Just sent this t the DNC and Diane Feinstein

[nadinbrzezinski]

I just sent this to Senator Feinstein, now that she has said that she will go ahead and give alito the nod... do not bother asking for money, or support until you do something for the people of this country... that is ACT LIKE A FUCKING OPOSITION PARTY! What will it take? maybe we truly need a SECOND POPULIST PARTY TO RISE FROM THE ASHES, like they did in the 1870s!

_______________________

So you will vote for alito... ok, in 2006 I will NOT vote for you. Not in the primaries and if somebody runs against you, they will get me to work aginst you HARD. Oh and don't expect me to choose the "lesser of two evils either." Whoever the Greens run will get my vote for US Senator at the Novenber Election. I will also make the Party very aware of this. You are a DLCer, and your vote for jusdge alito, as well as other votes (Bankrupcy bill comes to mind as well as others) have ensured that I, in good conscinece, cannot vote for you. Why not go all the way, and just change your party affiliation?

Yes, you lost what you treasure and need the most every six years... a vote.

By the way, Judge Alito will make the Senate and the House irrelevant, or did you miss what Unitary Presidency means? Why not cut the charade and declare the President King? Oh and cancel the Constitution while you are at it.

Advise and consent, my ass... more like roll over!


---------------

Oh and it is not a threat!

[William769]

1. That is a threat to the Democratic Party

We are a big tent & if you decide to leave we will just find someone to replace you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Big party my ass

you know what the Third Way truly is? They have shown their faces repeteadly.... they are fascists... and insofar as Diane Feinstein is concerned, she will NOT have my vote... no way, no how... by the way you DO know how this works, don't you? Enough people make noise from the trenches... and at the last possible moment votes change, as well as points of view. I just took my threat to the party as well... they need that.

Or are you telling me that you will vote for a D regardless of what they do?

If you do... no better than that Rs.

[William769]

3. I'm a yellow dawg!

Remember 2000! Thats all I got to say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Remember the New Deal

started with the Progresisve Party in the Texas Prairie in the 1870s, sometimes you need threats and even third parties to wake them up. If we lived in a nation of proportional representation... third partise wouldl be more than viable. We don't, so until then, third parties have an important role and IF ENOUGH Americans have had enough, the same thing that happened in the 1870s will happen again... and I can guarantee one of the two parties will pay attention. I am inclined to believe it will be the Dems.

And again, insofar as Dianne Feinstein is concerned I cannot in good conscience vote for her... it is either not vote, and stay home, or vote green in november. Now if the Dems run somebody against her in the primaries, that candidate will get my shoe leather and my funds, as limited as they are.

[pretzel4gore]

11. we won in 2000, goddamit!

and feinstein knows that as well as kerry, gore, clinton, lieberman or dean....sheeze

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Yep we did

we also won in 2004 but our DLC leadership folded

[William769]

16. Without the Nader freaks (third party)

There would have been no doubt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Actually every analyst

has said the victory was clear... why don't you blame the correct people for this?

Our leadership for folding (they should have challenged the whole thing in the electoral college)

And the United States Supreme Court.

By the way, thanks for calling me a freak... enough threats like this an the DNC might just realize they are loosing the base.

Oh and you cannot afford to loose the base... so that is when you will see some fast foot work, we call it tap dancing by the way.

Oh and I will add, who is still fighting the Ohio Battle? Oh yes, the ones who have the least to win from it.. the Greens... strike me of interest... just things that make me go HMMM....

[William769]

25. It was challenged in the U.S. Supreme court

:eyes:

But why should you care, you for voted for The freak.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I voted for Gore thank you

and I voted for Kerry thank you

I have worked for the party.

What part of you are blaming the wrong people for a coup d'etat are you missing?

you are a yellow dog, and like a Repub I know who cannot lay blame on any of his party... you are in many ways no better. What makes Democrats great is the fact that most of us do hold our leaders responsible. Now over the last five years, paying attention to the ongoings at CSPAN and others I have come to realize just how many conflicts of interest the US Senator in question, who got my vote in 2000 (she just lost it for 2006) has. Her hubby is president of National Defense, (Makers of the Bradley), Her foreign policy stinks and her national policy is not that much better.

Yes I will take them to the wood shed, and I have an independent mind... and will do all I can to unseat her... first in the Democratic primary if any body runs, and then in the National election. In her case it is a choice between a Republican, a Democrat who will vote with the Republicans when it counts, or somebody else... in her case it is somebody else.

