What's with going after Feinstein?

[MaryBear]

It is a strategic error. She may not be as liberal or PC as some might wish, but this is a time to go after Republicans, not Dem's.

[babylonsister]

1. Amen and GD and GD:P needs to hear this also. nt

[fooj]

2. The lesser of two evils?

"PC" isn't Feinstein's weakness. She lost me when she became Condiliar's biggest cheerleader! Blah, blah, blah...I'll be watching to see what "choices" she makes before the next election. Actions speak louder than words.

peace.

[MaryBear]

5. At what cost?

Is she truly evil? I don't think so. Does she vote in every way that I would want? No. Does she work with Boxer to benefit liberal causes and California? Yes. She and Boxer have clout. We have a winning team. Go after Arnold. Go after Republican Congress Members. Keep on with letting Feinstein know what you want. But don't go after her in the primary!

[bliss_eternal]

10. I don't understand--why can't we do both?

Go after Arnold, AND hold her accountable for the crap she has dealt us of late. Oh and she did not stand with Boxer on the OHIO vote, when Boxer needed her most. :wtf:

Sorry, but she brought this on herself. She's toast. I'm sorry it's bugging you that we are taking this stance. :(

[MaryBear]

14. I just see it as self defeating for Dems.

If we could do it all, we'd have the White House and Governorship. We need to go after their weak links, not ours.

[yurbud]

78. it is not an either/or proposition--we could win more by presenting a real

alternative, not a chamber of commerce candidate without the GOP religious baggage.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[cascadiance]

35. I will definitely weigh the other side in a general election...

and vote for her if I think the Rethug has a shot at winning, which I didn't in last election and voted for the Green's Medea Benjamin instead.

But I definitely will vote for the candidate in the primaries who I think will best represent us, incumbency be damned. It shouldn't be too hard to find someone that can represent us better than Feinstein has.

And you know I'd like to think that the senator from California should be one of the strongest political figures in the Senate and maybe in Washington aside from the presidency. That person represents one half of the largest state in the union. Also, as a strong state for the Democrats, I expect someone that doesn't have to "play the middle" to keep many different groups of people happy all of the time. That person should be representing core Democratic values.

I want the senate position for California to be the breeding ground for the white house. I want to see someone that, with a bit of work, can put themselves in position for a run on the white house. Right now, the only one that can possibly do this is Boxer. And I'd hate to see Boxer go to the white house and leave California only represented by Feinstein (and possibly a Rethug if we don't get rid of Arnie next election).

Feinstein (or someone we elect in her place) needs to be that leader. She's the senior senator from California, and as a leader representing our party she's been a joke. She's certainly not as bad as some politicians out there and not even as bad as some Democrats, but she leaves a lot to be desired, and doesn't have the excuses that those other "poor democrats" have of having to play moderate to keep their office.

Wasting time on sponsoring a flag burning ammendment, championing the Communications Decency Act some years back, in favor of encryption stuff like the Clipper chip, etc., paling it up with Condy Rice, taking a real hard line on gun control of all guns but owning one and keeping it concealed herself... (On gun control, I've been generally in favor of automatic weapons and other more violent kinds of weapons, but personal guns are something should be able to have with proper training, licensing, screening, etc.) I've been a little less interested in gun control, as many of my friends and I are seeing in the not too distant future the potential need for guns in the difficult political times ahead. I hate to say that, but it might be true.

Anyway, for years, I've seen Feinstein as more of a big government "control-oriented" person rather than using the government to represent the people's will to stand up to corporations and others that would usurp our lights or exploit us without it being there. Those Republicans in the past that complained about big government could find a lot of allies when pointing to her record, with it not being big government for the average guy like other Democrats might want to try to do. She fits in more with the "feudal lords" society that Bush is trying to push on us than she does with her being our servant to protect us in Washington.

Anyway, I'll vote for someone else in the primaries if I see someone better. But in the general election, I'll probably vote for her to keep us from getting a real lame Repub there.

[ProudDad]

91. I NEVER GET WHAT I WANT

from feinstein. I have written her over a dozen emails in the last two months. Every vote of hers (except the "energy" bill apparently) was against what I asked her to vote for.

Who gives a f*ck if she calls herself a democrat when she almost never acts like one...

