Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFeinstein: Symbol of A Bush-Enabling Beltway Democrat
In the wake of the series of profound failures that define the 2007 Democratic Congress, there is much debate over what accounts for this behavior. There are almost 300 "Congressional Democrats" and they are not a monolithic group. Some of them are unrelenting defenders of their core liberal political values and some are committed to providing meaningful opposition to the radicalism and corruption of the Bush administration. But as the sorry record of the 2007 Congress conclusively proves, they are easily outnumbered in the House and Senate -- especially the Senate -- by Bush-enabling and Bush-supporting Democrats.
The standard excuse offered by many apologists for Bush-enabling Democrats -- that they support the Bush agenda and capitulate to the right-wing noise machine due to political fear of being depicted as too liberal or "soft on terror" -- is clearly inapplicable to many, if not most, of the enablers. California's Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein provides a perfect case study for understanding why the Congress has done virtually nothing to oppose the most extreme Bush policies, while doing much actively to support it.
Feinstein represents a deep blue state and was just easily re-elected to her third term last year. She won't run for re-election, if she ever does, until 2012, when she will be 80 years old. Her state easily re-elected a Senator, Barbara Boxer, with a much more liberal voting record than Feinstein's. Political fear cannot possibly explain her loyal support for the Bush agenda on the most critical issues decided by the Senate.
Additionally, Feinstein is a 74-year-old divorced Jewish woman currently on her third husband, and it is thus extremely unlikely that she harbors any hopes of running in the future on a national ticket. She has as secure a political position as any politician in the country. Whatever explains what she does, it has nothing to do with "spinelessness" or fear. What would she possibly fear?
And yet, her votes over the last several years, and especially this year after she was safely re-elected, are infinitely closer to the Bush White House and her right-wing Senate colleagues than they are to the base of her party or to the constituents she allegedly represents. Just look at what she has done this year on the most critical and revealing votes:
* Voted in FAVOR of funding the Iraq War without conditions;
* Voted in FAVOR of the Bush White House's FISA bill to drastically expand warrantless eavesdropping powers;
* Voted in FAVOR of condemning MoveOn.org;
* Cast the deciding vote in August on the Senate Judiciary Committee in FAVOR of the nomination of far right Bush nominee Leslie Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
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."
In October of 2002, she (naturally) voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq. She now self-servingly claims that she "regrets" the vote and was tricked by the Bush administration into believing Saddam had WMDs, yet Scott Ritter has disclosed: "This is far different from the statement Feinstein made to me in the summer of 2002, when she acknowledged that the Bush administration had not provided any convincing intelligence to back up its claims about Iraqi WMD." And when it was revealed in August of this year that Awad Allawi had hired the most influential GOP lobbying firm to help oust Prime Minister Maliki, there was Sen. Feinstein leading the way in demanding Maliki's ouster.
Time and again, not only does she vote in favor of the most right-wing aspects of the Bush agenda, she uses her alleged expertise in areas of intelligence to pressure or give comfort to other Democrats wanting to do the same. Several of the 16 Democratic Senators who voted in favor of Bush's FISA bill in August, such as Jim Webb, cited assurances by Feinstein that she had obtained Secret Information as a member of the Intelligence Committee which proved how necessary this bill was. 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.
Her primary allegiance is to the Beltway power system and her overwhelming affection is reversed for Beltway power brokers who are her true colleagues and constituents. That is particularly true of right-wing members of the defense and intelligence communities. Here, for instance, is the praise she oozed for the illegal-surveillance-implementing Gen. Hayden when urging his confirmation as CIA Director:
"I think the most important thing is that the individual be a competent, qualified, intelligent professional, and Mike Hayden is all of those things." She said that while she supports a civilian leader of the CIA, "I don't know a civilian that's really as well-connected and competent in the present stage of intelligence in America, and I think that's relevant."
And to explain her vote in support of Bush's FISA bill, she cited the Absolute Integrity of Mike McConnell as her reason:
I spoke with Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, at length this evening. He believes the United States is vulnerable, and that we need to move quickly to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The intelligence community is deeply concerned that chatter among suspected terrorist networks is up. I am concerned as well. We are living in a period of heightened vulnerability, and must give the intelligence community the tools they need to protect America. . . .
I voted for both bills because one needed 60 votes to pass. It is vital that we act now. We cannot leave the nation unprotected in this post-9/11 period.
What is so notable -- and most revealing -- about this is that Feinstein is a Democratic Senator from one of the most liberal states in the country. Conventional wisdom holds that she is a "liberal" or at least a moderate. She came onto the national scene in the 1980s as the Mayor of San Francisco, one of the most liberal large cities in the nation, and was twice re-elected by San Francisco residents. In fairness, she casts some (usually futile) votes in favor of the standard Democratic agenda on issues such as the environment, gun control and the Military Commissions Act. And she'll listlessly participate in investigations that go nowhere, even when the White House defies or outright ignores subpoenas. But what she does with the greatest conviction is supports right-wing Bush measures and, above all else, is an ardent defender of the Beltway power establishment.
In this regard, she really symbolizes a major imbalance in the Washington political system. The right-wing Republicans in Congress have an affinity with their base and share the same basic values. One saw that quite vividly in the recent immigration debate, where most Congressional Republicans -- particularly the "conservative" ones -- embraced rather than ran away from their angry, impassioned base by blocking enactment of the immigration bill which the GOP establishment favored but which the right-wing base hated. Most conservative Senators sided with their base over the GOP establishment, as they usually do when there is a split (Harriet Miers, Dubai Port Deal, even steadfast support for the Iraq War). And they rarely repudiate the political value system of their base because they respect it and share it.