Oh and increasingly more and more California Democrats have reached this conclusion, and have let the party know of it... if the party chooses to ignore this... they will loose those votes in November... again the role of third parties in waking them up... history is instructive... by the way there is a saying, fisrt is California, then it is the rest of the nation.

[William769]

29. In post #16 you said "By the way, thanks for calling me a freak"

I was clearly referring to the people that voted for Nader. So what was that comment about? If you voted for Gore good for you, but then how did I call you a freak?

ON EDIT: trying to liking me to the Repukes, need I say more?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I INTEND to vote green in that particular election

and to you anybody voting third party is a freak... so thank you.

Now hopefully the State Party will get it, and ask the good senator to just bow down and not run... RIGHT with her war chest... right, yeah, maybe in an ideal world they would.

[William769]

37. Yes anybody voting third party is a freak IMHO

Being a Democratic message board I can say that. Just like I can bash the Republicans. If you don't like what I have to say about third party's I suggest you find a third party freakish board to go post on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. You are entitled to your opinion

and in my opinion blind party loyalty, regardless of who does it... is a sign of a non independent mind.

Fair enough?

On edit, blind party loyalty is also a perfect recipee for corruption.

[cry baby]

50. If the dems forget their left leaning folks, then they will lose them

again to a third party. I don't think you can marginalize people that want to keep the party different than the repub party. The left needs to be satisfied, too.

BTW, far left people aren't freaks. I wish they hadn't voted for Nader, but the dem party didn't represent the left's vision. Nader is very persuasive and pulled on anti-corpiration people hard.

[mitchtv]

9. Nadine Please..

an email address for senator Finefix? mine keeps getting returned

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. why do you think I also sent the same to the DNC?

that is not an empty threat, and I supect Dean is starting to hear more and more of this.

[Steve A Play]

52. Our "representatives" need to hear more of this.

Don't be surprised if you get a snail mail back from her office in a couple of weeks explaining why what she did was best for you despite what we, her constituents, wanted her to do. I've received many over the last several years. :(

I save them to mail back to her with a copy of my original letters at campaign donation time. :)

Diane's Iraq War vote is what finally woke me up. I called, e-mailed, and snail mailed all sorts of information to her office, much of it gleaned off of this very site. (Thank you William R. Pitt and W. Scott Ritter.) Despite her knowing what most DUers knew at the time, she voted for it. I was in shock. My shock turned to anger when I received a letter from her office explaining that even though the feedback from her constituents was running thousands to one against her signing, she had decided to "follow her conscience" and vote for it. The letter went on to state that she hoped I would understand.

Here's part of a letter I sent to her office in response,

No Ms. Feinstein, I don't understand, and I never will. We voted for you to represent us and you betrayed our trust. You voted to give unprecedented power to a maniac who has used the power you helped give him to subvert the Constitution that you swore to uphold and defend when you took office. You did what was 'politically expedient' to protect your career rather than do what is Constitutionally correct to protect your constituents and country. For that, I can not forgive you. I will go out of my way to find a real Democrat who exhibits real Democratic ideals and is willing to do what is Constitutionally correct to run against you in the next election. Failing that, I will vote for whatever candidate is willing to actually represent my Democratic ideals or not vote for a Senator at all.

If having no choice but to vote for people like Diane Feinstein is what the Democratic party has become, then the party is no longer the same party I joined 28 years ago. If democraticunderground is not a site where Democrats can work together to place our representatives on notice, and demand better of their representation of us, then perhaps I erred in signing up here. I did not join the Democratic party to become a cheerleader for them, I joined because they once spoke for me. My core ideals haven't changed in the last 40 years or so, nor has my belief in the wisdom of the ideals embodied in the Constitution of the United states.

It's sad to see so many here turn into cheerleaders for the party rather than expecting the party to be cheerleaders for their ideals. After all, that's why we voted for them to represent us in the first place, isn't it? :shrug:

A vote against your best interests by a Democrat is no different than a vote against your best interests by a Republican.

Steven P. :kick:

[cosmicdot]

40. I don't think she accepts email to an email address

she's makes you use her embedded website form

http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

... to correspond with her (which I find annoying, especially if one wishes to 'cc' other Senators and Representatives with the same message/same topic - I find that limiting to our ability to communicate effectively with our Congress members)

[...of J.Temperance]

22. Re. Big party my ass...you comment about it being a big party right after

You send Senator Feinstein an email telling her off for not voting the way that you want her to vote.

We're a big party because we hold many views and we can't all agree on everything all of the time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Unitary Presidency

lets get over it, lets declare george King... for life.

THat is where this big tent idea is taking us to... they are punting again...

