Post-Obama - A Different 2012 (Gameplay)

[GoTfan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cmpaign summary

Feingold spent the month campaigning in the early states; Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. He would outline his so-called "New New Deal", pledging to restore many New Deal programs to the United States, as well as toughening on bank regulation.He would also give a fiery speech in Las Vegas, castigating the Republicans for denying climate change, which he described as one of the biggest threats the world faces.

He also made a quick detour for California, where he held a rally with Senator Barbara Boxer, who has recently announced her support for the former Wisconsin Senator. The two touted their shared ideals on fiscal policy, and afterwards, held a productive meeting that resulted in Boxer being named chair of the Feingold campaign in California and joined the national campaign committee.

He also spent time organising his campaign as well, ensuring that the infrastructure to run a successful campaign was in place in the early primary states. He invested considerable funds in shoring up the state campaigns and making sure they had the money to recruit and train their volunteers.

Finally, he announced that he would not be taking money from any PAC or SuperPAC, and declared the need to overturn Citizens United.

[GoTfan]

Feingold Campaign Schedule for October

October 1-7

Feingold travelled to Nevada to start holding rallies and events there. He gave a major speech on healthcare reform as while there, urging the creation of a single-payer system immediately, pointing to Democratic platforms in the past that have called for its creation

October 8-14

Feingold travelled to Ohio this week, to accept the endorsement of Senator Sherrod Brown. In his endorsement speech, Brown established that he was backing Feingold due to their shared positions on the protection of labor, and that free trade is selling American workers down the river.

Feingold also outlined his pet legislation that he planned to push as President, the Fair Trade Act, which has the following key provisions:

-Negotiating trade agreements that benefit both countries
-Ensure that workers of both countries are paid well and receive protections
-Put environmental regulations in place to ensure that trade does not unduly harm the environment

October 15-22

This week was spent in South Carolina, as Feingold made visits to many impoverished neighborhoods in the state, as well as visiting farmers who have been feeling the pressure of the economic crisis. He hosted several roundtables with voters to hear their issues in the state. When asked why he did not simply host a Town Hall meeting, Feingold responded: "Being able to talk face-to-face with a candidate in private and getting a prompt answer out of them feels a lot more personal; a Town Hall doesn't really allow for that sort of atmosphere."

Remainder of month

The remainder of the month was spent building the campaign's digital infrastructure. Utilising tactics pioneered by Barack Obama in 2008, Feingold set up a website allowing voters to directly ask questions and share the opinions, and receive a response. he used the site to post a hevy defence of the Occupy Wall Street movement, saying that had been forgotten for too long, and were now making their voices heard.

[GoTfan]

Feingold Debate Responses

1) Would I support a plan like it? Yes, I would, but I would be very lukewarm about it. A plan like that, aside from being a Republican plan, doesn't go nearly far enough to ensuring that all of our citizens have equal access to quality healthcare.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I was a strong supporter of a universal, single-payer system, and I remain a strong supporter of it. A single-payer system is the only way we can ensure access to healthcare. It is past time that every American citizen had a right to healthcare, and it is past time we stop giving preferential treatment to those with private insurance.

Healthcare is a right, not a privelige!

2) The answer, like so many cut from the same progressive cloth as me, remains the same: reinstate Glass-Steagall and break up the major banks. We now have banks in this country that are quite literally too big to fail. Basically, if they go down, the American economy goes down. We saw that in 2008. The kicker? Bank CEOs took the bailout money and used it for two purposes: to pay themselves huge bonuses, and lobby Congress to kill any meaningful reform.

It is past time we had a President who is willing to stand up to the banks. Who won't fold at the sight of them starting to fight you, because guess what? Tough banking regulations led to an explosion in the middle class in the 1940s. We need to resurrect these policies. It is past time that the banks of this country own up to what they did, and start paying the American people back!

3) First of all, I believe that President Obama has done as good a job as can be expected with what he was handed by the Bush administration, but we need to get out of this New Democrat Clintonian mindset that being moderate liberals is going to get us anywhere. It worked in the 90s, but it doesn't now.

