On October 25, 2001, Senator Russ Feingold made a statement on the Senate floor, during the debate over the Patriot Act.

Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.

We have since learned that the government has used National Security Letters to invade people's homes without a warrant, that they have violated the law to eavesdrop on our electronic communications, and they have held U.S. citizens in custody indefinitely, in violation of habeas corpus, which can only be constitutionally ignored in times of "cases of rebellion or invasion."

In light of this, do you agree that Russ Feingold was correct when he was the only only senator to oppose passage of the Patriot Act?

Would you tend to agree more with candidate Jon Tester, who said "Let me be clear. I don't want to weaken the Patriot Act. I want to get rid of it," or with former Senate Intelligence Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts, who said, "“I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties. But you have no civil liberties if you are dead”?

Would you have voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which passed the House on September 29, 2006 by 250-170 vote (with 32 Democratic supporters)? Do you disagree with then Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Pat Leahy, who said at the time:

"Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse -- is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill."

"On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) purportedly to ease restrictions on secret surveillance of alleged terrorist suspects." This resulted in a hastily crafted revision to FISA, known as the Protect America Act of 2007. On August 4, 2007, the House passed this law by a 227-183 margin (with 41 Democratic votes). At the time:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said lawmakers were being "stampeded by fear-mongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned that the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."

How would you have voted on this bill?

The Protect America Act of 2007 had a six-month sunset, and it is now being marked up in the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The Intelligence Committee recommended providing the telecommunications corporations immunity from responsibility for prior cooperation in illegal warrantless surveillance. Presidential candidate, Sen. Chris Dodd has taken a position against immunity, and has promised to place a 'hold' on any bill that provides for it.

"While the President may think that it's right to offer immunity to those who break the law and violate the right to privacy of thousands of law-abiding Americans, I want to assure him it is not a value we have in common and I hope the same can be said of my fellow Democrats in the Senate.

"For too long we have failed to respect the rule of law and failed to protect our fundamental civil liberties. I will do what I can to see to it that no telecommunications giant that was complicit in this Administration's assault on the Constitution is given a get-out-of-jail-free card."

Do you agree with Senator Dodd's position?

Finally, do you consider waterboarding to be a form of torture that is banned by our Constitution, specific statutes, and by signed treaty agreements? If so, what should be done to people that authorized waterboarding, and to the people that carried out those orders?

The War in Iraq

The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq passed the House on by 296-133 vote (with 81 Democratic supporters). How would you have voted on this resolution? Did you comment on the resolution at the time? With the benefit of hindsight, would you change your vote?

Since the invasion of Iraq, there have been periodic supplemental funding bills. Would you have put any conditions on supporting those supplemental bills? What conditions?

This year, 2007, had been the deadliest year for our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you support an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq, with the ultimate aim of complete withdrawal?

In July 2007, Senator Webb introduced an amendment that would have ensured that troops have as much time at home as they have in combat. The Republicans filibustered the bill even though it had 56 supporters in the Senate. Would you have supported the Webb amendment?

What, if any, current plans do you support for extricating ourselves from the quagmire in Iraq?

Domestic Issues

Are you pro-choice?

What's your position on the continued funding of abstinence-only sex-education which has been proven not to work?

Do you support added funding for family-planning programs (including subsidized birth control programs)?

Do you support federally funded stem-cell research?

Do you have a position on gay marriage, adoption, and equal rights under the law?

On April 14, 2005, the House passed The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 by a 302-126 margin (with 73 Democratic votes). The bill was supported by the Blue Dog coalition and now Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who justified it:

“The argument that bankruptcies were becoming simply a way to excuse irresponsible behavior had validity to it,” he told me. “I believe that personal responsibility expectations are very important. No Child Left Behind, the accountability of students and teachers and parents and administrators to provide taxpayers their value ... The core value of personal responsibility is what I felt was manifested in the bankruptcy bill.”

Yet:

Elizabeth Warren, an expert on bankruptcy at Harvard Law School, points out that 90 percent of families who file for bankruptcy do so after a job loss, a serious medical problem, a divorce, or a death. “What was the personal responsibility that they were missing?” Warren asks. “Was it that when Dad had chest pains and fell to the ground, he went to the emergency room rather than saying, ‘I don’t think I’ll be able to pay for it’? ... Was it that when Mom got laid off from her job, she didn’t just hand over her keys to the landlord and move into a cardboard box on the street with her two children?”

Would you have joined the Blue Dogs in supporting this bill?

According to the National Debt Clock the National Debt currently (as of November 13, 2007) stands at $9,118,656,201,037.12, meaning that every U.S. citizen owes $30,042.65. In 1954, the top marginal federal income tax rate was 91 percent. The current top marginal rate is 35 percent. Meanwhile:

For more than 25 years, Business Week has conducted an annual survey of the earnings of chief executive officers of the largest U.S. corporations. In 1980, those executives earned 42 times as much as the average American worker, a ratio larger than the corresponding ratios for such countries as Japan and Germany even today. By 2000, however, American CEOs were earning 531 times the average worker's salary.

Do you think we have our tax priorities straight? How would you go about creating a fairer system and protecting future generations from being saddled with crippling debt?

According to the National Coalition on Health Care:

Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005, the latest government data available (1).

Over 8 in 10 uninsured people came from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers (2).

Do you support a single-payer national health care program that provides universal coverage, a program that requires people to purchase private health insurance (with tax subsidies for the needy), or some other solution? What is your reasoning?

Miscellaneous

If elected, what committees would you like to sit on?

If elected, would you join one of the congressional caucuses (New Democrat, Blue Dog, Progressive)? Why, or why not?