Russ Feingold for U.S. Senate:
He’s reasonable and responsible
The race for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin has turned into a
referendum pitting campaign finance reform against old-fashioned,
big money politics. In an ironic twist, however, it is the
incumbent – Democrat Russell Feingold taking the high road of
reform, and the challenger – Republican Mark Neumann taking
advantage of so-called "soft money" spending loopholes.
Early this year, Feingold pledged to spend just $3.8 million
on his re-election - $1 for every Wisconsin voter – and to turn
away any Democratic Party soft money, which interest groups and
corporations can donate in unlimited amounts. According to
published reports, meanwhile, Neumann has accepted soft money
totaling some $1 million.
Analysts estimate that the average Wisconsin voter had seen
20 Neumann television ads blistering the incumbent by the time
Feingold aired his first response in September.
The unusual nature of the race, in which an incumbent
senator fights to keep his seat with one hand voluntarily tied
behind his back, has captured interest far beyond state borders.
National Public Radio has reported on the campaign and Time
magazine devoted a full page to in its Oct. 26 edition.
Feingold’s experiment is noble. Unfortunately, it may also
prove foolhardy. His decision to forego early campaign
advertising allowed Neumann to set the tone of the campaign – an
opportunity the aggressive challenger seized with relish.
That’s why what could have been an honest and interesting
debate of serious issues instead became a one-sided barrage of
misleading Neumann ads about such things as cow flatulence and
space monkeys.
It’s a shame, and not just for the struggling incumbent. If
Feingold loses his seat because of his adherence to principle,
the real losers will be the people of Wisconsin.
Russ Feingold has served this state with honor and
distinction over the past six years. Witness the self-imposed
spending curbs, which reflect his strongly held conviction that
congressional seats should not be for sale to the highest bidder.
In our view, the fact that Feingold would sacrifice his seat
over a matter of principle makes him all that much more
appealing. But that’s not the only reason we endorse Russ
Feingold. During his first term, Feingold proved himself time
and again to be a man of unimpeachable integrity and character.
Instead of jumping on the always popular tax-cut bandwagon, he
favors protecting Social Security as well as debt and deficit
reduction. That might not be the most politically astute
position, but it is the responsible position.
Neumann, meanwhile, has staked much of his campaign on two
emotional, poll-tested issues, hammering Feingold mercilessly on
late-term abortion and flag burning.
On the first, Neumann positions himself as a defender of the
unborn while casting Feingold as a supporter of the abortion
procedure. In truth, their positions are not all that
dissimilar. Neumann would prevent late-term abortions unless one
was necessary to save the life of the mother; Feingold would
prevent late-term abortions unless one was necessary to save the
life of the mother or to prevent grievous physical harm to the
mother.
In other words, it’s not as stark a difference as Neumann
would have voters believe.
Even more disturbing is Neumann’s ill-conceived attempt to
score political points on the flag-burning issue. Making a naked
pitch for the veterans’ vote and appealing to patriotic
sentiment, Neumann says he supports a constitutional amendment to
ban flag-burning and excoriates Feingold for opposing such an
amendment.
Meanwhile, Feingold properly notes that a flag-burning
amendment would erode one of our most fundamental rights – the
First Amendments’ guarantee of free speech.
He says: "The First Amendment promises each individual the
right to make his or her case in the absence of a government
censor, regardless of the point of view. A handful of flag
burners can’t make us love the flag any less, nor should they
have the power to force us to make an exception to the First
Amendment."
He’s right. And while Neumann’s cynical position doubtless
has some political appeal, it is short-sighted and potentially
dangerous. We’re disappointed that Neumann – a self-professed
man of principle would make this phony issue one of the
cornerstones of his campaign.
We don’t agree with Feingold on every important issue, but
for the most part we find his positions both reasonable and
responsible. He has earned our respect and our trust.
We strongly support Russ Feingold for re-election to the
U.S. Senate.
La Crosse Tribune
Sunday, November 1, 1998
Feingold the better choice for Senate
It has been a windy and worrisome campaign for U.S. Senate.