By very stark contrast, most (though certainly not all) Democrats in Congress -- particularly the most influential and longest-serving ones in the Senate like Feinstein -- have contempt for their base and share virtually none of their values. In March of last year, I had an e-mail exchange with the spokesperson for a key Democratic Senator on the Intelligence Committee regarding how bloggers and their readers could work more closely with Democratic Senators to highlight the need for the NSA lawbreaking scandal to be investigated and taken more seriously. Ultimately, they made clear that they wanted nothing to do with actual citizens who were eager to bring that situation about, as I was told:
I think there is an opportunity for us to figure out a better way to work together. But, you have to understand, my ultimate goal is to help [the] Senator [] achieve his objective of real oversight on national security matters by the Intelligence Committee. Even with the best of intentions, I'm not convinced that bloggers can help us meet that goal. In fact, I worry about it hurting our efforts given the increasingly partisan environment.
As Digby said yesterday of Senate Democrats: "it surely seems true that they loathe the Democratic base as much as the Republicans do." Hence, Dianne Feinstein funds Bush's war with no limits while condemning MoveOn. She votes to vest vast new surveillance powers in the President. She defends and vouches for and places blind faith in the whole litany of Bush intelligence officials who have spent the last six years radicalizing this country and breaking the law. Plainly, Feinstein does not do this out of political fear or "spinelessness," but because it is who she now is and what she believes. She and those like her are the reason why there is such a gaping disconnect between the Beltway political class and the political views of most Americans.
Most of these political officials who feed off of Washington year after year become appedenages of it and vigorous defenders of nothing other than the Beltway system. They are drained of all belief, conviction and passion. And in Feinstein's case, it is particularly easy to understand why this is so. Her current husband, Richard Blum, is an extremely rich defense contractor whose companies have endless relationships with the work Feinstein does in the Senate. It is entirely unsurprising that Feinstein's affection is reserved for officials in the intelligence and defense communities because those are her social peers, the individuals with whom her husband interacts professionally and socially and with whom she most identifies.
More than anything else, Feinstein worships at the altar of the Beltway power system and its most revered members. Conversely, she has contempt for the liberal base which elects her and the constituents she represents. She long ago ceased being driven by the political values which serve as props for her campaigns, if she was ever driven by them. And that is the story of so many of the Beltway Democrats.
It really is one of the most extraordinary -- and downright embarrassing -- political facts that more Republicans than Democrats approve of the 2007 Democratic Congress. And why wouldn't they? The Democratic Congress has not restrained the Leader at all, but has done much to support and empower him. The Democratic Congress -- especially the Senate -- is controlled by the likes of Dianne Feinstein, and what Bush supporter wouldn't be satisfied with the role she is playing?
There are absolutely members of Congress who are ardent defenders of our basic Constitutional liberties and who are genuine opponents of the Bush administration. But the record of Congress leaves no doubt that they are wildly outnumbered.
It isn't only -- or even principally -- the "Blue Dogs" which make the "Democratic Congress" nothing but an enabling instrument of the Bush White House and its right-wing policies. Far worse are the establishment-defending, soul-less, belief-less, self-perpetuating "liberal Senators" like Feinstein who render the concept of "opposition party" nothing more than a deceitful illusion. Dianne Feinstein is the drained and Bush-enabling face of the 2007 Democratic Congress.
Glenn Greenwald
© 2007 Salon.com
70 Comments so far
Show AllPerhaps not a minor correction to the original story: Dianne Feinstein was brought up a Catholic; her first husband, who died while they were married, was Dr. Jack Feinstein. There is no record of her having converted to Judaism, although it is possible....
Oh, I could spend the rest of my life having this conversation - look - please try to understand before one of us dies.
John Cleese
Non-incumbents are better than incumbents but not that much. Consider that the American Airstocracy is in control of who runs for elections in either party. Your best bet is for independents or 3rd party candidates. Until people begin to vote for them in large numbers we won't see any changes. Feinstein is an aristocrat not a Dem or Rep - she is first filthy rich and scared enough of losing her money that she is willing to sacrifice your freedom to keep it. Ask yourselves when the last time a piece of legislation in the Congres (either House) affected the members voting for it? It is about the haves and the have nots. Follow the money - you'll see for example that the same ill corporate whores who catered to the Republican leadership in NYC 2004 did so the month before in Boston for Pelosi and Feinstein and Reid et al.
In other words BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES ARE FUNDED BY THE SAME CORPORATE LACKEYS - and therefore are no different one from another. Maybe a few members here and there act independently but the leadership spots all go to corporate approved candidates like Leiberman and Clinton and Feinstein. this is why I have been saying since 2000 that they should all be impeached!!!
In 2000 the Supreme Court justices that agreed to hear the Bush v. Gore case prior to the State of FL ruling on it - s/b impeached for exceeding their Constitutional Authority. SC sets precedent - that is by design. In this case they wrote in the briefs that the case CANNOT BE USED AS PRECEDENT. Why? Probably because no election could be counted as viable under the ruling.
Senators and Congresspersons - anyone who voted for the Iraq War Powers resolution - should also be impeached for abdicating their Constitutional authority. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Congress to declare war no other body can do so. The President can approve or veto and that is all. Until we take this approach and remove the corporate ownership of our ballot boxes there will be NO CHANGE for the better in America.
For the next 3 election cycles I will be voting for anyone but the incumbent, unfortunately that will mean for a republican running for the Senate, unless some other Dem beats Harkin but I don't see anyone trying to run against him. Another party candidate can't win the way the system has been set up until the non-voters step-up. I believe that all money given to national candidates should be put into a general fund, with the exception from individuals from the candidates OWN state, and then divided equally to ALL candidates running for that office.