[Cascadian]

92. Hear hear!

eom


John

[autorank]

3. She is a Republican, not even lite. Here's why.

1) She voted for the initial Bush tax cut. Imagine that. That's the tax cut that imperils Social Security, the one that gives us the huge deficits the one that gives huge benefits to the top 1% (her strata) and not much but lost social programs to the other 99%.

Is that Republican or not?

2) She voted in favor and supported the Iraq War. Guess what, her husband made oodles of money on the war. I'm not a coincidence theorist. I think that there is a plan here. She lines her own pockets by supporting international aggression and the looting of the American treasury for her own ends and that of her husband.

Sen. Feinstein and her husband make out like bandits on Iraq War

3) She failed to support Boxer on the Ohio challenge. Nuf said.

Challenge her in the primary, make her life miserable, beat her if you can.

[bliss_eternal]

7. Thank you for the link--very informative.

I agree, that her actions have NOT been those that support OUR issues. In that respect, why NOT hold her accountable?

So not cool of her to masquerade around as a sheep in Democrat clothing and throw us to the wolves while she gets fat off the war...

:thumbsdown:

[MaryBear]

8. Not! She is Conservative Dem.

Get her to listen.

[autorank]

16. I'd like that but...

She and hubby got $600 million reasons to listen from the Chimp. What do I have to offer other than the truth. She can't stand the truth!

Sorry. I'd vote for her in the general but would love to see a major primary challenge. Maker her work.

She and McCain get away with seeming "reasonable" while the fleece the public of everything for their crooked cronies. Enough already!

[fooj]

19. I have sent that woman dozens of letters...

I have phoned her office dozens of times. She HEARS us. It's just SELECTIVE. At least, that has been my experience.

peace.

[laugle]

31. Mary bear, we need to make an example out of her,

I felt as you did for 35 years I've been voting. But, I realize now that we cannot keep supporting candidates that don't do the work of the people. And just think if we could oust her, even though she is considered safe, what an example that would set. We do not need a bunch of "lifers" as Strom Thurmond was, in the democratic party. if we continue this way, the congress will not change. I respect your opionion, please respect mine.

[One_of_8]

73. She's a Republican in Democrat's clothing

I used to think that she was a conservative Democrat. But her record speaks for itself.

She voted for the initial Bush tax cut; she was in support of the recent changes to bankruptcy law, and she failed to support boxer on the Ohio challenge. That's not a conservative Democrat -- that's a Republican if you ask me.

I have written to her and e-mailed her several times, to express my concern, my disappointment, and finally my anger and disgust with her voting record. To all, I get a politely worded form letter in reply. The only way to "get her to listen" is if she sees a real drop in how many votes she receives in the next election.

I'm voting my conscience, so I won't vote for a Repug and I will never vote for Feinstein again, even if she's only running for local dog catcher, so my vote will likely go to the Green Party candidate, whomever that may be.

Feinstein is an example of what is wrong with the Democratic party -- funded and run by corporate money, indifferent to the average person, not representative of the people at all. I won't vote for her, no how, no way.

[Melodybe]

23. She also has numerous ties to Enron and her hubby just loves the denfense

industry.

Me thinks that if your friendly with those in the oil and weapons biz then you are friends with the bad guys.

That makes her a bad guy.

Sorry but every time it counts she stands by Bushco, get rid of her.

[yurbud]

79. your link is from a holocaust denial website--but I think it's a legit...

article from the SF Gate.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[bliss_eternal]

4. Are people 'going after her' or are we merely

reminding her of the constituency that voted for her--and what OUR INTERESTS are?

Is that going after her, or asking her to do her job?

[MaryBear]

9. Sure looks like going after her.

I could be wrong.

[mitchtv]

24. I voted to" Dump Dianne" when she survived recall as mayor

She has been a lousy senator and a traitor to the party,in addition to the other things mentioned, she blamed the gays for kerry's loss. We can do better, We have already lost the majority because people prefer real republicans, Sadly if she survives a primary challenge, I will have to hold my nose and vote vfor her again. But, only cause the greens are hopeless and can never win. We are were we are because of *'s tax cuts. She made a bundle on it.

