Is there a time when Feinstein, my alleged Senator, hasn't let progressives down?

[Maat]

That's a rhetorical question, of course.

***************************************Quote**************************************
Posted on Aug 6, 2007 | by Staff

WASHINGTON (BP)--One of President Bush's embattled judicial nominees has escaped the Senate Judiciary Committee because a Democrat switched sides.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D.-Calif., joined the nine Republicans on the committee Aug. 2 to forward the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the full Senate. Bush nominated Southwick to fill a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fifth Circuit, which is based in New Orleans, consists of the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26195
***********************************Endquote***************************************

Geez, maybe she passes Pat Robertson out of committee next time; afterall, he does have a J.D. (law degree).

I guess I'm just feeling a bit peeved tonight.

[jgraz]

1. In order to be let down, we'd have to expect something of her

So no, I've never been let down by DiFi.

[Maat]

8. So true ... (n/t).

[BlackHawk706867]

2. Well you are voting her out, please take Reid and Pelosie with her!

But in all fairness to Feinstein, IMO.... she was upfront on the two border guards situation... It remains to be seen if she follows thru or not.... Time will tell!

ww

[Webster Green]

3. I voted for her Green Party challenger in the last election..

I voted a straight Democratic ballot except for that U.S. Senate seat.

I will never vote for Di-Fi again!

[Maat]

10. I understand (n/t).

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Well, She Does Back A Progressive For President

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=10701

[regnaD kciN]

6. That observation should come with its own laugh-track...

:eyes:

[Maat]

11. Exactly, regnaD KciN! (n/t)

[TahitiNut]

27. LOL!

Indeed.
:rofl:

[leftchick]

47. you betcha!

:)

[jgraz]

28. Bwahahahahha!

That is too funny!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Oh wait -- you weren't serious, were you?

[regnaD kciN]

5. Remember, DiFi only got where she was...

...because her ally in the conservative bloc of the city council, Dan White, got wired on Twinkies and blew George Moscone's brains out. DiFi was able to take over as mayor and, almost immediately, began rolling back Moscone's policies in favor of a more "centrist," business-friendly agenda. :eyes:

Feinstein has been a DINO from the very start. The only reasons for her success in the California Democratic Party have been her gender and religious/ethnic background...if you're a Democrat, you can't oppose her without appearing to be both misogynistic and anti-Semitic -- it's a double helping of guilt-tripping which has lifted someone who should really be a moderate Republican to the heights of power among California Democrats.

[Maat]

12. Yep, that is SO true, once again, regnaD kciN!

[jgraz]

24. I heard DiFi described recently as the most conservative member of the city council...

who wasn't a convicted murderer.

[EFerrari]

58. This city was in such terrible shock, it was a perfect opportunity

for this vampire to make a power grab.

[LeftishBrit]

49. Interesting theory...

so when a woman and/or ethnic minority member, whom one doesn't agree with, gets elected, that must be due to guilt-tripping and positive discrimination? That explains why over 80 of 100 Senators are women - oh, wait..

And the arch-party-traitor Tony Blair only got elected because he was female and Jewish and Black - oh wait...

Thatcher may have been both revolting and female. But she didn't get elected *because* she was female. Supporters of right-wing candidates certainly don't judge on that sort of basis!

[UTUSN]

7. Is there ANY time when a Dem is NOT attacked on this board?!1 n/t

[BlackHawk706867]

16. I'm not sure what your point is, based upon at least the past 48 hours!

And let me tell ya... I am a Dem thru and thru... But they have sold the farm for sure with their votes on FISA... and, and you can bet your ass they are going to hear about this during their month long break in their individual ridings.... The bottom line IMHO is they wanted their vacation, no mater what the cost! I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this!

ww

[AJ9000]

38. Sure, and all too often when you consider their actions. nm

[endarkenment]

53. Do you understand the OP at all? nt.

[Sapphocrat]

9. Let me think a moment.

Um... Nope. She's always let this progressive down.