While Greenwald makes an interesting point, he makes some staggering errors in logic by applying his broad generalizations and popular assumptions to the entire Democratic party. Yes, Feinstein is an a-typical Democrat who seems to vote more along the conservative party lines than a modern Democrat, but her voting/policital history by no means is appicable to the Democratic Party in its entirety. Yes, Feinstein voted to support the war, but so did 99% of the senate, she is not alone in her mistake. Maybe our author should focus his attention on that, why the majority of the US goverment voted to support a war that is obviously unfounded. Feinstein is scapegoated in a situation where she was merely following the crowd, a weakness, but not an error she made on her own.
Greenwald also uses some fairly biased stereotypes as a basis for his arguement. He suggests that liberals are all concerned with the environment and certain social issues. His most glaring assumption is that liberals are becoming souless and belief-less.
Finally, Greenwald refers to the division within the Democratic party. He seems to believe that division leads to negative or stagnant political action. If one were to look at the history of the United States, they would see that change in this country often, if not always, occurs after periods of division. I.e. the civil war and the destruciton of slavery, the civil rights movement, and even the Declaration of Independence. Greenwald assumes that political unity leads to politcal strength. He fails to acknowledge that politcal strife and discourse are the basis for all new ideas and political concepts. Democracy is a dialogue between its members, not a lecture by an all knowing dictator.
IS IT TIME FOR THREE PARTY SYSTEM ?
Feinstein is in charge of reforming an election system that lost 4 million electronic votes in 2000 (Cal Poly/MIT Study of the 2000 Election) and almost 8 million electronic votes in 2004 (121.8 million people went to the polls but only 113.9 million votes were counted for President (Election Data Services Study of 2004 Election).
So far, the only solution would be a paper ballot in triplicate, numbered by state/congressional district/city/precinct number/ series numbers for all Federal Elections and that needs to be done for 2008.....Ballot copies are counted at two locations: the Precinct and District Attorney Offices with 3rd copy to voter who can check on "MYVOTECOUNTS.org" to see if his/her vote was counted properly and 48 hours to file a complaint......elections would not be official for two weeks..........
The United States could not handle four more years of a Government that lies and is willing to murder innocent civilians so that it can control the Natural Resource of another country, OIL !
The United States can not handle the demonizing of muslims and illegal immigrants so that the nation can be totally polarized and therefore controlled by a "Political Elite".
If Feinsteins husband received a 600 million dollar contract from the Department of Defense then she should resign because of "Conflict of Interest" as should "Dick Cheney" and Halliburton Contracts..........
Feinstein has always been a staunch supporter of AIPAC for many reasons, not mentioning her religious association. Her repeated re-lection can be attributed to only two things:
1) Voting machines were rigged.
2) California voters are dumb to the nth degree, and they deserve worse.
That's how she recently purchased a $17 million beachfront estate near Pacific Coast Highway. Dumb Californians!
RE: please support your claim
lillulu September 23rd, 2007 2:35 pm
"a few Jewish people may oppose the war in Iraq. Most approve of it....Now does that mean I hate Jews? No. I do not."
I believe you re your feelings toward Jews. But I doubt you can support your claim that, while "a few" Jews "may" oppose the Iraq invasion ("May"? Is that speculation?), "[m]ost approve of it."
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0521-01.htm
"A recent Gallup poll indicated that...77% of American Jews think the Iraq War was a mistake, compared with just 52% of the general American public."
Question:
We always hear about the majority of Jews who don't align their worldview with AIPAC, but then why do politicians, pandering for the Jewish vote and money, curry favor by supporting the most reactionary, Right-wing Zionist approach?
Why is it Jewish representitives spearheading the campaign against Iran?
Psychologically it is completely understandable that the Jews may feel vulnerable and vow "never-again", but does that apply to Jews only? Do they exploit the status of victimhood while carrying out an immoral and inhumane campaign against the Palestinians--making them the victims of the experience they, themselves know so well?
Silence.
Are they now the Good Germans too?
Three words explain Feinstein's votes: AIPAC & war profiteering.
Obama was in the senate not on the campaign trail. He chose the coward's way out on the MoveOn vote. Hillary voted against the resolution. I disagree with Clinton on many issues, but she is not as bad as Feinstein. She votes against horrible judges on a fairly consistent basis, voted against the surge and is generally more centrist than Feinstein. Pelosi is personally progressive. She voted against the war and has consistently tried to end the carnage. In my opinion she is undercut by the blue "weasel" dogs and the Hoyer/Emmanuel K Street gang who would succeed her as speaker if she stepped down or was removed. We should remember that the power structure of both parties is corrupt. I wish Pelosi had not pulled the impeachment card from the deck, but she may not have had much choice. The progressive legislation is coming out of the house...not that dreadful excuse for a senate.
I am curious about the almost total lack of discussion by the presidential candidates regarding the terrible damage that supply side economics has inflicted on the US economy. For pete's sake a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas! Worker's productivity is up but their wages are flat or falling. The economy is in terrible trouble and the dollar is sinking. The Fed lowers rates, but there is little mention of the inflation it causes. Food is not part of the CPI. I pity the next president whoever she/he may be...we are heading for a very hard fall and that person will be blamed.
The more I read by Mr. Greenwald, the more impressed I am by his exacting analysis. He is particularly trenchant in his dissection of the Washington "Beltway" and the remarkable corruption now endemic in the American political and ruling class.