[fooj]

20. I see it as "holding your representative accountable"...

:hi:

[autorank]

26. She was awake when she did these things. "Diane, You're Fired"

:hi:

[laugle]

44. You are sooooo right on -- this is not a vedetta. n/t

[Mojambo]

6. This is a time to go after wrong headed politicians no matter affiliation

I will support a progressive alternative to Feinstein very aggressively.

[MaryBear]

11. What progressive alternative?

How about posting pro (someone) rather than anti (Feinstein). Going after her is like chewing on our own leg.

[Mojambo]

13. As of right now there is no alternative

But voicing dissatisfaction with Feinstein is a step towards bringing alternatives into the discussion.

Nobody is immune from criticism when they don't act in the best interests of their constituents. Feinstein has not and I support finding and promoting a better candidate.

You don't get better options unless you demand them.

[bliss_eternal]

15. That's your opinion and you are of course entitled

to feel this way.

Sorry that our lack of support for her is distressing to you...

[MaryBear]

17. Thank you.

I am more disturbed than distressed, because, as I've said, it is strategically an error.

Now more than ever, Dems and all Progressives need to think and act strategically.

[laugle]

32. Since when is putting up a better candidate not strategic?

If it's a good candidate that can beat her, we should all go for it. At the very least Feinstein will realize that she is not so safe and needs to get to work!!

[mitchtv]

25. Tom Hayden and Anti-war candidate

Priorities, my dear,I will vote for an anti war candidate

[MaryBear]

30. No way, darling,

can Tom Hayden win in this political climate.

Let's put forward and rally behiind good candidates against Repug congress members and to state office. Then with them in place, go after her if she has not done right.

[bliss_eternal]

12. Same here.

Feinstein is full of it...

[fooj]

18. I guess I'm looking for someone to behave ethically and morally.

I'm looking for someone who will not undermine the interests of their own constituents. I'm looking for an American who is willing to restore some honor and integrity in our government. A Senator swears to defend and protect the Constitution...Our Constitution! We should expect NO LESS from our public servants. Corruption is corruption, irregardless of political affiliation. We need leadership. We need it now! We need leaders who courageously speak truth. Personally,I don't care where it comes from as long as it's authentic and in the best interests of this country.

peace.:patriot:

[bliss_eternal]

21. Good points, well said...

:hi:

[Mojambo]

22. Very well put

I get really angry when I hear some establishment Democrat hawing over the stickiness of investigating DeLay's corruption because a few Democrats might have done the same thing.

Well, that is just pathetic.

In my mind, our corrupt guys need to go just as much as theirs!

[MaryBear]

29. I think Diane is ethical and moral.

She is not a Dick Cheney. I agree with much of what you say, however now is not the time to go after her!

[laugle]

33. Why not, and when is a good time?

[Jack Rabbit]

27. MaryBear is right. This is a strategic error.

Senator Feinstein annoys me more than just a little. But let's get our priorities straight.

It wasn't very long ago that I thought Arnold was going to waltz his way to re-election, no matter how little he did to solve the state's problems. The time has come to reassess that judgment. Arnold is vulnerable.

For us progressives, it's a matter of picking the fights we can win. It's going to be a lot harder to get Feinstein out of the Senate than Arnold out of the governor's seat. Moreover, they'll be a lot less payoff to getting Feinstein out even it we succeed in ousting her in the primary and replacing her as a candidate with a progressive Democrat. And then we'd have to work extra hard to get that person elected; we would be running the risk of getting rid of Feinstein only to get a right wing moron instead. Meanwhile, the energy we put into that fight takes away from what we could be putting into something that now looks like a much more obtainable goal that would pay more dividends: defeating Arnold.

Let's concentrate on getting Arnold. If we do, I think we'll be successful in that goal.

[MaryBear]

28. Thank you, Jack.

Both for using my correct name even though I dropped part of yours -- and, more importantly, for so clearly stating the strategic view.

I have no problem going after Feinstein at some point in the future when our democracy is safe.

[fooj]

37. MaryBear- Our democracy will NEVER BE SAFE if we don't

STAND UNITED to protect it. Time and time again, Feinstein's MIA when it really counts. I'm not suggesting that we "go after her"...I'm simply saying that I believe it is high time we demand some sort of accountability. My main focus at the moment remains with the occupants of OUR White House. IMO, Truth is our most powerful weapon!


peace.

