For my entire career in public service, I have fought to protect Second Amendment rights

I have also supported common-sense restrictions

Quoted:
From the article:


B.S. He voted for the '94 AW ban. The only reason he voted against the renewal on '04 was because he almost lost his senate seat after the first time.

More from the article:


That's all I need to know, thanks.

Quoted:
B.S. He voted for the '94 AW ban...

VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994––CONFERENCE REPORT (Senate - August 23, 1994)

...The Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Feingold] is recognized.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the conference report to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Let there be no doubt about the issue or my feelings about this subject: Crime, especially violent crime, has reached a level in this country that is extremely intolerable. That is agreed upon by every Member of this distinguished body.

Where some of us disagree, however, is about what we, the U.S. Congress, can and should appropriately do about it.

I think that at least one fact has escaped the crime bill debates that have taken place in Congress, and that fact is that the architects of our Nation purposely did not establish a national police force and largely left law enforcement as a State and local responsibility. This important aspect of our Federal system, it seems to me, has been lost in a sea of rhetoric and political sound bites.

Historically, the Federal role has been to provide financial and technical assistance to the State and local law enforcement agencies that are charged with combating the overwhelming majority of street crime. We then charged the FBI and the DEA with jurisdiction over highly organized criminal activity and crime involving a substantial interstate nexus; for example, extensive narcotics trade.

However, some Members of this body are no longer committed to this aspect of federalism and local control. They apparently would have us federalize almost every crime that has made a headline anywhere in our Nation. They also propose to override the discretion of our Nation's Federal judges by slapping a mandatory minimum sentence down for each offense. Although I recognize I am part of what is, at least for now, a minority on this subject, I, for one, subscribe to the view that violent street crime, the kind of crime that our constituents are worried about, is still primarily a State and local concern, best left in the hands of local elected and other policymakers and best dealt with by State and local law enforcement officers....

...I was also pleased to see that at least a majority of the conferees were sensible enough to drop the provision added to the Senate bill that seemingly would have federalized almost every serious crime committed with a gun. This shortsighted proposal would not only have been an unwarranted intrusion into State and local decisionmaking, but could have placed an already stressed Federal court system and thinly stretched law enforcement community into what can only be described as system overload...

...We have already witnessed the push for innovative, yet misguided, ways in which to show that we are getting tough on crime, as evidenced by the effort to federalize crimes involving guns. There are many examples that still remain in this bill of federalization of crimes that trouble me, not that they should not be punished, but I think they should be punished at the State and local level. For example, the creation of a new automobile decal crime. If you remove a decal from a car, that becomes a Federal crime.

And even the federalization of drive-by shootings. A drive-by shooting is not inherently an interstate act. Who is to say that State and local officials are not capable of handling that kind of incident as they always have in the past?

What will be next? Perhaps we have already forced upon cash-starved State and local governments an addiction to Federal funds for law enforcement programs. Will the State and local governments be forced to succumb to further federalization efforts of a once primarily local issue in order to qualify for additional funding?

In my opinion, this will only result in an unwarranted intrusion on State's rights, as was already suggested by the National Conference of State Legislators concerning the current bill.

Mr. President, I was a State senator for 10 years in Wisconsin and served as vice chairman of the Wisconsin State Senate Judiciary Committee throughout most of those years, so maybe I listened a little more to the voices raised at the recent meeting of the National Conference of State Legislators. What they said was that they were troubled by the notion of the Federal Government dictating how State and local governments should deal with crime issues. They severely criticized it...

...So it is truly ironic, Mr. President, when so many people are saying in the phone calls from back home that the Federal Government is not capable of handling health care reform that we are enacting a bill which so dramatically shifts responsibility for crime control to the Federal Government. We should instead focus on providing meaningful assistance to those on the front lines in the war against crime and resist that temptation to over-promise our constituents what we can really do about crime at the Federal level and what will actually work toward reducing crime.

Quoted:







This is incorrect.snip

Quoted:
I am just amazed by the political short-sightedness of the posts to this state board.  For the record, Russ Feingold is a flaming liberal by every definition and he is as much of a threat to our Second Amendment freedoms as is anyone currently in the US Senate.  He is always endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and other anti-gun organizations.  

