That would be nice. A Vinick and a Santos, for instance. Unfortunately, we have McCain.

But you can't put aside the person. And McCain has reversed everything he was known as a "maverick" for, sold himself to the devil, and will be a dangerous choice for this country. Seriously, the guy has already threatened military type action against 2 countries (one of which we'd stand no chance of beating).

Politics has never been polite - if anything, it was much nastier in colonial times.  People were actually killed in duels back then.  More recently, Sen. Sumner was nearly beaten to death on the Senate floor, days after he had mocked another congressman for physical symptoms of a recent stroke and for his support of slavery.  The enlightened age of the founding fathers is largely a myth.

is not ok, unless it's for Russ Feingold?

Moving the dialog to the left?

That takes decades my friend. Rome wasn't built in a day. It took 40 years from McGovern to Bush to shift it right. It will take an equal amount of time to shift it left.

I've always been jealous of those in earlier times - - imagine the joy of voting in an Adams vs. Jefferson race, where there are no losers.

The race in 1800 was one of the meanest in American history.  Dems talked secession after Adams backed the Alien and Sedition Act (the Patriot Act of its day).  Federalists tore into Jefferson for being an atheist and Francophone.

Hmm...okay, so maybe politics hasn't changed that much.

I don't much go for the post-partisan stuff myself, at least not in the current climate, where the Republican party has literally become an antidemocratic haven for fascist ideologues. Maybe back in the 50's when it was a choice between Eisenhower and Stevenson - both clearly patriatic, well qualified, lovers of liberty, who simply disagreed over ways and means - it made some sense. Even Goldwater, as wrong as he was, clearly loved and respected American values. But really since Nixon's rise, the Republican party has lost its way, and is now truly un-American in its outlook.

However, I thought Obama was all about making overtures to the other side and building a post-partisan coalition. Isn't that what Feingold did with McCain on campaign finance? Isn't that what Feingold is still doing? But now it's treachery to imply that McCain is not the Antichrist?

"I've always been jealous of those in earlier times - - imagine the joy of voting in an Adams vs. Jefferson race, where there are no losers"

Actually in that election (1800) the party of Adams was spreading rumors that Jeffersons party was made up of radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country if they got into power.  The more things change, the more they stay the same

I don't understand - you're basically saying that we should be able to be honest about what we think about politicians regardless of political party, therefore, nobody is allowed to criticize Russ Feingold.

Got it.  In your next diary you should explain why writing diaries is pointless.

Feingold was not being honest, he was showing that his impression of "Friend John" overrides what he should know about "President John".

Look at it this way...McCains voting record is more conservative than Joe Liberman, and we all love Joe, right? The signs are there, for anyone to see, that McCain will ultimately bring back the draft. He is against Head Start. He is against Roe V Wade. McCain works against the things Feingold and the Democratic Party work for.

Now, against that objective reality, why would Feingold talk up someone like that? Because they're buds. Because they worked on a bill. Personal reasons. Not professional ones.

Hell, I work in a business where I am expected to separate the personal and professional, how much more should a US Senator be aware of that?

Russ fucked up. It happens. You can't praise someone for the good and then ignore the bad. He screwed up, let it go.

I also admire Feingold as a senator.  The problem here, with regard to voicing approval of the opposing candidate, is that the republicans have been winning national elections through smearing democrats.  I wish that the independents who often swing elections really wanted civility.  I wish that negative tactics didn't work.  But the fact that they do means that even when you have two candidates committed to a 'civil, issues-based campaign,' the one who needs a boost (often the republican in early stages) will always find ways to justify negative smears.  If any republican had staked his reputation on civility, that was Sen. John McKitchen Sink (R-AZ).  How has that played out?  

Now it's one thing to refuse to sink to that level.  It's quite another to voice approval of him when he, his campaign, his party, and their supporters have devoted themselves to character assassination.  It's not a moral issue.  It's a political and tactical one.  Independents hear a leader of one party saying 'the other guy is okay' while on the reverse they hear 'the other guy is worthless.'  Unfortunately, they buy into this...and we lose.