[laugle]

34. I say do both!!! Arnold is history anyway!! n/t

[Frances]

38. Arnold is NOT history

Arnold has amassed a fortune from corporations all over the U.S.

No matter who Arnold's Dem opponent is, that person will be smeared morning, noon, and night on every TV station.

Arnold will get free publicity from Oprah and Leno and he'll be on every right wing radio station in the U.S.

And don't forget the tabloids. There was not one word against Arnold in them in the last election because Arnold's friends bought them up. The only story I saw on Arnold in a tabloid had an alien (from outer space) voting for Arnold.

The liberals in Russia and Germany fought each other instead of Stalin and Hitler and look where that got them!

I get REALLY angry at Feinstein many times, but I think focusing on her in this climate is stupid.

[laugle]

40. You are certainly right about smear tactics,

however, remember Arnold only had a 3 month campaign, and smearing him was just beginning, when the election took place. The knife cuts both ways! Same old is no longer working.

We must hold our representatives accountable. Nowhere is the consequences of not doing this, more evident than the current Bush administration.

I was a big, long time supporter of Feinstein, but she has been a big disappointment.

I say, at the very least we should let her know that she is not safe. Putting someone up against her in the primary would certainly be a good idea. Let the people decide.

I appreciate your reply, but please don't call people stupid who don't agree with you. I'm 52 years old and have seen what happens when rep's are not held accountable. Our congress today is the worst I have seen since I started voting 33 years ago.

You know this could be a win-win situation. Feinstein is safe because the republicans won't put up good candidates to oust her, like they tried to do to Boxer. That means, if we put someone up against her, they just might win. Even if Feinstein does become the nominee, she will at the very least, know that she will be held accountable. Feinstein often votes with the republican majority, that's why they like her.

We must hold our rep's accountable to their constituents. Feinstin, has gotten way to comfortable and we need to light a fire under her butt!

[Frances]

41. As I said in my earlier post

I am no fan of Feinstein, but getting rid of her is definitely not my top priortiy. At least she would vote for a Dem to lead the Senate if we ever get a majority

By the way I am older than you are by 10 years. I remember when people said they would not vote for anyone but Gene McCarthy for President!

I agree that this is the worst Congress in my lifetime. But I think the reason is that the Northeast is losing representatives while the Southeast is gaining them. Also, when I was growing up in Alabama, my Senators were racists, but they did vote for populist programs. For example, I went to college on a National Defense Education Act loan which was sponsored by Alabama Senator Lister Hill.

To the best of my knowledge, the Republican Senators from the South are anti-populist as well as (covertly) racist (many did not sign the apology about the lynchings that occurred in our part of the country).

[laugle]

43. Frances, thanks for writing, I'm putting you

on my Buddy list. It's nice to talk with a more mature person. I now know that you understand where I am coming from. I agree, it is not a major priority. I do think it is a darn good idea though! Especially since I started the idea a month ago and took alot of heat at that time. It was my first post in the CA forum, and it really stirred things up. I'm glad that people are thinking about it anyway. Frankly, the forum looks like it could use some new ideas. Problem is, no one seems to be able to come up with a viable candidate, including myself. Hope we talk again. Laura

[Frances]

48. Thanks for putting me on your buddy list

Now I have to show my ignorance. How do you put someone on a buddy list?

I have called Diane Feinstein's office in DC and in CA many times to complain about her votes. Once I was so angry, I threatened not to vote for her in the next election. So I do understand where her critics are coming from.

But sometimes Feinstein votes in a sensible way and I try to call and give her positive reinforcement then.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. Those are excellent points, ma'am

When we vote for a candidate, none of us should expect 100% satisfaction with that candidate's voting record or executive decisions. That's neither reasonable nor realistic. When that candidate runs for re-election, one needs to look at the whole record and make a judgment. It is foolish to make a judgment on one or two votes.

Senator Feinstein has disappointed me often over the years, going back to when I was a young man living in San Francisco and she was a member of the City/County Board of Supervisors, when her detractors from the left called her "Downtown Di". Nowadays, I've got a bone to pick with her about her tendency to continue to give Bush the benefit of the doubt over the war on terror (he forfeited that benefit long ago) and her pro-corporate stance (given her record over the years, I can't claim to be surprised by it).