[...of J.Temperance]

30. We cannot afford a Third Party...remember 2000 and Ralph Nader?

It was the Third Party voters that were responsible for Junior getting in. Without the millions of Nader votes...Florida 2000 wouldn't have even mattered, because Gore would have had a million vote lead.

Of course if just enough people don't vote for Senator Feinstein and vote Green instead...then this will mean that California will have a full-on Repuke Senator...and that helps us in the Senate how?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. EVERY INDEPENDET ANALYSIS of the election found that

gore won... blame the USSC not the third parties... But I know it is far easier to blame Nader than to blame the USSC for a COUP.

By the way I find it of interest that the only ones still in the fight in OH are the greens...

[...of J.Temperance]

35. The reason that Gore v Bush was so close was BECAUSE of NADER

If Nader would have fucked off with his fucking weasel lop-sided face...the majority of Nader voters would have held their noses and voted for Gore...thus Gore would have had at least a million vote lead WITHOUT Florida...and then the USSC wouldn't have had to have gotten involved would they?

The reason why the USSC got involved is because Nader made the 2000 close enough to steal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Read bush v Gore

they were going to get involved, and there is no legal precedent for that one.

Again, the USSC enabled a coup... stop blaming those who are STILL fighting for your votes... and sad to say, it is not the democratic party who is on this issue like a fly... it is the greens as a party. Some dems are involved, some deeply involved, but not the party.

[Steve A Play]

53. The difference between what Nader did and what the Supreme Court did

is that what Nader did was legal and part of the way the system is supposed to work. What the Supreme Court did was unprecedented in US history and a clear violation of the their Constitutional role and the first step toward a fascist government. :(

[pretzel4gore]

28. oilito is the last straw....

after bush gets this crook onto the sup curt, and the pigmedia are shovelling like hell to cover up the countless lies; at some point we the people gonna have to shoot EVERYBODY who's great grandpa graduated from university, EVERYONE! you want that?

[...of J.Temperance]

33. Could you explain that? I got confused at the "we're gonna have to shoot

EVERYBODY" comments.

Why are we going to have to shoot anyone?

[pretzel4gore]

41. the idea is that we the people have been too mind fukked

too much misinformation has been passed off, for too long, on purpose...and a simple solution to that is to take everybody who has done well over past couple generations/post ww2 years and liquidate ALL those whose family is part of the intelligensia; sorta like the goofball khamer rouge did in cambodia. IF the guilty so effectively hide themselves within society, while the poor and working/middle class has been burdened with a hopless mess for at least a couple generations, the anger will be so intense that, unable to locate the guilty, we be FORCED to use class as the litmus and SHOOT all those who MIGHT be involved (and with hurricanes devastating coastal areas, the rest of planet torn up in hideous suicidal conflicts, all trust and commonality forever destroyed, WE THE PEOPLE remember that all this was a result of the Scumminatti fukking with the press, the democratic system, the business community and everything else for no reason but some stupid winner take all scheme to privitize decent life and education/health etc for 'rich white people' or whatever....

[...of J.Temperance]

44. I think we need to calm down :) Nobody is going to be shooting anyone

There's going to be no liquidation program.

[pretzel4gore]

47. haha...you're right of course

i guess i'm just saying that too much of this congame within congame politics (and exacerbated by modern technology etc) makes sorting out fact from fiction tough, even for those who're interested, and when an unstoppable force such as an embittered electorate is frustrated too much...well, then anything's possible. It seems so obvious that even a hard core republican would see that what has happened has been possible thanks to alot of very crafty manipulation of newsmedia; yet is it possible that the people are starting to recognise the fraud? and as one who's read history a bit, as you probably have, to be optimistic is fine, but believe me, this stuff will be seen simply as good versus bad when the bills start coming in with immediate payment demanded....

[Innocent Smith]

46. genocide

I'm not quite smart enough to figure what all the solutions are, but I'm fairly certain that genocide of any sort is not the solution to anything.

[...of J.Temperance]

48. Hey your comment tells me that you ARE smart :)

:)

[pretzel4gore]

49. i'm not advocating this for god's sake

just that the american people have been screwed bigtime, and one feels when they identify the culprits, we can only guess what's going to happen- also, their efforts to blame clinton et al will finally expose the entire rightwing to its own worst instincts...

[jillan]

4. Today on FTN she said she was NOT going to vote for Alito

She said that she thinks he is worse (more conservative) than Roberts.

I'll try and find the transcript.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. that is not what she said earlier

they are counting emails like mine...

[pretzel4gore]

18. she should be leading a hunger strike!

what about creeping coup d'etat don't the democrats understand?

