View Story | 378 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
would do something like this. I remember how inspiring she was following the assassinations of Harvey Milk and George Moscone. It was Feinstein who united the city. She stepped up, did a fabulous job, calmed things down. That's why she was initially elected to the Senate. She took over as Mayor – and she was a good one. Everyone expected she would do good for northern California.
Now..... Diane Feinstein has helped set the stage for the further disintegration of our country. Her descendents will hang their heads in shame over this. Feinstein will not be remembered for uniting San Francisco after the assassination of its mayor; only how she fiddled while Rome burned. Moscone and Milk would be ashamed of her - as am I.
Deus ex Machina
by The Fat Lady Sings on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 09:17:27 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
She will go down as one of two people who were instrumental in changing the definition of America.
my favorite local blog Scrutiny Hooligans
by randallt on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 09:25:26 PM PDT
Of the Betty Rubble-do??
Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
Relative to her peers, she has impressive integrity, intelligence and scruples, but... she lost me this year.
hinc illae lacrimae
by coffeeinamrica on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:13:30 PM PDT
10 November 2007
Re: Senate Judiciary Committee Appointments
The Honorable Harry Reid 600 East William Street, #302 Carson City, NV 89701
Dear Senator Reid:
In view of Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer voting to confirm Judge Michael Mukasey for U.S. Attorney General, I am petitioning you to bring to the Senate a motion to have their appointments to the Senate Judiciary Committee rescinded. Their actions show that they do not support simple human rights and are incapable of exercising the judgment requisite to serve on this committee.
Please ask your colleagues to support you in removing them from this post and replacing her with someone who will unambiguously support the fundamentals of justice, including all the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Thank you for your support in this matter.
Sincerely,
(my name here)
cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Charles Schumer
Go Lemmings Go!
by Doolittle on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:13:10 AM PDT
Get real...the Senate operates on "collegiality," and there is now way in hell that Harry Reid is going to be party to removing Feinstein from her comittee over a vote like this...none.
None of her colleagues would support such a vote because it means they could also be removed from a committee for their vote on some issue in the future. If you carried this concept to its extreme, pretty much every member of Congress could ultimately be removed from all of their committees for some vote they made that pissed off some constituent or constituency.
The route you could follow which might have a slightly higher chance if success is to lead a drive to unseat her, but realistically, that too would be very difficult. She's an incumbent with deep pockets. Further, as awful as her vote was here and her vote on telcom immunity will be, most of her constituents really don't care that much about waterboarding or loss of constitutional rights...they don't follow these issues closely like we do, and DiFi can count on that ignorance to keep her in office....unless enough people learn the truth, get angry and act.
Turning this country around, as we have discovered after the 2006 elections, is going to be a long slog and it is going to require two things....education, and finding, supporting and electing progressive candidates committed to the kinds of changes which will restore democracy and our country. It won't happen overnight and there are strong and powerful forces out there who will work actively to see that it doesn't happen through lobbying, corruption and manipulation.
It won't happen by trying to remove a Senator from her committee post because of her vote...just won't.
Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.
by dweb8231 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:26:40 AM PDT
and you undoubtedly are, these folks need to know there are consequences to their perfidy.
I intend to send letters, refuse to give money (haven't given to the DSCC or DCCC for a decade or more) to candidates or any other entity I don't trust, possibly even switch my registration to Indpendent once the primaries are over. Every where they show up, they need to have bad publicity--signs, polite demonstrators, etc. Make them face it every single day.
And since we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we must work like hell on promising new progressive candidates.
by Heart of the Rockies on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:45:15 AM PDT
quote -- refuse to give money (haven't given to the DSCC or DCCC for a decade or more) to candidates or any other entity I don't trust -- unquote
Sadly, this last run for Senate, Diane Feinstein announced that she was in no need of donations from constituents for her campaign as she was able to fund it pretty much from money that she already has on hand.
She and hubby just bought a 50plus million mansion in SF not too long ago -- they don't needus.