However, she also takes stands with which I agree on many issues and fights hard for them.

I'd like to see Mrs. Feinstein replaced by a progressive, but it's not going to happen and she would be more likely be replaced by real neocon. If we look at it realistically, we know that Feinstein is going to be re-elected with about 60% of the vote or more.

Meanwhile, I'd settle for replacing Arnold with somebody like Feinstein. It would be at least a modest improvement. Replacing Arnold will take a lot of work by itself, but it is something that can be accomplished.

[laugle]

51. Feinstein has no intention of running for govenor,

she is quite comfortable in her cushy job on the hill. I'd forget about that. I'm sure you agree that giving her a little competition in the primary would be a good thing though. It would at the very least, let her know our dissatisfaction with her voting record.

[Jack Rabbit]

52. I didn't say she did

"Someone like Feinstein" doesn't necessarily mean Feinstein herself.

If I were 73 years old, I wouldn't run for governor, either. Chances are this will be her last run at the Senate.

[davidinalameda]

36. just because someone has a "D" after their name

shouldn't protect them from criticism

Feinstein is not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination

[Conservativesux]

67. She scares the hell out of gunowners that make up a huge voting

block in California, with her constant attacks on firearms and ammunition.

I don't even own a gun, but I am sick and tired of her concentrating on a non-issue like assault weapons bans, laser etching of handgun ammo, and banning handguns, instead of making jobs, the economy and healthcare important.

If we want 4 more years of the Governator, just let Diane and the rest of the anti-gun Democrats in CA keep on doing what they do best, vilifying gun-owners, many who are still Democrats.

[maveric]

39. Draft Juan Vargas!

He's a good candidate to replace Feinstein in 06.

[MaryBear]

42. How much time and energy do we have,

and where do we want to most effectively place it? I agree with much of what has been written in this thread, except the conclusion to oppose her at this time.

In response to the question of when, I would say let's get a top notch progressive to run for her post next time around, after we have won back our country.

[EFerrari]

45. You must be joking.

This horrible b!tch built Centcom. She's used her status to shore Bush up at crucial moments.

She's toast as far as I'm concerned. The blood on her hands won't wash off.

And yes, I will do EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE to get this poor excuse for a human being outta here.

On edit: strategic error, my bald headed granny. I don't vote for or support bloody corporatists.

[Frances]

47. Are you saying that getting rid of Feinstein is your TOP priority?

nt

[EFerrari]

49. No. Top priority is to stop our elections from being stolen

by Diebold.

Getting Dracula out probably ties for number two with getting out of Iraq.

[davidinalameda]

50. I'm not worried about the election here being stolen

getting rid of DiFi isn't my number one priority, but it does rank up there

[MaryBear]

54. Opposing Feinstein is definitely a low priority

here. However, another thread lists a possible alternate candidate who could be a good one, depending on her messages. I'd like to know more about Cindy Sheehan.

[laugle]

53. kick

[Ignoramus]

55. How can people be so casual about dead loved one's x10,000?

Imagine your mother having her skin ripped off of her, or your children being melted with white phosphorous, multiply that agony by 10,000. That's what you should feel when you look at Diane Feinstein.

The BTK killer is an amateur compared to these people. She is a child slaughtering ghoul.

The fact that people can be so detached when thinking about politicians is very frightening. If child slaughtering is done by someone authorized, you can feel at ease about it?

Now, if there is a situation where it is practical to support her over a greater Nazi, so be it, but she is not an ally.

Or, flipped the other way: pick your villain. That person has a human side and surely has some spark of something resembling love of live in them, but that is no excuse for their behavior. A "good person" (i.e. every person) doesn't get to be excused for murderous behavior.

More generally, I think any attempt to pretend to be Republicans, is going to fail to defeat actual Republicans.

The way things are, Republicans look genuine and Democrats look like opportunists, because they don't vote for what they believe, they vote for what they think they can trick people into accepting their politics as part of a sweet pill, and it's completely obvious to the outside observer.

So, it's actual tricksters unburdened by morality (the republicans), against half-assed tricksters how are transparent in their attempt to deceive.

We (the progressives) need a deeply rooted base that is focused on something real that we believe in as the vision that we present. They (the fascists) have that. What they promote, is what they passionately believe.

