Reporting that Russ Feingold, voted out of office last fall by the voters of Wisconsin, said, “Russ Feingold says “The game’s not over until we win”, Glenn Reynolds quipped, “By any means necessary, apparently.”
Given that Mr. Feingold voted for Obamacare, even as the American people (and apparently also those in his home state) were rejecting it, it seems he and his ilk are bound and determined to impose their agenda on America, no matter what the voters say.
ADDENDUM: Can you imagine the media reaction if a Republican had made a comment similar to Feingold’s?
Last year heading home for vacation, driving through the length of the state, I saw maybe 4 Russ signs. Even heading through his biggest support area, they were lacking.
Hi Dan,
Hypothetically, if the Dems in Wisconsin get the lower house in the next election after campaigning on the issue, in part fulfilling Reynold’s view of things, but not the governorship and the upper house, will the people have spoken for an end to the Governor’s legislation? I mean, it is at least possible something like this could happen. Because if they have spoken, that mandates a pull-back on the anti-union legislation. Right? And you could then use that argument to try and roll back Obamacare. But, if it doesn’t, what would be the difference between what you say about Wisconsin and federally, concerning health-care? I mean, is this still a piece of Repub rhetoric–“to starve the “beast” of funds so it can’t actually be implemented into law”–as one half of one branch of government? If so, I guess elections really have consequences in more ways than one, if getting a piece of the legislative branch entitles you to change what all of legislative and executive branches put in place?
Cas, interesting observation and you make some valid points, but now go back and read Feingold’s comment–all about his side winning, as if his side had to win, no matter what the people wanted.
Ponder those words and wonder how you would react if a Republican said them.
Hi Dan,
“Ponder those words and wonder how you would react if a Republican said them.”
Since Repubs do act (in my opinion) like this, I say it is a fact of American political life. I know the rhetoric is a little unfortunate–I mean, Blutarsky? But I remember, after the passage of the Heath Care Act, we had a lot of aggravation over that event. As for the rhetoric–I see it as just rhetoric. Fengold isn’t advocating throwing bombs, but he is advocating vigourously resisting the act’s implementation–legislatively and judicially, as well as at a grassroots level–again in my opinion. We saw the same kinds of calls after Obamacare… However, if he calls for armed insurrection or shooting people, then count me out. That is not OK.
We live in a nation that is one client, one attorney and one judge away from overturning anything the majority of Americans want. That ought to cause us to tremble but it’s great if you don’t want to bother to vote in any election but throw little pieces of glitter at people. How many of the glitter-flingers have bothered to vote in the past decade?
Sure sign that Obama and the Obama/Feingold Party are losing: Cas comes along to try to whine about moral equivalency and insist that Republicans have no right to do what Cas supports and endorses Obama Party members doing.
Isn’t it funny how Cas can never, repeat never, hold the Obama Party similarly accountable for its behavior? After all, Feingold and his fellow Obama supporters WERE making death and bombing threats against Republicans. Wonder if Cas will condemn the Obama Party for supporting and endorsing such behavior — or if Cas will start spinning and insisting that Feingold and Obama cannot be held responsible and that such behaviors by supporters cannot be ascribed to their rhetoric?
(licks chops)
Hi NDT,
When you say this: “After all, Feingold and his fellow Obama supporters WERE making death and bombing threats against Republicans”
I cannot take this statement seriously. Where in the article does it say that Feingold made death threats? Can you actually point to Feingold making death threats anywhere? If you can recognize that this statement is not supported by the facts, then we could have a rational conversation. Otherwise, you just leave me shaking my head. As for repudiating violence–sure–no one–on other side should resort to that sort of behaviour. It is designed to kill conversation and to silence others through the tools of fear. It just proves to me that there are idiots on both sides of the political spectrum. Do I have to ask you to repudiate those who offer death threats to those who work in abortion clinics-or can I just assume that as a given? And that you obviously repudiate death threats against Dem politicians. That goes without saying–right? So, why ask me to mechanically do as you ask, when I believe you already believe–that violence is bad, and the threat of it also. It is just a stupid rhetorical tool designed to put your interlocutor on the defensive. Enough of that BS, NDT. You leave the impression that your positive case is weak, if you have to resort to this non-rational argument.
“Wonder if Cas will condemn the Obama Party for supporting and endorsing such behavior — or if Cas will start spinning and insisting that Feingold and Obama cannot be held responsible and that such behaviors by supporters cannot be ascribed to their rhetoric?”
Oh please–I wonder if you will ask another rhetorical question designed to enter us on the field of combative rhetoric…? If I were to frame a question like this right back at you, you would go off like a 4th of July rocket… Please, if you want a rational conversation, put down the brass knuckles, and come to the forum with some openness.
“(licks chops)”
NDT, I don’t want your bone. You are looking to pick a fight, and I am not interested. If you want to enter the conversation that Dan and I started fine, but I am not interested in your current approach.