The question of the day, however, was how the Senate Judiciary hearing of Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts was going. At the time, he was still "struggling" with his decision and "thinking it through." He said that Roberts "is the best we'll ever get from Bush," and that while he respects his talents, he still has many unanswered questions.

Feingold stated that this is a tremendously important lifetime appointment, and while he is fairly certain that Roberts will be confirmed, he does not take the task lightly; he said to Roberts that this was not to be a coronation. "`In fact'" he said, "'You look pretty healthy.' He could still be Chief Justice when I pass away."

When it comes to some of Roberts' more intemperate, out-of-touch writings years ago, Feingold has some doubts. He finds Roberts' rigid dismissal of questions about those writings with, "I was just doing my job" as a Reagan Administration employee to be disappointing.

On the other hand, Feingold credits Roberts with appropriate responses when asked about the Patriot Act's FISA court--the sub rosa court that deals with suspected terrorists through surveillance, physical search, and counterintelligence measures. The Chief Justice would be the only one appointing judges to the FISA court. "I was shocked when I heard there was such a court," Roberts said.

Regardless of what Roberts' judicial philosophy turns out to be, Feingold feels that the next nominee--who will replace Sandra Day O'Connor--will undoubtedly be less talented and less suited to a seat on the Supreme Court, and he thinks that Democrats' biggest and best fight may have to be reserved for that future nomination.

Iraq and the "War on Terror"
Feingold stated that the GOP has failed to properly answer the terrorist attacks of 9-11. "It has been four years since 9-11--what more wake-up call do we need?" While he believes in a strong, appropriate response to an attack, he has a very different vision from that of the present administration about what should have been done, and considers Iraq an unfortunate diversion from such a response.

"Americans want a president and a party to do things right," Feingold said, reminding the audience that he was one of the few to vote against the Iraq invasion (and for which he got one of several standing ovations). He never found convincing evidence, and pointed out that there is still a document available from the State Department's web site, a list of 45 countries in which Al Qaida was operating, a list used by the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9-11, and Iraq is not one of those 45 nations.

Some boosters of the Iraq invasion have been able to paper over that discrepancy. The Bush Administration is fond of its "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" model, which Feingold has dubbed the "Roach Motel Theory" of fighting terrorism, a way to attract terrorists to one place, where they can be exterminated. He does not believe it, and states that, on the contrary, by invading Iraq, the United States has turned it into an effective "training ground for urban terrorists."

Feingold began sounding out people about withdrawal from Iraq last year and noticed that in even some of the most conservative districts in Wisconsin, people who had supported the war were speaking out against it. At a meeting of fifty in Langlade County, Feingold said, "I never thought of Langlade as a radical county," and a lady called out, "We're gettin' there!"

Feingold again remarked on the Bush Administration's false dichotomy of "cut and run" and "stay the course." They do not allow for a third way, and that makes it taboo for Democrats to speak out, and calls their patriotism into question. Feingold articulated that idea recently at Marquette, and suggested that the U. S. set a flexible target date of getting out of Iraq by December of 2006. When asked, Iraqi president Talibani said much the same thing--that getting out by late 2006 would be common sense.

While Feingold was on a tour of Iraq with other senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton among them, an Iraqi general told him that "nothing would take the wind out of the insurgents' sails more than to show that there will not be a permanent occupation in Iraq." So, Feingold said, we must fight the Republicans' false choices, their silencing of any dissent and extricate ourselves. Common sense is on our side.

Feingold added that not a single U.S. Senator has algined him- or herself with Feingold on the flexible target date for withdrawal, and that the cataclysm of Katrina does tend to take the heat off the issue. But Iraq must not be tabled, and Democrats must not let up.

FEMA and the difference between Democrats and Republicans
On the Katrina response, Feingold perceives the Bush Administration reaction as "beyond belief" and an "enormous failure" that underscores the clear differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Republicans are just not placing people's priorities first.

Feingold, who visits every county in Wisconsin at least once a year for his "listening sessions," enumerated some of the people's priorities as they come up, and health care reform has been the number one issue, with jobs and energy policy close behind. He noted that before Katrina, the Republicans had no intention of addressing any of those issues in a meaningful way, and instead were set to completely repeal the estate tax. Feingold himself favors estate tax reform, but certainly not the complete rollback proposed by the GOP, which is now "dead in the water." Republican priorities are telling.

FEMA in particular, under the Bush Administration and what it once was under the Clinton Administration is "symbolic" of the gulf between our parties, said Feingold. As he recalled it, through droughts, floods and tornadoes in the 1990s, "FEMA was known as the best agency there was." How it performed under Clinton, solving people's problems, contrasts sharply with the vestigial FEMA of the Bush era. Democrats solved people's problems; Republicans "simply like to shrink government."

And that led Feingold to stress that the Democrats need a good message to send to America. "The party of performance" had caught his attention. Clinton's party performed well for people (e.g. FEMA, decreasing the crime rate), but Bush's party does not and will not. Democrats need to remind people that they can and will perform like that again.

Dramatically cleaning house in 2006
One of the party members asked Feingold whether he thought there would be a realigning election. Absolutely," he replied. "Every year we tell each other that `this is the most important election of our lives' and it gets a little old, but 2004 really was the most important election of our lives. It was an unmitigated disaster that George Bush was re-elected."

He went on to stress the utter powerlessness of the Democrats--for now. "The tradition used to be that every fourth hearing was conceded to let the minority party have a topic," but that is no longer the case. The GOP is tossing Dems no sops at all, and government is "utterly one-sided and unaccountable." Right now, Democrats can call no hearings on the Katrina response, the Downing Street Memos, or any other topic of concern to them. So Democrats need to rebuild their momentum and energy of 2004 and turn the tables in 2006.

Feingold fully expects that we will "dramatically clean house" in 2006, and asserted that "there will be a Democratic president in 2008." Feingold, himself a likely presidential candidate, is spending some time in various states, including New Hampshire, and will make a decision about his candidacy in about a year and a half. He expressed a sense of awe at the tremendous responsibility and privilege of serving Americans in the presidency.

Recently, Senator Feingold has made news calling for disaster relief for drought-stricken Wisconsin farmers, energy assistance for low-income Americans, and donated television network air-time for Katrina survivors.

--Lizbeth Ager

Photo credits: Dee Taylor