Censure Feinstein? Because She’s Not as Liberal as Governor Angelides or President Kerry?

Well said.

I'm glad there are at least a few grown-ups around to object before we convene the circular firing squad.

That's BS.

You don't have to be Lieberman-in-a-skirt to beat Republicans in California.

Barbara Boxer has won reelection multiple times and she doesn't sell us down the freaking river like DiFi does.

DiFi stands aside while Bush takes a giant crap on the Constitution and the separation of powers. Boxer doesn't. DiFi does not have to sell us out to get reelected.

I don't live in Berkeley and I still think Dianne Feinstein needs a serious talking to. She took an oath to uphold and defend the U. S. Constitution--they all did--and now she wants to give immunity to corporations that collaborate with this disgraceful administration in their anti-constitutional spying on U. S. citizens.

Mr. Cavala sounds relaxed, even fatalistic; I'd probably enjoy his company. But the fatalism seems like laziness or blindness when you assess the erosion of our rights under Democrats and Republicans alike these last seven years.

Where is the principled leadership we need so badly? Could Mr. Cavala encourage Dianne to take a stand on principle, or would that be too harsh and unfriendly?

In his second paragraph, Bill falls victim to the Republicans' best tactic: issue framing. Bill writes, "But Feinstein never claimed to be liberal." One doesn't have to be "liberal" to insist that the chief legal officer in the land unequivocally oppose a particularly brutal form of torture -- waterboarding -- that violates domestic and international law; that judges who issue overtly racist and homophobic opinions should not be confirmed; and that telecommunications companies who assist the government in violating the Constitution and domestic wiretapping laws be held accountable. These should be decidedly mainstream issues, and opinion polls confirm they are. But by claiming these are "liberal" positions, Bill has already conceded them to the Republicans.

It is that sort of concession and unwillingness to stand up against this wildly unpopular administration that caused John Kerry to lose in 2004, not his "liberal" record. The 2008 nominee may well lose (especially if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination) if he or she does not strongly stand against the carnage of the Bush presidency.

This isn't 1992 or 1994. Pete Wilson is out of politics, thank goodness (although unfortunately he works for my law firm now). This president has a higher "strongly disapprove" rating than the previous record-holder, Richard Nixon, and people are hungry for a leader who will stand up to this administration. Not just liberals like us, Bill, but the **50%** of Americans who strongly disapprove of the job Bush is doing. Given this approval rating, it shouldn't be a difficult thing to do.

DiFi is undoubtedly selling out California and the nation. Perhaps your 30 years of Sacramento establishment wheeling and dealing has blinded you to that, just as you think the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is blind to the "give to get" political realities of Washington. (Note that censuring DiFi won't preclude her ability to continue "giving to get" in Washington, nor will it affect our chances of electing a Democratic president. Those are total straw-man arguments on your part.)

Mr. Cavala seems to forget just how bad Feinstein is. The Dem. Party is consistantly writing me asking for my time and money and talking about change. Usually, I am happy to give them both. Feinstein votes against what the Dems stand for. What is the difference of having a Republican in Feinstein's place? The votes would be the same. It would actually be better. I would rather know who my enemy is then have her hide behind a Party she does not support. Boxer on the other hand is a true leader for standing up to what is right. Feinstein would be happy wiping the Constitution with her asrse, Censure Feinstein! Then maybe she will wake up to see just how far to the right she has gone and the damage she has caused.

I definitely agree that nobody would expect a better candidate than Mukasey from Bush; however, it's just plain illogical to try to use that to justify supporting it. To do so is to say that since none of Bush's other nominees will uphold the Constitution, it's ok to accept this one. That's a critical bifurcation. How about not accepting a nominee until it does pledge to uphold our most sacred doctrine?

I understand the political fear of having the Republicans try to prevent nominees Democrats would like to have in office when a Democratic president is in power, but that's why the goal of the Democratic Party should be to make sure they build on their very slim majority. Even if the Republicans try to block a good nominee, 1) that's just morally wrong on their part and 2) if we had the votes it wouldn't matter. I'd like to ask Feinstein, who has no capable way of predicting the future accurately, what has she traded for by doing this? What does she get out of it and how can she guarantee it and even know if the people she made a deal with will be around to follow through?

