The Leader

[Click to enlarge]

Politics is a funny business. For one thing, success depends on reading the wants and needs of the public that a candidate is trying to woo over for a vote. The second problem that politicians run into is deciding which position to take on an issue knowing that the alienation of some voters is inevitable. But then there are the politicians who only care about one thing, and that is catering to the radical platform in this country. Senator Russ Feingold (D) from our very own State of Wisconsin falls into this category.

Currently, Feingold is taking time away from voting against any measure that would protect this country from extremist aggression to join in on the attack against the United States. The Senator has decided that it would be quite helpful to the security of the country to introduce a resolution asking the Senate to censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency.

Never mind that this surveillance may already be responsible for saving American lives, Russ wants to hold President Bush responsible for the evasive and troubling practice of actually protecting the citizens. Rather than represent his country in an honorable way, Feingold would rather represent the MoveOn.org camp and of course, Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In the Senators mind, these two radical entities are the voice of the nation.

The Constitution is very vague when it comes to defining the use of Executive Privilege by a sitting president. There are, however, very real instances that such power has been used in this country. Perhaps the most famous and controversial use was by President Roosevelt shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which pulled our military into World War II. Executive Order 9066 called for the detaining of mainly Japanese American citizens, with some Germans and Italians sprinkled in for good measure. An unprovoked attack in that era against this country almost guaranteed such a response. FDR used Article II Sections 1 and 3 to justify such actions against, and this is important, American citizens. Ironically, the only voice that stood up against this policy was that 'evil man', J. Edgar Hoover who was the head of the FBI.

Fast Forward to 2006. Look how far the Democratic Party has come in only a short time. They have transformed from a party that-although progressive-still placed importance on national security, to a party that fringes on a Socialist platform. Instead of upholding America as a powerful nation that conducts its policies in order to protect American lives, Feingold wants to use his position of power to cater to the Bush-bashing minority that controls his every move. That is what this censuring is all about. All one has to do is look at how his own party is responding to his call to recognize how far from the mainstream the Senator is.

No, Edward 'Drunky' Kennedy is not one of the supporters, which almost made me pass out from shock. Feingold only has two Democratic supporters, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California.

No surprise with Boxer, she loathes Bush! Harkin and Boxer also share other common traits with Feingold, but radical thought is what keeps them together the most. Democrats may bash Bush every chance they get in the media, but when it comes to placing their votes, the public is the major motivating factor in deciding how to cast a vote. Look back to the Iraq War Resolution. In the Senate, there were a total of 23 votes against the resolution. Of those, twenty-two were Democrats and one was an Independent. And surprise, Feingold and Boxer are included in that list of 'Nay'. In the case of the Patriot Act, only one vote was cast against it, and no surprise here, it was Feingold.

Feingold has clearly lost touch with his public. His whole agenda seems to revolve around the East coast/West coast Democrats who are far removed from the farmers and middle class Wisconsinites that voted him into office. He prefers to cater to the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd than to people in this state who see other areas of the federal government as a more pressing concern.

But as Feingold continues to strengthen his possible run at the White House in the next election, he continues to engage in a courtship with radicals that have nothing to do with protecting America, and has everything to do with catering to an agenda that looks to remove nationalism from this country. Americans do not win under that equation-for most Americans still love everything that this country stands for-including strong national security. The Iraq Resolution and the Patriot Act proves that most Democrats understand this. It is time for Russ Feingold to start recognizing that following radical thought does not win elections. Just ask John Kerry.

Article Tools