I want to help us reclaim that grassroots base; I want to rebuild the New Deal coalition; the one that got us control of the White House and Congress for so long. There was a time when we were the party of labor, the grassroots activists, the students and the working class. We need to embrace that base once again, and turn ourselves into the defender of the American people again. We need to stop taking money from Wall Street and business interests.

The Democratic Party was founded as the party of the less priveliged, so let's resurrect that.

4) I lost my seat because of a wider backlash against the Democratic Party. I could've run a much better campaign, and I did fumble at several points, but it was just part of a wide backlash.

So why am I the most qualified? It's a fair question, and I'll give a fair answer. Take a look at my Senate voting record. I was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. I voted against the iraq War. As far as bipartisanship goes, I worked with Senator John McCain to pass a bill that invoked restrictions on campaign finance, yet now I find it overturned by the most shortsighted deicision in the history of the Supreme Court.

I beleive I am the most qualified candidate not because of the offices I have held, but of the policies I support.

[GoTfan]

News Update
November 9, 2011

Results of the 2011 elections

Kentucky - Governor (95% reporting)
David L. Williams (R) - 45.40% (apparent winner) (R+1)
Steve Beshear (D) (inc.) - 44.91%
Gatewood Galbraith (I) - 9.64%

Louisiana - Governor (99% reporting)
Bobby Jindal (R) (inc.) - 69.1% ✓
Tara Hollis (D) - 10.1%
Other - 20.8%

Mississippi - Governor (98% reporting)
Phil Bryant (R) - 65.6% ✓
Johnny DuPree (D) - 34.4%

(Note: there was no West Virginia gubernatorial special election due to the fact that a Republican won the West Virginia Senate seat in 2010, leaving Manchin still with the governorship.)

Mississippi Ballot Question - Initiative 26
Yes - 52.31% ✓
No - 47.69%

Feingold at rally: Ron Johnson voters were "a bunch of uneducated hicks"

At a rally yesterday in Manchester, New Hampshire, candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in the 2012 elections and former Senator Russ Feingold made questionable comments about supporters of his former Senate opponent, and newly-elected Senator, Ron Johnson. While the subject of the rally was on improving healthcare, the topic quickly shifted to the candidate's run for re-election to the Senate in 2010, and particularly, about the supporters of his opponent, after a heckler in the audience declared "Ron Johnson rigged the Senate race!" Feingold originally made a shift to talk about how Johnson had genuine supporters in an effort to diffuse the situation through a joke; however, Feingold made what commentators have said was "the biggest gaffe of his campaign so far" when he declared that "Johnson had genuine supporters. He had a bunch of conservative uneducated hicks who voted for him in the election!"

While the audience laughed at the time, many pundits have since declared that "while it was intended as a joke, there's no doubt that this will be poorly received by conservative Democrats and possibly even the national base. They don't want a candidate who will marginalize the base." A flash poll from the New York Times reveals Feingold's campaign has taken a hit, with his support ranging in the lower teens to mid single digits. What will be the most defining for his campaign; however, is how he responds in the coming weeks, which could either prevent further damage or ensure it.

In surprise twist, Huckabee becomes voice of reason at Occupy Wall Street protests

During a surprise visit by Huckabee's campaign to Zuccotti Park, the site of the Occupy Wall Street protests on Sunday, Huckabee took a microphone, stood on a bench, and began to make an improvised speech criticizing both sides of the protests. While he initially was booed by supporters of the protest during his criticism of the encampment, as his speech wore on, it became well-received by the protestors and some protestors reportedly left the encampment as a result of the speech.