For those of you who are impressed with his “renegade” voting record, Russ Feingold often uses a deceptive trick to keep his voting record “clean” for the simplistic voters back home.  Since he was first elected in 1992, he will often vote in favor of unpopular bills during the critical procedural votes but then vote against them in the generally inconsequential final passage vote.  In this way he supports his leftist agenda while fooling his voters back home.  Since usually only the votes on final passage are publicized, he gets to dupe his constituents and write nice reply letters saying that he was opposed the bill in question when the truth is that he was critically important to getting it passed.  This deception is tolerated by the Democrat leadership since it doesn’t affect their agenda and they know they can always count on him whenever the vote matters.

Thankfully the NRA and GOA see through his duplicity and consistently rank him “D” or “F” for his consistent assaults on our second amendment liberties.  In addition to all this, Feingold reliably supports the anti-gun democrat leadership in the US Senate, endorses and helps to elect anti-gun political candidates across Wisconsin, opposes pro-second amendment judicial nominees like Roberts and Alito, and co-sponsored the “McCain-Feingold” legislation that helps other anti-gun candidates across the country keep getting reelected.  Any gun owner who knowingly supports this kind of candidate, either by voting for them or by writing nice things about them in a public forum like this one, needs to seriously check their facts.

Quoted:
I am just amazed by the political short-sightedness of the posts to this state board.

Any gun owner who knowingly supports this kind of candidate, either by voting for them or by writing nice things about them in a public forum like this one, needs to seriously check their facts.

Toe that party line, brother. I have checked my facts, and sleep well. While the man's attitudes disgust me, he votes the way I want him to when it counts.

The opposite is often true of GOP candidates/politicians from Wisconsin - even Sensenbrenner (my congresscritter).

Finish this phrase before you criticize someone's stance based solely on your party affiliation:

Quoted:
Make no mistake, Feingold is as liberal as they come, and is hardly a "friend" considering most of our perspectives... but he does vote the way I want him to more than less - often for the wrong reasons.

As a "classic liberal", I appreciate his stand on federalism (see quote above).  The big question I end up with every time he comes up for reelection is "Will he vote my way more than the alternative"? When that alternative is a RINO that is fiscally irresponsible, would like to consolidate power in the central government, considers "Free Trade" a boon to the economy, and would legislate my rights into non-existence for the greater good, then my choice ends up being pretty clear.  Unfortunately the GOP keeps running candidates that fit the description above against Russ.

OTOH, Kohl is a douchenozzle of the highest order.

Quoted:


Since you seem to have trouble responding to the actual points people make[FMD's note: ], let me sum them up to make it easier for you to respond factually next time:

Russ Feingold:

• Votes in favor of unpopular bills during the critical procedural votes but then votes against them in the inconsequential final passage votes.

Deceives his more gullible constituents by then saying that he was opposed to unpopular bills when the truth is that he was critically important to getting them passed.

Reliably supports the anti-gun democrat leadership in the US Senate.

Endorses and helps to elect anti-gun political candidates across Wisconsin and the country.

Opposes pro-second amendment judicial nominees while supporting anti-gun judges.

Co-sponsored the “McCain-Feingold” legislation that helps other anti-gun candidates across the country keep getting reelected.

Is this really the way you want him to vote?  Your answer says more about you than about him.

Really?  When has Sensenbrenner ever voted against our gun rights when Feingold voted for them?  I’d wager Sensenbrenner has been a much better friend to gun owners than Russ has ever dreamed of being.

You appear to be the only one here toeing a party line, and it’s for the party that wants to limit and remove our second amendment freedoms.  Again, your comments here say more about you and your priorities than about the priorities of any politician.

Quoted:


And exactly where does the douchenozzle we now call 'President' differ?   He certainly seems to establishing a trend on three of the four of the above (bold print).

Procedural/committee/amendment votes (there are dozens on any given piece of legislation) are a bit different than reconciliation and final passage votes. The latter are the ones that are critical, as they result in either the passage or failure to pass of a particular piece of legislation.

