even its minimal restraints on presidential spying are invalid.

Extended version of Senator Feingold's remarks below the fold:

Continue reading »

Firedoglake: 

The FISA Cloture vote just passed. The Senate will now consider the motion to proceed with the bill, then they'll head to the bill itself (corrected procedural details, h/t and thanks to CBolt). Various motions will be put forward to strip immunity, odds are they will fail. Then a number of the 80 who voted to restrict debate will vote against FISA so they can say they were against the bill. However this was the real vote, and the rest is almost certainly nothing but kabuki for the rubes.

Obama and McCain were both absent, as was Clinton. Unimpressive, but unsurprising, though I suppose I'm disappointed by Clinton (Obama has made it clear he didn't intend to try and stop the bill.) Clinton and Obama will claim there was no point since it wasn't close. But, with their leadership, it might well have gone the other way.

Cenk Uygur and Ben Mankiewicz of The Young Turks interview Russ Feingold on how egregious all this FISA posturing is for Democratic values. 

Continue reading »

Senator Russ Feingold joined Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! Tuesday to speak out about the reprehensible FISA "compromise" brokered by House Leader Steny Hoyer. Feingold has always been the most articulate and outspoken voice on Constitutional liberties, and he sure didn't hold back.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: It's not even a fig leaf; it's a joke. It does not in any way prevent the ruling from that court, basically automatically, of immunity, because it just involves saying, "Look, they've got a piece of paper from the government." This is nothing but Democrats trying to pretend that they're doing something here. They are doing nothing. They're giving in. [Missouri Republican] Senator Kit Bond is basically giggling at the fact that the Republicans and the administration got essentially everything they want on this. It's sadly a great failure on the part of the Democratic majority that was elected in 2006 primarily to get us out of Iraq, but also significantly to protect the Constitution of the United States. This is not a proud moment.

Do you hear that, Democrats? The GOP is laughing at your craven weakness. Hell, your approval numbers are higher with Republicans than they are with the people who put you in power to supposedly protect their rights. Do what you were elected to do and filibuster this bill until the real intelligence gaps are closed and the telecoms are compelled to prove they didn't violate federal law by helping the most unpopular President in American history spy on us.

When, precisely, did it become unfashionable (even taboo) to stand strong on protecting core American values? Have we really allowed George Bush to fundamentally alter the character of our country? Be sure to tune into CSPAN-2 tomorrow to see whether or not there are any true leaders in the Democratic party willing to fight the good fight.

Once in a while, it’s hard to keep a good bill down — especially when it involves expanded benefits for the troops, during a war, in an election year.

The Senate has overwhelmingly passed a new GI bill and billions in new domestic spending as part of the $165 billion Iraq war funding bill pending before Congress.

The 75-22 vote marked a resounding victory for Senate Democrats as well as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who has battled to expand the educational benefits for soldiers who served in Iraq. The vote was the first critical hurdle in a three vote package on the Iraq war funding bill. The measure also included a 13 week extension of unemployment insurance, home heating assistance and other domestic spending add ons. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, which will top $200 billion with the extra spending. […]

What was most surprising was not that the domestic funding amendment and the GI bill won a majority of the Senate votes, but that half of the Senate’s 49 Republicans bucked President Bush and GOP presidential candidate John McCain to back the dramatically expanded GI bill. Many uncertain Republicans stood in the well of the Senate, taking their time to make a decision. Virtually every GOP senator who is politically vulnerable this year voted for the domestic spending, including Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

It’s interesting how vulnerable Republicans suddenly start to notice the merit of Democratic legislation six months before Election Day, isn’t it?

In all 25 Senate Republicans broke ranks with Bush/McCain to support the measure, giving the bill a veto-proof majority. Even Lieberman voted for it. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spoke in favor of the bill and voted for it. McCain, who has repeatedly said he opposes the measure, decided to raise money in California and skipped the vote. All 22 “nay” votes were conservative Republicans.

h/t to the excellently named blog Nailing Jello to the Wall... 

h/t Heather for video

Wisconsin Democrat, Russ Feingold, spoke eloquently yesterday as he joined Senator Dodd's successful bid to stop the latest FISA legislation in the Senate that would have given retroactive immunity to telecom companies who betrayed the American people by spying on us without warrants. Below are excerpts of his post at TPM Cafe. Senator Feingold has always been a huge supporter of protecting our civil liberties and deserves our thanks for fighting for us all. Drop him a line and let him know you appreciate it.

Via TPM Cafe:

As you all know by now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided last night to pull the deeply flawed Intelligence Committee FISA bill from the floor. He announced that we would return to the bill in January. Senator Chris Dodd did a great job controlling the floor for much of yesterday, insisting on full debate of the motion to proceed after cloture was invoked. We made it clear that we will do everything we can to stop this bad bill from being jammed through. Other Senators, including Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Sherrod Brown, and Ben Cardin, eloquently laid out many of the problems with this bill. And even Senators who supported the bill in the Intelligence Committee, such as Sheldon Whitehouse and Dianne Feinstein, made valuable contributions to the debate.

The grassroots involvement on this issue has been nothing short of amazing. I was pleased to be part of yesterday's success, but we have earned only a temporary respite. We must not squander the extra time we've been given. We must keep the pressure on and fight back against the administration's fear-mongering. The Senate made a mistake when it failed to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people in the Patriot Act in 2001 and again during the reauthorization of that law two years ago. It compounded those mistakes many times over in the so-called Protect America Act. It is time to stop giving in to an administration that does not respect the rule of law. Read on...