I think that we should be looking at Schumer, Feinstein, Mukasey in regards to their outside affiliations with AIPAC et al .....
by fastwacks on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:10:47 AM PDT
She's a lost cause and likely will retire at the end of this term. I was speaking in general.
by Heart of the Rockies on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:36:08 AM PDT
I agree with you. Of course, there are those like Feinstein who are not in a position to be moved by our money. But there are plenty of candidates who are.
We need to concentrate on the next set of primaries, even though they don't include Feinstein. We need to run people in those races who can challenge the incumbents.
Join my Liberal 50-State Strategy to run someone noticeably more liberal than the current office holder--be they Republican or be they Democrat--in every Congressional primary next year. Please find and support challengers to all members of Congress who don't line up with our values, regardless of their party. You can help them by entering them in the Contenders Registry.
Think, liberally.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:30:05 PM PDT
This isn't just about Feinstein. It's about accountability for all.
"Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison
by KateCrashes on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:19:34 PM PDT
We at least make the effort.
We need to do what we can do, and what happens happens.
At a minimum we can rattle DiFi's cage, go on record that her bullshit is unacceptable, make noise that she has crossed the line, just like we did with Joementum and Harman.
Your idea of giving up before we even start is the mind-killer.
We need to do more here than just bitch and dream and discuss poll numbers.
by bonusarmy on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:55:23 AM PDT
this is the kos chance to be an effective lobby, to demand consequences against Diane for her ham-fished very depressing vote. She's been consistently on the other side, this is far from the first time she's 'trusted' her own "Diane knows best' inclinations and sabotaged our leadership. Maybe all of us can get behind this letter, and pull together as an effective lobby for our interests. What does Markos think?
Hillary - Alternative Energy
by anna shane on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:09:07 AM PDT
But if it makes you feel better to do it....
the essence of contract is agreement not coercion or obedience
by Fernando Poo on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:47:49 AM PDT
-7.88/ -7.44
by Jules Beaujolais on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:56:36 PM PDT
This is the same mindset that leads Feinstein and so many other Democrats to make such unthinkable votes. "Oh, Bush will get his way anyway, so I might as well put an official stamp on it."
No. Now is the time to stand our ground even if any given vote is lost. Now is the time to show Americans someone in government is fighting for them. Even if it's a losing battle, the fight is worth it whether it's opposing Mukasey or moving for Feinstein's removal from a committee.
Feinstein can hardly even call herself a Democrat anymore. She's a lost cause. The problem is that votes like hers - which we're seeing far too often from far too many Democrats - are demotivating voters, so when it comes time to elect progressive candidates, they won't come to the polls. Their trust in government is gone.
- Arthur shrednow: worldwide freestyle community
by arthur on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:32:56 AM PDT
If it's so hopeless, why bother?
If every action we take is so useless, why vote?
If we're unheard, why speak out? Why spend time here on dKos? Just to have a group gripe?
If we aren't going prevail this time on moral and ethical issues, why not just stand in line for waterboarding training? Or apologize to DiFi and Schumer for bothering them with our petty concerns about torture, human rights, Geneva Convention and our country's honor?
Gosh, either we try or we give up. Is every action going to work? No. Do we get lucky every time? No.
I cast my first vote in 1968. The first time I voted for a presidential candidate who won, it was 1992. Using the old math, that's 24 years of voting for a total of 7 elections before I "won" one. Fast forward to today, that means I voted in a total of 10 elections, in which I was on the "winning side" twice -- a 20% success rate from a voting standpoint. And I'm still trying -- not just to win presidencies -- to influence policy and the political footprint this country places on the world, not to mention its own citizens.
My choice is to keep trying to change the direction of this country. Kudos to those of you who don't give up, no matter how futile and hopeless you feel some days.
July 9, 2008 -- I watched helplessly while Congress destroyed my Constitution. R.I.P.
by bleeding heart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:20:27 PM PDT
And I have about the same success rate.
But, I'm not discouraged. I know that if I weren't active then things would be worse.