Republican Congressman Mark Neumann has been pounding away at
incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold, often with ads that are silly
at best and misleading at worst.
Cutting through the rhetoric and the 30-second TV spots, we
have to say that Feingold is more representative of the kind of
senator we want for Wisconsin.
Even while his foreign policy and cultural issues votes have
often been liberal, he has forged a moderate approach to fiscal
and economic issues, including a hard look at government
waste.
His approach to Social Security has been responsible. He
has urged the government to enact rules that protect the Social
Security Trust Fund from being raided to finance tax cuts or
other schemes.
On issues of regional and local importance, Feingold has
spoken out against the federal government's milk pricing system,
which is patently unfair to the Midwest, and has also opposed
the Northeast Dairy Compact.
Feingold worked with other legislators to help set up the
Kickapoo Valley Reserve, a proposed nature preserve on land
purchased by the federal government for a La Farge dam project
that was later cancelled.
And he has worked for reforms. He pushed through a ban on
gifts, and has been working with Sen. John McCain, an Arizona
Republican, on a sweeping campaign finance reform effort that was
scuttled by the Republican leadership in the Senate.
Feingold has also worked with Republican Sen. Spencer
Abraham of Michigan on immigration law reform.
Neumann has some good ideas of his own and has been
effective in pointing out government waste. But his
confrontational manner does not give us confidence that his top
priority would be seeking the middle ground to get things done.
While we don't agree with all of Feingold's positions, he
has shown both a willingness to work for real budget reduction,
and real Social Security and campaign finance reform.
He has been a good senator, and is the better choice in
Tuesday's election.
Eau Clare Leader-Telegram
Saturday, October 31, 1998
Feingold earns another term
Russ Feingold has earned a second term as Wisconsin's junior
senator. Feingold is clearly better suited to represent
mainstream Wisconsin voters, having taken positions that are not
nearly as extreme as those of his opponent, Republican Mark
Neumann.
When Russ Feingold campaigned six years ago, he made a
number of promises, and he has worked hard to deliver on all of
them. He vowed to hold town hall meetings in each of the state's
72 counties each year, and he has. He vowed to work for a
balanced federal budget, he has. He vowed to work toward a
solvent Social Security system, he has. He vowed to try to cut
wasteful governmental spending, he has.
And Feingold vowed to fight for campaign finance reform.
Although he fought the good fight, his attempts have been
thwarted repeatedly by the Republicans who control Congress -
including Mark Neumann.
It is hard to evaluate the two candidates in this race
without factoring in the tone and tenor of their advertisements.
Feingold have been heavy on humor, like they were six years ago,
and have not come in for much criticism for their accuracy.
Feingold also has waged a well-publicized effort to keep
commercials from other groups - paid for by so-called soft money
- from being broadcast in his behalf.
Neumann's ads, however, have been a completely different
story. The most offensive is the infamous "Slippery Grandma" ad
that accuses Feingold of supporting government waste and higher
taxes on Social Security. An analysis of the accuracy of that ad
by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said, "This commercial wins
the prize for unfairness so far in this campaign" and is "firmly
inaccurate on a core assertion."
Neumann said he was bothered by the ad, which was paid for
by the state Republican Party, but there is no evidence he tried
to get it off the airwaves.
We are particularly concerned that Neumann has singled out
two divisive issues - a constitutional amendment to outlaw the
desecration of the flag and a ban of an extremely rare abortion
procedure - to make up half of his campaign platform.
He argues that these are issues that either were brought to
his attention by others, the flag issue, or that he feels very
strongly about, late-term abortions, for why he has emphasized
them in his campaign. We believe there is a more cynical reason:
He wanted two issues that would drive a wedge among the
electorate, which he then could use to his advantage.
Feingold said he wanted to go back to the Senate to keep
working on the issues that matter most to him and to Wisconsin
residents: a solvent Social Security system, less wasteful
governmental spending, a simplified federal tax code,
improvements in long-term care for the elderly and to clean up
the campaign financing system.
"This is what we should be doing," Feingold said of his
agenda, rather than keying on "hot-button issues" chosen by
Neumann.