Somewhere along the way, people like Feinstein and Cavala have decided that "giving" to "get" no longer has to factor into price of getting what you want. But the price we're talking about here is the continuation of seven years of erosion of the very principles this nation was founded on.

As a senator, she has sworn to uphold the principles of the Constitution, but by supporting Bush's agents, she's violating her oath of office by allowing unconstitutional acts to happen.

The Bush administration has done a good job in redeeming political payback from political colleages that has profitted from their War-Time ventures.

In this case Dianne Feinstein has to payback favors the Bush Administration from inside tips of multi-billion dollars war-profitting through investment in in the war in IRAQ.

It has been known Dianne Feinstein and her husband, Richard C. Blum, made out tons of money from the Iraq war the same way that Dick Cheney and Bush Administration.

It was an insider tip that got their friends to profit from stock profits, etc.

Blum's business Perini Corp, like KBR/Halliburton/Blackwater/GE/Bechtel has been awarded BILLIONS dollars worth of contracts in the war in Iraq.

Our elected officials was suppose to be the gatekeepers and does the oversight from these abuses; itstead we learn that they used these power mainly for their personal enrichment.

Dianne Feinstein was able to do damage control when this was found out by censuring the mainstream media from disclosing these facts from the general public. Since Bush administration is well connected to the mainstream media and wall street; it was evidently easier to manage "DAMAGE CONTROL" for Dianne Feinstein political follies.

It is no surprise to me if many more of our elected officials (repub and dems) are all in it for the same game. WE just have NOT YET discover it for now.
WE THE PEOPLE must continue to keep a close eye on them. FOLLOW THE MONEY..........auditors.

Don't censure Feinstein because she' not liberal enough. Censure her because her votes have been a violation of her oath of office.

The Geneva Conventions are treaties signed by US Presidents and ratified by the Senate. Under the Constitution, that makes them the law of the land. By suppoting the Mukasey nomination, Feinstein is violting her oath to uphold the Constitution.

This isn't about politics, Bill. This about right and wrong. If every decision is made through the lens of political advantage then we stand for nothing and Democrats deserve to lose.

The argument that it was okay for Feinstein to vote for Mukasey because as bad as he is, he was the best Bush would nominate, is total nonsense. Yes, someone chosen by Bush will be in charge of the Justice Department until January 20, 2009 -- but that person would not be enshrined in history as the Attorney General of the United States without the consent of the Senate. And no one who refuses to say that waterboarding is torture, and who refuses to say that the president has to obey the law even during wartime, should ever hold the title of Attorney General of the United States. If Bush would not nominate someone who would uphold the Constitution, then Feinstein, like Boxer, should have been willing to let Bush limp to the end of his term with no Attorney General, and an acting A.G. running the department until a new president is sworn in.

Surprise! I actually agree with Mr. Cavala here on Senator Feinstein. (Doesn't she usually get re-elected with a larger margin than her counterpart Boxer due to her being a bit more centrist in representing California?)I actually think this is so unlike Mr. Cavala to take such a position as he displays here. It is both refreshing and shows perhaps behind all the "one party" banter he usually slings in other locations that there is a chance folks of (slightly) different political beliefs can get along and make a better state/country.

Unfortunately, Bill's usual position as the left/liberal/democratic drum beater extrodinair was taken up by many folks blogging here who not only want to throw Senator Feinstein under the bus, but Bill Cavala too for not "toeing the line".

No "big tent" and ZERO tolerence on display here and for members of your own party too, the ones who usually mix the Kool Aid in the first place.

Perhaps the last batch was too strong?

Jay: Take a look at your own party and the crew that is running it. You want to talk about a lack of diversity and an extreme position, look no futher than in the mirror.

The Democratic Party in this state is the largest because of it's diversity and differences of opinions--a view shared by most of those not registered with either party. Its vibrancy is reflected in the debate on Feinstein's actions.

Your rhetoric about throwing Feinstein under the bus is absurd--she's not up for re-election and likely will not run in another 5 years.

Your characterization of Bill as being usually on the left shows you have no understanding of the spectrum of opinion in the large tent Democratic party and of Bill himself.

