Steve: When you came out with the firm timetable for withdrawal this week, the White House reacted to your proposal with this statement by spokesperson Dana Perino: "It would also send the wrong message to our troops.  They need to know that they have our full support.  It would send the wrong message to our enemy... they would then just have to wait us out".  I was curious how you would respond to this line of criticism?

Senator Feingold:  Well, I think it is completely the opposite of reality.  What the troops want, and what their parents want, is a sense of what is going to happen in Iraq.  What is the plan?  When can we expect the plan to be implemented and when can troops come home?  They want us to succeed there, but they feel that they are not getting direction from the White House.  You know the troops are doing their job, we should be doing our job.  I would answer the idea that somehow this would be a mistake by pointing out if it's really true that the insurgents would just wait us out if there was a deadline, why wouldn't they stop the attacks right now?  In other words they would just say, stop, and the Americans would leave, everything is secure, and then they could take over.  So, it's kind of a nonsensical argument.  Add to that the need for a timetable has been advocated by quite a few military people, including General Cosgrove from Australia.  He said we could leave, with foreign troops out of there by the end of 2006, which I have proposed, because it's too easy for the insurgents to recruit more insurgents with foreign troops present.  In other words, were actually making it worse in terms of the insurgency by giving the impression that it's a permanent American and foreign occupation.  When I was in Iraq, in the green zone with John McCain and Hillary Clinton, I directly asked one of the top generals in Iraq, what is your personal off the record opinion of a timetable?  He said the following:  "nothing would take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents better than having a public, flexible timetable."

Steve:  In your announcement this week you spoke about the "taboo" of suggesting withdrawal.  Has the administration been effective in framing the Iraq issue as a matter of patriotism, and in turn, make overt opposition muted and tentative?

Senator Feingold:  Unfortunately, until very recently, they have been extremely effective.  I mean, we could have won that election in 2002.  We were way ahead on domestic issues, but the Democratic Party and Democratic leaders decided to take a pass on the Iraq war.  They decided to defer to the President, and I have to tell you many Democratic leaders knew better.  This was a bad idea, but they allowed the Bush administration to brilliantly intimidate them into not standing up and saying this doesn't fit in with the fight against Al Qaeda and the terrorists that attacked this country on 9/11.  Of course, I didn't buy into this and I voted no, but I was even in the minority among Democrats in the Senate.  And now were making the same mistake, now that it's clear that the administration took us into Iraq under false premises.  We have a situation where they are doing a terrible job managing this war.  They are doing a terrible job of having a plan to win the war and win the peace.  Yet, Democrats are allowing the President to set the terms of the debate.  If somebody says "what about a plan to bring the troops home", the President labels it cut and run.  Democrats have become silent, so I do think perhaps that we have allowed this to become a taboo.  My purpose this week is to break that taboo, let other Democrats know it's safe to go in the water.  It's safe to talk about how we can succeed and bring our troops home.  Why shouldn't we Democrats be talking about that?

Steve:  Now, have you had much feedback from your colleagues?

Senator Feingold:  I had a little feedback from Senator Reid just before he became ill, indirectly from his staff.  But, no I haven't had any direct conversations because we are in recess.  But, I predict that there will be a whole new mood in Washington about the Iraq war.  You know, I started earlier in the summer where I came to my caucus and I said to everybody, and Harry Reid acknowledged that Iraq was a big deal at the time, I said this thing is really changing, the public view of it.  I started trying to get other Senators interested in some kind of approach that has a real plan and vision of how we can leave.  It was like pulling teeth. But, I predict after the August recess, that they are going to have a very different attitude.  Even Trent Lott, in the interview he did after mine on Meet the Press this morning, was very gentle in terms of disagreeing with what I had said.  He clearly indicated that he needed to tell the people of his state something better about where this thing is heading.  So, I believe this thing is reaching a critical mass and if Democrats don't get ahead of this issue it will just be another sign to the public that were not ready to govern. We need to be strong on national security, but we also need to be bright on national security.  So, Democrats should be talking about fighting the terrorist networks around the world and not becoming only focused on Iraq.  Iraq is not the only place, obviously, where this terrorist threat exists and we need a broader perspective.

Steve:  Okay, can I ask you a couple questions about the party?

Senator Feingold:  Sure, anything you want.

Steve:  I wanted to ask you about your organization, the Progressive Patriots Fund.  What is your goal with traveling around the country and conducting these listening sessions and political roundtables?

Senator Feingold:  Well, of course I was happy to win my third term in the United States Senate.  But, as the night wore on and we realized that we had lost the presidency again to George Bush, I got thousands of calls and emails saying well Russ, congratulations, but we have got to turn this thing around.  What are we going to do?  Some people saying I should run for president, other people were saying you have to help us.  I thought, at a minimum, in addition to doing my job as a Senator, I should get out there and help where I can.  I decided that we have to have a 50 state strategy for Democrats. I have already been to several red states, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee in order to try and connect with progressives and Democrats who really are there and are already at work.  They just were so grateful that somebody, who seems to be part of the national Democratic Party, would care enough to come and see them.  You know, when I came to United States Senate there were two Senators from Alabama and two from Tennessee, and now there are none.  These are states which are perfectly capable of electing Democrats, but we need to get out there and help.  So, I am using any extra time that I have through this Progressive Patriots Fund to help turn around the situation in the house and the senate, as well as helping local people.  I am going to New Hampshire to help a good Democrat, mayor of Manchester, Bob Baines, who had came to Washington and asked me to help.  I want there to be a lot of Democrats helping and that is what the Progressive Patriots Fund is doing and it's doing a good job.