[rodeodance]

27. but sees no need for filibuster=so cancels out the no vote. get

it.

[jillan]

34. I think she can be persuaded by the other dems

She really dislikes Alito. She was awesome during the hearings. I thought she was one of the most thorough. She is concerned.

If the dems decide to do it, I bet she will go along.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. that is the reson for emails

they need to hear it

[pretzel4gore]

5. she buys bush time...they all do

this moral pervert can see justification for okaying a goon like oilito, despite the fact he lies right to the face of his peers, and that bush is a criminal the likes usa has never seen. yet feinstein ....nevermind what i think of feinstein, except i knew she was one of them a long time ago.....

[still_one]

8. actually she didn't say she would vote for alito

she said she wouldn't support a filibuster

that is the reason I won't vote for her

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. that's enough for me

we need soembody else to run aginst her in the primary... a progresive

[still_one]

15. I agree

[journalist3072]

14. Well, I posted this in other threads today...

But I thought it deserved to be posted here too. Here's the text of an email I just sent to Feinstein.

Sen. Feinstein:

I am writing to you, to express my extreme disappointment that you have spoken out against a filibuster on the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

Specifically, you said: "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster. This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

Sen. Feinstein, there are several issues at work, which do indeed make the nomination of Samuel Alito filibusterable.

First, the Vanguard case. As you very well know, he promised the Senate during previous confirmation hearings, that as a judge he would recuse himself from any cases involving Vanguard. And you know that he failed to live up to that promise.

I was very disappointed when Sen. Chuck Grassley told Judge Alito not to "lose any sleep" over the fact that he lied to the Senate, and failed to recuse himself from the Vanguard case. I find it unacceptable that a United States Senator would tell a nominee for the Supreme Court to not "lose any sleep" over having lied to the Senate about recusing himself from certain cases.

Secondly, I believe that the issue of Judge Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) makes his nomination filibusterable.

As you are well aware, Judge Alito bragged about his membership in CAP when he applied for a job in the Reagan Administration. During his confirmation hearings, he disassociated himself from the organization, and said he did not subscribe to their views.

If Judge Alito joined an organization without knowing full well what the organization was all about, but subsequently bragged about his membership in the organization to get a job in a conservative Administration, that clearly calls into question his integrity. Did he falsify a federal job application simply to gain employment?

Thirdly, I believe what makes Judge Alito's nomination filibusterable, is his failure to fully disclose his views on vital issues. He refused to say how he would have ruled on Bush v. Gore, a case that obviously has already come before the Supreme Court. He refused to answer whether or not he thought Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land, a question that John G. Roberts answered during this confirmation hearings. He also refused to answer whether he thought an innocent person had a right not to be executed.

Sen. Feinstein, one of your colleagues, Sen. Arlen Specter, published a book in 2000 entitled Passion For Truth. In that book, he wrote:
“The Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views.”

I'd also like to remind you, Senator, that contrary to the talking points of many Republicans, and George Bush himself, the President of the United States is NOT entitled to an up or down vote on any nominee.

Sen. Feinstein, because I am not a constituent of yours, I do not expect to get a response to this message. But I felt compelled to write to you today. As a resident of the District of Columbia, I pay federal taxes just like every other American citizen. However, I have no representation in the United States Senate. I have no Senator from the District of Columbia, working on behalf of my interests, who I can write to and urge to vote against Samuel Alito.

Yet, if Judge Alito is confirmed, the decisions he makes on the Court will affect me just like they affect other American citizens who do have representation in the Senate.

Lastly, I am afraid that many Democrats are resisting a filibuster of Samuel Alito, for political expediency (fear of backlash from certain constituents). I believe many Senators know filibustering Judge Alito's nomination is the right thing to do, but fear backlash.

So I would like to leave you with these words from Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and urge you to filibuster Samuel Alito.

"On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right? There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. bravo, you did better tham I did

I epxect to get bounced soon enough from her website

[depakid]

20. but fear backlash.... fear being the operative word

Cowardice being the more accurate term.

The real backlash is if they don't filibuster. Who cares about a "backlash" among people who aren't going to vote for you anyway? The backlash they should fear is the one among their base, who are going to stop giving money and support- and among those who aren't always inclined to vote- because they're going to stay home.

If the Dems punt here- they're going to lose in 2006 (again). Just watch.

[journalist3072]

21. You hit the nail on the head there!

They really should fear OUR backlash.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Which is the one I pointed to

they can go over records, they will find I have given time, money and effort to the party...

[yknot]

42. Shoulda said, "You'll have to Diebold me to get my vote" n/t

[LunaC]

43. She lost me when she voted to approve Condi

"Condi is my friend" she wrote in response to my complaint to her. Cronyism above constituents. I see.