I did vote in one election where my vote turned the tide. It was a small election, a local election, a bond issue or something. It was a long time ago and off in far-away Ohio. If I'd stayed home the election would have gone the other way.
It matters what we do. It can't matter all the time because we aren't the only voter in the country. But when it matters, it matters a whole lot.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:35:56 PM PDT
I also ran for office. The incumbent and I tied. The wonderful poll workers conducted 5 recounts without any request to do so.
No one can tell me that a vote doesn't make a difference.
BTW, I ended up winning the election by lottery.
by bleeding heart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:42:44 PM PDT
and you think I'm wasting my time?
I'm not going to try to unseat her. I want to put the spotlight on her vote. The primary influence I can have is not to get her out of Congress (who knows who we'd get in her place) and I may not be able to get her off the committee (which, admittedly, sets a bad precedent, doesn't it?), but to set some consequences for her vote and make her think about it.
I'm pretty old school when it comes to politics and I believe that our representatives ought to use their judgment when they vote. I respect these people. But the hue and cry is part of what they must think about when they make their decisions. It's what influences their future behavior.
With any luck, Dianne Feinstein will take a good long look at what people are saying about this decision and maybe factor it into future ones. I hope that it makes a profound difference. I hope that when the next vote comes up, which may be a much more important vote than this one, that she's less willing to give the President a pass and rubber-stamp his nominee.
And when that person is a pro-life SCOTUS candidate, maybe she'll have the courage of her convictions.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:25:05 PM PDT
I'm not saying don't write and call and tell DiFi you think she is dead wrong for her positions...
What I am saying is that realistically, getting her removed from the Judiciary Committee for one vote one one issue (important as it is) just is not going to happen.
What I am saying is that replacing the DiFis and the Lieberman's of the world is going to be a long slow process.
Nor am I saying it won't succeed....we made some strong progress and brought some good candidates into the fold in 2006, but it is also clear that there are a lot of current members who need to be replaced with true progressives like Donna Edwards and that is going to take more election cycles to happen, and against an array of forces linked to the status quo.
by dweb8231 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:39:48 PM PDT
That's pretty much how poorly armed, under financed colonists held a successful revolution against huge odds -- by wasting their time.
by KateCrashes on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:18:07 PM PDT
How does someone become or be removed from head of the DSCC?
by Heart of the Rockies on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:40:05 AM PDT
Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.
by oldpro on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:09:23 AM PDT
We haven't much of a chance to change things, do we?
by Heart of the Rockies on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:50:55 PM PDT
I just printed and signed my letters and now i gotta go to the PO and buy some stamps from the machine in the lobby.
Peace
TFH
"As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but all together, we make a mighty fist" Watanka Tatanka (Sitting Bull)
by Tinfoil Hat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:49:27 AM PDT
Unless you live in California, New York or Nevada, they will likely throw your letters away. I used to work in a Congressional office, and it's frowned upon to answer a letter from someone else's constituent. Your letter will be forwarded to your senators.
Yes, the system is broken. But -- if you live in California, New York or Nevada, write away! Those are the ones that count.
If you are going to write a letter and live in another state, don't write to their official office. Write to their political one. That will get the message into the hands of the right people. They won't respond, but the consultants might notice -- that might matter more than the caseworker who would likely forward the letter at the official office.
by ilikecheese on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:28:28 AM PDT
they control for the caucus...
by oldpro on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:12:08 AM PDT
don't control for the caucus. Schumer maybe, but not officially. And I bet you Reid would forward. Maybe not, I'm not sure. But I'd guess he does.
by ilikecheese on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:32:17 AM PDT
leadership controls for the caucus...that is what 'they' referred to, leadership...not Di-Fi or Schumer.
