Feingold to run for president?
Kevin thinks so. I respect Feingold for being the lone senator to vote no for the PATRIOT Act. On guns, he voted for the assault weapons ban in 1994 and against it in 2004. He also said:
The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.
Unless he says he supports the AWB again to win the presidency, he may be the most pro-gun of potential presidential candidates. However, the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection err Campaign Finance Reform law is a huge black mark for the man.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Fiengold also played a key part in the ruckus that derailed the imminent permanency of the {barf} PATRIOT act. Perhaps he seeks to make amends?
Hmm…..mixed bag, tough call.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Mixed bag indeed. McCain-Feingold is definitely a black mark. He’s also got the notion of providing free health care to all Americans courtesy of the Federal government.
Unfortunately, that plays into the hearts and minds most Americans.
In the end, it’s all a negative because while he may be friendly to individual rights, the enormous government he would love to create would not. Of course, that’s already happening.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Feingold is a mixed bag on the Second Amendment, and unmixed evil on the First. This shouldn’t be a “tough” call at all.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
So the question becomes, who’s not a mixed bag on these issues, who also happens to have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected? (Frankly, while I like Feingold, I have questions about whether or not he’s got a realistic shot. I’d like to think we’re past this as a nation, but I’m afraid the “Jewy” name alone might be enough to sink him.)
January 10th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
[…] As Feingold positions himself for a presidential run in 2008, I hear a lot of complaints (see here and here) from the right and from libertarian types about McCain-Feingold, and how seriously this subverts my free speech rights. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know much about McCain-Feingold, so can someone please explain to me, in layman’s terms, precisely what I could legally say before McCain-Feingold that I can’t legally say now? […]
January 11th, 2006 at 2:06 am
You, as a private citizen, can’t legally buy an ad on TV, radio, or in print media (newspapers, magazines) saying “Senator Feingold put his name on a law that says I can’t buy this ad within 30 days (correct me if I’m wrong on the time frame) of the general election.” Or anything else about Senator Feingold, or any other candidate, for that matter.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:53 am
So this isn’t about what I can and can’t say, but what I can and can’t buy?
June 8th, 2006 at 11:02 am
[…] But bear with me while I divulge another dark secret. See, I’ve been looking to the 2008 Presidential Elections and the possible candidates. And guess who I like? Well, Russ Feingold of all people. I figure any candidate that opposes the assault weapons ban, opposes the PATRIOT Act and said: The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership. […]
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 am
[…] I don’t know that we gunnies will even have a good choice in 2008. Of those that are serious contenders, only Feingold seems sufficiently pro-gun (though he has favored some restrictions). It’s a shame he has his name on the Incumbent Protection Act. […]