The Instinct For Blood?

The Instinct For Blood?


Every mainstream pundit in the country, and both political parties, think Russ Feingold’s censure motion is a bad idea and will hurt Democrats. They’re wrong. Here’s why.

  • Bob Aman

    Fine, no doubt the blood is in the water. But what happens when the most recent thing the American people remember about Feingold, come presidential election time, is that he’s the guy that failed to drive the knife in properly?

  • Tom Strong

    Feingold’s got nothing to lose. His chances of winning the election are one in a thousand anyway – and he knows it. Plus, he has a history of acting on principle. In this case, I think his principle is right, politically and morally.

  • Ryan

    “Plus, he has a history of acting on principle.”

    This is the key. As a constituent of Feingold’s since before I was old enough to vote, I’ve been following him since I became interested in politics. Everything I have seen from him suggests that his actions are, almost without exception, based on what he believes is in the best interest of his constituents and his country. I know it seems impossible to believe in today’s political climate but I honestly believe that he honestly is more concerned with doing what he feels is right than doing what is politically expedient.

    I don’t always agree with him, though I do more often than not, but I always appreciate his sincerity and willingness to go against the grain when he feels it is the right thing to do.

  • Jeremy

    Yeah, Feingold didn’t vote to stop Clinton’s impeachment, did he? He eventually voted not to impeach, but he didn’t do the partisan vote against the whole process. He strikes me as a man of principle over politics.

  • Seb

    Errrr…was there an argument in there that I missed, or is Mr. Reynolds having a Pauline Kael moment? I mean, I’m as much in favor of a good rant as the next guy, lord knows, but when someone says “Here’s why” I usually expect an argument: that’s not an argument (yes it is).