addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [dfa-23] FYI>Reactions to the Feinstein Censure gathered by Margaret Lawrence!

From: dschmidt
Sent on: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:30 PM
This is a great effort.  I gave up voting on Dianne years ago.  I've either left that blank or voted for Medea Benjamin.
Dianne is no Democrat and I've known that since '94.  I'm glad to see other people waking up.
Better late than never.
Dianne has got to GO!
Don Schmidt
La Jolla, CA
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 15,[masked]:16 PM
Subject: [dfa-23] FYI>Reactions to the Feinstein Censure gathered by Margaret Lawrence!

Here's some more. I apologize if I've left some non-DiFi stuff on. M

Sent: Wednesday, November 14,[masked]:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Grassroots-Delegates] [DFA-NorCal] From today's Buzz Flash

First point: This is not a Rules matter, it is a Resolutions matter.

Second point: Despite the fact a matter not related to this was heard at a special Rules Committee meeting in Modesto, and no one on Rules wanted to move or second it, I am bringing it back to be heard by the committee this weekend because the proponent could not be present in Modesto to make a pitch. There is no requirement that be done.

If you think anything before the Rules Commitee is ever handled improperly, let me know.

Ask Joye Swan, Jo Olson, Mal Burnstein, Brad Parker, or Michael Jay about my fairness or lack of it. I rest quite comfortably in the assurance that they would give a stellar recommendation regarding my fairness and openness in how the Rules Committee functions.

You clearly do not know how I operate if you are making allegations like this.

Garry S. Shay
Member, Democratic National Committee (CA) and
Lead Chair Rules Committee, California Democratic Party
Titles for identification purposes only

In a message dated 11/13/2007 7:28:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [address removed] writes:
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News
Kevin Sites

Get coverage of

world crises.

Real Food Group
Share recipes,

restaurant ratings

and favorite meals.

Best of Y! Groups
Check it out

and nominate your

group to be featured.



I doubt that the CDP will let this come to the floor ? too hot a potato. Likely to be shuffled off to a special session of the Rules committee meeting outside the regular e-board times, then quietly killed.

I suspect that for this to move forward, it will have to be brought up before individual Democratic clubs & Central Committees. If some of the Central Committees won?t support it, then there?s no reason the CDP will support it. Central Committees have the majority of e-board delegates, anyway.



The resolution could not have been timely due to the timing of Senator Feinstein?s votes and the difficulty of circulating anything to many people and getting response, feedback and support. If, therefore, someone on the resolutions committee decides to block this resolution which has the support of increasing numbers of democrats every day (I have never seen such a groundswell of support for anything) the resulting furor is likely to be something the Party leadership will regret. Democrats want a voice in their party, or what?s the point of being in the party. The resolution will be heard in resolutions, either before the E.Bd. or , in an expanded version with more charges, at the convention next March.



It is my understanding that this was not timely introduced, and therefore requires a UNANIMOUS vote of the resolutions committee to be heard and come to the floor.

If it does not get a unanimous vote, it is the interpretation of the Resolutions Committee that it has not been heard, and only resolutions which have been heard can gather signatures.


* * *


Submission of resolutions to the Executive Board shall be in accordance with the following procedures:

a. Resolutions must be received ten (10) calendar days prior to a meeting of the Executive Board by the State Chair of the Party, except as provided for in subdivision (d) below.

b. All resolutions must be signed by the author and sponsored by a member of This Committee.

c. Copies of resolutions submitted according to the above procedures shall be mailed by the State Chair to all members of the Resolutions Committee prior to an Executive Board meeting.

d. All resolutions must be presented for consideration at the Resolutions Committee meeting preceding the Executive Board general session. Twenty-five (25) copies of any late resolutions must be delivered by the sponsor(s) of the resolution to one of the Co-Chairs of the Resolutions Committee. In order to be considered by the Executive Board, a timely resolution must be approved by the Resolutions Committee and a late resolution must have the unanimous consent of the Resolutions Committee members present to be considered for approval. Any resolution heard by the Committee failing to obtain approval may be considered by the Executive Board with the signatures of one hundred thirty-five (135) credentialed Executive Board members or forty percent (40%) of the entire Executive Board, whichever is fewer. The signatures must be turned in by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the general session to Party Officers, Resolutions Co-Chairs or staff.

e. If the resolution is presented from the floor, the sponsor(s) must submit to the Secretary sufficient copies for each member of the Executive Board present.

Garry S. Shay
Member, Democratic National Committee (CA) and
Lead Chair Rules Committee, California Democratic Party

In a message dated 11/12/[masked]:02:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [address removed] writes:


A resolution has been created to censure Senator Feinstein for her outrageous votes in the last two weeks as a member of the judiciary committee. There are many other votes that she has taken that have made many of us wonder when she became the Joe Lieberman of the West. If you know any people who are E-board delegates and who will attend the CDP E-board meeting this coming weekend, please contact them and ask them to vote for the resolution which follows:

Whereas the Democratic Party stands firmly against racism in any of its manifestations and for gender equality, and Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit despite his record of clear racism and gender discrimination; and

Whereas the Democratic Party abhors torture and stands firmly against its use by the United States at all times and places, yet Senator Feinstein voted to confirm Judge Mukasey as United States Attorney General ? thereby elevating to the highest position in law enforcement a men who refuses to renounce the right of the President to resort to torture, or to recognize waterboarding as a form of torture; and

Whereas these examples are far from the only instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has worked to oppose the policies and principles of our party.

Therefore be it resolved that Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party of California expresses its disappointment at, and censure of Senator Feinstein for ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials.