Feinstein typifies that corruption and arrogance as much as--perhaps even more so—than the Crawford Caligula. Bush can be dismissed, in part, as a cruel and bizarre aberration, but Feinstein's behavior proves that the entire system is rank and corrupt, and that the reputed opposition party, the Democrats, represent the same corporate, financial, oil, and military interests as the elites within the GOP.
Thank you Mr. Glenn (with a double n) Greenwald.
TRUE . . .
QUOTE: Jaded Prole:
Whether one is Jewish or not is irrelevant — it's about CLASS INTERESTS. The Dims, like the Repugs represent the corporate ruling class. For we as working people to support them is contrary to our interests (better wages, safe workplaces, national healthcare, free education, ecology peace . . .) We need to either support the alternatives that are there or build a unified powerful alternative party. We can do that. We have good leadership and the collectives skills to promote candidates. We can take the country back but NOT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CORPORATE PARTIES. I keep saying that but nobody hears me. Might as well get drunk . . UNQUOTE
The elite have worked for winner take all since the beginning here; from genocide to enslavement, from assassinations to rigged elections -- and Americans evidently slept thru it all. Did the press awaken America?
Like most of the horrific results of capitalism and patriarchy... it's probably too late now to even try to get corporations out of our elections; it's probably too late to stop Global Warming which will wipe out humanity and the planet -- and all of this has been kept from Americans by a silenced corporate press.
Americans long ago understood the need for third parties -- Plan B -- but that road was also long ago blocked by Democrats and Republicans. Not only blocked, but when the Green Party, already internationally established, tried a go here it was quickly undermined and co-opted by Democrats who worked to disrupt the Green Party and to break the connection between Nader and the Greens.
In fact, the scapegoating of Nader as the cause of the 2000 debacle continues on!!
Overall, if you want to try to derail any part of the suicidal path we are on you have to understand that we need to act more swiftly to attack corporate-fascism, to end patriarchy and capitalism.
We need to demand electric cars -- and replace every gas-guzzler on our roads within five years.
There are many ways to express ourselves together at the "click." Australians, for instance, are doing a "lights out" as a statement reinforcing the idea of the need to conserve energy produced by non-renewal sources.
Corporations must rely on us cooperating with their agenda. Let's not!
Michael Moore on our corrupt congress a classic episode from The Awful Truth series:
http://tinyurl.com/25zfnv
It's time to dump that old battleaxe. I voted for her to keep out the repukes, but she's actually one of them!
A Republicrat! A tratior!
Dump her!
The accidental politician will be in politics doing the bidding of conservatives for she is one of the most self-righteous Americans in politics today. We shall suffer her admonitions and follies for decades to come.
Thousands more American soldiers shall die in Iraq for nothing, tens of thousands more shall suffer the rest of their lives for nothing, hundreds of thousands of Americans shall suffer the consequences of these returned soldiers misfortunes.
In the end no one will remember her.
Actually, a more complete examination of Feinstein's record would show her to be a moderate liberal, hardly a "Republican".
Okay, that's not good enough for you, or for me either, but here's the rub:
We're stuck with her. Until 2012. Unless she dies, steps down, or does something to justify her impeachment.
Until then, you can try to cajole her, persuade her, harass her or embarass her, but you can't really force her to do anything. Nobody can. Not the DNC, DLC, AIPAC, Green Party or Ralph Nader. She's in.
That's how it works. You missed the chance in 2006 to mount a challenge from the left in the Democratic primary. Now you'll have to wait until 2012 to try to get a progressive in to replace her.
Of course, you could put up a Green Party or independent candidate in 2012. That would be a good way to improve the chances of a Republican senator being elected in the home state of Schwarzenegger and Reagan.
But if you really want to try to get a more progressive senator as a replacement for Feinstein, maybe even a "real" progressive, your best chance will be to organize, find a good candidate, and run him or her in the 2012 primary as a Democrat.
Actually, that will be your only chance.
"3. Greenwald fails to grasp what the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, did successfully; namely, move to a centrist position where the majority of Americans reside, especially with the Iraq War."
Democratic Party "centrists" and "thoughtful" Blue Dogs are Bush's enablers. There is nothing moderate about giving Bush pretty much whatever he wants, which is what they have been doing. Some Congressional Democrats do oppose the Bush agenda consistently, but there are too few of them.
The Republicans don't move to the center, and they've done very well in the past twelve years.
"4. California, not San Francisco, is anything but a "deep blue state". Senator Barbara Boxer had a much more difficult time getting elected than the more conservative Feinstein. Republicans fail to run more centrist candidates like Arnold Schwarzeneggar. When they do, they win."
California has gone for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the past four elections. It also has a state legislature controlled by the Democrats, and more than 30 of its Congresscritters are Democrats.
Boxer won by 20% in 2004, and Feinstein won by 24% in 2006. Not too much of a difference. California is a safe Democratic state.
"5. The Democratic Party, especially uncompromising Liberals, is incapable of forging a strategy to overcome the "Bush Agenda" even though one exists. Why? Because they are too establishment (money and connections), too beholden to their core Liberal base, too self-centered and too fragmented as usual."
Bush consistently gets enough House and Senate Democratic votes for his hard-right agenda to make it look moderate and bipartisan. How are they beholden to their liberal base?
"6. Re: FISA, the one un-answered question is why was the measure introduced so late in the session? Because, like the Iraqi parliament, Congress wanted to go on vacation."
Our civil liberties are more important than Congress' convienience. They're worse than the sunshine patriots of the American Revolution, who were willing to risk real bullets at least when the weather was nice, not just being called nasty names by Bush and Cheney.
iammyself..Right On!
