This is Dianne Feinstein's (D?-CA) last term.

Markos mentioned this in an open thread today

1.  CA-Sen: Damn this state for being so expensive, because I could go for a primary challenge to Dianne Feinstein.

Which is in response to Glenn Greenwald's column showing how much of a blockade DiFi has been of late.

The idea of a recall is about as far fetched as it gets, and I don't see any situation where she would retire midterm, especially not with a Republican governor. So what i'm saying right here and now is that if she decides to run for another term, we HAVE to primary challenge her.

here is the relevant part of that column:

Yet as Stoller documents -- based on his conversations with Caroline Fredrickson from the ACLU -- several key Democrats in Congress are actively working to ensure that this happens. Stoller notes that "The Senate Judiciary Committee is hamstrung by Dianne Feinstein, who prevents a majority . . . ." On issues of intelligence, judiciary and oversight, Feinstein really has become the new Joe Lieberman, repeatedly siding with the right-wing of the Republican caucus on key issues and thus actively enabling the worst abuses of the Bush administration.

Everybody I talk to who is a Democrat responds to Dianne Feinstein with a roll of the eyes at best, and a torrent of profanity at worst.

I used to keep a collection of the condescending letters I would receive back from her office, all written in the tone of a strict schoolmarm instructing a particularly slow child. It doesn't matter the issue, as long as I disagreed with DiFi, well... it was inferred that I was an idiot.

This happens WAY, WAY, WAY too much.

We should have primary challenged her in 2006, but at the time we were too busy focusing on trying to reclaim the Governorship. I meant to write about that then, but with Joe Lieberman/Ned Lamont going on, I didn't think it would get much traction. Also it's preposterously expensive to run statewide in California, we're talking presidential campaign style numbers, and that sucks!

in 2012 she will be 80 years old. Common sense would dictate that she would retire from the Senate at that point, at which point any number of top tier candidates will come flying out of the woodwork (Newsom, Willie Brown he'll be 78!, Westly, Villagarosa, Perata, Debra Bowen, and i'm sure a progressive of some kind)

But what if she doesn't retire?
If Democrats are still in the majority then Dianne, who has quite a bit of power, may decide to pull a Robert Byrd and just keep hanging with it.

Then we are well and truly screwed.

We can't let her get by with token opposition again.

One way or the other Dianne Feinstein is serving her last term.

-C.

•  No. Cost-benefit analysis

  For what it would cost to POSSIBLY unseat her could be used for MANY other Democrats.
  She's no Barb Boxer. But she's no Joe Lieberman, either.

  by sd4david on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:36:32 PM PDT

  •  Good point

    which Kos pretty much admitted on the front page.

    Of course, if the next Ned Lamont/Herb Kohl/Chuck Hagel/Frank Lautenberg is out there ready to spend vats of his own money, then more power to him.

    by brownsox on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:41:47 PM PDT

    •  I'm from Wisconsin

      I know Herb Kohl is independantly wealthy, which I gather was your point, but please, please do not ever put his name right next to Ned Lamont. I would swoon with the chance to vote/campaign/donate to a person of his ethical stature in a challenge to unseat my most worthless representative in Washington.

      by BlueGenes on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:44:08 PM PDT

      •  You are right.

        After all, Ned Lamont isn't nutty enough to own an NBA team!

        by Randall Sherman on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:36:00 PM PDT

      •  You're damned lucky

        if Herb Kohl is your most useless representative.

        Could be a hell of a lot worse. You could have Cornyn and Hutchison, or even worse...

        by brownsox on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 10:44:00 PM PDT

    •  who knows where the netroots will be in 2012?

      That is something to consider as well.
      And there are a lot of well to do progressives that might be convinced if there was a groundswell of support.

      It is a long ways away, but putting pressure on now would be a good thing I think.

      -C.

      by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:49:45 PM PDT

    •  Of the Four People You Name

      Only three are Democrats, and only one is arguably a substantive voice for change on US Middle East policy.

      And he lost the general election to Joe Lieberman.

      by greenskeeper on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:54:39 PM PDT

  •  the $$$ thing is huge.

    And it's the reason I haven't pushed this before.
    it's valid point.

    On a few things she's good, but she's absolutely horrible on others, and is a terror on Judiciary right now.

    Joe Lieberman is about the same on Domestic issues.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:45:29 PM PDT

    •  Lieberman

      Feinstein has an overall of 84.7 on Progressive Punch.  Her most "horrible" numbers are labor (69%) and Environment (75%).  Good overall for congress, but not good enough for what we should have in California.

