April 2, 2006

Russ Feingold on Fox News Sunday.

I don't have the transcript yet, but I just saw Chris Wallace vigorously interview Russ Feingold on Fox News Sunday. Feingold mostly stood his ground on the censure issue, but Wallace got in many good questions. The question that was the hardest to answer listed all the Democrats -- including Kennedy and Feinstein -- who failed to show up for the Judiciary Committee hearing on the censure motion. Feingold could only say the hearing was on a Friday, and you know how it is with Senators and Fridays... and Specter intended to minimize attendance when he scheduled the hearing for a Friday...

UPDATE: Here's the transcript.

16 comments:

Brent said...

. . and this man wants to be taken seriously as a candidate for President of the United States?

Jake said...

Try to find a Senator on Mondays, it is worse than Fridays.

Thorley Winston said...

. and this man wants to be taken seriously as a candidate for President of the United States?

I always figured that he was just trying to provide a foil so that whomever the Dems nominate in 2008 will look "reasonable" by comparison. Sort of like what Howard Dean and Dennis Kuccinich did for John Kerry in 2004.

quietnorth said...

I didn't see this interview, did Wallace focus on the red herring that noone was there, or on the substance of the issue which is, Should President Bush be censured?

Jimmy said...

For the record, George Bush did break the law when he authorized domestic spying.

This deserves censure.

Unless one buys the theory that the president is free to ignore any law as long as he purports to do so in the name of national defense.

Yep said...

Jimmy,

Actually, for the record, the terrorist monitoring activity or domestic spying issue is a hotly contested legal argument. It remains to be seen if the program is illegal or not.

Censure (should it be necessary) should come after a legal ruling. Even the President has a presumption of innocence in the US.

Ann Althouse said...

Quietnorth: It was a very well done interview that covered many things, including the failure of other Democrats to join Feingold, which was what the question you don't value was about.

ShadyCharacter said...

Quietnorth wrote: "I didn't see this interview, did Wallace focus on the red herring that noone was there, or on the substance of the issue which is, Should President Bush be censured?"

Hah! =)

The censure motion itself IS THE RED HERRING!

Leave it to a moonbat not to realize he's being spun by a crafty politician on his own side of the aisle!

jinnmabe said...

For the record, George Bush did break the law when he authorized domestic spying.

Ah, to live in the world of simple answers, fervently believed.

Simon said...

"I always figured that he was just trying to provide a foil so that whomever the Dems nominate in 2008 will look "reasonable" by comparison. Sort of like what Howard Dean and Dennis Kuccinich did for John Kerry in 2004."

I thought that was Biden's job? It's been reported this week that he's running again; why that needed reporting, I know not; that he was running - and why he will fail - was immediately self-evident to anyone who watched his performance at the two sets of confirmation hearings. Feingold's okay, a bit of a prat and not someone I'd vote for, but good lord, better him than Pelosi or someone of that ilk.

"For the record, George Bush did break the law when he authorized domestic spying."
Well, gee whiz, Jim - thanks for clearing that up. I mean, we all know it's been a matter of intense legal and political debate since the story broke, but I for one will sleep better for your having let us know that the program did, indeed, violate one or more requirements of FISA.

SteveR said...

The question really is whether he was authorized by the Constitution. Its not as simple as "breaking the law" and we are a long way from a definite decision. Laws are ruled unconsitutional all the time.

So Feingold's action to me is premature and politically motivated.

Sorry Russ I'm not buying it...

37921 said...

At long last, is this the best the Democratic party can come up with? Censure over some disputed interpretation of a law? What about stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections, staging the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for endless war, lies about WMD, handing the government over to Haliburton, blowing up the levees in New Orleans, dragging James Byrd behind his pickup truck, etc., etc.?

Were the people saying all this stuff just a bunch of nuts?

PatCA said...

Wallace is a very good interviewer. I thought he had Feingold on the run. Bad marks to Russ for using buzz words like "outrage," and "what'll we tell the children," indicating he is something more artfully contrived than a well meaning but clueless idealist.

DaveG said...

Were the people saying all this stuff just a bunch of nuts?

Was that a rhetorical question? Because, you know, I'm thinking YES.

Thorley Winston said...

Wallace is a very good interviewer. I thought he had Feingold on the run. Bad marks to Russ for using buzz words like "outrage," and "what'll we tell the children," indicating he is something more artfully contrived than a well meaning but clueless idealist.

I think in Russ Feingold’s case the words “contrived” and “clueless” are both applicable.

Jeremy said...

Link to the transcript is: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190226,00.html