Go into action. Stop paying taxes, boycott the biggest bastards..Walmart, Verizon, Exxon-Mobil Proctor and Gamble, AOL Time Warner, AT&T etc.
KEM PATRICK and Thomas, I think it was, had a great idea for working with the unions to force impeachment.
If anyone is tired of just talking about it and wants to start organizing..I'm ready. Write to me. I'm serious. I have some ideas but could really use yours.
With all due respect, Ken Mitchell, this statement is off the wall, "Maurice Hinchey was opposed to invading Iraq from day one"
Maurice Hinchey voted to GO INTO IRAQ. Steve Greenfield, the Green running for congressman, against Hinchey, opposed going into Iraq.
"Here at commonDreams.org there have hundred's of article's that proved that the Dems have and continue to alienate their base. Everyone screams and gets Mad,yet come election time everyone runs back to the Democrats."
That's because people still believe the lie that politics is how change is made. Politics presents the illusion of change while supporting the status quo. Any change comes from the people - you, me, you, and you. It is up to us as individuals (the ideal is democracy, right?) to make the changes in _our_ own lives and to tell _our_ representatives (when did we allow them to become our leaders?) what we want them to do.
Oh, but that's right...they're not listening to us. Then, who are they listening to? Once again (this time with feeling): Follow the freaking money! It's the corporate masters who control the world. Don't like it? Don't support it! It's your money - no one is holding a gun to your head. In this regard, we are either part of the solution, or part of the problem.
Ken Mitchell
Just for the record, Cong Hinchey voted for the original necessary force resolution and voted for the Patriot Act. Having said that, he has become the most outspoken critic of the administration in the House and deserves our support.
Hey CoMarK...I was aware of Obama's non vote and gave him the beneift of a doubt - perhaps he was out on the campaign trail? Regardless, I understand the dissatisfaction with the democratic party as it stands but I am a realist - a 3rd party does not have a chance and we cannot take the risk of another administration like the one we have. I was not a Clinton supporter but except for NAFTA nothing truly terrible happened under his administration - compare it to the present one! I have followed Obama since he was a state senator and he is a man of integrity, intelligence, and political savvy. If he is somehow nominated, he will be elected and will provide a truly progressive administration. Yes get rid of the Feinsteins and change the party!
Glen Greenwald has aptly described Dianne Feinstein as a member of the Senate club, co-opted by the establishment. However, he fails to include some other important facts that should serve as insightful clues:
1. Dianne Feinstein endorsed Hillary Clinton for president rather than allow her California constituents decide for themselves. Her predecessor, the late Alan Cranston, solved this problem by endorsing all Democratic candidates.
2. Dianne Feinstein led the charge to oust Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, teaming up with fellow senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Hillary Clinton's lead man.
3. Greenwald fails to grasp what the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, did successfully; namely, move to a centrist position where the majority of Americans reside, especially with the Iraq War. Liberals mistakenly assume without proof that the congressional elections went Democratic because the majority of voters want to bring our troops home immediately and irresponsibly. Not so. Thoughtful "Blue Dogs" like Senator Jim Webb are the reason why Democrats took over the Senate from the Republicans.
4. California, not San Francisco, is anything but a "deep blue state". Senator Barbara Boxer had a much more difficult time getting elected than the more conservative Feinstein. Republicans fail to run more centrist candidates like Arnold Schwarzeneggar. When they do, they win.
5. The Democratic Party, especially uncompromising Liberals, is incapable of forging a strategy to overcome the "Bush Agenda" even though one exists. Why? Because they are too establishment (money and connections), too beholden to their core Liberal base, too self-centered and too fragmented as usual.
6. Re: FISA, the one un-answered question is why was the measure introduced so late in the session? Because, like the Iraqi parliament, Congress wanted to go on vacation.
7. Although I support MoveOn.org, its ad was tasteless and misdirected. Politically, it backfired.
Feinstein and Pelosi....sure look like republicans to me!!!
Feinstein's multimillionaire husband got a 600 million dollar contract for "scheduling" at the beginning of the war. A lot of otherwise liberal jews seem to buy the enemy of my enemy theory and rejoice when any Arab is killed. A sad situation. Feinstein seems to favor any war against any Arab nation. But she is suppose to be representing California and most oppose the war. CA not Texas. "Instead, Pelosi becoming speaker was the sign of a power-hungry politician who was willing to accept the right-wing agenda of the leadership of this party in order to gain a position of power." I do not think so. Pelosi wnats things to be civilized. She does not understand she is dealing with killers who are bullies. The only way to rectify things and return constitutional rule to this country is through direct confrontation. Her attempts to appease the extreme right wing with its poweful propaganda is doomed to defeat. The democrats might loose the house again in 08. She does not understand the powere of the rightwing spin machine, the medai and talk radio.
Isn' Feinstein the witch who gave all those TWINKYs to Dan White?????????
You're all wrong! Di-Fi doesn't intend to run again. She intends to get a Cabinet post or at least an ambassadorship in the new Clinton administration.
A great article. Yes it appears that Feinstein=Lieberman
To Peoria Teacher ... you need to take very close note of the fact that Obama wouldn't support MoveON either. The coward was 'absent' for the vote. That's a key sign that Obama is yet another one who has signed on to the center-right agenda of the top of this party in order to gain personal power.
PS ... Pelosi is a good case study. Her becoming speaker was not a victory for a progressive wing of a party. Instead, Pelosi becoming speaker was the sign of a power-hungry politician who was willing to accept the right-wing agenda of the leadership of this party in order to gain a position of power. You see this across the top of the party. David Obey, chair of the most powerful committee in the House is another fine example.
