Feingold Goes Off-Script

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold spoke to the Journal Sentinel about John McCain, and, in this hyper-partisan election season, went waaaaaaay off-script.

"I think the guy calls 'em as he sees 'em, and as president would call 'em as he sees 'em, and would make people mad all over the place because it wouldn't fit anybody's playbook," said Feingold, who teamed up with McCain to rewrite federal campaign laws.

…

Feingold calls McCain "very original" and a "maverick by nature." McCain's own TV ads call him the "original maverick."

He qualified himself by saying yes, he’d rather have Obama, but then attacked attacks on McCain:

…"the notion that somehow (McCain) is going to get in there and be some kind of ideological Newt Gingrich right-winger is a joke. There's no way that he would do that," Feingold said.

More qualifying about how he’d “feel comfortable with both of them in there as president,” and then:

…(McCain is) a very good legislator from my point of view, because when he gets onto something, he doesn't just want to introduce a bill, he likes to move it. And he's fearless," Feingold said of McCain…

"He's a great guy to fight an uphill battle with legislatively. He keeps his word. . . . I probably shouldn't be saying this stuff, but to be honest about it, it was one of the better professional experiences I've ever had in my life," Feingold said.

But would you want to have a beer with him?

…McCain's a blast. He's fun to be around. He's certainly young in spirit. He's actually very young in energy," said Feingold.

But his temper!

"Yes, he shows temper. But he burns fast, and he doesn't let it cloud his judgment. He would not be a loose cannon in the Oval Office," said Feingold. "It's not like he's going to pick up the red phone in a rage."

And finally:

…"He is not a guy who wants to be chummy-chummy with political leaders of the party. He doesn't like that sort of constraint. He's an independent," said Feingold. "So he somehow managed to become the nominee of the Republican Party. But we all know it's not because he was somebody that was kissing up to the Republican establishment, to say the least."

This is Russ Feingold, of course: a maverick-by-reputation himself, so I’m not too surprised to see him going his own way, instead of following along with his Party.

The question is: what’s he thinking? This isn’t helping Obama. In fact, you can bank on seeing these quotes in Republican literature as the election gets closer. Hey, people in Wisconsin love Feingold. He’s very popular here. And the idea that this popular liberal Democrat is saying all this nice stuff about a Republican candidate for President…people want bipartisanship, right? They want an end to polarized, bickering, politics-as-usual.

Here’s proof that McCain is the guy to give us that.

But back to Feingold’s thought process. I see several possibilities of varying likelihoods:

• Feingold was speaking honestly and off-the-cuff;
  
• Feingold is speaking off his own script because he thinks reverting to election-year partisanship will be bad for his future career;
  
• Or, possibly, he thinks going against the usual partisanship will be better for Obama in the long run;
  
• Or, more likely, he sees greater legislative and leadership potential for himself if McCain wins;

Or, my favorite,

• He doesn’t think Obama can win, so he’s keeping his powder dry and his bipartisan maverick credentials polished with an eye toward 2012.

For my money, Feingold knew exactly what he was doing. A politician with his experience doesn’t do this mistakenly – it was purposeful.

Regardless, conservative bloggers should look forward to throwing these quotes around in comments on liberal blogs over the next few months.

Oh, and I wonder what Debra Bartoshevich thinks of all this.

Hat tip to WisPundits.

Wisconsin Delegate to Democratic Convention Declares for McCain

Wow.

Delegate’s reversal stuns party - Wisconsin Democrat now publicly supports McCain

Washington - As an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Debra Bartoshevich is not alone in her frustration over Clinton's defeat.

She’s not alone in refusing to support Barack Obama.

And she’s not entirely alone in saying she’ll vote this fall for Republican John McCain instead.

But what makes her unusual is that she holds these views as an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

Sounds like the Dem chairman was a little flustered.

Joe Wineke, chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, reacted with disbelief when first told Friday afternoon that one of his state party delegates is now a McCain supporter.

“Not a delegate? To the national convention?” said Wineke, who was getting ready for the start of the Wisconsin state party convention Friday in Stevens Point.

“We have a Clinton national (convention) delegate who says she’s voting for John McCain?” Wineke repeated, for clarification. “I’ve never heard of such a thing.”

...Asked if publicly supporting the other party’s presidential nominee could affect a delegate’s convention status, Wineke said, “I never thought I’d ever get a question like this.”

After some preliminary checking, Wineke said he assumed Bartoshevich would remain a delegate.

Couple thoughts: a lot of the media on the Dem convention has emphasized how upbeat and optimistic Democrats are. Yet we keep seeing stories like this, and like the pro-Clinton anti-Obama groups I wrote about yesterday.

