She doesn’t know what is going to hit her:
All eight Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee have indicated they believe that Judge Alito would threaten abortion rights. All are expected to vote against him, although the parties are still disputing the date of the committee’s vote. But many concede that his confirmation is all but assured and that their party is unlikely to try to stop it through a filibuster.
“I do not see the likelihood of a filibuster, to be very candid with you,” Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and one of the most prominent abortion rights supporters on the Judiciary Committee, said Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”
Ms. Feinstein said she would vote against Judge Alito, in part because of the abortion rights issue. “If you asked me who would Alito most be like, it would probably be, I’d have to say, Scalia,” she said, referring to Justice Antonin Scalia, leader of the court’s conservative faction, which opposes abortion rights.
But she added: “I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”
Some abortion rights advocates reacted with alarm.
“Dianne Feinstein’s comment is very disturbing,” said Kate Michelman, the former president of Naral Pro-Choice America and a witness against Mr. Alito at the confirmation hearings.
Should be funny watching the swift-boating of DiFi.
By NARAL and the DKos.
SomeCallMeTim
Won’t happen or won’t matter. Nobody stopped anyone from getting upset over Alito’s position on abortion; it’s just that no one got upset. Including NARAL’s base.
NARAL is largely run for white women by white women. And those fuckers broke 55%45% for Bush. What are they going to threaten DiFi and the Democrats with? “We’ll betray you some more”? Fuck that. The women voting our way already live in Blue States or flippable states, and the Dems will absolutely have their back at the state level. The rest should learn the meaning of “social contract”.
Paddy O'Shea
Abortion is very popular in the United States. Should Alito be confirmed and go on to help end this widely accepted convenience, who will get the blame?
The Republicans, of course.
They might be able to ban abortion, but that ban will not last very long.
The Other Steve
John – Diane Feinstein hasn’t been liked by the far left for quite some time.
Even so I’d like to point out something. A few days ago you were whining about how the Democrats might become obstructionists. Today they’ve indicated their not going to filibuster, and now you’re implying they are pussies.
Which goes to my point… Don’t listen to what Republicans have to say about Democratic tactics. They aren’t credible and will attack you regardless of what you do.
neil
Is Feinstein going to retire? A primary challenger is hardly thinkable, in reality, although it will be called for. In San Francisco they say that as soon as she was splashed with Harvey Milk’s blood, she had already won every election in San Francisco for the rest of her life.
Nat
Today they’ve indicated their not going to filibuster, and now you’re implying they are pussies.
I didn’t read it that way. I thought Feinstein’s comment was refreshingly honest and even principled; it certainly improved my opinion of her (which was not high to begin with). John’s point seemed to be that the activist base is going to sink its fangs into her. (Although he could have given her more credit for rejecting the hysteria of NARAL.)
I don’t think “Swift Boating” is the proper term to use here, though; what happened to Kerry (and to a lesser degree McCain) was a specialized type of political slander. My guess is that the best comparison would be to Arlen Specter, constantly under threat from the right-wing activist base for his insufficient ideological purity.
John Cole
I in no way implied they are pussies.
Davebo
So John, you’re thinking some folks who haven’t seen her in 30 years will come out of the woodwork, well funded, and begin airing commercials about how she was a heroin addict who abused small puppies?
I don’t see it, but hey, hold your breath and dream. Surely someday, someway, you’ll be able to claim “look! Those Dems are as bad as the scum I continue to support!”
Oh, wait, the GOP had nothing to do with the wholly independent Swift Boaters.
What was I thinking.
Republicans for Clean Air? Obviously an environmental group.
I’m thinking of forming a new group.
neil
“I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”
Christ, the more I think about that, the more stupid it seems. This is what _her opponents_ are supposed to say! Try it on: “Just because Dianne Feinstein might disagree with him certainly doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.” Doesn’t that sound a lot less tortured?
All I can say is she really must take that criticism to heart. Pansy-ass Democrats, we can do without them. Check this out, from Sen. Evan Bayh:
Message: I don’t care. See how McCain manages to express more regret while simultaneously being tougher:
Bob In Pacifica
Feinstein will get reelected, may get some competition from the Left, which is at best a pitch under her chin. In another time she would have been a Rockefeller Republican. She’s just another in a long line of politicians who advanced over the bodies of progressives gunned down by reactionary forces.
Alito will limit the citizen’s rights versus the state, that’s all he’s ever done from the bench, so all you fake libertarians who support him because he’s somehow part of the Big Daddy in your mind can all act surprised when something else of yours gets lopped off and fed to the oligarchy.
Cole embarrasses himself again. Doesn’t he ever learn that being gleeful about what will bite him in the ass is stupid? We’re off the football field, it’s not left versus right, it’s top versus bottom, and no one posting here is on top.
Steve
The Republican base wanted a committed conservative like Alito instead of an unknown like Harriet Miers. They got their way. The Democratic base wants a filibuster of Alito. They will probably not get their way. The Republicans use nice words like “responsible” to describe the Democrats when they behave this way, because they want to encourage them to keep on doing it.