During the speech, which came as a surprise to even the protestors as Huckabee drove up in an unassuming sedan by himself and took out a battery-powered microphone and a speaker and stood up on a bench, Huckabee criticized the protestors, saying that "If you want to make real change, camping on private property isn't the place to start", which was followed by boos from the protestors. However, as he began to state that "you all have a real cause, but this isn't the place to protest", the crowd began to silence and listen to his argument. He closed the speech, which began to be met with applause from some of the protestors, by saying that "you shouldn't be protesting here. Your protest should be at the ballot box in the primaries and the general. That's where your voice will count!" Dozens of protestors packed up and left after he ended his speech. One protestor, when interviewed, said that while she did not agree with Huckabee's politics, that she was "impressed...that he took the time to come out here and hear our argument, and take the time to make a speech. I'd consider voting for him if I was a Republican."

A New York Times flash poll taken after his speech finds him neck-and-neck with frontrunner Jeb Bush, both with 20 percent of the vote.

Um, excuse me, that is grossly unfair.

[GoTfan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[GoTfan]

Feingold 2012

November 1-7

Feingold travelled to South Carolina, visiting many poorer neighborhoods and meeting with local leaders for their support in the campaign. He also made a stop in Arkansas, where he welcomed the endorsement of General Wesley Clark. Clark called Feingold "the sanest candidate when it comes to foreign policy". Following this, Clark became the chair of the Arkansas campaign.

November 8-14

This week was spent in Iowa, as Feingold attempted to rally support from the farming population by again saying he would pass a bill to enact protections for small farms from major farming companies. He also made visits to Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, saying that he would champion a rise in the minimum wage, and openly tie it to inflation, so that the wage would always keep pace with the economy.

November 15-21

Feingold travelled to Massachusetts this week, appearing with Governor Deval Patrick, and the two of them campaigned on economic and criminal justice issues. Namely, they stated that one of Feingold's objectives would be to institute body cameras as part of standard equipment for all federal law enforcement groups. The two also travelled to New Hampshire, again hitting the same noted about economic justice, notably referring to the Occupy Wall Street movement as a group with excellent goals, but a little misguided in the violence they had committed.

Rest of the month

The rest of the month was spent strategizing, as Feingold's campaign began to lay out it's strategy for the early primary states. In addition, he also prepared his first ad campaign, to hit the early states and beyond. The state campaigns also held several fundraisers, to raise money for their own campaigns.

[GoTfan]

Feingold 2012 Schedule

December 1-14: These two weeks were spent criss-crossing Iowa, visiting as many voters as possible. Feingold would continue to delver speeches hammering home his theme of standing up for the working and middle classes of the country, as well as holding several youth meetings where he met with college-age voters to discuss their concerns.

December 15-21: This week was spent in New England, and he attended rallies with Senator Bernie Sanders and Professor Elizabeth Warren, a candidate for the US Senate in Massachusetts. It is hoped that these two endorsers can help him further lock down the progressive and activist wings of the party and carve out the base that will carry him to the nomination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

December 22-23: Feingold spent these days doing various interviews with different local radio networks, answering the concerns of voters who were unable to meet face-to-face with him at campaign events, and also touted the backing of progressive leaders from across the country.

December 24-31: Feingold spent Christmas and New Years' with his family in Wisconsin

[GoTfan]

Feingold debate answers

Question 1: Recently, the Occupy Wall Street movement has been pushing for ways to help equalize the playing field between the ultrarich and the middle class and poor, what policies do you offer that would help make the Economy work for all Americans?


Well, what I have that Senators Biden and Bayh don't is a record of vocal support for progressive economics. Occupy Wall Street has many, many good points. Progressives like myself have been sounding the alarm bells about something like this happening one day if we continued down the path of deregulation. We were either laughed at or ignored. We told you this would happen, and you ignored us.

Obviously, we need to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act; that's a given. I voted against the repeal at the time, as did Senator Boxer; and now, in light of the crash of 2008, we were proven right. Its reinstatement is paramount in bringing the banks under control. We need to raise our minimum wage to 12 dollars, but we also need to tie it with inflation, so that it rises along with inflation. People cannot survive on 7.25 an hour; that's just inept. FInally, we need to raise taxes on the wealthiest citizens in this country. I'm not advocating for an increase back to the levels under Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy, but to sustainable levels so that we can raise taxes on the rich and cut them for the middle and working classes.