More succinctly, more clearly, I could have said...write to leadership when it's a leadership issue and not otherwise - unless you live in their state, for the senate...or their district, for the house.
by oldpro on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:13:32 PM PDT
I think you're right, as regards Harry Reid. I'm not in his constituency, but he's the majority leader in the Senate, so he'd better not be throwing my letters in the trash.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:08:57 PM PDT
senators, if they are Democrats, and not for you unless you can convince your own senators to dump him and choose another leader. Not likely...
There's no way you could know if he threw your letters in the trash or not. He's unlikely to respond since you are not his constituent...and in this case, Di-Fi is.
by oldpro on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:19:09 PM PDT
The only response I need is for him to put this to a vote in the Senate. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a response, though.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:13:03 PM PDT
Not so sure about that.
by randallt on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:58:57 AM PDT
"Relative to her peers"
by coffeeinamrica on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:50:48 AM PDT
"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - anonymous
by Bowa on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:09:23 AM PDT
Ever since she got to the Senate she has been just like this. I would always tell my California friends how much I disliked her because she was always undermining the party. She was always an unreliable, Lieberman like Senator,,,,even in the 90's you could count on her to enable the Republicans and disable the Democrats.
And there were 12 Democratic votes for George Bush's tax cuts in 2001. Dianne was the only blue state Democrat who voted for Bush's first big win which has had such a devastating effect on this country. Californians in no way wanted her to vote for them, but her social circle certainly applauded her traitorous vote.
Debra
by debcoop on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 09:44:52 PM PDT
Has tripled since Bush took office to around $100 million. This is not counting her husband's worth. He is the controlling party of defense companies worth billions.
"Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.
by bink on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:02:43 AM PDT
"What, Me Worry?"...King George Walker Alfred Eusless Newman Bush
by RantNRaven on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:33:16 AM PDT
Does California's recall elections statute apply to state-level races only? Or could they jerk a knot in a U.S. Senator's tail?
Because they should.
"There he goes again! Who's laughing now, betch?" -- Jimmy Carter
by slippytoad on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:11:35 AM PDT
by oldpro on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:13:47 AM PDT
...winning all the GOPpers!
(Arcane LOLcat reference -- not trolling action.)
by KateCrashes on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:25:54 PM PDT
While Mayor of San Fransisco, long before she entered the Senate, she stabbed the LGBT community in the back big time. She has always been a false friend of progressive groups.
She and Herb Kohl are two poor Senators who were recruited by the National Dems because they could self finance their campaign in an era when the Democrats were mired in the minority and struggling to finance their campaigns. So now we are stuck with them until they retire. But at least Herb Kohl voted no on Mukasey, a pleasant surprise.
"My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass." --Rep. Steve Kagen D-WI to Karl Rove
by walja on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:10:03 AM PDT
on the murder of a popular mayor, as if San Francisco would have sunk into the ocean without an acting mayor, and she's made hay since. She has always been awful. let's get behind asking for her removal from a key committee, from any key committee. If this issue blows the top off our previous big consensus', maybe Harry will listen and act on something he can do without 60 votes. We demand accountability. Is that too hard to give?
by anna shane on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:14:14 AM PDT
and so the wingnuts in our state keep electing him. But he frequently casts the right vote when it counts. Believe me, Kohl is awesome next to some of the homegrown wingnuts who have tried to run against him or Feingold (i.e., Michels, who supported the PATRIOT Act even though he hadn't actually READ it...)
"If I could have one wish, I would have people accept the importance of our common humanity." --Pres. Bill Clinton, The Today Show, 09/21/06
by desordre remplir on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:54:55 AM PDT
since i've always told people from OUTSIDE California how incredibly worthless she is and how sticks a shiv in the back of Democrats almost as much as Lieberman (she just tends to be sneakier about it), I was especially vocal about this when there was still time to recruit a top tier challenger for her in the last cycle.
I was assured, over and over again by the way, that this wasn't needed and that she "was with it when it counted".
I just laughed.
I have never voted for her in the primary or general election, and I never, ever will.
Any which way you slice it, this is her last term.