Steve:  So would say that you are on the same page as Governor Dean?

Senator Feingold:  I agree with Governor Dean that we need a 50 state strategy.  I agree with Governor Dean and his reaching out to all states, I do like that part of his approach.

Steve:  I understand after your visit to Alabama that you did speak with Governor Dean about some issues?

Senator Feingold:  I first spoke with him when he came to our Senate caucus and urged him to do what he could to help the Alabama Democratic Party.  I am convinced that they have a good chance at winning the governorship there. I have contributed through the Progressive Patriots Fund to the Alabama Democratic Party and I urged the national party to make sure it included Alabama in its funding approaches.

Steve:  Was he receptive to that?

Senator Feingold:  He was and he certainly listened.  He appreciated my input and he and I have a good communication.

Steve:  Okay, I wonder if you could speak too the tension within the party between those that feel that we need to move to the center and those that feel we need to maintain our progressive agenda?  

Senator Feingold:  My view is that instead of trying to see which part of the party can win it, the best thing would be if we did three things.  First, really spend a lot of time listening to people.  You know I do this in Wisconsin; I have had a town meeting in Alabama and Pennsylvania.  Secondly, let's act on the priorities that people put up as first and foremost, such as health care, jobs, energy dependence.  Third, let's go with the best ideas.  In other words, sometimes it might be a conservative idea, sometimes a progressive idea and sometimes it might be a middle of the road- whatever.  Let's go with the best idea. In having said all that it's my view that the best ideas will normally be progressive ideas.  I am a progressive.  I believe we lost in 2000, 2002, 2004 because we are not taking a progressive approach.  Were trying to be Republican lite and so I think a strong, progressive message that gives the country a real alternative is the way to go.  But, it shouldn't be a rigid one, for example John McCain and I came together on McCain-Feingold.  He is a conservative, I am a progressive, but we agreed that the unlimited contributions to the process were a corrupting influence.  So, you can label that whatever kind of idea you want, it's just a good idea.  Progressives should be open to those kinds of ideas and what I am concerned about is the tendency of some in the party to think that by being a little less conservative than the Republicans that they can get elected.  Harry Truman said they will just vote for the real thing.

Steve:  Do you think this sends a muddled message?  Is the electorate confused on where Democrats stand?

Senator Feingold:  No, it's too early to see that as a tension.  As we get closer to next year's elections and the presidential election we will have to see if we can succeed in having a progressive approach that includes a broad scope of people.  It could end up being a bad thing, it could end up being a good thing.  In other words, let's have an open and honest discussion in front of the American people about where Democrats stand.  Come up with a program, come up with candidates and have the guts to look like we stand for something.  For instance, I think it terribly important for this party to be standing for universal health care for all Americans, period.  That should be a solid principle that we will fight for and talk about instead of being wishy washy.  That's a progressive idea, as opposed to a centrist idea.

Steve:  You found consistently in your town halls that this is the number one issue that concerns people?

Senator Feingold:  That is the number one issue over thirteen years and especially in the last couple years.  Recently there has been a great deal about Iraq and energy independence, jobs, but yes health care has been overwhelmingly the biggest concern of people.

Steve:  Okay, whenever we hear the polls they usually find that the majority of people side with the Democratic positions, with the exception of war on terror and national security.  Why is this and how do you rectify the perception that Democrats are weak on matters of national security?

Senator Feingold:  Well, that is exactly what I am working on right now.  In 2002 the party had this idea that we just sort of cede national defense to Bush and we focus on domestic issues.  You know, after 9/11 that is just not going to work.  In the Bill Clinton era that was fine, but now the American people will only elect a party that they believe will do the job internationally, as well as domestically.  And so we need to lead every conversation about commitment to destroying the terrorist networks that attacked us on 9/11 and also meeting emerging challenges.  China, Iran, North Korea, instability in Africa, including the HIV crisis, we need to show that we are ready to govern this country internationally, as well as domestically.  So, what I have been doing, and what I will be doing in Los Angeles on Tuesday at the town meeting organization out there, is outlining some of my concerns about Iraq.  But, really put those concerns in the context about how progressives should be talking about national security.  We need to be more hard headed.  We need to speak about protecting American lives often.  We need to speak about it well, and most importantly we need to speak about with passion.  We need to speak about how we care about making our children safe, either here or whether they are traveling abroad.  Let's identify ourselves as the parents, the friends and the relatives that we really are.

Steve:  So, you would say we cede this issue way too often to conservatives?

Senator Feingold:  Way too often, and it's absurd because some of the greatest leaders in our history on international policy like FDR and JFK and others have been Democrats.  So, I think it is an enormous mistake to cede this and no political party that doesn't have a strong national security position will be successful in the long term.  This is one of my missions to present a progressive national security approach that will appeal to a broad sweep of Americans.  I think they are ready for a lot more of a sensible approach that we have seen with the Bush administration.  The Bush administration has led us into a very serious problem with the over emphasis on Iraq, to the exclusion of the overall terrorist threat.