Btw, hi, Maat! LTNS! :hi:

[Maat]

13. Hi, Sapphocrat!

Hope that all is well!

:hi:

It's nice to chat with you!

[Liberty Belle]

14. Yes, today! Her vote protected women's choice by a 1-vote margin.

While I abhor her vote on some other matters, notably war issues and the FISA bill, she has been a consistently strong voice protecting a woman's right to choose. This e-mail came today from NARAL:

PRO-CHOICE VICTORY IN SENATE – BY 1-VOTE MARGIN

NARAL e-mail (8/7/07) -- Can one vote make the difference between a pro-choice victory and an anti-choice success? You bet it can—and that's what happened late Thursday night on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Pro-choice senators led the fight to defeat an anti-choice amendment to the children's health bill by a vote of 50 – 49. That's one single vote.
Your senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein voted pro-choice. Send them a message now.
The failed amendment, offered by anti-choice Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), would have enshrined a controversial Bush administration regulation into law - forever. This Bush regulation allows states to make an embryo or a fetus—but not a pregnant woman—eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
That's right—anti-choice senators completely ignored pregnant women.
This amendment showed just what anti-choice politicians will do to undermine a woman's right to choose, even if it means derailing a bill that would provide health care for children and working families.

[Maat]

15. O.K., you've come up with an instance.

I guess that I'll have to hold onto that - and think of it - when I think of FISA vote, and of her letting every rightwing nutball (nominated to be on an appeals court) out of committee.

I still say that we could do better.

DiFi, isn't it time for you to retire, and let a REAL Dem in?

[Liberty Belle]

43. I'd support a strong primary candidate against her

if they looked like they could beat a Republican, but in a general election she's still the better choice for now.

Of course continuing to pressure her to take more progressive stances is also important. She saw what happened with Jane Harmon, another pro-war voting Democrat in California who nearly got unseated by a primary challenger, and seems to have shifted a little bit (though not far enough) on the war.

[Wilms]

19. A real Progressive in DiFi's seat would have done the same. n/t

[Maat]

20. So true!

DiFi, I think that you are feeling a bit tired ... RETIRE!

[Liberty Belle]

44. Of course. It makes sense to support a progressive primary candidate, but in a general election,

DiFi vs. a Rethuglican is still the better choice for now. We'd all be wearing chastity belts and serving as baby mills for the Bush Reich if the GOP had its way!

[Wilms]

48. Spare me the histrionics and the but, but, buts.

No one here will vote for a Republican or is talking about doing so. And no Repub has a chance anyway making it safe for progressives to send Di a message by voting Green.

Perhaps some of us are sick and tired of politician voted in and getting lots of campaign contributions just because they arepro-choice...when it isn't as if they're being opposed by one who is anti-choice.

It's a racket.

[jgraz]

21. What California Democrat isn't pro-choice???

Sorry, but at this point it's like saying she's against segregation. Doesn't really cut a lot of ice with me.

Plus, this wasn't exactly a bill to overturn Rowe. In the end, it's not gonna make a damn bit of difference if an abortion case comes before Leslie Southwick.

[marmar]

17. She's been fairly bulldog-ish on Attorneygate.....

Otherwise, she's DINOanne more often than not.

[Maat]

22. Exactly (n/t)!

[cascadiance]

39. I wonder if her motivation there was a lot for her own self preservation...

Given that she resigned out of that appropriations committee and has a cloud over her work there and how her husbands' business might be unhealthily involved, one wonders if she was just as motivated to escalate the visibility of the Attorney scandal perhaps because she was believing that their next target was to go after her and force her out of office to allow Arny to appoint a replacement for 4+ years.

I give her a lot of credit for helping first alerting us to this scandal (more other Democrats should have done so too), but given her record on everything else, I wonder if she had some selfish reasons for doing so. All the same, I still called her office to thank her for this action. Hopefully that will "train" her to work for us, but I'm not holding my breath.

[PeaceNikki]

18. When he was the sole vote against the US PATRIOT Act.

Oh wait...