We need to build the anti-war alternative to pro-war people, because that is actually what we believe and the alternative to it is nothing but a half-assed version of the real thing you get from the republicans.

Or put another way, we can either lose and defeat or base, or lose and strengthen our base. Let's do the later.

[MaryBear]

56. Life is complicated. So are political decisions.

The important thing for Dems is to get behind good candidates. Attacking our own is not the way to go. Have a good alternative? Put her/him forward. But be proactive and constructive, not reactive and destructive. To some of us it feels better. More importantly, it sells better.

[Ignoramus]

58. Authenticity sells

Republicans haven't been winning because they are proactive and constructive. I think Democrats have been losing because they obviously don't promote what they believe in, and it insults the intelligence of the average person.

So, I agree with the proactive and constructive parts, but "not reactive" and "not destructive" should not mean ignoring and accepting people's behavior.

When it comes down to the vote, vote for the most practical person, but don't deceive people by promoting the idea that someone that is a brutal mass-murderer should be thought of as an "ethical person". If you promote that person, be honest, say you recommend voting for them only because they are better than the alternative.

The priority and the message is peace and justice, not political power for anyone with a D after their name.

[laugle]

59. Mary bear, I think the people in this post

have put forth some very constructive arguments for ousting Feinstein. I, for one, am glad to see people having a thoughtful discussion about incumbents. People here obviously feel just as passionate about ridding our congress of useless democrats like Feinstein, in favor of real committed candidates that will do the work of the people. Please don't invalidate others opionions when they don't agree with yours. You have many valid points as do others who disagree.

[MaryBear]

83. Just noticed

a personal statement asking that one poster not invalidate others opinions when they don't agree with that posters. Seems a little like a personal attack.

[IChing]

57. She just voted to support CAFTA

I'm having more and more trouble supporting her even if she is my "other" democratic senator. I won't send her money this time, but might vote for her if ...............

Give me a reason that I shouldn't vote Green on her.

I was almost convinced in this thread until her vote came in.

[laugle]

60. I heard on the radio some dems voted for

CAFTA, damm it, when I heard she was one of them, I just knew it!! Damm, I am soooooooo pissed at her, this republican lite, has got to go. I sure hope we can find a good alternative. I know her poll numbers are high, but I have no doubt, it isn't because she is doing a good job!! The republicans love her, she votes with them!!

[Conservativesux]

65. She is not a true Democrat if she voted for CAFTA, there go more

jobs away from American workers, just like with NAFTA.

She is a DINO, period !

[siliconefreak]

61. absolutely

Thank you, MaryBear. It's good to know that there are still some rational minds here. :)

[ronnykmarshall]

62. I'll second that.

[Conservativesux]

63. She is a rich, spoiled person with no connections to working Democrats

like Barbara Boxer is.

Not only that but her constant harping about banning "assault weapons" again keep gun-owners from voting Democrat.

She is a liablity, not an asset.

[laugle]

64. Kick

[Conservativesux]

66. Boxer=YES!!! Feinstein? =NO !!!!

Feinstein is a DINO, folks !!

[laugle]

68. Please tell me what a DINO is, I keep seeing it?

[Conservativesux]

69. Democrat In Name Only. eom

[laugle]

71. Thank you.

[Cascadian]

70. It's how she votes and her views that are the problem.

The Democratic Party no longer needs Neocon enablers or those not able to fight the Neocons. Dianne Feinstein is a DLCer plain and simple. Her pro-war, pro-corporatist views are one of the reasons the Democratic Party has been led astray. The sooner the Democrats get rid of Feinstein as well as Lieberman, Bayh, Biden, and Hillary Clinton and bring in a new team of Democrats who are willing to no longer compromise and fight the Neocon Neo-Nazi agenda then the better off we'll all be.

Screw the lesser of two evils bit. That's old hat and no longer relevent!


John

[laugle]

72. I agree with most of your post, except,

what is it you don't like about Hillary? New Yorkers, seem to be happy with her. I think she would make a great candidate for President. Although, I know many people disagree.

[MaryBear]

74. "Neocon Neo-Nazi agenda " ?

Di is not the Progressive I'd wish for, and she has my vote in this election!

Let's grow someone to replace her next time around.

