Just on a quick read on Feingold, I see no severe objections to the man. But for me the question would be, why would Paul work so hard to get a nomination to risk election by bringing in a democratic maverick? As enticing as it sounds, wouldn't that be political suicide?
From the republican side, it most likely would and thus why it will never happen not to mention that the GOP will never nominate/elect Ron Paul to begin with. If by some freak of nature Ron did get the nomination, establishment GOPer's would either strike a deal with the devil and quietly vote Obama or just stay home. However, where Russ does play into this is first and foremost, it in a sense reunites the old alliance of classical liberals and paleo-conservatives that existed in opposition to FDR's new deal if not the progressive/internationalism of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Neither Paul nor Feingold represent purely either tradition but they sure both have foots in the door on bothsides so I'm good with that. It also might re-open that small window where the anti-state paleo-cons, libertarians and anti-state new left briefly broke bread together in the 60's which would be a great thing.
Now Feingold is not opposed to economic interventions as such (I do believe he wants fiscal restraint and control) but he's not an unreasonable man either and when it comes to clipping the wings of the American security state with the trampling of civil liberties, Feingold is a front and center guy in leading the opposition to that of which Ron Paul agrees. Also like Paul, Feingold also agrees with limiting foreign interventions so again there is bi-partisanship. There is also bi-partisansgip on the nature and manner of the Federal Reserve and I think Feingold would listen to that school of thought as well which deep down has a very bi-partisan appeal once you move past the scare mongers on bothsides of the debate.
A Paul/Feingold ticket if it ever happened at all (it won't) would also not only lift votes from a growing disenchanted progressive/liberal crowd that supported Obama but I also think even the independent vote might be attracted just to the bi-partisan nature of the ticket itself. Many voters would like what they might perceive and maybe rightly so of a built in checks and balance of the ticket itself. Also whatever happened going forward, good or bad, both parties as represented by Paul and Feingold would have a hand and thus blame or credit would be shared. The blame game to some extent would take a bit of vacation.
Another reason I think in this fashion is because under the original constitution, there were no Vice Presidential picks because whoever the loser was in a Presidential race became the Vice President and I happen to like that idea as another means of checks and balances. I've always felt Amendment 12 to the Constitution was a mistake and it played into the hands of self interested parties who wanted to play party politics and the losers were the real "general welfare" of the people at large.
Our political systems needs a wake up call, a paradigm shift if you will and something like a Paul/Feingold ticket IMO would do just that but I'd love to see that ticket mostly to watch the pundit class and their going nuts over such an "out of the box" move. I'd love it!
Gene Healy from Cato had an interesting
piece about Rick Perry and his book Fed Up you might find find worthwhile.