Question 2: For years there has been a question of what marriage should be defined as, and whether homosexuals should have specific rights. Where do you stand on the issue of marriage, and how would you try and address the issue as President?

This is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. I fully support the right of anyone to marry who they love. How is it our business to start sticking our noses into what people do with their personal lives? The right of a homosexual couple to marry is as basic as the other points I have pushed, and res assured, I will support any effort to legalise same-sex marriage in all 50 states by the time I am finished in office!

Question 3: As you all know, America's corporate/business tax rates is relatively higher compared to the rest of the world, and Republicans say we must lower it in order to keep American Business competitive with the rest of the World. What changes would you make to the Corporate/Business tax rates, while also avoiding giving the rich a massive tax break?

If I might just correct you there, we have one of the highest nominal corporate tax rates in the world. No company ever pays the nominal rate though; the amount of loopholes in it is just obscene, and then whatever money they can't find loopholes for, they go and hide in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.

First, I would introduce legislation to tackle these loopholes and tax havens, introducing harsh penalties for companies that participate in these very immoral practices. I would ensure that companies are paying the nominal rate by introducing legislation that would make public their tax returns. The resulting public outcry would likely shame most companies into paying their share.

Finally, if you want a pro-business persepctive from me, you'll get it too. Businesses who give their workers protections, pay good wages, empower unions, adhere to regulations, pursue transparency and pay the full corporate tax will build good relations with the oublic. People are going to want and come to work for you if you look after people. That's just good PR.

Closing statement.

I have been a fighter for progressive values my entire life, and I have refused to compromise my principles for the sake of power or political expediency. I am running because America needs pricipled progressivism in the White House in the tradtion of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. Let's bring back the era of the New Deal and end the smoke and mirrors around Washington together. Thank you.

[GoTfan]

Michelle Responds to the Governor's Comments

Let's see if I understand you, Governor Bredesen. You chose not to support fundamental rights for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters because it would not be politically viable. That's not what a leader does. A leader does not give up on his or her principles simply because they're not popular, or that Republicans control the legislature, or for any reason, really. That's certainly not the kind of leader Americans need in 2012, and I can guarantee you that giving up on your principles, giving up the good fight, has serious negative consequences on the most vulnerable people in our society. Do you think that Reverend King should have stood down in his march for civil rights simply because it was not a politically viable strategy in the Jim Crow-era South? Should abolitionists in the 19th century have abandoned their goals of an America without the absolutely disgusting practice of slavery simply because pro-slavery forces in Congress had far more political power? Obviously not, and it's not right that you think it's fine to brush off your decision to throw aside the rights of LGBT individuals because it was not politically viable to do while you were Governor.

And let's not give the excuse of the South "not liking being told what to do." No one likes to be told what to do, first of all, but no one has the right to discriminate against a fellow citizen simply because of who they love. That's not "free speech," Governor, that's bigotry. And I cannot fathom why you think promoting equality for LGBT people is acting "like a dictator." That's ridiculous – I'm proposing using a legal method, a constitutional amendment, to ensure that our LGBT compatriots are no longer forced to be second-class citizens. In addition, Governor, a lot of Southerners did not like being told what to do and were very angry at the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the decision in Brown v. Board, and countless other vital legislation that finally ended the oppression of Jim Crow. You're implying that we should have never passed those monumental laws because it would have been forcing the South to change its ways.

Finally, Governor, I would prefer to not be lectured on the African-American leaders of the civil rights movement by someone who has never experienced the kind of discrimination that black Americans have for centuries. My ancestors were slaves in the Carolinas. My grandfather, Fraser, was born in South Carolina at the height of Jim Crow. The stories of discrimination and hatred that he had told me shake me to my very core – and I still see racism and discrimination occurring today. LGBT Americans also experience a similar form of bigotry – violence, verbal abuse, discrimination – and I cannot believe someone would be able to tell, to their face, that their rights to be treated as an equal American can wait. That their rights are secondary to the attitudes and desires of those in power. I know I would not be able to say that to my grandfather's face.

