I’ve got to admit that a pet peeve of mine is senior members of the Democratic party who talk the talk of liberals or progressives but walk the walk of self seeking hypocrites who are only interested in their own careers. Of course my leading peeve is our liberally eloquent president who can never find a real progressive or even a mildly liberal to fill an appointed office. Now he is pushing an appointee for a federal judgeship in the state of Georgia who even Harry Reid feels is toxic waste. This individual has a record in the Georgia house of backing any and all bills that limits women’s right to control their own health. But that isn’t all. He still has affection for the confederate flag, long may it wave. When it comes to appointees to the government’s financial bureaucracy our president has a particular affection for dyed in the wool Wall Streeters rather than Nobel Prize winning economists.
But my chief pet peeve is Russ Feingold who, while in the Senate, carefully constructed this image of a fearless liberal ready to vote against any reactionary bill, particularly those where his NO vote wouldn’t count because all of his party cohorts would vote yes. It sure fooled me. But fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I finally got it when Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court came before the Senate for confirmation. It was quite clear in the hearings that this guy was a real danger to our constitutional rule of law. It was also quite clear that at his young age he could be around a long time to destroy many of our progressive laws and for that reason he would probably be elected Chief Justice. Senate rules have it that if ONE ‘Senator puts a hold on a presidential nomination that could stop the process and potentially derail the appointment. Feingold put up his usual arguments against Roberts early in the hearings but when it came to the vote he voted “Yes”. I was incensed! I called his office and asked an aide why did the Senator vote for Roberts nomination? The answer. “ The Senator believes that the president (Bush) should have what he wants.” We now have Roberts and a SCOTUS that has virtually trashed the constitution.
Slow walk forward and Feingold leaves the Senate but starts ‘Progressives United ‘and I start getting fund raising requests so that PU can support “progressive” causes. Their program is “progressive lite” in my opinion. I wonder why he doesn’t run for Governor of Wisconsin which many others were urging him to do to beat back a right wing candidate. PU never seems to question any of Obama’s deadly compromises or appointments. But then a little over a year ago Obama appoints Feingold to be sort of an “ambassador at large” in Central Africa where information has just come out that we have set up a military “African Command” for the first time. And today we can read the full scale of the significance of that appointment in the link below. So we want to protect the nascent (?) ‘democracies’ and I assume beat China to the rich mineral and oil deposits and good old liberal Feingold is our front man there and we are left with Scott Walker in Wisconsin.
May30th – an after thought: Why would Obama pick Russ Feingold, a faux liberal with a following to take a post as an ambassador in Africa where we are newly committing substantial military assets? One answer could be that it would neutralize Feingold is he wanted to use his political Bold Progressives organization to oppose Hillary Clinton’s crowning as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate.
But a more likely reason in my mind is to prepare Feingold as a “safe” faux liberal with a large following to run as Clinton’s VP and thus give her candidacy the aura of liberality which she doesn’t have. With his new “foreign policy” creds in Africa it enhances his viability for national office.