What Do YOU Think: Should Democrats Censure Dianne Feinstein for Enabling Bush?

In case you haven’t heard, the California Democratic Party will be holding its next Executive Board Meeting here in Anaheim this weekend. They’ll be deciding on a number of internal party matters, such as endorsements of ballot measures coming up next year. Oh yes, and they will also be talking about a resolution to censure Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D?-What Is She Thinking?) for her recent penchant for, as many progressive Democratic activists describe it, enabling Bush and Cheney on their mission to obliterate the Consititution.

So why exactly are many progressives angry at Feinstein? They don’t like her recent vote in favor of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General, despite his unwillingness to stop the practice of waterboarding (aka torturing) detainees. They didn’t appreciate her willingness to allow far-right judges to be seated in federal courts. They don’t like when she voted to fund more of Bush’s war this year. Basically, progressives don’t like Feinstein’s not so progressive record.

But censure? Should the Democratic Party slap around a fellow Democrat? Shouldn’t the party give reconciliation a chance? Isn’t there a way to condemn the bad policy without condemning our Democratic Senator? What do YOU think about the effort to censure Dianne Feinstein at the Democratic Party E-Board meeting in OC this weekend?

Would the party be going too far in bashing a fellow Democrat by censuring Feinstein? Or has Feinstein gone too far in enabling the Bush-Cheney Agenda? Go ahead and have your say.

  13 comments for “What Do YOU Think: Should Democrats Censure Dianne Feinstein for Enabling Bush?

  1. Dan Chmielewski
    November 16, 2007 at 10:57 am

    It is important that our party’s electe leaders hear from us when they vote in ways we don’t like. I’m not sure censure is the way to go, but we need to get DiFi’s attention.

  2. November 16, 2007 at 11:06 am

    This is going to be a very interesting executive board meeting.

    The censure resolution has no chance of passing, because the Party rules require that a resolution submitted after a particular deadline (as this one was) get unanimous consent from the resolutions committee before it can be considered.

    But the point remains that a lot of people are pretty unhappy with Feinstein and with the status quo in the Party. The question is, what is their dissatisfaction going to cause them to do?

  3. Andrew Davey
    November 16, 2007 at 11:25 am

    Dan & Gila-

    You both made good points. DiFi needs to pay better attention to what her constituents are trying to tell her. But is censure going too far? The censure measure probably has no chance of passing the Resolutions Committee. So what can we do now?

    I hope SOMETHING happens this weekend. While perhaps censure can’t happen, we need to send some type of message to DiFi that Democrats won’t stand for all this caving to Bush. I hope some kind of resolution (sorry for the pun) is reached this weekend.

  4. tim steed
    November 16, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    While I respect the intent of the censure resolution and the reasoning behind it, I feel that Democrats need to focus attention on Republicans and their anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-choice, anti-science stands.

    As an eboard member, I will not be supporting the Censure of DiFi.

    Tim

  5. anon
    November 16, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Tim Steed is a hottie!

  6. Andrew Davey
    November 16, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Timbo-

    That is a valid point. Sometimes, we do focus SO much on “imperfect Democrats” that we ignore the absolutely horrible Rethuglicans. We should always be primarily focused on taking them out. But still, I do think Feinstein has committed enough iniquities to send her some kind of message to get her to behave better. If the Resolutions Committee can agree to some kind of message to Feinstein, I’ll feel better.

    Anon 2:30-

    Now I can DEFINITELY agree to that! ;-)

  7. Citizen
    November 16, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    “Progressives” (the only people who call themselves that are radicals) need to stop pretending that California -belongs- to them. I think as the “Liberal OC” should make abundantly clear, California belongs to moderate liberals, who from time-to-time will elect Republicans, and always love a nice middle-of-the-roader.

    If anything, the Radicals on the right AND on the left need to be censured! Leave folks like Diane Feinstein alone.

    And its truly in bad-taste to call California a “deep-blue” state. We are blue, to be sure, but its a VERY purplish blue. And if you ever forget that, you will damn the Democratic party here. Nixon, Reagan, Schwartzenegger. Lets stop pretending that California is the home of the Progressive Radicals.

    California is merely the Moderate Liberal homeland. And you better remember that. Our ability to swing Conservative has changed this nation more than once. And it will again.

    An Orange County Democrat (and proud),

    [Citizen]

  8. anon
    November 16, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    DiFi must go. I’m done with DiFi.

  9. November 17, 2007 at 3:48 am

    Yes!

    And for serving on a committee which has enriched her husband’s business interests.

    I would love to see Diane Feinstein face a recall challenge.

    But censure for sure.

  10. November 17, 2007 at 7:24 am

    When are you guys going to censure Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido for HIS non-progressive behavior? I don’t think I need to provide you a laundry list of his misdeeds. Suffice to say, appointing a Minuteman to our Library Board is amongst them. And he endorsed Republican Carlos “Space Commander” Bustamante against Umberg for Supervisor last year…

  11. Andrew Davey
    November 17, 2007 at 8:49 am

    Citizen-

    I see where you’re coming from. Now I can’t speak for all progressives, but I’m not calling for DiFi to become the next Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee. I know California is a center-left state, but it’s just that I don’t know if DiFi has even been center-left these days.

    After all, California wants out of Iraq. California doesn’t support torture. California doesn’t want Bush to listen in on all our phone calls and read all our emails. However, DiFi hasn’t done the best job in stopping Bush & Cheney from trampling on our Constitutional rights as they keep our troops stuck in an illegal & immoral occupation that isn’t doing anything to keep our nation safe.

    The problem here is Feinstein not doing enough to stop Bush, and I hope something can be done this weekend to send her a message.

    gerry-

    Well yes, DiFi disturbs me sometimes when she won’t even stand up for our troops and our Constitution. Now I don’t know too much about how her husband’s involved in Iraq, but what I do know is that Feinstein needs to pay better attention to what her constituents want.

    Art-

    Yes, I get what you’re saying about Pulido. And as you very well know, I’m no fan of our Do-nothing Mayor. However, this thread isn’t about Pulido. We’re talking about Dianne Feinstein and what the CDP should do about her this weekend.

    If you’d like, we can start another thread at a later time asking what the DPOC should do about Pulido. But until then, let’s stick to the matter at hand.

  12. just asking
    November 17, 2007 at 11:00 pm

    the e-board should have allowed a vote. Then if members felt strongly voted the resolution down. But by taking the parlimentary rule of requiring a unanoumous vote they denied the feelings of over 33,000 progressives who are dissatisfied with DiFi.

  13. November 18, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Actually, it’s not a parliamentary rule — what was done is according to the bylaws.

    And either way, I’m not convinced that the e-board as a whole would have voted for censure. A few days ago I thought otherwise, but I had forgotten how much the e-board tends to support the recommendation of the leadership.

    CDP conventions tend to draw a larger proportion of progressives than do e-board meetings. The res might have passed at a convention, but probably not at an e-board.

Comments are closed.