Primary challenge, anyone?
Posted by Mister Go at November 9, 2007 03:03 PMIt's a little too late for that, Mister Go, since she just got elected last year, not with my vote thank you very much.
People need to demand she resign as she is not representing her constituents or her state.
And yes, that means Schwarzenegger gets to appoint a replacement.
Posted by Duckman GR at November 9, 2007 03:53 PMWhat a disgrace. This is absolutely terrible. What a horrible week for her. Yeah, I agree, throw her out on her ass, California. Jesus.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 9, 2007 04:09 PMLet's start a movement to dump her ass.
Posted by smooth at November 9, 2007 04:29 PMDo they have a DINO recall clause in Cali?
Posted by TIKI AL at November 9, 2007 05:48 PMFeinstein has been, and will always be, a hooker.
The telecoms have my info,they have yours, and they have Feinstein's. The only one prostituting this is Feinstein.
She is a tool, so she expects US to be a tool.
It's over when US--YOU want it over!
An issue dear to my heart -- Feinstein is not the "new" Lieberman because she's been like Lieberman all along. I've never not voted for a Democrat, but last election I skipped voting for the senator. I could not in good conscience give her my vote. What it's interesting is that it's now that the liberal bloggers are noticing. Feinstein has been voting with the Republicans on important issues, but because the Republicans had the agenda, it was not noticeable. It took a massive call effort on those opposing Alito to get her to vote against the man. The excuse is that she is a "centrist". I keep calling, writing letters and e-mails to her office every time we need her vote, but she continues to vote her interests, not those of the Democrats and Californians. Feinstein is a lost cause. I'm almost ready to give up contacting her to vote Democratic.
Posted by Prabhata at November 9, 2007 09:28 PMI think it's touching that so many people want so badly to believe that the Democratic leadership *must* be somehow being forced, tricked, or threatened into their positions, or perhaps at best making "mistakes" and being "spineless", instead of grasping the more logical, albeit depressing insight, that they are actually doing what it is they wish to do, and that the results of their policies which we all can foresee each time are in fact the results they want.
Posted by El Cid at November 10, 2007 12:02 AMcome now, is anyone surprised after this Vichy Democrat voted for Mukasey?!?!?!?
Posted by gay veteran at November 10, 2007 06:49 AM Nothing new here. I remember a friend from San Francisco bitterly denouncing her for treachery 20, maybe 25, years ago when she was a city supervisor.
This is only expected after the Mukasey vote. The Senator from one of the most liberal states is screwing her base to side with Mr 28% Bush.
Posted by Pete at November 10, 2007 07:27 PMWhat's weird about this is that no telecom's seem to be in Feinstein's list of top contributors.
Posted by The North Coast Curmudgeon at November 10, 2007 09:38 PMmore on this Vichy Dem from Glenn Greenwald:
Two months ago, Dianne Feinstein used her position on the Senate Intelligence Committee to enable passage of Bush's FISA amendments, granting the President vast new warrantless surveillance powers.
Last month, Feinstein used her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ensure confirmation of Bush's highly controversial judicial nominee Leslie Southwick, by being the only Committee Democrat to vote for the nomination (The Politico: "Sen. Dianne Feinstein had emerged as a linchpin in the controversial nomination").
This week, Feinstein used her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to enable confirmation of Bush's Attorney General nominee by ensuring that the frightened Chuck Schumer didn't have to stand alone (Fox News: "Schumer's and Feinstein's support for Mukasey virtually guarantees that a majority of the committee will recommend his confirmation").
And now, Feinstein is using her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee -- simultaneously -- to single-handedly ensure fulfillment of Bush's telecom amnesty demands, as her hometown newspaper, The San Francisco Chronicle, reports:
Feinstein backs legal immunity for telecom firms in wiretap cases....
Posted by gay veteran at November 11, 2007 08:17 AMIf you read the arguments about surveillence and the statutes, the White House deems that it has the power, notwithstanding any law passed by congress and signed by this or any former president, to ignore the law if it concerns issues of national security. Essentially, everyting is "national security" in the mind of this administration, hence, the president can surveil and record any communications.
This gets to the Feinstein issue. As long as the president can used "national security" as an issue all congressional communications seem to be subject to surveillence.
How can we have any confidence in our government's decisiion making process if there is a real possibility that the congress is being watched, recorded, and cataloged?
How do we know whether strange votes are the result of honest decisions on the part of lawmakers or whether there is massive blackmail going on against the congressional branch of government?
Once the basic principles of rule of law and privacy dissappear, all confidence in the government dissappears also!
Posted by Nobody at November 11, 2007 09:04 AMRight On brothers and sisters. Remember her husband has done real well for himself with this war on us! She needs to go the sooner the better!
Posted by Rocket 88 at November 11, 2007 08:53 PM