-C.
by Neutron on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:39:24 AM PDT
of hold-outs in sticking with her as far as this year! But she lost me (2?) months ago on the continuation of the domestic spying issue, a second issue (my brain is mush) around the same time that I can't recall and this is just the bell of the kitchen timer - ding! yep, done.
Is having a AG, now, under this president, for a dew months, really that crucial to restoring the morale of the agency and its right-functioning??
I think not DiFi. Let some incumbent, interim manager with some shred of respect by subordinates continue to run the day-to-day and write it off til next administration.
If Shrubya gets his peepee in a jam again, let him come to congress for the advice on the law, not some false top lawyer for the country!
by coffeeinamrica on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:11:12 PM PDT
That vote on Bush's designation of Iran's red guard, army whatever the hell they're called.
The decider is the definer.
by coffeeinamrica on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:52:55 AM PDT
as acting AG. Forgot name but much worse than Mukasey who at least has pretensions to respect. Leaving Shrub's poison pill in place is not an option.
Bu$h plays dirty, real dirty.
We are in a time where it is risky NOT to change. Barack Obama 7-30-08
by samddobermann on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:44:43 AM PDT
The acting AG would have had to face Sen. Leahy, so we could have kept him on his toes. Not having a real AG would have been an international embarrassment for the President, and it could have undermined him in the courts. The courts might well have taken one look at what Congress was doing and not concede all those cases to the administration. Not any more.
So, this is a loss, and we need to make sure that the Senate knows that we're pissed about it.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:42:14 PM PDT
by Jules Beaujolais on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:07:36 PM PDT
count spending an unconscionable amount of City money trying to bankrupt the Mitchell Brother's Theater.
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: #34 "War is good for business...but only from a distance, the closer to the front lines, the less profitable it gets"-8.25, -6.21
by Jacques on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:35:49 PM PDT
I do count that.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:48:13 AM PDT
After she took over because of Moscone's asssassination. She violated that promise next election
If Liberals really hated America we'd vote Republican
by exlrrp on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:29:21 AM PDT
...assassinations was her Rudy Guliani moment. By that I mean, the only thing that launched him was his rhetoric at ground zero on 9/12. And that's what her iconic moment did for her as well--her face was burned into the emotional memory banks of all Californians.
But she was a Republican lite mayor from day one. Always very pro-development at the expense of SF neighborhoods. That was the first tip-off.
Let's mount a RECALL.
The Republicans did it to Gray Davis and got Scwharzzenenger and we can get enough signatures to do it too. Even if she beats it back, she'll be weakened and it will send a message to other incumbents: Be Responsive to your Constituents and Defend the Constitution or face a Recall.
by Duccio on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:41:53 PM PDT
First of all, you can't recall a federal officeholder, only state or local ones. Secondly, she faced a recall once as Mayor of S.F. and it only made her stronger. It was a bunch of anti-gun control people who organized it, though most of the signatures were of disgruntled lefties. She managed to position herself as being persecuted, and got about 80% No votes on that recall. On the other point, if there had been no assassinations of Milk and Moscone, most of y'all would never have heard of DiFi as she would now just be an obscure retired S.F. County Supervisor. Sometimes the ball bounces in weird directions. You are right about that...
I'm not a Limousine Liberal; I am a Prius Progressive
by Zack from the SFV on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:05:54 AM PDT
when the time comes, but I know our collective political memory only goes back a few months so I won't get my hopes up.
Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67
by bythesea on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:47:06 AM PDT
It would be best if she retires in 2012. She will be almost 80 at that point, and while that is not so old by Senator standards (especially SC or WV or AK Senators) she should go write her memoirs or take a world cruise or something. If she decides to run she will probably win. You and I don't like that, but she has lots of supporters among low information voters and centrists. She could raise a ton of money, too. It is easy to primary people but a lot harder to defeat them in primaries.
by Zack from the SFV on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:57:07 AM PDT
by bythesea on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:16:23 AM PDT
was defeated in primary. It can work ...particularly if the drum beats start now and continue until primary time.
Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/22/gi_bill/index.html opposition
by ScienceMom on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:31:53 AM PDT
CT and CA aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to campaigning. Hell, they're not even in the same game. California has counties with more people than in all of CT; Los Angeles county has almost ten million people compared to Connecticut's 3.4 million (or so). Other counties in California have little population but are so spread out they're about the size of Connecticut. It is so expensive and grueling to run in a statewide race here that you almost literally have to be a movie star to win.
This state is just too damn big, people wise and land wise.
A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood
by tmo on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:07:44 PM PDT
We should split it into Northern and Southern California, the way Dakota and Carolina did. That way, we could get four Senators, not just two!
Okay, back to reality, now.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:57:51 PM PDT
to get a fair number of Senators. The only state to split in two was Virginia. West Virginia was created from mountain counties of VA that wanted to stay in the Union in 1863. The Carolinas and Dakotas were always separate as states, though Dakota may have been one territory before that. Underpopulated states like the Dakotas and Wyoming are why the Senate is now the least representative legislative body this side of the House of Lords. We Californians shouldn't put up with it but like you say, "Back to reality, now".
by Zack from the SFV on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:19:27 PM PDT
It sort of reminds me of the joke about Alaska. (It's an old joke, as you'll see.)
The Alaskans were applying for statehood and they got some resistance from Texas. The Texans were apparently quietly campaigning against the admittance of Alaska because they didn't want to lose their status as the largest state in the union.
The Alaskans shut them up by threatening to divide up their territory and have each piece admitted separately. The Texans had to give up because they didn't want the country to have five states larger than Texas.
Note: I'm sorry if I've offended any Texans or Alaskans....
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:23:03 PM PDT
Someone like Jerry Brown. He has name recognition and he actually stands for something. He's been governor. He's been mayor of a big city (Oakland). He's Attorney General of California, which is a great platform to run on, especially given the tenuous hold on what's legal that the current administration has shown.
I don't see why we have to put up with so-so Senators when we have such good material available.
There's also John Garamendi. He's Lt. Governor. He's very well liked. I see no reason why he couldn't replace Dianne Feinstein in 2012.
Debra Bowen is another good candidate. She's in a position as Secretary of State to make a huge difference by just doing a competent and corruption-free job of running the next few elections. She could move up.
"Anyone but Dianne".
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:55:57 PM PDT
for the open seat in 2012. I don't think that any of them would run against her in a primary. Also, by 2012 they may be in different positions. It is possible that Brown or Garamendi might be Governor, and wouldn't want to be Senator. I get the impression that Bowen really likes being SoS and would be in the middle of her second term at that point. There are a lot of other possibilities; including Representatives and termed out state legislators. It is good to see people starting to think ahead.
by Zack from the SFV on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:12:41 PM PDT
And, why speculate about 2012? But, I just have to say that no politician I can imagine is going to get so ensconced as a secretary of state that they wouldn't jump at the chance to be a U.S. Senator.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:25:20 PM PDT
and not a moment too soon.
We have our own Feinstein in Salazar who will be around for a long time.
by Heart of the Rockies on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:38:41 AM PDT
by tmo on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:08:10 PM PDT
know our collective political memory only goes back a few months so I won't get my hopes up.
No worries..she will give us MANY MANY more reasons to be angry throughout the rest of her term...
She is fine with wiretapping without adequate Court supervision; she is fine with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and she is apparently fine enough with Mukasey to vote for him...
McCain insisted [no union member] would [pick lettuce for $50/hour] for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."
by grrr on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:25:40 AM PDT
who were angry that she was trying to ban handguns that started the recall effort.
I have NEVER liked her, and I have to say I have never complained to and about a representative of mine as much as i have complained about her.
Why the Democratic machine here kept her in this position as long as they have is beyond me.
01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR
by kimoconnor on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:31:21 AM PDT
machine has coddled a lot of bad candidates, as political machines of all types are wont to do.
by Heart of the Rockies on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:47:56 AM PDT
That's the simple answer. California has a huge defense industry. There's a natural constituency for someone hawkish on defense, but with liberal enough credentials to get elected in a fundamentally liberal state.