I kid because some people keep confusing your Senator with mine. x(

[Maat]

23. Waaaaaa ..

:cry:

Is Feingold your senator?

You're so lucky.

[jgraz]

25. Well, we do have Boxer

And she has Herb Kohl...

[Maat]

36. Having Boxer as a Senator ..

well, it's the reason I don't feel like a totally unrepresented individual.

I have Darrell "Rethuglican Tool" Issa as my congressperson.

[PeaceNikki]

26. I am fortunate. But there's a price.

I am in the 5th Congressional District in WI.

Yeah... F. James Sensenbrenner. F him, indeed.

[jgraz]

29. Yeeouch...

but at least you have something to work for. I've got Barbara Lee -- the only time I need to call her is when I want her to run against DiFi in the primary.

[Maat]

30. Oh, Geez!

Life has its ups and downs - as to the Sensenbrenner thing:

x(

[Hippo_Tron]

41. On the bright side, Conyers now chairs his committee

After the Democrats won in 2006 I said that the first item on the House's agenda should be for Conyers to take his gavel and smack the shit out of Sensenbrenner. Payback for shutting off the microphones during the Patriot Act hearing.

[cascadiance]

40. When she voted to fillibuster Alito's confirmation!...

:sarcasm:


Oh wait, she only did that after Cindy Sheehan threatened to run against her in the primaries.

[Neecy]

31. This is what Feinstein, former mayor of SF, is enabling...

Almost every major newspaper in the country has come out against the Southwick nomination, and for good reason.

The New York Times:

A non-negotiable quality for judicial nominees is that they must be committed to equal justice. Judge Southwick, whom President Bush has nominated for a seat on the New Orleans-based United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, repeatedly failed this test as a Mississippi state court judge.

He clearly failed the test when he ruled for a social worker who was rightfully fired for calling a black colleague “a good ole nigger.” Judge Southwick is known for siding with employers over employees — but not in this case. In his ruling, he revealed a thorough lack of understanding of the odious impact of such language when he accepted the social worker’s claim that the use of the slur was “not motivated out of racial hatred or animosity directed toward her co-worker or toward blacks in general.” Judge Southwick did not even vote to direct the state to consider a penalty short of firing, as the Mississippi Supreme Court later did.

And he failed the test when he joined a majority opinion that denied a bisexual mother custody of her child. Adding insult to injury, he joined a concurring opinion that went on to berate the mother for her “decision to participate in a homosexual relationship” and reminded her that one of the consequences of her “exertion of her perceived right” was that she might lose her child.

The Magnolia Bar Association, an association of black Mississippi lawyers founded when the state bar was restricted to whites, has urged the Senate to reject the nomination, saying, “We question whether Judge Southwick will properly enforce the law when it comes to the rights of those who are unpopular and who are marginalized by the political process.” They are right. After his performance as a state court judge, it would be hard for a black person with a discrimination case, or a gay person with a family law issue, to have any confidence that Judge Southwick would treat them fairly.

And THIS is what Feinstein considers worthy of casting her lot with the Republicans for? Says a hell of a lot, none of it good.

[Maat]

33. Exactly ..

thanks for the post.

It's so frustrating.

[Solly Mack]

45. I believe she said Southwick just made a "mistake"

"Judge Southwick is a qualified, circumspect person," Feinstein said. "I don't believe he's a racist. ... I believe he made a mistake" in a handful of opinions.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/08/04/BAR2RCL4V1.DTL&type=politics



Yeah, right....Like Bush makes "mistakes"

[ShaneGR]

32. Another example of why DU just isnt what it used to be....

Seems people think it's more important to pick apart voting records of democrats than Republicans anymore. It doesn't really matter if a Representative votes the party line 95% of the time, if they cross over on one or two, even if its just a committee vote allowing a nominee to get a later vote that means they're a traitor to all liberals. It's ridiculous. Who says she's gonna vote for this candidate during the regular vote? There's so many zealouts out there who want 100% partyline support anymore. It's the "big tent" party for a reason, but we'll probably end up with four more years of some terrible Republican President because people on our side seem preoccupied with tearing ourselves apart.