[Conservativesux]

76. Feinstein is a hypocrite, She packed a concealed handgun for years

but claims to be for responsible gun-control measures.

Wastes her time and ours on attacking assault-weapons, which are a non-issue in California where they are still banned by state law.

Dont just talk the talk, walk the walk, Dianne Feinstein.

Voting for anyone but DiFi in 2006!

[MaryBear]

81. Her colleagues were murdered.

That she was able to function at all after finding body is amazing. Diane seems to be pro-business. That does not mean she votes for profit over saving lives. Were California bases closed in the last round? Could she have had something to do with them staying open? Kicking this is a lot of energy spent that could be used well in going after REAL Repugs.

[Cascadian]

88. Seeing that I am going to be a California resident in 2006....

I don't plan to vote for her. I simply cannot.


John

[laugle]

75. Check out the discussion on DiFi in GD&P

Kick it again!!!

[yurbud]

77. It's not liberal or PC, it's corporate whoring and war-mongering

Despite being liberal on cultural issues, she's carried a hell of a lot of water for Bush, and her husband got a contract in Iraq. We'd be better off with a real democrat, not someone who pays lip service but stabs us in the back in the clinch.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[EFerrari]

80. Exacty. The b!tch voted for the war with dollar signs in her eyes,

not with our kids in her heart.

Why is she "representing" us?

[MaryBear]

82. Diane doesn't need dollars signs in her eyes.

She is wealthy. I can't claim to know what is in her heart. Go after Republicans!

[EFerrari]

85. You really don't get it.

Why don't you do a little research on her yourself.

And in going after her, I am going after "republicans", something you would know, if you knew ANYTHING about her.

[MaryBear]

86. The attack here is a little personal.

Having lived in the Bay Area my entire life, part of that time in the City, I know Diane's politics well, AND I see her as a very conservative Democrat, not as a Republican. AND Very conservative Dem that she is, I still do not agree with the vilification of her that is done by some here. If we had a Progressive Dem majority, I might support opposing her. Things being what they are, as I've said repeatedly in this and other threads, I believe going after Diane to be a strategic error.

[EFerrari]

87. We disagree. n/t

[bliss_eternal]

84. Are we still going 'round on this issue?

I thought some of us decided she isn't worthy and we would be holding her accountable for that, while others agree to disagree.

:shrug:

[mountebank]

89. I for one would work to oust her.

Her constiuents contacted her PRE-vote on the IWR begging her to listen to reason (in HUGE numbers proportional to those in favor of the IWR). Instead, she listened to phony secret intelligence. I've written several letters (some signed by as many as 20 CA residents) asking her, if nothing else, to apologize for her vote, to say she relied on secret evidence instead of her constiuents and that she was duped. Needless to say, I've never heard anything back except form letters that did not address my concerns.

Feinstein is a phony, a horrible politician, and she should go. She bears some responsibilty for the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq resulting from the war.

California politics is a priority of mine, and that includes replacing centrist Dems with candidates more "in touch with the people." If nothing else, I will cast a blank vote for her office in the next election. It will send a message of accountability. Maybe such thinking will swing that particular election to a Republican, but I believe in the long run, it would tilt CA toward more progressive, accountable politicians.

Felt the same way about Daschle. I'm not sorry to see him gone.

[mountebank]

90. Hey - how about that Feinstein CAFTA vote, eh? n/t

[ProudDad]

93. She should be defeated

in the primary. I hope that an actual democrat will run against her in the primary and beat her.

I will NOT vote for her. I didn't last time and I won't ever!

She's 90% wrong. That's the same as a repuke to me...

[cascadiance]

94. The only way I'm voting for Feinstein is...

if she's facing a less desirable Rethug who might beat her in the general election. I think all would agree that voting for the lesser of two evils is better there.

But I will be consciously looking for someone better to vote for in the primaries (thankfully now that I'm a registered Dem instead of an independent, I'll have more say in that now), and if she's facing weak opposition in the general election, I might again look for someone like the Green's Medea Benjamin to vote for instead.

We need a real progressive leader in congress from California to fix things for the better again. Feinstein is not that person! For a while I thought it might be worth offering a "trade" to her of going after Arnie in the governor's seat (so that we could get her out of congress), but now Angelides is looking pretty strong to help us there too.