Too bad she doesn't swing the other way on human rights and Constitutional protections of freedom.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:44:41 PM PDT
I lived in SF during the Milk-Moscone assassination, and as I recall, and my memory is just an impression at this point, that her election as mayor was a victory for the anti-Moscone real estate developers. In other words, the Moscone hit actually succeeded in changing the power structure of the city to favor some very large real estate interests. She was as close to being a Republican as you can get and still be elected in SF. As I recall, other than the Dan White fringe lunatics, she represented the most conservative, monied interests of the city's elite. That's my memory. I never liked her and thought her election was a victory for the SF version of big money Republicanism.
There must be some way, somehow, to maintain an infinite rate of increase in our consumption of a finite resource...
by AWhitneyBrown on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:36:47 AM PDT
...had completely forgotten about the SF recall!
Yeah, since my midnight inspiration I have learned a recall is impossible.
Agreed, without being the mommy face for the Milk-Moscone trauma she's a completely mediocre person who should pass her days as a rich social mover and symphony fundraiser among the SF wealthy.
When I called her office after the FISA vote and asked what were the things she was currently dedicating her time to so I could see what she did care about the list they sent me had as the number one item: designating a special day for Joseph Gallo.
The ten other items were the work of a seat-warmer as well. Her hair stays so neat 'cause her life is so unruffled by all the horrors around her.
by Duccio on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:23:56 AM PDT
or one of the countless assortment of psychotic cabals pulling strings in Washington is threatening her life/family?
Naw.. it all boils down to her being a real asshole. plain and simple.
"To you, I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." - Woody Allen
by soros on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:43:24 AM PDT
Naaaaa, she'd have still voted for Mukasey anyway. I always liked DiFi untill the Bush Era--now I think of her as Lieberman in drag
by exlrrp on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:32:52 AM PDT
I think she's being herself. The problem is that "herself" doesn't value the rights of people over her own self interests.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:01:25 PM PDT
money and beltway-itis.
She is now the enemy.
by bonusarmy on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:47:18 AM PDT
has never been any different. People are now just becoming aware of that. A long time coming.
by Heart of the Rockies on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:49:42 AM PDT
out of the unlikeliest people. There's a remarkable parallel between DiFi and Giuliani, that both had their careers boosted by an unspeakable tragedy.
I won't be complacent this time. Been there, done that, got the orange jumpsuit.
by Nowhere Man on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:27:07 AM PDT
over in their graves. She was always conservative, even as mayor of San Francisco (she was allied against them), but it's a little different when you're dealing with trash collection than when your dealing with torture.
by ilikecheese on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:30:38 AM PDT
once supported and elected Dianne Feinstein. What a horrible mistake. Almost like voting for George Bush. Yes, almost exactly the same!
An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.
by Thomas Twinnings on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:30:14 AM PDT
I voted for her when she ran for the mayorship of San Francisco because I liked what she stood for. I later voted for her everytime she ran for office since but I would never waste a vote for her again. My only explanation is that the big corporate interests and lobbyists made her an offer that she couldn't refuse.
by calibpatriot on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:12:13 PM PDT
I don't think she's changed. The situation has changed. Before, her decisions didn't matter on such a global scale, and she could doodle around and it only affected a few homeless people. Now, seniority has taken it's toll and the Peter Principle kicked in.
Government was a tad less critical when we weren't the sole global superpower. People in Reagan's era could believe that we could do without so much government. Events have caught up with that view and knocked it in a cocked hat. Senators can no longer be doddering old fools. They need to be sharp because once you lose the train of thought, the continuity of free society, you can't get it back without horrific losses.
The relatively free country, the United States of America, came about because people of a certain heritage took over a vast territory and totally displaced the indigenous people. This is not a feasible scenario for establishing a new, free country.
