Bob Welch: It was wrong to mischaracterize Feingold's war vote

Capital Times ^ | 3/2/04 | Bob Welch

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

My parents taught me a simple lesson: When you make a mistake, own up to it.

As John Nichols' article of Feb. 26 pointed out, our recent fund-raising letter contained an error, and I take full responsibility for it.

We stated that Russ Feingold was the only vote against authorizing the use of force against the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. This was incorrect.

Feingold was not the sole vote against the liberation of Iraq, as our letter indicated. He was, indeed, joined in his opposition by a select few of the most ardent anti-Bush senators in Washington.

Feingold was not the only senator who would have voted to leave Saddam and his murderous sons in charge of a genocidal regime, but he was one of the most outspoken.

Feingold was not the only vote opposing the liberation of millions of people in a nation littered with mass graves, but in debate he showed no sign of wanting anything more than a chance to bash the president.

Feingold was not the only senator to oppose the overthrow of Saddam's brutal dictatorship with its known ties to terrorism and a proven record of using chemical weapons on its own people, but he was willing to join those looking the other way.

Feingold helped lead a group of 23 senators who are profoundly out of step with Wisconsin - and American - values.

On the campaign trail, as I speak to crowds both big and small, I highlight several of Feingold's votes in which he is out of step with the views and values of Wisconsin, his fervent support of partial-birth abortion, tax hikes and his opposition to ousting Saddam among them.

I present a clear alternative to Feingold, and his record of extreme positions is a legitimate and proper target for criticism.

Whether he shares the position of no one, or is supported by other Bush-haters like Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy or others on a particular issue does not concern Wisconsin voters. What concerns us is that those positions are not supported by those of us back here at home. That is what this campaign is about.

I accept full responsibility for any factual errors in any campaign communication, whether they originated from a volunteer, paid consultant or a vendor. To the extent the statement contained in the letter was in error, I do apologize and will send a correction to those who received the communication.

You are right that the senator and the voters of Wisconsin deserve a straightforward battle of ideas. With me in the race, that's what they'll get.

[joesnuffy]

Feingold is a typical liberal scum bag....he hates the US constitution..and the middle class
he is a left wing democrat...as is the elititest left wing Herb Kohl

This is apparently what the people of Wisconsin want...

Such a beautiful state for such as these to sully

imo

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Feingold is too liberal Madistan, let alone Wisconsin. I've personally met all of the Republican senatorial candidates and Bob Welch is the only solid conservative with any political experience in the race and all Wisconsin conservatives need to support him.

[Always Right]

You have to like how he takes responsibility for his mistake.

[Redbob]

Does Welch have a chance against Feingold?

How well-known and well-funded is he?
What's his background?

[Ronaldus Magnus]

He definitely has the best chance among the declared Republican senatorial candidates. He has the organization from his prior run as well as the best fund raising network. He is a solid conservative who has been an active supporter of other Republicans throughout the state.

[fleshwound]

I do not want to anger anyone, and i respect everyone's right to have an opinion, but I fear some of you have your Packer goggles on (if you are from WI then you'll understand).
Magnus is right, in the sense that he SHOULD have all those things, but Sen. Welch does not. He was the first candidate to jump in the race but has the least (by far) amount of money. He has a very weak organization and is barley hanging onto the little support he has. He does not have the best chance of winning a statewide election partially evident by the whomping he took against Kohl.

While Feingold is seen to us as an ultra-liberal he is seen by Jon Q. Public as a moderate, while Sen Welch is seen by us as "a solid conservative," he is seen by John Q Public as a Right-Wing Extremist. That will not get him elected.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

If by having the "least amount of money" you are referring to the fact Bob Welch isn't a millionaire, then you are correct. If, on the other hand, you are referring to each candidate's fund raising network, then you would be mistaken. Bob Welch is the only candidate with the necessary the structure in place to make a credible run.

Russ Darrow isn't a conservative and from personally talking to him, he isn't even a moderate. Saying that the guy would be a RINO if elected would be generous! In the fifteen minutes I've spoken with him over two occasions, I have been unable to get him to express an opinion on any issue to the right of Herb Kohl. If the incumbent were a Republican, I have no doubt he would be running as a democrat. Other than Margaret Farrow, who is in dire need of a meal ticket, he does not have the support of the party.

Tim Michaels is a nice guy but has zero qualification for national office. His only political experience was wasting a great deal of money running against one of the state's best conservative state senators, a person he now claims he had no political disagreement with.

Lorge is just a screwball.

I did not say that Bob Welch was the best possible candidate, but he is clearly the best of this bunch.