The party is controlled and driven by the leadership, and the leadership doesn't accept any new people who don't agree to buy into their agenda.
Progressives can not get control of this party from within. The only other answer is to destroy this party from without.
Never, ever vote for a candidate with a (D) after their name.
The key thing to realize is that the Democratic Party is the party of the Dianne Feinsteins of the world. They control the Democratic Party. And they set the rules of the party such that they will stay in control. When you say "Democratic Party", what you are saying is a top-down party where policy is set at the top and the policy is that of a right-wing party that supports Bush and the agenda that is behind Bush.
Sure, there are other Democrats. But what needs to happen is these other Democrats need to get the heck out of that party. Its the presence of the 'other' Democrats that provides the political cover for the Dianne Feinstein's of the world. These politicians are able to fool the voters that they are something other than what they are because of all the 'good democrats' that stay in that party.
We need anyone who's decent and who isn't a supporter of Bush and his wars and is spying and everything else to get the heck out of that party. When that happens, then it becomes clear to voters just who really opposes Bush and who is running on a center-right platform that supports Bush.
Supporting the Democrats right now in ANY way is a self-defeating policy. Sure, maybe your local rep isn't too bad. But by supporting that local rep that isn't too bad, you are providing the political cover and support that the Feinstein's, the Reid's the Pelosi's etc of the party use to hide behind and trick other voters.
The key at this point is not to support ANYONE who calls themselve a Democrat at ANY level. PERIOD. Do you have a local Democrat that 'isn't too bad'. Well, the answer needs to be for them to get the heck out of this party. Because their presence in this party is simply providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
The key is that policy in the Democrats is set at the top. It doesn't come up from the grassroots. As Mr. Greenwald correctly points out, the leadership of the party hates the grassroots. And they say it often enough as they call us "idiot liberals" to make this clear. So anyone who stays in the Democratic party is not working to change things. Instead, they are working to support a top-down driven party that hates us and what we stand for.
Bush had one thing right. They are either for us or against us. And anyone, I repeat ANYONE with a (D) after their name is AGAINST US. If they aren't, then let them show it by getting the heck out of this party.
Hey, Dover..Freedom of speech…it's what we are all supporting…let folks say what they wish….you don't have to agree. If it's unnecessarily obscene or hateful, let the webmaster handle it....willybill
+++++++++++++++++
Don't put words in my mouth. Who said "obscene" or "hateful"?
You did, that's who. Why you used these words in reference to anything I've written here suggests you have another agenda, sir.
I too was appalled at the censure of MoveOn by those Democratic senators but I am not ready to throw out the whole party as long as senators like Feingold of Wisconsin or the two senators from Illinois, Obama and Durbin call themselves Democrats. I am a long time liberal activist who still believes that there is hope in our two party system (even though the last candidate I whole heartedly supported was McGovern) I remain hopeful that the candidate in 2008 will be one I can support in the same way - Obama - for I am tired of simply voting against someone. I must admit, however, that if Clinton gets the nomination, I, too, may defect to a 3rd party candidate!
Earthian is right. In places where the Greens are not organized, vote for progressive Democrats in the primaries. Where there are Greens, help them run against the corporate Democrats.
Build an alternative to the corporate parties: www.gp.org
Greenwald's article is smart. I think the understanding of her behavior and that of many Democrats is well-served by the framework offered by Charles Derber in his book Hidden Power. He distinguishes between the third corporate regime and the corporate politicians who support that regime (1980 to ?) and the progressive politicians who support a third progressive regime following the progressive era (1900-1920) and the New Deal progressive regime (1932-1980). Senator Feinstein supports the current status quo—the third corporate regime and its money in politics for minority rule; its foreign policy of elite interests and ignoring international laws; its "Hood Robin" domestic policies of enriching the already-rich. But the Democratic Party has some progressives who support a third progressive regime. The distinction allows us to see progressives among the Green Party, the Vermont Progressive Party, other progressive parties, independents, and, of course, progressive Democrats. A good strategy then is to strengthen the Green Party *and* to replace corporate Democrats with progressive Democrats, especially via primary elections.
This is one of the best articles I have seen about Dianne. She is extremely hard to figure out and her votes on judges, Bush nominations, civil liberties are the worst! She was elected by liberals and moderates, yet finds it necessary to engratiate herself to the republicans. I didn't vote for anyone for senator the last time and will absolutely vote for her opponent if she runs again. She is a disgrace to the people who put her in office.
California is not a "liberal" state just because there's Hollywood and SF. Regan, Nixon - both from CA. Gov Pete Wilson, followed by a Dem who was illegally "recalled" after Cheney and his cronies gamed the CA energy market, then Arnie, one-and-a-half times. Orange County - most republican in the country. Liberal California is nothing but a myth that rests solely on presidential votes, not on what goes on during the four years in between.
Hence, Feinstein wears the blue but has spent her whole political career doing her best to please the CA GOP, which is why she was so "easily" reelected.
But, more importantly, the bottom line is money. Those in the House and Senate with integrity are not on the corporate payroll; the rest are loyalbushies with different color ties.
Feinstein is a political whore.
Nothing suprises me anylonger about Republicans disguised as Democrats like Fienstien. I live in California, and Ive never voted for her. I continue to support independends and green candidates. The question in my mind is when are people going to wake up?
MoveOn.org & the U.S. Military Industrial Congressional Complex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H337V_pwnbw
(Feinstein included....)