Deception & gullibility, huh? You are unfamiliar with the system.

All of our legislators, even the "good" ones, do what you have described with regularity.

For instance: Ron Paul (who I have an awful lot of respect for) votes to include pork project amendments that affect his constituents before voting against the bills that contain those earmark amendments on the final vote. Read that again. "Doctor No", the most consistantly fiscally conservative member of the US Congress, votes "for it, before he votes against it". This is typical behavior in both the House and Senate.

It's a stupid game they play, but the only thing that matters is the final score. I would suggest following the votes in the House and Senate a bit more closely.

(Reliably supports the anti-gun democrat leadership in the US Senate) Less than most Democrats, but he's still a Democrat.

So what? Do I need to remind you that the "Pro Gun" Republicans in the Senate voted 42-2 on the final vote in favor of the AWB?

The leadership of both parties in the Senate are "anti-gun". Perhaps you'd like to point out a three-term Senator from any state who meets your "pro-gun" criteria and yet supports the "pro-gun, Republican" leadership"?

Other than the normal endorsements of his party's candidate for president, I've seen no endorsements from Russ. Can you point some out?

For the sake of argument, If he has endorsed local Dems, I'd guess the majority of them have been at least Pro-CCW, since the majority of Wisconsin Democrats in Madison do, in fact, support our right to carry (or at least vote that way).

He voted for the confirmation of both Chief Justice John Roberts and AG John Ashcroft – both staunchly pro-gun Republicans appointed by W.

McCain-Feingold is almost unforgivable to me. I've gotten over it, but this would be the biggest check mark against Russ in my book. As far as helping/hurting anyone, the law cuts both ways, but certainly favors Dems, simply because the Republicans haven't figured out the game.

As an independent voter with concerns that go well beyond the single-issue of firearms,

It seems you can't get past the fact that Feingold has a (D) next to his name.

You've missed my point that the guy has a more “conservative” record than an awful lot of Republicans – including the guy the Republicans ran for president last year.

Every time I step into the voting booth, my priority is to vote for more freedom and less government involvement in America.

I have no party affiliation, since they both suck at delivering on that goal.

Sadly, Feingold has a record that supports my goals more than the candidates that have run against him in recent elections.

Do folks not know what a "classic liberal" is?  

Folks, the standard Republican and the standard Democrat politician are just slightly different flavors of the same shit sandwich.

No matter what, you either take the good with the bad, vote third party, or write in Mickey Mouse (or the equally unelectable candidate of your choice).

Russ Feingold being a senator (or being replaced by a Republican that leaves a different taste of crap in your mouth) has exactly zero to do with your right to keep and bear arms.

I just popped into this thread because I knew that someone was going to bring up the AWB (they always do when discussing Feingold), and to set the record straight, complete with the actual voting record as opposed to the ubiquitous "The NRA says he's anti-gun". Newsflash: The NRA has a political agenda too, and it has nothing to do with your rights.

Quoted:


I support common sense restrictions too. Someone drunk off their ass has no need of being in possession of a gun.
I've had loaded guns pointed at me a couple times by drunk fucks. Not fun.

Russ learned his lesson. You will never see him vote for any ban, I've talked to Russ both by mail and in person about the 86 MG ban amongst other things. He said he'd support a bill to get rid of it.

Quoted:
Feingold is fine in my book.  At least he's not some sleazy, opportunistic shitbag like most of the Senate, both -R and -D.

Quoted:


He's honest about his views. Personally I probably agree with him 90% of the time. If you want to get an idea of where I stand on most things there is a good chance I agree with Feingold.

Quoted:

I’ll try to take this slower for you and anyone else who did poorly in their high school civics class.  Although final passage in the U.S. Senate does require a majority, the critical vote is always the closure vote which generally requires 60 votes.  Until closure is approved, any senator can filibuster and prevent a final vote.  After closure the bill gets passed with a simple majority.  This is why the Democrats were so intent on getting Arlen Specter to defect and why the Democrats had to “find” enough votes in a car trunk to Al Franken to “win”.  Now they have their 60 votes.  This is also the reason why the Republicans had to compromise on all their initiatives when they had the majority a few years ago since they had to get enough Democrats to support them to get the required 60 votes.