Unless Feinstein and some of her colleagues get with the program, we could see the forces of fascism outmaneuver us and end democracy in this country. Her recent vote doesn't give me much hope. The only hope, really, is that this kind of protest wakes her up a little to the consequences of what she's done.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:15:04 PM PDT
We had an emergency here at home. One of my cats swallowed a rock (don't ask!) and it was emergency vet time. $2500 worth of surgery later and there's a good chance he'll be fine (we won’t know till tomorrow). Oh well - that's what the emergency credit card is for. Pray god nothing else comes up - because that was the limit!
Anyway - I understand what you all have been saying about Feinstein's checkered senate and Mayoral records. When Moscone and Milk were assassinated, the shock was as great as had it been the President – especially for those of my friends who were gay. I had helped get Harvey Milk elected – I was thrilled to see America’s first openly gay politician. As an artist, I was aware hatred still existed towards gays (gay-bashing was rare in our area, but it existed) – but we had done so much to eliminate it in the Bay Area. Dan White’s perfidy came out of nowhere for me. Frankly – I threw a party when the bastard committed suicide. I’m not an advocate of the death penalty – but I thought that mans death was divine intervention.
Feinstein I saw in a very positive light; mostly due to her calm leadership following the murders. I supported her because of that. She seemed transformed by their deaths, chastened. I’d had very little contact with her or her policies up until that point. My support of Harvey Milk was more as a gay rights activist than a die-hard political wonk. He was such a gentle man, you know. Anyone who met him was immediately struck by how warm and kind he was. I admired the person as much as the politics.
I’ve since lived all around the world, and all around America. My views of Feinstein remained colored by 30 year-old memories. When Bush was elected, I became more radicalized; and after 9/11, involvement in the political heart of our country seemed the patriotic thing to do. So I began following all of our elected officials – Feinstein included. And yes, I have been sorely disappointed by her votes and her attitude. She is the anthisesis of everything Moscone and Milk stood for. She has sold America down the river – and for money, and has been pointed out.
But still – this vote stands out for its sheer heartless cruelty. Diane Feinstein has voted to allow Bush to get away with his crimes. Who in their right mind doesn’t believe Mukasey wasn’t selected to make sure Bush et al is able to get away with unspeakable crimes? Feinstein can now go join everyone else who voted for this abortion in counting their thirty pieces of silver. And yes – both Moscone and Milk would definitely turn over in their graves!
by The Fat Lady Sings on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:53:07 PM PDT
I don't think that Sen. Feinstein got the attention we needed to give her because she was a Democrat and she had this history of mayor of San Francisco, which has it's own set of assumptions.
But, she's one of only two Senators from California, which is a very important position. She's also been in the Senate long enough to garner some seniority. We can't ignore that position and let it just freewheel.
Effective immediately, this is a priority. The spotlight has to be fixed on this position and we have to make sure that nothing happens on Feinstein's watch without pretty intense scrutiny. We let a key position go unguarded and it came back to haunt us.
We aren't going to have anyone replace Dianne Feinstein in the Senate any time soon. Therefore, Dianne Feinstein must change to reflect the changing times. She represents one of the most progressive states in the country, the source of culture for much of the world. We can't have someone with backward inclinations represent our forward culture. She'll need to come along with us.
On the issue of torture, the forward culture has a singular opinion. The allowable amount is none.
On the issue of primacy of the law, the forward culture has a singular opinion. No man, least of all the President, is above the law.
A public apology would be a good start. Perhaps the deaths of Harvey Milk and George Moscone transformed her for a time. Maybe she was truly chastened by what happened. So, maybe she can be transformed by this experience, too.
On transformation, the forward culture also has a singular opinion. You can't go back to the old ways.
by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:35:25 PM PDT
by The Fat Lady Sings on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:02:32 PM PDT
a couple of days ago. Though I'm not from California, I've always had tremendous respect for DiFi based on the view of her shown in "The Times of Harvey Milk. She and Schumer sure let us down this time though.
by jiml on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:02:38 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 378 comments