We couldn't agree more and certainly hope that Feingold
prevails on Tuesday.
The Monroe Times
Friday, October 30, 1998
Feingold deserves to retain his U.S. Senate seat
We endorsed Democrat Russ Feingold for the Senate in 1992
and nothing has happened since then to change our minds.
Ironically, we also endorsed Feingold's opponent Republican Mark
Neumann when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives
in 1994.
We felt then that Neumann was the best candidate to
represent the people in the communities he served. And he
accomplished some of the things he set out to do. But along the
way, he allowed himself to focus more of his interests in
becoming a part of a large political machine rather than
representing the interests of the folks back home.
While both Feingold and Neumann have some qualities we
admire, when it comes down to bottom line choices we have to take
an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" stance and go with the
candidate we know has done his best to represent the best
interests of the majority of the Wisconsin people who put him
into office in the first place.
We choose Feingold for two reasons.
First of all, we're more than disappointed in Neumann's
campaign tactics. The humble, down-home guy we sent to Washington
four years ago has changed his strategy: he put getting big
bucks from big people to attain political success ahead of the
constituency he serves. He has embraced hundreds of thousands of
dollars in "soft money" to help him get the name recognition he
thinks he needs to win this election.
But we believe the people of Wisconsin are smart enough to
see through his negative and expensive media attack ads on
Feingold and the only thing he's going to win in this election is
a black eye.
Unfortunately, if Neumann had the courage and integrity we
thought he had when we sent him to Washington in the first place,
he would have faced Feingold on a level playing field and we
could have had a real campaign between two formidable opponents
with differing philosophies on a variety of important issues.
Instead, Neumann's media hype has been misleading, even
deceitful in a campaign posture that has turned many voters off.
As far as Green County goes, Neumann has been an invisible
representative during the entire four years he's been in
Washington representing the voters in the eastern third of our
coverage area. The Monroe Times is the major media outlet in
Green County, but the only time in four years we have heard from
Neumann either while he was in office or during his fallcampaign
was at 5:20 pm Tuesday when we received a fax from his
headquarters telling us he would be in Monroe for a town hall
meeting at 9 am the next day.
We respect our profession, our newspaper, our community and
our voters too much to let any politician sweep into town at the
last minute in a last ditch effort to pick up party-line votes,
and expect us to drop everything so he can get a picture in the
paper shaking somebody's hand. Neumann has never once made an
effort to let us know what his views are on a variety of issues
facing our nation.
We're just a small town newspaper, and we suppose the
big-city media are a better bet for any politician. But ask
yourselves this: If Neumann thinks your local newspaper is too
far beneath his dignity to worry about, how do you think he's
going to feel about the issues that are important to you once he
gets to Washington?
Finally, Neumann's refusal to meet Feingold face to face to
debate the real issues leaves us wondering what his real agenda
is.
As for Feingold, he has demonstrated the honesty, integrity,
and principles we all should require in a person who is going to
represent our best interests in Washington. In a meeting with
our editorial board two weeks ago, Feingold said, "I've been
called goody-goody, which I don't like." And, he added, "I've
been called squeaky clean, which I do like." We like that
too.
As for issues, we like the national reputation Feingold has
developed as being a reformer. His push for campaign election
reform may just have been the deciding factor in the Republican
National Committee's decision to pour so much money into the
Neumann campaign. And if we lose a legislator as good as
Feingold because the RNC wants a new Republican in Washington, it
won't say much for the voters of Wisconsin.
We also like the way Feingold has demonstrated he's capable
of bipartisanship, voting against his party when he doesn't agree
and workingwith Republican colleagues to further all citizens no
matter their political philosophy.
A letter-writer said to us this week, "(Feingold) is one
representative who realizes that under our democratic form of
government, it is the people through their representatives who
must govern. Today we are governed by the special interests
through their representatives. The result in government is that
there are no cohesive forces committed to representing the
people."
We can change that by sending a message to the big money
guys when we send Russ Feingold back to Washington.
He has earned your vote next Tuesday.
Back to the Weenie Main Page!
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page