      Where Feinstein is no Lieberman is what Lieberman does. He pushes Bush and republican talking points.  He runs down democrats.  He preaches on Fox against unreasonable democrats.  Feinstein, to my knowledge, does none of this.  

      by hilltopper on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:59:16 PM PDT

      •  Then you have not been paying attention.

         From the Greenwald article -

        In 2006, Feinstein not only voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act without any of the critical safeguards sought by Sen. Feingold, among others, but she was one of the most outspoken Democratic proponents arguing for its extension ("I have never been in favor of allowing any provisions of the Patriot Act to expire.").  Also in 2006, she not only voted in favor of amending the Constitution to outlaw flag burning, but was, as she proudly described  herself, "the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment."
        {snip}
        Similarly, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, she was one of the Democratic leaders urging the confirmation of Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA Director notwithstanding the central role he played as NSA Director in Bush's illegal surveillance programs.

        by FoundingFatherDAR on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:16:57 PM PDT

        •  ??

          You seem to have not read what I wrote.  I do not like Feinstein.  I want someone better.  But she has not done what Lieberman did (and does).  Read what I responded to.

          by hilltopper on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:27:16 PM PDT

      •  it's not about percentages.

        it's about constituent services, it's about having to freak out and send a million e-mails and call a million times, to convince her that "Hey, maybe John Roberts isn't such a great guy after all."

        She doesn't routinely talk trash about other Democrats that is true.

        But she is maddening.

        I was referring to the "great on issues, awful on others" thing.

        -C.

        by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:53:38 PM PDT

    •  Markos, bless his soul, drives me batty on this

      issue -- he'd support a primary challenge against Feinstein "if this state weren't so damn expensive", then he rips Edwards for going the public financing route in a demonstrably insane primary season.

      Progressives are going to have a wheel in the ditch so long as we try to outspend multinational corporations instead of regulating their dominance of the political process.

      by Mogolori on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:54:41 PM PDT

  •  i missed the part

    where you actually perform a "cost/benefit analysis" of GOTV and primary challenge. are you up to that estimate, or do you prefer blowing smoke?

    by MarketTrustee on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:58:18 PM PDT

  •  Also...

    By the time her seat is up, we'll likely have enough new Democrats in the Senate that her one vote won't hurt all that much.  When you have a 1 vote majority, one senator can screw things up pretty well; when you have a 5 or 8 or, God willing, 10 or 13 majority, one lone senator can go her own way and not do much harm.

    by Mumphrey on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:05:17 PM PDT

    •  She currently heads the Judiciary Comm.

      It's not always about the pure Dem/Rep ratio.  Eg. When Richard Pombo lost to McNerney, not only did the Republicans lose a seat, Pombo was no longer Chair of the House Resources Comm., a position that was enabling him to do much more damage to environmental laws than merely as a Repulican member of Congress.

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:22:12 PM PDT

•  Feinstein

  Let's face it.  She's a moderate.  But she is also the most popular democrat in California--perhaps in part--because she is a moderate.  Her favorable numbers are not stellar, but higher than Boxer.  http://www.surveyusa.com/...
  She has a ton of money and can self-fund is she needs to.  Money against her would be wasted.

  At this point, it is better to focus on 2010 and keeping Boxer in the Senate.

  I expect that Feinstein will retire in 2012, but as you say, no one knows.  (And BTW, not Perata.  We do not need the corruption.)  

  by hilltopper on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:53:33 PM PDT

  •  2012

    As Hilltopper notes the key here is that she was just re-elected in 2006 to a six year term.  The notion that she could be impeached is fantasy. While not a big favorite of progressives, she is the most poplular elected politician in the state. Some folks think of California as very progressive, it's not. Kerry only carried the state 55% to 45% and Feinstein always polls higher than Boxer. And if Arnold decides to run for the Senate in 2010, Boxer is toast.

    If Feinstein retires in 2012 watch out for Steve Poizner a moderate Republican who will be ending two four year terms as State Insurance Commissioner.  He will be a strong candidate for the Republicans.

    Not my choices, just my analysis.

    by VClib on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:43:51 PM PDT

    •  Do you even live in California?

      Because I do, and have my whole life.
      I live in the bay area, and grew up in the central valley... the "bible belt" if you will.

      California isn't as progressive as some people think.
      (any chance to cut taxes = a hell yes!), but it's far from redstate country too.

      Arnold may run against Boxer, but he is, in no way at all... a lock.. no way, no how.

      Everybody always counts Barbara Boxer out, it ain't happening.

      She isn't trying to hide her views, she's a strong and principled progressive. One that i've found has the respect of the few Republican aquaintences I have, even if they don't agree with her.

