Blogging Blue

• Tonight’s vice presidential debate is going to be a train wreck; it just remains to be seen which candidate will be the victim of the wreck. I’m betting my money on Gov. Sarah Palin coming out of the debate as the clear loser, no matter how low the McCain campaign tries to lower the bar for her.
• Good for Sen. Russ Feingold for standing up and voting against the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan. I’m glad at least one of my Senators voting against coming to the rescue of big businesses that made bad decisions.
• There’s news Sen. John McCain is pulling out of Michigan in the face of sagging poll numbers. Obviously that’s not a good sign for the McCain campaign, and I’m willing to bet we’ll see more of these stories as McCain’s numbers continue to slide.
• Looks like there might be frost coming in the next few nights.
• Republican Congressman (and former presidential candidate) Ron Paul is scheduled to speak at a John Birch Society event in Appleton on Saturday. That’s a curious speaking engagement for a man who’s denied he’s a racist.
• I know I’ve pretty harsh towards Sarah Palin, but at least we liberals aren’t alone in thinking Gov. Palin is not qualified to assume the presidency if required.

• I’d like to add another contributor to Blogging Blue. Anyone got any suggestions?

Here’s a little video of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold introducing Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on Monday in Green Bay:

I though Sen. Feingold did a great job of highlighting the work Obama’s done as a member of the Senate when it comes to reform, and I think he did an excellent job of contrasting the differences between Sens. McCain and Obama. To be honest, every time I hear Sen. Feingold speak, I sigh and think about what could have been if he had run for president.

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold spent some time yesterday in Milwaukee, where he spoke at the Working America Canvass Office and joined Working America, the AFL-CIO’s grassroots organization for workers who don’t have unions on the job. Here’s a YouTube clip of Sen. Feingold speaking to Working America:

In addition to his remarks supporting Working America, Sen. Feingold also announced his plans to introduce a package of economic development legislation that would benefit Wisconsin and particularly the Milwaukee area. According to JSOnline, Feingold told Journal Sentinel editors and writers his bills would focus on ways to encourage innovation by small businesses, to create jobs related to energy conservation, to provide additional training and transportation opportunities for workers, and to forge partnerships between schools and businesses.

What I found interesting is the fact that Feingold said the legislation was developed after he consulted with prominent business leaders and philanthropists in the Milwaukee area, including Sheldon Lubar and Joseph Zilber

Although the legislation will be national in scope, Feingold said, he developed it after consulting with prominent business leaders and philanthropists, such as investor Sheldon Lubar and developer Joseph Zilber, about what was most needed to stimulate the southeastern Wisconsin economy. In my opinion, this is what we need more of - public officials like Sen. Feingold who aren’t afraid or unwilling to sit down and talk with folks in the private sector - like Joseph Zilber and Sheldon Lubar - to figure out how government can augment the work already being done by philanthropists and other folks in the community. It’s obvious there’s no one easy answer as to how to tackle joblessness, underemployment, homelessness, and poverty, and so it’s going to take more than a “one size fits all” approach. It’s going to take government working with the private sector collaboratively to find the solutions to fix the problems that ail our society.

Earlier this week General David Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker, our Ambassador to Iraq, appeared before Congress, and during the proceedings Russ Feingold, Wisconsin’s United States Senator, offered perhaps the strongest rebuke of the Petraeus-Crocker spin:

“I hope you won’t take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who could help us look at Iraq from a broader perspective. The participation at this hearing of those charged with regional and global responsibilities would have given us the chance to discuss how the war in Iraq is undermining our national security. It might have helped us answer the most important question we face – not ‘are we winning or losing in Iraq?’ but ‘are we winning or losing in the global fight against al Qaeda?’”

Feingold went on to say he was “disappointed” General Petraeus was calling for a halt to troop reductions in Iraq, noting:

[T]he presence of about 140,000 troops in Iraq will exacerbate the conflict, not stabilize it, and it will certainly not contribute to our overall national security. Some have suggested that we should stay in Iraq until reconciliation occurs. They have it backwards — our departure is likely to force factions to the negotiating table in an attempt to finally create a viable power-sharing agreement.

If we redeploy, Iraq will no longer be the “‘cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world,” as the Intelligence Community so clearly stated. Iran, as well as Turkey, Syria, and other regional actors, will have to decide if Iraqi instability is really in their interests once we are no longer on the hook. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will be able to adequately address what must be our top priority – the threat posed by al Qaeda around the globe, and particularly its safe haven in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Nothing could be clearer than the need to refocus all our instruments of national power to combat this threat.

The sentence I emphasized neatly sums up my problems with the continued presence of American troops in Iraq, namely the fact that al Qaeda was largely nonexistent in Iraq prior to our invasion and subsequent toppling of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Al Qaeda in Iraq is largely a creation of our military’s continued presence in Iraq long after Saddam Hussein was brought to justice and punished for the crimes he committed against his people, and as Senator Feingold noted, our continued presence in Iraq only serves as a continued motivation for jihadists to come join the fight against what they perceive to be the American occupation of Iraq. Further, the continued presence of our military forces in Iraq will only serve to weaken our ability to wage an effective effort to root out and eliminate terrorism across the globe.

And finally - as if mindful of the inevitable critics who would no doubt say leaving Iraq is tantamount to abandoning that country - Feingold added:

Redeployment does not mean abandoning Iraq. We must work for a peaceful outcome in that country. But if we continue to leave our military caught up in the sectarian divisions that consume Iraq, we will be doing so at grave risk to Iraq’s progress, the region’s stability, and our own national security.

Just remember that…redeployment does not mean abandonment.