Glenn Greenwald

Saturday November 10,[masked]:32 EST

Dianne Feinstein -- Bush's key ally in the Senate -- to support telecom amnesty

(updated below)

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday that she favors legal immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly shared millions of customers' telephone and e-mail messages and records with the government, a position that could lead to the dismissal of numerous lawsuits pending in San Francisco.

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering legislation to extend the Bush administration's electronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies should not be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities" . . .

Feinstein, D-Calif., plays a pivotal role on the Judiciary Committee, which has a 10-9 Democratic majority. If she joins committee Republicans in voting next Thursday to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for their roles in the surveillance program, the proposal -- a top priority of President Bush -- will become part of legislation that reaches the Senate floor.

There is nothing worth critiquing in what Feinstein specifically said, since she just recited the administration's standard pro-amnesty talking points, leading with its most deceitful ones. As but one example, Feinstein -- echoing John Aschroft's NYT Op-Ed from this week -- said in her statement that "suits are unfair to the companies, which are 'unable to defend themselves in court' because the government has insisted that their activities be kept secret." That is just false. As the Chronicle reported: "federal law allows such defendants to present secret evidence in private to the judge, a practice [EFF's Cindy Cohn] said has been carried out for decades without any leaks."

Oddly (or not), the Chronicle article quotes Feinstein as saying that telecoms "should not be 'held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities'" -- the same exact phrase, verbatim, featured in Fred Hiatt's Editorial two weeks ago urging telecom amnesty (Hiatt: "we do not believe that these companies should be held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities").

I wrote about Feinstein at length a month ago here, including all the ways her administration-coddling and courting of intelligence officials benefits her defense-contractor-husband. But still, this recent behavior is really amazing.

Feinstein is not merely voting reliably for the most extremist Bush policies, though she is doing that. Far more than that, she has become, time and again, the linchpin of Bush's ability to have his most radical policies approved by the Senate.

Could the universe be any larger between what Feinstein's constituents want and what she is doing in the Senate? Here are the latest views of California voters of the President to whose agenda Feinstein is displaying such ferocious fidelity:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as President?

Approve -- 28%

Disapprove -- 70%

Among California Democrats, a grand total of 9% approve of Feinstein's beloved President; 90% disapprove. Obviously, nothing could be less relevant to Feinstein than the views of her constituents, but still, the disparity between what they believe and what she is doing is just striking, even for the Beltway.

Let us close with the very emotional and undeniably moving scene that took place after Feinstein stood up for Bush's judicial nominee, Leslie Southwick of Mississippi:

She even showed up at the press conference, where Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) asked her to speak before the Mississippi senators who lined up the votes for Southwick.

"This may be out of precedent," Specter said, "but if I may, with the concurrence of the home-state senators, yield to the hero -- the lady -- of the day, Sen. Feinstein."

"I don't know about this heroine business," Feinstein demurred.

Moments later, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) got choked up talking about her.

"She took a tough stand and showed a lot of courage," Lott said, tears collecting in his eyes and his voice quivering. "It is emotional for me because this is a good man, and he will make a great judge on behalf of my state, which I feel has been maligned in this and other instances."

He later accepted a congratulatory call from President Bush.

Fred Hiatt concurs wholeheartedly: "It is reassuring when not one but two lawmakers show the moral fortitude to defy party politics to take a stand on principle. Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) showed such courage Friday when they announced their support for attorney-general nominee Michael B. Mukasey."

Dianne Feinstein may be betraying the overwhelming majority of her constituents. But as a result of her "heroic" work in the Senate, her husband sure is getting richer. And she is beloved -- just beloved -- by Arlen Specter, Trent Lott, Fred Hiatt and George W. Bush. And in Beltway World, that is far, far more important.

UPDATE: Feinstein herself spent inordinate sums of money from corporate donors in 2006 to ensure she was re-elected, so she is not up for re-election until 2012 (when she'll be 80). Hopefully, though, the ethics process relating to her highly questionable behavior in directing multi-billion-dollar defense contracts to her husband's companies will proceed in earnest.

While Feinstein is not up for re-election, there are many Bush-enabling Democrats who are. And as this rather good Washington Post article this morning details, liberal blogs are doing what is, in my view, the most important thing they can be doing -- targeting for defeat those incumbent Democrats who deserve it by supporting and funding primary challengers.

The article details the highly successful campaign by bloggers such as Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, Duncan Black, Digby and others to counteract fundraising efforts by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic establishment for any Democratic incumbents -- including those who continuously support the Bush agenda -- by raising equal amounts (and, in many cases, more) for the primary challengers. The article documents how bloggers raised more than $100,000 over the last week for Donna Edwards, the primary challenger to the pro-war, pro-Bush Democratic Rep. Al Wynn (and you can aid their effort by donating to Edwards here). That is exactly what is needed -- incumbent Democrats knowing that they will be targeted and will face credible primary challenges for following in Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein's Bush-enabling footsteps.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Post a comment | Read comments (285)


Recent Posts

Dianne Feinstein -- Bush's key ally in the Senate -- to support telecom amnesty
The Democratic Senator from California is single-handedly enabling one extreme Bush policy after the next
What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?
The Democrats' refusal to filibuster Mukasey's confirmation, despite having more than 40 votes in opposition, speaks volumes about their sincerity
Democrats in big, big trouble because of the Great Iraq War -- again
The Beltway media script never changes

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Carol Changus ([address removed]) from The San Diego Democracy for America Meetup Group.
To learn more about Carol Changus, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here Customer Service: [address removed]
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy