Letters to the Editor
-
I have some questions
Why is this woman popular with her constituents? Does no one pay any attention?
Zack, that video made my morning so far. I don't think they're getting anywhere right now, but watching and listening to people who clearly see what the problems are always makes me feel better. I just hope they manage to infect others with their discontent.
-
Is all lost?
I have to agree with some who've posted here that there is not much we can do about the likes of DiFi and Lieberman. They were re-elected to posts that unfortunately wield enough power in the Senate to do damage to Progressive legislation and they can't be touched by their constituents, can they? Oh, we have the power of the vote, but what good has that done for us? In CT, my home state, regardless of the truth actually leaking out about Lieberliar, he STILL won. And what consequence is there for him? None. He may not run again, or if he does he might not be re-elected, but he will have many years to wreak havoc in the meantime. Same goes for DiFi. We're stuck.
I hate being pessimistic about this but for years I, too, have written letters to the editor of my paper, written and called my legislators and those who held key votes in the Senate and the House. I've contributed to those races that reflected a Progressive agenda, and still with the majority vote in the Senate and the House, we are stymied by the likes of DiFi, Lieberman - and ineffectual leadership like Pelosi and Reid. It's not just those few, either - there are enough weak-kneed Dems in our government to fill in where the other four don't.
Thank goodness for GG and others who keep us informed. Can you guide us as well towards what it will take on our menial level to make change in spite of the Feinsteins and Liebermans? I'm convinced that a vote in the primary for Clinton will only perpetuate the status quo, yet she seems to be polling the highest to date. At this rate I feel positive REAL change will only come when my son is my age - if he's lucky.
Sorry, but right now I feel pretty lost and need a little positive light at the end of tunnel.
-
Where do I sign up...
I'll contribute to Cindy Sheehan to unseat Pelosi. Anyone got a link?
-
Several points....
to defy party politics to take a stand on principle
This is naturally one of the more galling phrases ever to hit print, on a par with "wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers".
But of course its Fred Hiatt so truth need not apply.
This phrase on the other hand sort of makes sense:
"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."
...if one expands out the portion that reads activities be kept secret to include from the federal judiciary
There is a faction of Americans who consider judges to be "the enemy". Its just disappointing to include Dianne Feinstein among their number.
Thirdly, aren't you afraid your going to give a certain troll a heart attack by including one of his favorite talking points in the body of your column? You do understand that there are certain people who get totally confused when people act on principle rather than team-identity.
-
Feinstein Doesn't Care About You
DiFi is a plutocrat whose primary purpose in government is to enable corporate profiteering.
Her "moderate" image is just that - a cultivated image with no basis in reality.
We Californians need to support and elect trustworthy progressives.
-
Let's not forget Feinstein's gift to the voting machine industry
Her bill, S 1487 is a voter-disenfranchising, corporation-promoting piece of pork that stinks of Karl Rove and Microsoft. It promotes non-verifiable voting through secret ballot-counting.
Not only does the legislation cement the power of federal oversight over elections through the EAC, but it institutionalizes the fraud that has been carried out against minority voters by assuming that "undervoting" on the ballot in certain districts is somehow cultural and does merit investigation.
Feinstein is the second coming of Lieberman and feeds off of the same teat. The neo-con architects of fascism were clever in their design: Republican corruption is backed up by the "safety net" of Democratic corruption.
-
Thomas c: liked your analogy
of the neocon spawn in the Democratic party -- it triggered my latent paranoia. But it's important to note that we've already had the DLC around for a long time, and a founding member, Bill Clinton, was President for eight years. Clinton had the largest military budget on record and several new advanced weapons' systems, costing billions, were developed by the military during his tenure as President. His foreign policy fits your description almost perfectly:
"They won't be as gonzo as Cheney, but they'll love big defense spending and they'll support smaller, Iraq-lite interventions that will feed the military-industrial machine."
Enter Hillary, even cozier than Bill, with the MIC. Unless their is another Democratic nominee, we are assured of four more years of out-of-control military spending, albeit with slightly more cautious adventurism. (Democrats don't like "hot" wars, but that could change.)
-
Re: Are Californians not paying attention, or what?
From what I can see -- which isn't necessarily all that much -- Californians as a whole are very comfortable with DiFi, even when they disagree with her. She doesn't interact with her constituents to any great extent, letting her staff handle the masses; to the extent they do, they do it with relative courtesy and efficiency. DiFi is not a very public person. She lets her appearances and actions in the Senate speak for themselves, and if you watch her there, you will see someone who is very measured, careful, prepared, and apparently on top of things. She appears to be in no way a radical, nor does she seem to be the least bit partisan. She is an exemplar of the Old Line Good Government Progressive.
Thus, she is comforting to many.
That she is a radical authoritarian architect of the National Security State and an enabler of the Autocratic replacement for our Constitutional Republic simply doesn't compute.
How could she be? This perfectly reasonable, rational, and oh so very comforting Senator, with so much power and influence for so many years?
How could she possibly be such a subversive? And CORRUPT, too? Beyond belief.
Lieberman has long been more overt than Feinstein, so it was easier for a substantial number of Connecticut voters (though not nearly enough of them) to recognize what a fraudulent piece of crap he was and is. Feinstein maintains appearances at all costs, she's like the rich, stern, but beloved Old Aunt some of us had. Lieberman reminds us of the disgusting Eddie Haskell-like cousin nobody ever liked.
Are Californians not paying attention? Well, it's more like they aren't making the connection.
They have an image of DiFi that is very, very hard to shake.