Governor, I'm thoroughly unconvinced by your justifications, and I believe millions of Americans, gay and straight, black and white, share my opinion. When it comes to fundamental rights, the right to be treated as an equal in the eyes of the law, any action except immediate action is too late.

Mrs. Obama, have you talked with Southern Conservatives? Have you talked with the ordinary citizen? Have you talked with extremists? Implementing a forced National Government implementation of Homosexual rights will not improve things. You talk about Brown v Board so I'll bring up the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After that happened, there are still Hate Crimes and racism all across the South against African Americans. We also saw the South double down and there is a reason why there are problems rooting back to 1964. The simple fact about this is that we could see a rise in Hate groups against Homosexuals in the South or in any part of the country. When I talk about Booker's ideals, I talk about slow integration, get people used to the idea, and then pass it. If you want to have a Nationwide Act on legalizing, do it but I do think there will be major consequences. Homophobes will exist and after such a thing, they will be convinced that the Government will want to get involved in their own personal life. The sad thing is, many people, while disagreeing with the Homophobic rhetoric, will agree that the Government is getting too involved in the rights of states. The Founding Fathers created the Government and the Constitution for two things: To Protect the people and to make sure the Law is followed. That is it. Another thing I want to ask you, if you do this, do you think the Westborough Baptist Church will just disintegrate and vanish? This is a general question that I want to know, Mrs. Obama.

Also, I want to say this: No, Mrs. Obama, I wasn't lecturing on African American Civil Rights Leaders. If I sounded as such, I do apologize, Mrs. Obama. I was simply bringing up the ideas of a prominent leader in Civil Rights history and since this is a Civil Rights Issue, I do believe I have the right to bring them up.

In the end, I prefer slow change and have people get used to things and when the majority of citizens in every state says Yes, I will pass it the second I hear every state agrees. I will just institute a medium law as a compromise to make everyone happy. Homosexual Marriage will be legal and Homosexual voting rights will be secured and defended. Anything beyond that, however, is for the states to decide, not the government.

I hope I have made this clear to everyone tonight and Mrs. Obama, If I have sounded condescending to you, I do apologize but I wanted to say my piece and then be allowed to respond afterwards. Thank you.

If I might jump in here, Governor, are you saying that the Civil Rights Act did nothing for the minority population in this country?

[GoTfan]

Michelle Responds to the Governor's Comments

Let's see if I understand you, Governor Bredesen. You chose not to support fundamental rights for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters because it would not be politically viable. That's not what a leader does. A leader does not give up on his or her principles simply because they're not popular, or that Republicans control the legislature, or for any reason, really. That's certainly not the kind of leader Americans need in 2012, and I can guarantee you that giving up on your principles, giving up the good fight, has serious negative consequences on the most vulnerable people in our society. Do you think that Reverend King should have stood down in his march for civil rights simply because it was not a politically viable strategy in the Jim Crow-era South? Should abolitionists in the 19th century have abandoned their goals of an America without the absolutely disgusting practice of slavery simply because pro-slavery forces in Congress had far more political power? Obviously not, and it's not right that you think it's fine to brush off your decision to throw aside the rights of LGBT individuals because it was not politically viable to do while you were Governor.

And let's not give the excuse of the South "not liking being told what to do." No one likes to be told what to do, first of all, but no one has the right to discriminate against a fellow citizen simply because of who they love. That's not "free speech," Governor, that's bigotry. And I cannot fathom why you think promoting equality for LGBT people is acting "like a dictator." That's ridiculous – I'm proposing using a legal method, a constitutional amendment, to ensure that our LGBT compatriots are no longer forced to be second-class citizens. In addition, Governor, a lot of Southerners did not like being told what to do and were very angry at the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the decision in Brown v. Board, and countless other vital legislation that finally ended the oppression of Jim Crow. You're implying that we should have never passed those monumental laws because it would have been forcing the South to change its ways.

Finally, Governor, I would prefer to not be lectured on the African-American leaders of the civil rights movement by someone who has never experienced the kind of discrimination that black Americans have for centuries. My ancestors were slaves in the Carolinas. My grandfather, Fraser, was born in South Carolina at the height of Jim Crow. The stories of discrimination and hatred that he had told me shake me to my very core – and I still see racism and discrimination occurring today. LGBT Americans also experience a similar form of bigotry – violence, verbal abuse, discrimination – and I cannot believe someone would be able to tell, to their face, that their rights to be treated as an equal American can wait. That their rights are secondary to the attitudes and desires of those in power. I know I would not be able to say that to my grandfather's face.

Governor, I'm thoroughly unconvinced by your justifications, and I believe millions of Americans, gay and straight, black and white, share my opinion. When it comes to fundamental rights, the right to be treated as an equal in the eyes of the law, any action except immediate action is too late.

Mrs. Obama, have you talked with Southern Conservatives? Have you talked with the ordinary citizen? Have you talked with extremists? Implementing a forced National Government implementation of Homosexual rights will not improve things. You talk about Brown v Board so I'll bring up the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After that happened, there are still Hate Crimes and racism all across the South against African Americans. We also saw the South double down and there is a reason why there are problems rooting back to 1964. The simple fact about this is that we could see a rise in Hate groups against Homosexuals in the South or in any part of the country. When I talk about Booker's ideals, I talk about slow integration, get people used to the idea, and then pass it. If you want to have a Nationwide Act on legalizing, do it but I do think there will be major consequences. Homophobes will exist and after such a thing, they will be convinced that the Government will want to get involved in their own personal life. The sad thing is, many people, while disagreeing with the Homophobic rhetoric, will agree that the Government is getting too involved in the rights of states. The Founding Fathers created the Government and the Constitution for two things: To Protect the people and to make sure the Law is followed. That is it. Another thing I want to ask you, if you do this, do you think the Westborough Baptist Church will just disintegrate and vanish? This is a general question that I want to know, Mrs. Obama.

Also, I want to say this: No, Mrs. Obama, I wasn't lecturing on African American Civil Rights Leaders. If I sounded as such, I do apologize, Mrs. Obama. I was simply bringing up the ideas of a prominent leader in Civil Rights history and since this is a Civil Rights Issue, I do believe I have the right to bring them up.

In the end, I prefer slow change and have people get used to things and when the majority of citizens in every state says Yes, I will pass it the second I hear every state agrees. I will just institute a medium law as a compromise to make everyone happy. Homosexual Marriage will be legal and Homosexual voting rights will be secured and defended. Anything beyond that, however, is for the states to decide, not the government.

I hope I have made this clear to everyone tonight and Mrs. Obama, If I have sounded condescending to you, I do apologize but I wanted to say my piece and then be allowed to respond afterwards. Thank you.

If I might jump in here, Governor, are you saying that the Civil Rights Act did nothing for the minority population in this country?

No, I am not, Senator. Don't worry. I'm stating that there are still some left over anger at the government for intervening in state affairs.

Okay, let me tell you why a strong central government is necessary, Governor. At the end of the Revolutionary War, the states refused to pay any federal taxes under the Articles of Confederation, which meant the soldiers who fought for the nation's freedom couldn't be paid. The simple fact is that a weak central government holds little to no power, and without a strong federal government, then the nation would quite literally be bankrupt. We wouldn't be able to pay federal employees and the states would be nations into themselves.

If you want to pursue the line about states' rights,  that's fine. Just understand why the argument makes little sense.

[GoTfan]

Michelle Responds to the Governor's Comments

Let's see if I understand you, Governor Bredesen. You chose not to support fundamental rights for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters because it would not be politically viable. That's not what a leader does. A leader does not give up on his or her principles simply because they're not popular, or that Republicans control the legislature, or for any reason, really. That's certainly not the kind of leader Americans need in 2012, and I can guarantee you that giving up on your principles, giving up the good fight, has serious negative consequences on the most vulnerable people in our society. Do you think that Reverend King should have stood down in his march for civil rights simply because it was not a politically viable strategy in the Jim Crow-era South? Should abolitionists in the 19th century have abandoned their goals of an America without the absolutely disgusting practice of slavery simply because pro-slavery forces in Congress had far more political power? Obviously not, and it's not right that you think it's fine to brush off your decision to throw aside the rights of LGBT individuals because it was not politically viable to do while you were Governor.

And let's not give the excuse of the South "not liking being told what to do." No one likes to be told what to do, first of all, but no one has the right to discriminate against a fellow citizen simply because of who they love. That's not "free speech," Governor, that's bigotry. And I cannot fathom why you think promoting equality for LGBT people is acting "like a dictator." That's ridiculous – I'm proposing using a legal method, a constitutional amendment, to ensure that our LGBT compatriots are no longer forced to be second-class citizens. In addition, Governor, a lot of Southerners did not like being told what to do and were very angry at the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the decision in Brown v. Board, and countless other vital legislation that finally ended the oppression of Jim Crow. You're implying that we should have never passed those monumental laws because it would have been forcing the South to change its ways.

Finally, Governor, I would prefer to not be lectured on the African-American leaders of the civil rights movement by someone who has never experienced the kind of discrimination that black Americans have for centuries. My ancestors were slaves in the Carolinas. My grandfather, Fraser, was born in South Carolina at the height of Jim Crow. The stories of discrimination and hatred that he had told me shake me to my very core – and I still see racism and discrimination occurring today. LGBT Americans also experience a similar form of bigotry – violence, verbal abuse, discrimination – and I cannot believe someone would be able to tell, to their face, that their rights to be treated as an equal American can wait. That their rights are secondary to the attitudes and desires of those in power. I know I would not be able to say that to my grandfather's face.

Governor, I'm thoroughly unconvinced by your justifications, and I believe millions of Americans, gay and straight, black and white, share my opinion. When it comes to fundamental rights, the right to be treated as an equal in the eyes of the law, any action except immediate action is too late.

Mrs. Obama, have you talked with Southern Conservatives? Have you talked with the ordinary citizen? Have you talked with extremists? Implementing a forced National Government implementation of Homosexual rights will not improve things. You talk about Brown v Board so I'll bring up the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After that happened, there are still Hate Crimes and racism all across the South against African Americans. We also saw the South double down and there is a reason why there are problems rooting back to 1964. The simple fact about this is that we could see a rise in Hate groups against Homosexuals in the South or in any part of the country. When I talk about Booker's ideals, I talk about slow integration, get people used to the idea, and then pass it. If you want to have a Nationwide Act on legalizing, do it but I do think there will be major consequences. Homophobes will exist and after such a thing, they will be convinced that the Government will want to get involved in their own personal life. The sad thing is, many people, while disagreeing with the Homophobic rhetoric, will agree that the Government is getting too involved in the rights of states. The Founding Fathers created the Government and the Constitution for two things: To Protect the people and to make sure the Law is followed. That is it. Another thing I want to ask you, if you do this, do you think the Westborough Baptist Church will just disintegrate and vanish? This is a general question that I want to know, Mrs. Obama.

Also, I want to say this: No, Mrs. Obama, I wasn't lecturing on African American Civil Rights Leaders. If I sounded as such, I do apologize, Mrs. Obama. I was simply bringing up the ideas of a prominent leader in Civil Rights history and since this is a Civil Rights Issue, I do believe I have the right to bring them up.

In the end, I prefer slow change and have people get used to things and when the majority of citizens in every state says Yes, I will pass it the second I hear every state agrees. I will just institute a medium law as a compromise to make everyone happy. Homosexual Marriage will be legal and Homosexual voting rights will be secured and defended. Anything beyond that, however, is for the states to decide, not the government.

I hope I have made this clear to everyone tonight and Mrs. Obama, If I have sounded condescending to you, I do apologize but I wanted to say my piece and then be allowed to respond afterwards. Thank you.

If I might jump in here, Governor, are you saying that the Civil Rights Act did nothing for the minority population in this country?

No, I am not, Senator. Don't worry. I'm stating that there are still some left over anger at the government for intervening in state affairs.