That's going to mean something, come November.

Also, as much as I appreciate Ms. Bartoshevich's sowing of chaos within Democrat ranks, she really ought to resign as a delegate, if not from the Party entirely.

More: Sean linked to this story of angry turmoil within the Florida Democratic Party:

So much for party unity: As Florida Dems prepare for Saturday’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner aimed at bringing the party “together once and for all,” a spat over the Obama campaign’s decision to replace some already-designated Florida delegates with Obama backers has intensified.

And how. DNC member Jon Ausman late Thursday e-mailed Dems (and reporters) choice sections of what he says were e-mails from Obama’s Florida finance chair Kirk Wagar — in which Wagar curses Ausman out and criticizes Sen. Bill Nelson and party director Leonard Joseph.

The highlights: “You (Jon Ausman) f&^%ed us. We are dealing with it. You need to accept the fact that you f*&^ed us.”

And of Nelson: “I am getting very sick of (Senator) Nelson making a bad situation worse.”

I've asked the question before: will the Democrats even waste their time contesting Florida?

Democrats: making their own beds, bedbugs included

Remember Debra Bartoshevich? She's the delegate to the Democratic National Convention who publicly announced that she will vote for Republican John McCain, rather than Democrat Barack Obama.

I wrote about her here and here.

Well, national Democrats are about to decide whether to strip her of her delegate status. According to the Racine Journal Times, Dems will hold a conference call tomorrow, including Bartoshevich, to decide what to do.

Bartoshevich isn't happy:

"If they decide to strip me of my status, they decide to do something un-American," Bartoshevich said. "It’s not democracy. It doesn’t stand for unity, which the party wants."

I hate to say this, but…no, wait: I don’t hate to say it. I love to say it: Democrats have brought this on themselves. Maybe not the big-D Democrats so much as the liberals and progressives who form the base of the Democratic party, but still.

Bartoshevich says it's wrong for them to demote her, simply because she refuses to adhere to their guiding principle: supporting and electing Democrat candidates.

What’s that remind you of? It reminds me of attacks on Christian groups, whose main principle is to follow the teachings of the Bible. Of non-Christians complaining when they’re not allowed to join, or to hold office, simply because they refuse to adhere to the group’s guiding principles.

If you’re not going to adhere to a group’s guiding principles, or main goals, you’ve got no business being part of the group. Bartoshevich, as much as I appreciate her position and as brave as I think she's being, has no business being a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Now: if the city of Denver decided that the Democrats' past rulings (which helped push Hillary Clinton out of the primary) and their decision on Bartoshevich (assuming, as I am, that they dump her) are examples of sexism, and if they therefore refused to let the Democrats hold their event in their city, then the Democrats would have some idea how the Boy Scouts felt.

McCain-supporting Democrat delegate trying to stay a delegate

Something tells me this is going to be a whole lotta nothin’ a couple months from now.

Washington - Fighting an attempt by the state Democratic Party to unseat her from next month's national convention, Clinton delegate Debra Bartoshevich said that to "strip me of my status is undemocratic."

That plea is part of a letter Bartoshevich sent this week to the Democratic National Committee — her formal response to the credentials challenge.

The state party moved to strip Bartoshevich of her delegate status after she told the Journal Sentinel last month that she will support Republican John McCain over Democrat Barack Obama if Obama is the party’s nominee.

Bartoshevich is believed to be the only Hillary Rodham Clinton delegate nationally who has publicly taken that position. The state party says she is violating party rules requiring convention delegates to back the nominee.

The credentials challenge is now before the DNC.

I stand by what I said before: this woman was elected to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention – it’s a position of honor and respect. If she can’t support the Democratic nominee, she should resign.

Not that she doesn’t have a legitimate beef: the DNC rules committee considered the whole Clinton/Obama Florida/Michigan debacle and simply made something up. Their ruling came right out of thin air, without respect for the rules as they were written. And that ruling favored Obama.

(Side note: maybe we shouldn't be surprised - they favor judges with no respect for the written law, why should they have any themselves? End side note.)

But. What is she doing? Betrayal seems too strong a term, but it’s certainly in that direction. Her fellow Democrats gave her this position of honor, and she’s repaying them by flinging poo. I see little difference between this and Jeff Wood’s recent deceit: he’s flinging poo at every Republican who has supported and helped him over the past few years, and over the past few weeks.

On the other hand, speaking as an observer from the other side of the spectrum, not to mention the political divide: you go, girl! Don’t take that crap from them! They're dissing you and every other woman who cares about this country!