I'm trying to be one of God knows how many Democrats who are going to get out there and try to help turn this thing around...If at some point people say, 'Hey, we think you ought to run for president' (and) it's a serious thing, I'm going to listen. I would only run if I honestly believed that I was the guy that really could win, that I was the person who was the best candidate to run.There isn't a politician worth his/her salt alive that doesn't think they are the best person for a higher political office, especially the Presidency. Wisconsin, you have one and a half senators for the next 3 years, because Russ Feingold has road bed to lay for a Presidential run.
It is possible that "making Wisconsin a red state in '08" could be a little more difficult than originally thought.
(Cross posted at the Badger Blog Alliance)
4 comments:
Call me a cynic, but I believe these "Presidential Sweepstakes Runs" by those who have a .002 percent chance of winning (think Dick Gebhardt for the Professional Loser) are really chances to solicit and accept payoffs.
If you think about it, who would donate millions for a predictable loss? And what Professional Loser keeps announcing runs over and over? It's just a theory, but consider this scenario: (A) The candidate announces his campaign for president and the lobbyists and special interests who he has favored in the past leap to donate millions. Those who want favors also cut checks. (B) The candidate then proceeds to appoint friends and (relatives) and high level staff with lucrative positions where they do very little for their money. They are chosen for their closed-mouthed loyalty. (C) The unsucessful campaign is predictable. Most of the money can be accounted for, but the candidate gets to keep any money left over.
(D) Spreading the corruption is the next step. Some of the money is used to corrupt other politicians, donating to their campaigns and earning vote credits for the donating special interests and lobbyists. (E) The rest is a convenient and profitable method for the candidate to take money over the counter.
The kicker is that the bribery is called campaign contributions and the special interests and lobbyists get to write their payoffs as political donations.
When I hear a politican with little chance announcing his or her candidacy, I think of it as announcing they are up for sale. Big Time. What we, as voters, have to find out is who is paying off the Professional Loser because that will tell us who the Loser has or intends to help.
J., I agree with you larger point. With Feingold, though, I don't think you are looking at an automatic loser. I know some on the right here in Wisconsin would debate me on this, but I think Feingold is a legitimate contender. I say this as a guy who was under his spell for a while back in my more liberal days but no longer is. He does a good job of connecting with people and getting them to trust him. And as liberal as he is, he defies his own party on occasion and crosses the aisle, which gives him credility in the eyes of moderates. He also does a good job of covering his hind end against campaign finance scandals. I'd say there are two questions on his ability to get the nomination. Can he translate his very successful state level style to a national level? Also, how much of a lock will Hillary Clinton be for the nomination in the summer of 2007?
It's the person people can relate to, the person that makes them feel
comfortable, seems to be sincere, maybe has some of the straight-type qualities
of McCain," Feingold said.
"That's the kind of person I want to be our
nominee.
The reason he will lose is because he doesn't believe in anything..."seems to be sincere." I want Feingold to win, because he is a radical and will come across as more ridiculous than Dean.
I dont' know much about him. My impression has always been that he is an airhead. Possibly that is what the Democrats need as they keep skewering themselves on the pitchforks of the demented in their ranks.
The fact that Dean might be heading up the DNC suggests to me that the Clintons completely destroyed the party, leaving it up to the highest bidder, which is George Soros. That's one down from having the party MSM controlled. Either that, or the Democrats have a grand strategy of putting all their nutcases in a basket and letting them sink altogether and cleansing the party once and for all.
On topic: If Feingold has any chance, he'll have to run the gambit through his own party first. And they dont' want winners; they want issues and adversity. They want pitchforkers. IMHO
Post a Comment