Okay, let me tell you why a strong central government is necessary, Governor. At the end of the Revolutionary War, the states refused to pay any federal taxes under the Articles of Confederation, which meant the soldiers who fought for the nation's freedom couldn't be paid. The simple fact is that a weak central government holds little to no power, and without a strong federal government, then the nation would quite literally be bankrupt. We wouldn't be able to pay federal employees and the states would be nations into themselves.

If you want to pursue the line about states' rights,  that's fine. Just understand why the argument makes little sense.

Senator, I don't disagree that we need the federal government for taxation but I think you need to know something. That was then, this is now. The America now is different from America then. Each state has its own culture, own laws, own beliefs, own feelings, and own ideas. Californians are not the same as Texans. Georgians are not the same as Tennesseans. New Yorkers are not the same as Pennsylvanians. By implenting a federal government that controls everything, we run the risk of a dictatorship appearing soon. If you think it can't happen, ask Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was democratically elected and he began to strengthen the federal government. Ask the Kurds what that was like. In Germany, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected and he strengthened Germany's Federal Government. We all know the result of that. Even in the Western Hemisphere, there were Dictatorships of those democratically elected and they centralized the government, taking away the individual Rights of the citizens.

You can say that it won't happen here as we have the Constitution but the thing is the Constitution was to have as little a Centralized government as possible. Also, every country that I mentioned had a constitution of its own but the dictatorships still Happened.

A completely centralized government is not needed nor necessary. It's up to the citizens and the government to uphold this. Also, if we begin to set a precedent of Centralizing the Government, who is to say that one day we get a overly charismatic person as President and he repeals the Constitution or amends it in his own way and begin a Presidential dictatorship that no one can argue against due to the fact that the Government controls everything.

Governor, there are times when we're 50 states and times when we are one nation. How do I know this? Because no state allied with Germany in either world war. Because no one state opted out of sending troops to Vietnam. This is why we have checks and balances, Governor. To prevent something like that from happening.

As for your comparisons with Adolf Hitler, that is grossly offensive. I'm Jewish, and my family was affected by the Holocaust. The father of Senator Sanders, one of my most prominent supporters, is a Holocaust survivor. Do not compare me to two tinpot dictators when one of them was attempting to gas people of my religion. Every person should be offended by your comments there, and I for one will not stand for it!

[GoTfan]

Statement from Feingold

Ladies and gentlemen, it's been one hell of a ride. However, we have to face facts.We have a chance to enact a bold progressive agenda for the future, but only if we unite around one candidate.

You know me and what I stand for. I have been waving the progressive flag for several years. I voted against the iraq War and the PATRIOT Act and have been vindicated by these votes. The progressive agenda is the American agenda, and I have not championed progressive ideals to see them crushed by the same voices who would see us out of the party, when we have the standard, establushment ideas of people like the Vice President or Senator Bayh, or a former progressive turned establishment lackey like Howard Dean.

We need to unite around a candidate that will see the progressive agenda put in place all over this country. To this end, I hereby announce my withdrawal from the race for the 2012 Democratic Party Presidential nomination, and give my full support to First Lady Michelle Obama.

[GoTfan]

Statement from Feingold

I am a lifelong Democrat, which means I find myself in an awkward position. I supported the First Lady in the primary, yet now I find her, after she dropped out of the race, running for another party's nomination with an aging governor who has a past of supporting right-wing policies while claiming to be left-wing.

I can reveal a correspondence between Governor Bredesen and myself, and I have secured his promise to act on Wall Street, climate change, same-sex rights, and pursuit of fair trade over free trade.

To this end, the Governor and I will be sitting down to hash out an agreement between the respective wings of our party.

I understand that many in the progressive movement will be disappointed, but we face a situation where the Tea Party, the most dangerous threat American politics has ever faced, is in a position to seek the Presidency. This cannot be allowed to happen.

With the Governor's promise to act on several issues important to us, I do believe that we can reach an agreement.

I look forward to sitting down with him to discuss the future of the party.