Ron Johnson: "Russ Feingold is a career politician. He's addicted to it. He just can't stand being away from it, and so he's just got to announce."
Russ Feingold: "He's shown time and again that he's just a partisan ideologue who doesn't listen to the concerns of Wisconsinites, only the concerns of corporate special interests and his multimillionaire crowd."
Link.
१७ मे, २०१५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
Russ Feingold: "He's shown time and again that he's just a partisan ideologue who doesn't listen to the concerns of Wisconsinites, only the concerns of corporate special interests and his multimillionaire crowd."
Looking at the recent election history in Wisconsin, perhaps it is Mr. Feingold who isn't listening to the majority of Wisconsin voters, but only the well off in a few counties.
If Feingold had been interested in serving the people of Wisconsin, he could've run against Walker in the recall. His polling numbers were great. He couldn't be bothered.
This bid sounds like nothing more than his wanting what he believes to be his Senate seat back. He doesn't acknowledge any shortcomings that caused him to lose that seat. He blames voters who were upset about "the economy." i.e., it's our fault St. Russ lost. We're stupid idiots who got manipulated by the state of the economy, which, of course, had nothing to do with the policies championed by Feingold and his party.
But hey, this is the state that elected both Scott Walker and Barack Obama, so you gotta figure this clown is a shoo-in.
I'd vote for any politician who said he doesn't listen to the concerns of ordinary people because ordinary people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
I looked at Feingold's biography. I don't see anything but politics.
I did the same with Johnson. Businessman all along. A successful one at that. Started small and built big.
Tough choice,
Sexist?
The People are out there somewhere.....somewhere...somewhere.
Has Scott Walker been anything else besides a politician? What about Paul Ryan? "Career politician" is an epithet reserved for politicians we don't agree with. Mind you, I don't have a problem with the concept of term limits and phasing out longstanding incumbency.
Politician v. Ideologue. Would you rather be labelled the politician or the ideologue?
"Career politician" is an epithet reserved for politicians we don't agree with.
A "Career politician" is a republican who's been in office a long time.
A democrat who's been in office a long time is called a "Statesman".
"A democrat who's been in office a long time is called a "Statesman".
Besides, it's all Democrats do except a few who were union officials.
Farmer,
Russ said at the time that he didn't run in the recall because voters felt the recall itself was wrong. Of course, he was absent in the following general so...
I have heard Johnson field calls from a somewhat hostile audience on Devil's Advocate show on "progressive" 92.1.
I thought he did pretty well in maintaining civility and exploring issues in a reasonable manner. I remember Russ towards the end of his reign..always seemed surly and condescending.
Both these guys are over the hill. Didn't Wisconsin schools produce anyone ready to take charge, who is 50 or younger.
Old white men is so 60's...
There's a pretty good case to be made that Russ Feingold is indeed a "career politician," since he's spent the last 30 years of his life as a professional politician.
I'd also agree that Ron Johnson is something of an "ideologue." But you can be an ideologue without being a career politician.
It is hard to claim that one term in the U.S. Senate has made Ron Johnson, a career businessman, a "career politician." He is indeed a politician in the sense that any/every incumbent is a politician.
Point goes to Johnson.
I’m not a Wisconsin resident but Feingold does impress me as being an honest and reasonably principled man.
But politician-wise, enuff is enuff.
Russ Feingold: "He's shown time and again that he's just a partisan ideologue who doesn't listen to the concerns of Wisconsinites, only the concerns of corporate special interests and his multimillionaire crowd."
Ah yes, the boilerplate progressive democrat broadsides in their never-ending class-warfare. Rich people and corporations=Evil, except when the rich people and the corporations are funding democrat party politicians and politics, which it seems the majority of the wealthy do, since democrat party politics is so beneficial to the rich who have paid in. By the way Russ, care to share your net worth with the common man? After being a public servant for so many decades, there's no way in hell that you're a multi-millionaire, right?
I guess cushy state dept gigs and visiting professorships didn't feed Feingold's ego enough.
Don't the Dems have anyone not collecting social security running for office?
Feingold was elected to the State Senate six years after he graduated law school; ten years later he got into the US Senate, where he stayed 18 years.
That's 28 years in all.
As to Walker and Ryan...
Walker has been employed in politics full-time since 1993 - 22 years, since he was 25. He's a career politician. I don't like that.
Ryan has been employed in politics since he was 22; staffer for six years, then US Representative for 19 years. Definitely a career politician, and I don't like that.
Obama has been employed in politics since 1996 - 21 years, since he was 32. Career politician, and I don't like that.
John McCain - employed in politics since 1983 - 33 years, since he was 46. He did serve 23 years in the Navy first, but then became a career politician. I don't like that.
Hillary Clinton - employed in politics since about 1974 - 41 years, since she was 27, most of that as a Congressional staffer or accomplice of Bill. She did practice actual law for a while, somewhere in there, but I doubt if it was full-time. Career politician and I don't like that.
Jim Webb - employed in politics only for his one Senate term, and for two years as Secretary of the Navy; eight years total. 33 years as a lawyer and writer. Not a career politician. That's better.
Maybe actual policy ideas matter than line item resume?
When Walker is on the ballot as President that should bring coattail effect for Johnson Feingold must be bored with no campaigning to take that risk.
I don't get the focus on "career politician" vs. "no political experience".
Shouldn't it be more important what, if anything, the candidate *accomplished* in their career, political or otherwise, and what competencies they've acquired and/or demonstrated?
You don't hire a neurosurgeon or a rocket scientist to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, no matter how smart and capable they are in their own fields. Why on earth would we want to hire someone to try to run something as massive as our federal government without any relevant experience?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा