Comments on: Feingold to run for president?

By: SayUncle » 2008 and guns

SayUncle » 2008 and guns — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:37:11 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: SayUncle » Lib Dems

SayUncle » Lib Dems — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:02:21 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:53:43 +0000

So this isn’t about what I can and can’t say, but what I can and can’t buy?

By: Heartless Libertarian

Heartless Libertarian — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:06:52 +0000

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.

By: Lean Left » Please Unconfuse Me

Lean Left » Please Unconfuse Me — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:42:04 +0000

[...] 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? [...]

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:21:11 +0000

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.)

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:05:32 +0000

Feingold is a mixed bag on the Second Amendment, and unmixed evil on the First. This shouldn’t be a “tough” call at all.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:25:50 +0000

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.

By: geekWithA.45

geekWithA.45 — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:09:28 +0000

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.