What Russ Feingold does is to stab gun owners in the back during the critical 60 vote procedures and then vote in favor of our side during final vote when passage is assured.  Most Feingold voters are too simple to figure this out.  Luckily, the NRA and GOA see right through this sham and consistently rank him “D” or “F” for his reliable backstabbing of gun owners.

For the record, Feingold voted in favor of Sen. Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban amendment that added the ban to the senate version of the Crime Bill.  It’s a fact that is part of the official congressional record.

Hardly.  Ask any Democrat operative.  Feingold is famous for this pathetic trick.  It ticks off most of the Democrats I know but they tolerate it since they know they can always count on him whenever it matters.

How's the world look through rose-colored glasses?

I’ve been accused of being too much of an idealist when it comes to politicians (in this very forum) and even I understand the games that get played… on both sides of the aisle.


Please stop  trying to distract this thread from your loosing argument.  This discussion is about Russ Feingold.   Congressman Paul is from Texas and is irrelevant to this discussion (and for better or worse is irrelevant in general).

Ron Paul wasn’t a distraction, he was an example.  Sorry you aren’t able to tell the difference.

BTW: What about the argument is loose?


As described about repeatedly, the critical 60 vote closures are what decide the “final score” since they are the primary hurdle for getting legislation passed.   Forget high school civics, do you ever read a newspaper?  This can’t be new to you.

It's not new to me.  Feingold voted against his party during the single cloture vote on HR3355.

He did vote for an AWB amendment to the bill, but against the bill’s passage and against adoption of the conference report. Please pay attention.


I doubt that.  His “D” and “F” ratings from the NRA and GOA are below average even for Democrats.

Think for yourself and research the actual votes.


No they didn’t.  The final passage you seem so focused on was 61 to 38.  There were 43 Republicans voting with only 7 were for the bill and 36 AGAINST it .  The Democrats were 54 to 2 in FAVOR of the bill.  

That was the vote to adopt the final conference report.

Here's the vote on HR 3355 that included the AWB, but did not include the House amendments.

Care to re-count?

There were two republicans that voted against HR3355 with an AWB.  After that, the AWB was in the bill for good, unless the conference report required its removal  The two subsequent significant votes on HR3355 were on cloture regarding the conference report (that did not remove the AWB  - incidentally Russ voted “nay”) and the aforementioned vote on the conference report (Feingold again voting “nay”).

Again, at this point Feingold had already voted in favor of Sen. Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban amendment that put the ban to the senate version of the Crime Bill in the first place.  

Yep.  It’s a mistake that he has said that he would not make again.


Almost all the Republicans outside of New England as solid pro-gun votes, but I am not going to take your bait and change the topic while you so clearly are losing this debate.  This discussion is about Russ Feingold.

Are you certain I am the one loosing *cough* the debate?  My point was that one would be hard pressed to find ANY Senator, let alone one working through his third term that met your criteria.  It is a weak point, but it’s one that illustrates the difficulty in keeping anyone remotely friendly to lovers of liberty in office.


Sure, but there are really too many to list from the local, state, and federal level.  Feingold endorsed Louis Butler for state supreme court despite his consistent rulings against gun owners.  He also endorsed Stan Gruszynski in the assembly, Tara Johnson in the state senate, Joe Czarnezki for Milwaukee County Clerk, and of course, Governor Jim Doyle.  He has also endorsed out-of-state candidates like David Loebsack.  He has made plenty of endorsements.  Do a Google search if you are truly interested.

I did Google “Russ Feingold Political Endorsement”, but found nothing other than Obama.  I’ll take your word for it that he’s endorsed Democrats, since he is a Democrat.


Baloney.  Although I am confident his anti-gun to pro-gun endorsement ratio is at least 10 to 1, I’ll offer find two anti-gun endorsements for every pro-gun endorsement you find.