Tolerance means allowing dissent--whether it is in the form of a censure resolution over important public policy votes and decisions by our electeds or opposition to that. We have both in the Democratic party. That is a sign of our strength. Keep sipping your own kool aid.

Dianne Feinstein has long since abandoned the Democratic party and anyone who hasn't picked up on it is simply not paying attention.

It is extremely important to point out why Dianne Feinstein has turned on the Democrats and why she is making every effort to publicly support the Bush Administration and their horrific policies ... she and her husband, Richard C. Blum, are making money hand over fist from the Iraq war in exactly the same way that Dick Cheney and his friends are ... Blum owns a business (similar to Halliburton) that has been awarded BILLIONS of dollars of contracts in the war in Iraq. His company is called Perini Corporation.

Feinstein has let greed take over and has become a morally bankrupt Republican. She must be stopped!

Read on ...

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49970/

http://www.metroactive.com/fei nstein/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

From Wikipedia:

Corruption scandals and accusations
Between 2001 and 2006[28], Diane Feinstein served as the ranking member of the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, also known as the "MILCON" subcommittee. Feinstein also served as chair of the MILCON subcommittee when the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002.

While on the MILCON subcommitte, Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions of dollars to firms owned by her husband, Richard C. Blum.[5] This included millions of dollars in contracts awarded to Blum's Perini Corporation to provide goods and services in Iraq and Afghanistan.[29]

As the ranking Democratic, Feinstein would have again become chair of the MILCON subcommittee when the Democratically controlled Senate of the 110th Congress was sworn in on January 4, 2007. However, Feinstein resigned from the subcommittee prior to the new congressional term, forfeiting chairmanship of the MILCON subcommittee to Tim Johnson.[30] Metro Newspapers reported that Feinstein's resignation was attributable to a series of articles, partially funded by the progressive Nation Institute, exposing the potential conflict of interest posed by Feinstein's voting to award contracts to her husband's firms.[31] [32]

In April 2007, Feinstein's office denied any ethical conflict,[33] however, the director of the Project on Government Oversight who has examined evidence assembled by investigative reporter Peter Byrne stated that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”[34][35]

Additional scandal arose when it was revealed that members of Feinstein's Senate staff attempted to purge references to these alleged conflicts of interest from the Wikipedia articles on herself and her husband.[36][37]

Additionally, in 1990, Senator Feinstein failed to disclose that her husband had guaranteed her 1990 campaign loans, which resulted in a US$190,000 fine.[38] This information was also initially deleted from Wikipedia by a Feinstein staffer in 2006.[39][37]

Frank: Cavala is 99.999% left in all of his articles I've seen here, many laced with a propagandistic style gleaned from use in other countries not privy to the style of government and debate we have here in the US, warts and all. Usually, his kool-aid is dispensed without any water. This particular article is the ONLY ONE where he defended someone of his own party for "dealing" with republicans/others outside the democratic party/whatever as a choice made to accomplish something vice mere political bickering as Senator Feinstein has here. His article here wanted a little slack for the good senator, no rush to judgement, and I actually agreed with what he presented here. He was taken to task for this by not moderate democrats, but quite the opposite.

In addition, as Bill has also mentioned multiple times a desire for "one party (his party)rule", even if as a "joke" (and I doubt it is a joke to him), plus his mentioning that republicans have something physically "wrong" with their brains, I think that would establish his left leaning stature would it not? Note: He is in YOUR tent is he not?

Why are all the dems bashing Feinstein as of late? Talking about all of her alleged dirty dealings of years gone by? Why was she consistantly re-elected by democrats in primaries and the general election with such a dismal list of bad things presented by democrats and on display here?

Could it be those in your "big tent" is the same or similar as that of the republicans? Maybe an American tent, again warts and all?

Frank, does your "democratic tolerance" extend to others who are not democrats, registered or otherwise? Is your tent that big?

I'll put a couple of ice cubes in your Kool Aid for you! I drink tea...

Sorry, I neglected to mention my observations above included the earlier article here: "Should The California Democratic Party Censure Dianne Feinstein?" by Terry Williams and posted on this website on November 14, 2007.

I naturally assumed Bill Cavala's article here was in response to the heat and venom more on display at that blog string than on this one.

Post a comment