      Steve Poizner is one to watch.
      I agree with that completely.

      "Impeaching" Feinstein is ridiculous as her behavior may suck, but it's certainly not impeachable.

      Same deal with a recall election, which is basically one giant loophole anyway.

      -C.

      by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:50:01 PM PDT

      •  Since 1957

        I have lived in California since 1957.  Worked for The Times Mirror Company in the 70's and became a political junkie.  I think we agree on most things.  I still think Arnold will smoke Boxer, but it's a long way off and time will tell.

        by VClib on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:47:45 PM PDT

  •  she wouldn't need to self fund either.

    her and her developer husband know many people with deep pockets.

    Don't worry, i'm all for fighting winning battles, and think it's much more important to keep Boxer... still, we need a way to apply pressure.

    -C.

    PS: agreed about Perata, he's a nightmare, and thankfully not my State Senator anymore!

    by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:51:16 PM PDT

•  THANK GOD

  She's become little more than Lieberman West.

  What infuriates me is that she is so wealthy that nothing she actually does affects her in the least bnut it screws the rest of us. these fucking pricks act like royalty and get offended when challenged.

  by kuvasz on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:07:58 PM PDT

  •  I agree completely.

    She is the worst of the worst when it comes time to talk about out of touch corporatist Democrats.

    She never has to see the impact of what she does either, that's for the "little people"

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:45:52 PM PDT

•  Of course she was primaried in 2006

  http://primary2006.sos.ca.gov/...

  I voted for Colleen, who got 8%.

  And in November Feinstein had 59.43% of the vote.  Seems pretty low for an incumbant with her amount of experience.  I think she can be defeated.

  by toys on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:11:34 PM PDT

  •  I voted for Colleen too.

    And to say that was token opposition is overstating it.

    Most people thought she was running unopposed.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:42:04 PM PDT

    •  The news blackout worked

      I only saw her speak once at a rally, never mentioned in any news anywhere that I saw.

      by toys on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:59:10 PM PDT

•  The idea of a recall is about as far fetched

  Particularly in light of the fact that United States Senators are not subject to recall.

  by Collideascope on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:44:49 PM PDT

  •  Even if they were.

    It would not be sustainable.
    Or even, I think, a good idea.

    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:51:56 PM PDT

    •  I Agree

      It seems that a successful recall really does require a 'perfect storm', politically.

      by Collideascope on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:57:41 PM PDT

  •  You're right, they haven't been, yet. But...

    It has never been tested.  Whether it's a good idea or not is of course a different issue.

    For the recall of McCain and Kyl, see:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by toys on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:36:28 PM PDT

    •  I don't know though.

      the recall election was basically viewed by a lot of people (myself included) as sour grapes for a party that couldn't win an election.

      Like it or not Kyl did win fair and square against Pederson, and McCain is up soon enough anyway.

      -C.

      by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:07:46 PM PDT

      •  Yep.

        Having constant recalls would not be a good idea.  The only time I would favor a recall would be if the primary system was so broken and/or corrupted that no competing candidates could ever win, or if the Senate refused to deal with an obvious situation that demanded impeachment.

        The ultimate power is supposed to rest with the people.  And of course the primaries, and political parties per se, are not in the Constitution anywhere, and impeachment of all federal officers is.   And it was George Washington that predicted that party factions would destroy our country, if I remember that correctly, and recalls would obviously be seen as very factional.

        by toys on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:39:41 PM PDT

•  Jerry Brown could challenge DiFi.

  He's got the connections to raise the money, and he's a good campaigner. The real question would be whether he can shed the 'Governor Moonbeam' tag that Reagan pinned on him.

  by skrymir on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:39:25 PM PDT

  •  That's actually a good point.

    And, as a few people have pointed out, he could run for Governor again as well.

    After a successful term as Attorney General, and a relatively good run as mayor of Oakland, and a presidential run that in a way forecasted the Dean campaign and other grassroots efforts to come.

    The Governor Moonbeam thing wouldn't really stick these days I don't think... he's actually become a lot more aggressive against crime and such as well.

    Of course I think they are friends aren't they?
    And Brown is no spring chicken either.
    -C.

    by Neutron on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:58:40 PM PDT

•  Really??

  ...any number of top tier candidates...

  "Top tier" Democrats? In California?  Really?

  The California Democratic party is a bigger cock-up than our congressional leadership.  And really that takes some talent...

  by Steve in Sacto on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:05:50 PM PDT

•  She had a primary challenge in 06

  f*cking morons

  by Use Common Sense on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:10:25 PM PDT