Too darn bad that she will be in office to do more damage until 2012. However, if she will be 80 years old at that time, perhaps we could wish for a disabling affliction,( before the birthday)Which will force her out of office in the Senate.Feinstein and Lieberman along with Clinton and McConnell are masters at subverting the peoples will for their corporate and AIPAC masters.
Whether one is Jewish or not is irrelevant -- it's about CLASS INTERESTS. The Dims, like the Repugs represent the corporate ruling class. For we as working people to support them is contrary to our interests (better wages, safe workplaces, national healthcare, free education, ecology peace . . .) We need to either support the alternatives that are there or build a unified powerful alternative party. We can do that. We have good leadership and the collectives skills to promote candidates. We can take the country back but NOT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CORPORATE PARTIES. I keep saying that but nobody hears me. Might as well get drunk . . .
Hey, Dover..Freedom of speech...it's what we are all supporting...let folks say what they wish....you don't have to agree. If it's unnecessarily obscene or hateful, let the webmaster handle it.
Ken Mitchell, a few Jewish people may oppose the war in Iraq. Most approve of it and go along with Israel's warmongering position.
Now does that mean I hate Jews? No. I do not.
And people wonder why I am registered "Green Party".
"Joe Lieberman, dressed in drag" -- that was a perfect description beavercleaver.
It is no small coincidence that the bigger the zionist, the bigger the fascist tendencies are. She is the biggest classical fascist we have in government today (except for Lieberman). She has always voted for increased police state powers and lower civil liberties.
Princess Dianne has always felt she was above the people. As far back as her SF gov't days she was getting bus lines changed from her neighborhood to keep the little people away. Pesky peons, we are.
Unfortunately, she always could have her campaigns bankrolled. And Cali Republicans could always find some incredible (Michael Huffington - yes that Huffington, Tom Campbell, Dick Mountjoy) loser to run against her.
So, just like Lieberman, her money and Party connections keep her in power. Power whores, such as the Clintons are no better.
It is a sorry country we live in . . . . .
Why not impeach the AIPAC war profiteer?
Here at commonDreams.org there have hundred's of article's that proved that the Dems have and continue to alienate their base. Everyone screams and gets Mad,yet come election time everyone runs back to the Democrats.
It's time to support the Green Party or a 3rd party.
Thank-you for your honesty, Mr. Greenwald! As one of Feinstein's constituents, I've always said that Feinstein is a conservative who does not support the persecution of gays and lesbians. She is not a progressive!
Now what is it with Boxer, who didn't even bother to cast a vote on the FISA bill?!
[P]leasthink's characterization of Democrats like Feinstein and Clinton as "corporate wolves in sheep's clothing" is true enough.
However, I'll skip my incoherent rant about fascism manifesting not only as Unitary Leaders making speeches from balconies, or jackbooted troopers in the city streets (they're already here), but by the total commodification of politics. Politics and money are hardly strangers, but beneath any and all "good intentions" and "principle" lies the root concept famously voiced by convicted Philadelphia ABSCAM congressman Ozzie Myers: money talks; bullshit walks.
The "bullshit" that walked this time around includes habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, incidentally.
But, again, that's another screed. For now I only wanted to say that although I don't disagree with pleasethink's metaphor, I believe and deplore that many loyal Democratic partisans actually applaud the notion of Hillary et al being wolves, with or without progressive clothing.
"She'll be our wolf, dontcha see?" And if one attempts to counter this opinion, one will be discounted as a "purist".
Every time there is a discussion like this, either Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul comes up...completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Whether you realize it or not, the more you shove an out-of-context political endorsement down my throat, the less likely I am to listen...and the MORE likely I am to not vote for your candidate.
Knock it off!
And I don't believe anybody here is indulging in "bigotry" for mentioning that Feinstein is PROBABLY beholden to the Jewish lobby.
Tossing out the "b" word used to be the quickest way to silence somebody. Anymore, it's bullcrap. There's no bigotry here, so stop alleging it.
I will stick with my assertion, however: If she is Jewish (or any other religious affiliation), and she puts money over what is right for the citizenry, she's neither religious nor God-fearing, period.
Hi all.
This is a great article because it takes the smart approach of looking at the politician's voting record and judging her based on that, rather than her supposedly progressive credentials or aura. Words to live by, from the man, Friedrich Nietzsche: judge the DEED, not the DOER behind the deed. The "DOER" is the realm of metaphysics, hocus pocus, fiction. We only have deeds to go one in making our judgments. Ask what do politicians DO, not what they claim to believe or stand for.
Following that approach, I came to become completely loyal to Dennis Kucinich. If more progressives and Democrats looked at his record, they might wake up. Hillary is another corporate stoodge, like Dianne, in progressive clothing. I am crying "Corporate Wolf!!!"
that's what I have been telling all along:
Democrats = Bush enablers
My countrymen are simply too clueless. They are too easy to manipulate.
There are several other big misconceptions out there, which are continuing to help keep the status quo, in spite of the huge dissatisfaction of Americans with the current political establishment.
May be I'll write about them ater...
In a nation where we do not have large numbers of people voting, and the news sources are inadequate, is it any wonder that there are politicians who are not following the will of their own constituents?
Feinstein should have protesters following her around to make it clear that she is not an honest person.
Feinstein is a liar and duplicitous.
Ken Mitchell September 23rd, 2007 12:06 pm
"Gail, davepepper, your bigotry is showing. You pre-judge Feinstein because she's Jewish."
I would have made the same comment no matter what religion she belonged to. That's a fact!
