Reason.com
New at Reason
Dave Weigel discovers that voters like politicians who oppose the PATRIOT Act. You can tell by what they say in their phone calls, in their e-mails, in the books they take out of the library...
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|10.27.05 @ 3:24PM|#
If no one proposed PATRIOT in the first place, I don't think anyone would lose their seat over their lack of effort. Once a 'protect the nation' law is proposed, there follows an obscene race to see which coalition wants to protect us more. It is all about what you can say in a speech about the other guy's lack of 'bona fides' (heh, joe) on the security front.
Now we get stuck with a beast that many people don't like. To be the first congress critter to dare face down the charge of soft on terror is to be bolder than the average of the species, who would generally prefer not to rock the boat and/or show public support for the policies of the governing administration.
Replace PATRIOT with Medicare Prescription Drugs and voila! Crap from both sides no one really wants but which has significant sound bite value - and an absolute conviction by most pols that the sound bite determines their fate.
We don't run into this problem if we have a political climate in which a politician is allowed to consider something, explain to the people what he is thinking, then change his mind later, and explain his new thinking - all without near certainty of losing a challenge. This requires either bold, straight-forward politicians or an environment in which cowards will still act brave. I'm not holding my breath for either.
greg wirth|10.27.05 @ 3:58PM|#
With that "No" vote Feingold placed himself among some of the greatest Americans. More and more, he is showing himself to be a man of principle.
|10.27.05 @ 4:19PM|#
With that "No" vote Feingold placed himself among some of the greatest Americans.
Yeah, it's too bad he had to cancel so much of that out by teaming up with McCain for the Incumbent Reelection Guaranty Act.
blah|10.27.05 @ 4:21PM|#
deja vu? didn't I read that a month ago somewhere?
|10.27.05 @ 4:24PM|#
blah:
In the print edition of the magazine?
Regardless, one of my favorite print stories in some time. Feingold and Ron Paul on the same side? Amazing.
|10.27.05 @ 4:44PM|#
With that "No" vote Feingold placed himself among some of the greatest Americans. More and more, he is showing himself to be a man of principle.
Damn, that's a pretty low threshold.
greg wirth|10.27.05 @ 4:52PM|#
maybe I overreached.
|10.27.05 @ 4:59PM|#
Thinking more about this, it occurs to me that politicians have the same problem network TV does. If you must appeal to everyone and offend no one, well, you will tend to sound more like Everyone Loves Raymond than Deadwood.
Give me the cable TV politician any day. Bleep the rest of 'em.
|10.27.05 @ 5:03PM|#
Given his support for a law that blatently violates the First Amendement (McCain-Feingold) and his anti-gun record, his "principled" stand for the Bill Rights regarding PATRIOT strikes me a little disingenuous.
|10.27.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Akira-
He may not be principled in the sense of having a philosophy that you or I might admire. However, he is known for bucking the party line. In addition to opposing PATRIOT, he was the only Democrat who voted against Clinton in a key procedural motion during the impeachment trial. Might not seem big to you, but it was big news in Milwaukee.
He's principled in the sense that he does what he believes is best, not what he's told to do. It may be that some other adjective would be more fitting (e.g. "independent"), but I still admire that trait in him, even while disagreeing with him on a great deal.
It is possible to admire a person that you disagree with, and to recognize that he acted out of genuine beliefs rather than cynical calculations. That doesn't mean I'll give him a pass on the things that I disagree with, but it does mean that the disagreement is respectful.
|10.27.05 @ 5:55PM|#
Geez, there's thoreau gettin' all reasonable and tolerant on us. Where's the fun in that?
|10.27.05 @ 5:56PM|#
Feingold voted against reauthorization of the assault weapons ban after his county by county meetings with his constituents who explained that it is a law banning "scary looking" guns.
|10.27.05 @ 5:58PM|#
I know, thoreau, you're such a pussy. Get mad once in a while, why don't ya'? ;)
|10.27.05 @ 5:59PM|#
If Ron Paul and Feingold both vote the same way, that is definitly the right position. Some votes they have in common:
Against PATRIOT
Against Iraq War
Against CAFTA
|10.27.05 @ 6:36PM|#
As one who has disagrees with Sen. Feingold on many issues and has actively worked to defeat him in the last election, I have found him to be a man of principle. He has responded to every letter I have sent (unlike Sen. Kohl)and gives reasons for why he does what he does (very refreshing). I wish all politicians were open like this. Again I disagree with philosophy and issues he votes on 90% of the time but I have respect for him.
The real story in the election was that Michaels, who was using the Patriot Act vote as his major issue was asked in the first televised debate wether he had even read the Patriot Act. He admitted that he had not... election over.
drf|10.27.05 @ 7:57PM|#
love how the packers are doin'... heh.
seriously, russ's opposition to PATRIOT makes him a useful tool in this fight. now, keep the skepticism coming about the restricting political speech bill.
cheerio.
drf (a half cheesehead who is related to about 1/2 of dodge county)
The President of the United St|10.27.05 @ 11:14PM|#
[snip]
I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.
[snip]
I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.
But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.
[snip]
But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.
[snip]
How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.
[snip]
[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.
[snip]
The President of the United St|10.27.05 @ 11:16PM|#
"We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government."
|10.28.05 @ 2:17AM|#
pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.
I beg to differ Mr. President.
Leslie|10.29.05 @ 8:15AM|#
Well said. I totally agree with you. The point you are making here does make sense.