I'll be fighting to oust her too!

[Innocent Smith]

45. she's not voting for Alito

nt

[cosmicdot]

51. she voted for the Medicare Rx Disaster Bill, too

... along with Baucus (wonder if Abramoff lobbied him), Breaux, Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Landrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Nelson (Nebraska),Wyden ... if it's on the Radical Republican agenda ... what do you need to do? Buy a clue??

and, commented it's better than no bill at all, and a victory for senior citizens ... yo, Dianne, it's just not for Seniors ... common 'mistake' leaving the disabled out of the picture; and, it was a victory for Republicans, corporations, and, right-wing think tank money; and, a defeat for the New Deal/Great Society ... what else did you 'factor' in for betraying people over profits? Were you looking to see if you had investments in Big Pharma and Bu$h's insurance buddies which are picking up some 'extra' monthly premiums in order to pimp meds for Seniors and the disabled?

Didn't you notice the bullying which caused the House vote to flip from defeat to passing, and the unconscionable tactics used? The vote was kept open until Hastert/Delay got the vote they wanted at 6 a.m. Wasn't that a 'hint'? Call a friend, Dianne, not a corporation. Her personal finance statement comprises 139 pdf pages at opensecrets.org ... a big file to open @27.19MB ... of course, up until about 2004, the Carlyle Group held 21.74% of her husband's URS. That's pretty close to the BFEE and this White House policies in my book. Even if her investments are in a Blind Trust, it should not take rocket science knowing what businesses are doing well. I'd rather it all be out in the open.

High on the list of things not covered in the bill is a mechanism to stem rising prescription drug costs. ~snip~ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who supported the bill, said the lapse was a 'major weakness in this bill'.
...The theory is that private sector competition will drive down the cost of drugs', Feinstein said last month upon the bill's passage. 'That may happen, or it may not happen. We need to watch that, and we will. I feel confident that the leadership will make changes if the cost containment is not kept'. ~snip~

Big major weakness ... Dianne, just knowing this was another orwellian 'reform' bill from this corrupt cabal's agenda should have been enough to oppose it ... who were you listening to re 'theory' and wait-n-see how it goes policies? Hey, if it all fails and people are hurt, at least the investor class can profit along the way, right?

Here's her "justification" for voting for the kick-off bill of the right-wing agenda ... the 2001 tax cut ... the bill that set the stage for everything against the progress our Nation has made -- pulling the plug in the tub. She might as well cut the ribbon at the destruction site.

I guess she's figured out it's 'safe' to vote against Alito while appearing to be concerned. In her heart, I think she's pulling for Corporate America.

If she didn't 'warn' about filibustering Alito as the editors at AP suggested {Feinstein Warns Against Alito Filibuster), she should state loudly and publicly that the AP misrepresented her. Will she criticize corporate media?

"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

When your country's fate is on the line like it is at this moment in our history ... "it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court" is a huge sell-out in view of what's going down in this country. Stolen elections are hijacking the federal courts, our lives, our country, our destiny; and, Dianne's 'OK' with it. A filibuster is the patriotic thing to do.

I previously sent my 'filibuster!' message to her ... the response had no 'fight' in it ...

Thank you for writing to me about the nomination of Judge
Samuel Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the
Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome this
opportunity to respond.

Now that the President has put forth another nominee to succeed
Justice O'Connor, the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a
member, must fulfill its obligation to thoroughly review his record,
read his opinions and evaluate his judicial philosophy.

This new justice will be critical in the balance with respect to
rulings on Congressional and Executive authority, as well as a woman's
right to privacy, environmental protections, and many other aspects of
Constitutional law. Since Judge Alito has been nominated to fill
Justice O'Connor's seat, the extraordinary importance of this nomination
cannot be overstated. Having said that, I intend to reserve judgment
until our due diligence and the formal hearings in January are completed.

Once again, thank you for sharing your views with me. I will be
sure to take them into consideration as the nomination process moves
forward. Should you have any additional comments or questions, please
feel free to contact my office in Washington, D.C. at [phone].



Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator


Heck, she even helped to give Smirk additional federal court seats to fill. Up to 8 additional Federal Society getting life-time appointments ... that's the way to reward a coup d'etat administration http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases01/sdjudge.htm ... give'em more power.


glad she wasn't around c. 1776 ... she'd probably be saying: although I disagree with King George, it doesn't mean he shouldn't be king ... or we don't have the colonists to oppose the Red Coats ... anyone want to buy some tea or stamps?