Again, I couldn’t find any endorsements using the Google machine and a limited keyword search.  My guess was based solely on the ratio of pro-CCW Democrats to anti-CCW Democrats the last few times the PPA came around.


Half the democrats voted for Roberts.  He also voted for anti-gun justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayer and against pro-gun justice Alito.  Had Feingold had his way, we gun owners would have lost the Heller case.

Really?

The NRA didn’t even support Heller, and only jumped on the bandwagon after Gura argued the case brilliantly.

Feingold’s recent words on the matter:

I have long believed that the Second Amendment grants citizens an individual right to own firearms. And, frankly, I was elated when the court ruled in Heller last year basically what I think had been a mistake all along, to not recognize it as an individual right.

Russ wasn’t serving when Ginsberg was confirmed. As for Breyer and Sotomayor, there were lots of Senators that voted for them on both sides of the aisle.  In Breyer’s case, fully 2/3 of the Republican Senators voted for confirmation.

In Alito’s case, it was a simple vote along party lines.  I understand why Russ didn’t vote to confirm him, but it would have been nice to see him break ranks again, specifically because they both have a bit of a libertarian streak in them.


It’s funny how Democrats call election corruption “the game”.

Corruption in politics?  Never!

I called it “the game”… and folks thinking that is an ill moniker for the process are the reason Republicans lose the info war.  Chew on that for a bit.


Obviously, otherwise you couldn't have voted for Russ Feingold.  You are the only one here trying to "criticize someone's stance based solely on your party affiliation” as you put it earlier.  

It seems most in this thread agree with my points, and please understand that I was referencing your attitude towards Russ Feingold’s party affiliation.


This is not true.  Every criticism I have presented is based solely on his votes and endorsements.  

You can’t even come up with the cloture vote on HR3355 (despite your insistence that cloture votes are where things really happen), and you want us to believe you’re basing your criticisms on actual votes?

The fact that he has been a terrible senator for gun owners would be equally true regardless of his political affiliation.  You are the only one here making excuses and accusations on the basis of party membership.

Actually, I’ve been countering your points, which you specifically asked me to address.


This is categorically false.  By every objective measure Feingold is on the far left of the political spectrum, including the damage he has done to our gun rights.  Feingold is to the left of almost every senator, and certainly to the left of McCain.

If by “objective” you mean your perspective, sure.  Then again, for all your lecturing on how the guy votes, your metric seems to be off.

Now I agree with you that Feingold is a leftie.  Fortunately, the guy is so far left he’s right a decent portion of the time.  I don’t care where he comes from, as long as he votes the way I want him to, I’ll keep putting the check in the box next to his name.


If that were true you wouldn’t have voted for a bigger-government leftist like Feingold.

As opposed to the (quite possibly) bigger-government proponent Tim Michels from the last cycle?  The Republican who was for the Patriot Act and the expansion of NAFTA?  He was a non-committal centrist who could hit a few Republican talking points at best.

“The Devil you Know…”


Since you brought up party affiliation, Republicans on a whole are indisputably better in relation to our gun rights than are Democrats.

And they suck at other things.  I know, this is a gun board, but again, my concerns go beyond one amendment to the Constitution.  There are nine others in the Bill of Rights that are pretty damn important as well.


It’s a shame your gun rights aren’t more important to you.  Freedoms are wasted on those who refuse to sacrifice for them.

The amount of irony in your last sentence makes Bill Gates look poor.  It’s really too bad you don’t see it.

Combining related posts to save space:


Liberal in the current meaning in this country means socialist-leaning.  Democrats are closer to the current definition of liberal while Republicans are closer to the classic definition.

Somewhat, but you still missed the mark.  If one narrows it down to a party, the big “L” libertarians are closest at this point.  A “Paleo-Conservative” like Barry Goldwater would be a better modern analogy for a classic liberal politician, even if the analogy isn’t so modern.


Democrats are generally for larger government and more regulation while Republicans are generally for smaller government and less regulation.

No, the party platforms of both are for larger government at this point.  The only difference between the two is how fast they want to implement that expansion, and what parts they want to grow before the others.