Gail, davepepper, your bigotry is showing. You pre-judge Feinstein because she's Jewish. I know a lot of Jewish people who oppose the war in Iraq. I also know some who have condemned Israel. Don't judge a whole group by the actions of some people in it.
Feinstein, is right wing, and she's Jewish, so she panders to the AIPAC, the Jewsih lobby. Her present husband profits from the taxpayer funded war machine. Of course, she would never vote against it. There is no "liberal" wing of any party in the US. It's a country of varying degrees of right wing thinking. Hell, the Canadian Conservative party is more liberal and left leaning than the democratic party in the US. Fascism is taking a strong hold in the US, and the people go blindly about their day, not even realizing it. Americans get the government they deserve.
My senator, Hillary (Yes, that one) is also down there with Feinstein. I'm happy to say that my congressman, Maurice Hinchey was opposed to invading Iraq from day one, and opposed the Patriot Act. He worked on Medical marijuana legislation and one of those voting for it was Ron Paul.
"Additionally, Feinstein is a 74-year-old divorced Jewish woman currently on her third husband,..."
Most people probably don't care how many husbands she's divorced, but it does matter that she has divorced the people who voted for her without having to file a petition.
Do you know how depressing it is to hear, day after day, that we've got to "follow the money" in order to understand why our representatives hate their constituents so much?
I'm with the person who said, we've got to remove all of these old-timers from Congress. Very few of them serve the people anymore: They're too busy serving themselves.
You describe her as Jewish: Once more, any person who puts money over what is right, is neither religious nor God-fearing. They are non-believers using religion...and the people. That is SCUM, in my book.
Feinstein is actually California's Republican Senator. As a Californian, I never know what to make of her. California has a pretty substantial conservative population -- which many people don't realize. It's better to have someone like Diane, who at least will add to the Democratic majority, than a Republican -- who could very well win in this state. On the other hand, her voting record doesn't help much in terms of sensible policy making. I wish we could turn her around -- the way we turned Jane Harman around. Harman is in a mixed district, much like the mixed nature of the state. But progressives have been giving her a lot of feedback -- we even put a candidate, Marcie Winograd, up against her in the primaries. And Marcie got 36% of the vote. That seems to have opened Harman's eyes, and her voting patterns changed dramatically. I'd like to see what would happen if we challeneged Diane in the primaries with a progressive. The question is, however, whether a progressive candidate could pull off the general. It's a real conundrum.
Generally excellent article, but I had to rub my eyes at the first sentence in the second para: "The standard excuse offered by many apologists for Bush-enabling Democrats — that they support the Bush agenda and capitulate to the right-wing noise machine due to political fear of being depicted as too liberal or "soft on terror" — is clearly inapplicable to many, if not most, of the enablers...."
This can't be what Greenwald means. He must mean something more like this: "The standard excuse offered by many apologists for Bush-enabling Democrats — that they DON'T REALLY support the Bush agenda YET capitulate to the right-wing noise machine due ONLY to political fear of being depicted as too liberal or "soft on terror" ....
Apologists for the Bush-enabling Dems keep insisting, in various ways, that the intentions of their Democrats are pure, but that they always wind up enabling Bush for "good" or "practical" reasons. Either the Republicans are secretly blackmailing them, or they "just don't have enough votes," or they are "keeping their gunpowder dry," or they are "trying not to alienate moderates." For the Dem Party loyalist, there are always plenty of rationalizations available, to ease what otherwise would be a very painful case of cognitive dissonance.
Another discription of the traitorous dino Diane Feinstein, would be to imagine Joe Lieberman, dressed in drag.
Feinstein Not Finesenator.
To quote Larry Bensky: "Dianne Feinstein; the two most depressing words in California politics."
Feinstein's husband would stand to lose a lot of business:
URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an Army contract Monday worth up to $600 million.
Source:
San Francisco Chronicle Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Army contract for Feinstein's husband
Blum is a director of firm that will get up to $600 million
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Mars meets Mammon. Follow the $. Between the whore deals that provide lobbyist funds for these "leaders" to run for their seats, and the $ that is generated by the military-industrial complex, an aspect of the US economy now so thoroughly woven into so many state economies that it is essential that this nation make war to maintain jobs, what manifests from this debacle is the devil's marriage, firmly in place. It is more than tragic that a nation given the gifts this one has been blessed with, has squandered its fortune on the ways and means to murder other citizens of sovereign lands in a quest to co-opt their resources for our own bloated, obese, anti-nature (as in NOT investing in alternative fuels and technologies that would ease the pressure on already collapsing ecosystems, aspects of the true worldwide web of species that all life depends upon) policies and population. Wake-up call is coming... this house of cards is about to implode because it's moved so far from truth, from representation of the nation's best interests (its citizens), from decency, and above all: Divine Order. Implosion results.
Mikulski in MD, for example. She doesn't do much. She did however vote yes for the Protect America Act. She's a tough read actually. It takes a little research to realize this Democrat actually thrives on War Profiteering.
What is it about California Democratic politicians?
Nancy Pelosi's right up there with Feinstein with her removal of impeachment from the Democratic agenda.
Perhaps, in order to understand what millions see as the appalling and unforgivable failure of the Democrats to stop Bush, we need to know more about just how insular the beltway actually is for the politicians who leave their constituents and are supposed to work there for them. And don't. The average citizen doesn't have a clue about the intrigues and machinations of Congress, the temptations, the loss of honor and honesty, and even the loss of all concern about the citizens who voted them into the positions in the first place.
It's really time for new blood in Congress, time to get rid of the old-timers who don't give a damn about their constituents, and elect somebody who does. That means replacing Pelosi, too.