[Maat]

34. I would argue that it was critical to preserve essential law ..

that the Committee reject letting his name out for a floor vote.

She provided a vital blow to Justice.

It's not like she voted for a minor pet project or something.

I held my nose and voted for her, rather than the Green Party candidate, but I look forward to the day when she retires, and we can elect a true (progressive) Dem in her place.

[Neecy]

35. THEY are tearing US apart

You know what? Almost as much as the FISA vote, Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, Iraq War Authorization Act the rollover on these judicial nominations - and it's been CONSTANT - has been the issue I've been most frustrated about with the Democrats. Why? Because it's the ONE thing that will contribute to a dangerous police state that's just around the goddamn corner.

Put in right-wing zealots and pretty soon our entire judicial branch is a farce, not out to fairly rule on the issues but to throw everything to Bush...and THAT, my good Democratic friend, is going to be fucking blood-curdling if we're attacked again and Bush declares martial law. And don't think it won't happen. The courts are our last line of defense and they're gone...GONE...god help us.

Get off your friggin' high horse and see the damage that's been done. Then tell me why I have to kiss Feinstein's ass or any other Democratic ass who have helped turn our courts into a right wing nightmare.

[MisterP]

37. not to mention the constant browbeating and demands for loyalty

whenever the serfs dissent or even whisper about bolting: I swear, the "moderate Dems" (think Blair and Ronald Brownstein) here and elsewhere have done more to crush dissent against Bush and the neoliberal-neoconservative establishment than 5,000 Freepers

[NuttyFluffers]

51. exactly. politicians must be loyal to constitution and people first, not vice versa

we know the republican base has their head up their ass; why on earth do you want to make their mistakes? you make your party politicians heel to you the people, not the people heel to the party politicians. very simple premise.

i just wish i could hammer that sense of love of country over party and intestinal fortitude to do justice in the party i'm in... i'm a registered republican and for the life of me i cannot reason with any but 10-20% of them -- on a good day, when they're trapped in a bear trap, covered in fire ants. cowards and traitors, the majority of them. don't let your party follow this dark road, too.

[Guaranteed]

42. This counter-argument does not apply to Feinstein.

She has been acting like this for years and years.

[krispos42]

46. We don't have to pick apart Republicans

They universally suck. Like a singularity.


We pick apart Democrats because the 5% of the time they 'wander from the reservation' is on THE MOST CRITICAL AND PUBLIC issue possible! At the time when Democrats are suppose to be pulling together to stop the steamroller that is BushCo, she's wussing out.




Oh, and Feinstein was really hot on the 1993 gun ban, which cost us the House and Senate in 1994. And she's still on the bandwagon about that, too.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Well...

but we'll probably end up with four more years of some terrible Republican President because people on our side seem preoccupied with tearing ourselves apart.

Fortunately the psychotic wing of our party doesn't have anywhere near as much power as it's managed to convince itself that it has. I wouldn't worry too much about the hissyfits on DU.

[endarkenment]

55. "psychotic wing"

What an assholic thing to say.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. OK...

The "ideological fundamentalist" wing. Better?

[endarkenment]

57. No you are just tossing insults,

not engaging in dialog. Not interested, thanks. If you wish to discuss the issue try not starting off with a dismissive insult of all those who disagree with your position.

[EFerrari]

59. What could be more psychotic than putting the AG on trial

AND giving him nearly unlimited power AT THE SAME TIME?

Or, Dianne Feinstein writing to thousands of her constituents to say she has secret knowledge that Hussein is an immanent danger when we knew he wasn't?

Reality check.

[endarkenment]

54. She rarely votes on our side when it matters.

If our party stands for NOTHING then why exactly am I supposed to support it?

[EFerrari]

60. I'm hoping that she'll retire to spend more money with her family

after this term is over.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.