Those are wasted votes.  Voters in a democracy should support a candidate with a realistic chance of winning that best represents their values.

We have never lived in a Democracy (give them some time – we’ll get there).  American history… you should really look into it.

As far as “wasted” votes – with all due respect; I will vote for whom I wish, and I don’t believe the system is quite so corrupt that the single vote for “Frederic Bastiat” will go completely  unrecorded.

Will it make a difference?  Maybe, maybe not.  If you’re someone who wants to “support a candidate with a realistic chance of winning”, then you’re probably willing to vote for a log if the party that “best represents [your] values” says to do so.

If you are truly interested in that idea, I suggest moving to one of the UK countries or maybe Australia or Israel.  They all have a parliamentary system better suited to your ideal.


But senators do have a great deal to do with whether you will end up in jail for exercising your rights.

Some folks just don’t get it.  

What was it you said earlier?

"Freedoms are wasted on those who refuse to sacrifice for them."

Yep. Irony. *shrug*


I’m sorry, but this is a flat out lie.  Feingold voted in favor of Sen. Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban amendment that added the ban to the senate version of the Crime Bill.  It’s a fact that is part of the official congressional record.

As is the fact that Feingold voted against the Crime Bill every time the Crime Bill came up for a vote after the AWB was inserted.

You really don’t get the point, do you?

Look at the votes at the end of this post and call me a liar.  I dare ya.

Luckily for Feingold, most of his gun-owning voters just don’t care enough about their freedoms or are simply too lazy to do their own research.

Says the guy who keeps touting the “F” rating that the NRA put out as gospel, while getting the voting record 25% right.

Good job on research, pal.

Here’s the history of the AWB votes


On 11/17/1993, Russ Feingold voted “Yea” to  S.Amdt 1152 to S.Amdt 1151  to S.1607*. (aka the Feinstein Amendment / AWB) S.1607 was the Senate precursor to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993 (aka “the Crime bill”).   Vote 375

On 11/19/1993, the Senate decided to replace S.1607 by rolling the language into H.R.3355 (no vote recorded).

On 11/19/1993, Russ Feingold voted “Nay” on passage of H.R.3355 “The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993”. Vote 384

I’ll skip over the little votes on conferees and budget acts over the next 9 months, but will add the cloture vote since it seems so important to Bubba:

On 8/25/1994, Russ Feingold voted “Nay” to the Cloture motion on H.R.3355, which would have ended all debate and possibility of filibuster on the bill). Vote 294

On 8/25/1994, Russ Feingold voted “Nay” to the conference report on H.R.3355, which the final reconciliation between House and Senate necessary before sending the bill to the President). Vote  295

Sorry this took me so long, but some of us have to work to pay the taxes Russ has foisted on us.

Russ voted against cloture the single time it was presented on HR3355 (the conference report):

I am fully aware of how Russ has gone on these “critical” votes. You really need to check your facts...

yes, even the ones provided by NRA and GOA. This "simple" Feingold voter understands how things work, and would rather decide for myself who to vote for (and why) than to let someone else use me as a proxy.

As for the import of a filibuster-proof majority, it might hold water if I belonged to a political party,

or even thought one party was looking to help me in the “less government” department more than the other. They aren’t.

...and I stated such in my original post in this thread. Unless he co-sponsored, or voted for passage, or voiced some support for the measure in conference; I don't like it, but I can deal with it.

In the end, Feingold voted against the actual bill with the AWB attached… twice.

It's not new to me. Feingold voted against his party during the single cloture vote on HR3355.

He did vote for an AWB amendment to the bill, but against the bill’s passage and against adoption of the conference report. Please pay attention.

There were two republicans that voted against HR3355 with an AWB. After that, the AWB was in the bill for good, unless the conference report required its removal The two subsequent significant votes on HR3355 were on cloture regarding the conference report (that did not remove the AWB - incidentally Russ voted “nay”) and the aforementioned vote on the conference report (Feingold again voting “nay”).

Yep. It’s a mistake that he has said that he would not make again.

My point was that one would be hard pressed to find ANY Senator, let alone one working through his third term that met your criteria.

I did Google “Russ Feingold Political Endorsement”, but found nothing other than Obama. I’ll take your word for it that he’s endorsed Democrats, since he is a Democrat.

Again, I couldn’t find any endorsements using the Google machine and a limited keyword search. My guess was based solely on the ratio of pro-CCW Democrats to anti-CCW Democrats the last few times the PPA came around.

The NRA didn’t even support Heller, and only jumped on the bandwagon after Gura argued the case brilliantly.

Feingold’s recent words on the matter:

Russ wasn’t serving when Ginsberg was confirmed.

As for Breyer and Sotomayor, there were lots of Senators that voted for them on both sides of the aisle. In Breyer’s case, fully 2/3 of the Republican Senators voted for confirmation.

In Alito’s case, it was a simple vote along party lines. I understand why Russ didn’t vote to confirm him, but it would have been nice to see him break ranks again, specifically because they both have a bit of a libertarian streak in them.

I called it “the game”… and folks thinking that is an ill moniker for the process are the reason Republicans lose the info war. Chew on that for a bit.

It seems most in this thread agree with my points, and please understand that I was referencing your attitude towards Russ Feingold’s party affiliation.

You can’t even come up with the cloture vote on HR3355 (despite your insistence that cloture votes are where things really happen), and you want us to believe you’re basing your criticisms on actual votes?

If by “objective” you mean your perspective, sure. Then again, for all your lecturing on how the guy votes, your metric seems to be off.

Now I agree with you that Feingold is a leftie. Fortunately, the guy is so far left he’s right a decent portion of the time.

I don’t care where he comes from, as long as he votes the way I want him to, I’ll keep putting the check in the box next to his name.

As opposed to the (quite possibly) bigger-government proponent Tim Michels from the last cycle?

The Republican who was for the Patriot Act and the expansion of NAFTA? He was a non-committal centrist who could hit a few Republican talking points at best.

And they suck at other things. I know, this is a gun board, but again, my concerns go beyond one amendment to the Constitution.

There are nine others in the Bill of Rights that are pretty damn important as well.

The amount of irony in your last sentence makes Bill Gates look poor. It’s really too bad you don’t see it.

I am going to omit the rest of the Republican verses Democrat discussion since it’s off topic here and there are too many Democrat lies in your statements to refute.  

As is the fact that Feingold voted against the Crime Bill every time the Crime Bill came up for a vote after the AWB was inserted.

You really don’t get the point, do you? Look at the votes at the end of this post and call me a liar. I dare ya.

Says the guy who keeps touting the “F” rating that the NRA put out as gospel, while getting the voting record 25% right.

Good job on research, pal.

Again, for the record, and so that even some guy with all of 8 posts in 4 years before this thread can see it:

So class,

did Russ Feingold vote for or against the AWB?

Senate Amendment 1152 was an amendment to Senate Amendment 1151, which was itself an amendment to S.1607. Feinstein’s amendment was one of seven introduced and voted on that day, modified 1152 (that had passed via voice vote), and was just one of 94 other amendments to the bill introduced in the two weeks before passage.

Quoted:
Sorry for the tackle after the timeout, Flame.  My Second Amendment freedoms are just too important to me to let lies like those on this thread stand unrefuted.  Frankly, I'm just amazed there aren't more people here calling out Feingold for the gun banner he is.  This is part of the reason why he keeps getting reelected in spite of being so out of touch with normal Wisconsinites.  I’ll try to walk away now and hope somebody else stands up for the truth.  If Feingold can be held up as a good guy on an AR15 board like this one, we may deserve to lose our rifles and our freedoms.

Quoted:
Feingold's been a good guy in my book, and I support him.  I don't care that he voted for the Amendment that put the AWB into the original bill, I care that his next few votes on the topic were against it.  I'm not aware of any gun votes after that that were negative, so I don't see what Bubba and the NRA's arguments could be besides getting an R to replace a D, and trying to play "one strike, you're out," despite Russ' pro-gun record after that single Yea vote.