The Tortured Vote of Feinstein on Mukasey: Disingenuous or Just Plain Dishonest?

[babylonsister]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/229

The Tortured Vote of Feinstein on Mukasey: Disingenuous or Just Plain Dishonest?
Submitted by mark karlin on Sun, 11/04/2007 - 1:28pm. Analysis

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS


So why is Dianne Feinstein going to vote for Mukasey as Attorney General after he gave responses on waterboarding, torture and unitary authority that were right out of the White House Q and A response book?

For Feinstein, perhaps it is that she is a disingenuous RepubliCrat. She has defected the Democrats on more key votes in the senate and the Judiciary Committee than you can shake a stick at. Most recently, she was the sole Democratic defection on Judiciary that allowed the nomination of the Neo-Confederate Leslie Southwick get to the floor for a positive vote. In short, another Bush Administration bigoted partisan judge will take a seat on the federal bench because of Feinstein.

Some argue that Feinstein (who at one time was the Mayor of San Francisco, and who – along with Pelosi – makes us think sometimes that the worst thing for progressive politics is a rich SF "liberal") is essentially trading her votes for contracts that her husband receives from the government. Some argue that she is just so wealthy, Washington establishment-like, and out of touch with her obligation to the Constitution, that she votes for people whom she feels are of the same "class" of D.C. insiders as she has become.

But what most disturbs us about the Feinstein pledge of support for Mukasey is a commentary she had published in the LA Times on November 3 providing the "rationale" for her vote. There’s only one big problem with Feinstein’s message to the voters; it’s specious at best.

snip//

It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic to the nation that Feinstein concludes her LA Times op-ed with this less than believable "I’m-just-a-Pollyanna-style-of-gal" statement: "The bottom line is this: I hope that Judge Mukasey will fairly and evenhandedly represent the American people and direct the Justice Department wherever the facts and the law lead, not where the White House dictates."

Of course, the clear and transparent reality is that the White House did dictate Mukasey’s answers on waterboarding and torture. They were straight from the Ashcroft, Gonzales, Addington script.

The senior senator from California should know that, shouldn’t she?

Dianne Feinstein is much too smart to play that dumb.

[crickets]

1. Bingo

essentially trading her votes for contracts that her husband receives from the government

I think that sums it up pretty well. This explanation is kind given the alternative is that she just doesn't give a damn as long as she can still hang out with the 'cool' kids.

[acmavm]

2. She's always been very supportive of the bush** administration and

whatever scheme it was they had going at any particular time.

I do not understand her or Pelosi or Clinton. I just do not get it.

[AndyTiedye]

3. She Got a Lot Worse After Bush** "Took Her for a Ride" on AF1

What happened to her on that plane?

[Bjorn Against]

4. She is California's answer to Lieberman

California could do much better and I think many Californians know it, I hope she is primaried just like Lieberman was.

[cascadiance]

5. I think the answer is to keep a HEAVY WATCHFUL EYE on Arnold!...

It is Arnold that holds the keys to the kingdom right now!

If he looks to be doing things that are "recallable" and stops playing the "compromising guy" that he's been playing since the disaster of a special election he tried to push on us, we need to be prepared to recall his ass ASAP!

What ultimately gives Feinstein her power is that the Dems are going to be resistant to even doing investigation of her husband's ties as long as Arnold has the keys to replacing her. They can ill afford to have a Republican of his choosing to replace her, even though she's not much better than a Republican now anyway. As I note in another thread over here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3682868&mesg_id=3682868

I wonder if she didn't intentionally have as her co-chair Angela Bradstreet support Arnold to get her that very insurance of keeping the Dems off her back, which they might have been more willing to do if Angelides were governor instead.

If we get a recall going against Arnold, she could be replaced in one of two ways:

1) Persuade her to run FOR governor in the recall election, whereupon she'd become governor instead (though she'd be able to appoint her successor). Perhaps make it clear to her that she do this and pick someone of our "approval" or we pursue the second option.

or

2) After such a recall election, if another Dem gets elected, we push for an investigation of her husbands' dealings in the Senate, and if she gets pushed out then, a Dem can be appointed to replace her (Waxman? Bowen?). Maybe even get "creative" and appoint Pelosi (though I'd have to weigh this one), and in effect replace her hopefully with someone better as Speaker of the House (Conyers? Kucinich?) if that can be set up to avoid someone of DLC heritage.

In either case, I think the important thing is we be prepared to do a recall of Arnold the minute he shows something that is actionable. That would give us a lot more options to replace her as Senator then!

[ladjf]

6. We know who you are Mrs. Feinstein.