The typical political narrative is that the Dems are “responsible” whenever they resist the entreaties of the “special interest” groups that make up their base. Why is it that we never hear the same narrative about the GOP?
demimondian
Y’know, John, I’m going to call you on your terminology here. Swift-boating is not a bipartisan thing, but a peculiarly Bush-ite thing to do. It’s the general tactic of using the Media’s need to be fair and report everything (either directly or indirectly, when the lack of reporting of something becomes a story in itself) to spread slander and libel.
It happened to McCain. It happened to Kerry. Hell, it happened to Ann Richards.
Will the pro-choice base go after Feinstein? Yup. Will they do so by spreading lies about her? No, they won’t. That’s not a bipartisan crime any mnore than Abramoff is a bipartisan scandal.
Bob In Pacifica
By the way, using swiftboating for any kind of criticism of political figures is a misuse of the terms. A better example of swiftboating would be what Bush ordered to be done to Murtha. Purple bandaids, you know, handed out by the deserter president and all those Republicans too afraid to serve themselves.
neil
demimondian, I was going to say just the opposite. There’s no reason that Swift-boating couldn’t be used by the left. As for whether it will, we may as well wait to see before getting indignant either way, no?
demimondian
No, there’s absolutely no reason it couldn’t be. But, in the past fifty years, we’ve seen it or its variants used again and again by the right, and not by the left.
Jcricket
I hardly think what I see at dKos and others about Feinstein so far is “swift-boating”. I’m angry at her, as someone who’s supposedly pro-choice, for playing right into the meme the media is spreading (i.e. “Alito is already confirmed”). I wish she would take the approach of Reid, who has neither promised a filibuster or promised confirmation. And Reid’s someone who is personally opposed to abortion (although he wouldn’t legislate the right away). So far, all that posters on Kos have done is point out quotes from her that make her seem like a hypocrite. They are disappointed and angry.
That hardly equates to suggesting she faked her own wounds to gain military medals and get out of the war. Or that she is a traitor to the country because she gave her captors information after being tortured in a POW camp for 4 years. I don’t even see someone saying that DiFi wouldn’t support the death penalty for Osama (a la someone in your neck of the woods) or that she herself had an abortion to cover up her affair with Tookie Williams.
When the left gets angry, it’s just not the same as the right and you know it. The regular drumbeat of rhetoric from the RWNM is far more extreme, eliminationist and built on violence than that which comes from the left. As you’ve pointed out many times, what we see from Coulter, Robertson, Gibson, Hannity, LGF, Malkin, Powerline and other powerful members of the right-wing is down-right un-American (“people need to watch what they say” ring a bell?)
Dave Neiwert has done an excellent job pointing out that the “far left” and “far right” are very different animals, with different amounts of mainstream support from “moderates”, elected officials in their parties and the (partisan) media.
I’ve read your blog long enough to know that you’re not a Democrat, but please don’t portray both the “extremists” on both sides as equally culpable in the escalating “war of words” that is poisoning politics just because each side “gets angry” when threatened. That kind of false equivalency is a tactic of the right-wing of your party (esp. the anti-science part) from which you have gone to great pains to disassociate yourself.
demimondian
I guess you deserve a more thorough answer than that, neil.
Is Feinstein open to an attack from the left? Yes. Is she vulnerable to such an attack? No.
In order to affect Feinstein, you need to reach voters like me, who are involved, but aren’t part of the netroots. You won’t get us on the basis of the SJC performance.
Here’s what I thought: I don’t like what Samuel Alito stands for in the areas of executive power, privacy rights, or abortion, but I’m grown up enough to recognize that he’s a competent, qualified jurist who will do his level best to serve as well as he can. At the end of the day, that’s all one can ask of a Justice. He’ll screw up, of course, like all justices do, but the point of having nine, instead of one, is to balance the screw ups.
Unfortunately for NARAL, etc., that’s basically Feinstein’s comment, too.
Kimmitt
Swift-boating is not a good term for expressing disagreement with a policy position, however stridently.
tb
What cricket said. “Swift boating” is strictly a phenomenon of the dirtbag right. Give me one fucking example of left-wing bloggers swift boating (publishing bald-faced, shamelessly slanderous lies to discredit a critic) anyone.
Jorge
I agree with Demi. Alito is qualified for the court. Now, that doesn’t mean that the Dems should or shouldn’t fillbuster him based on his ideology.
I ask myself, is this the point where we want to push the Republicans to use the nuclear option? And considering that there isn’t much hope of the Dems taking back the Senate in 2006 and the way Bush is beating the war drums vesus Iran, I believe that Dems need to save the fillibuster. And yep, I know the right will crucify me and any other Dem that suggest this, but I think that Dems should save the fillibuster in case a resolution to go to war with Iran comes up.
Steve
Jorge, the nuclear option doesn’t have anything to do with legislation or war resolutions, it strictly relates to filibusters of judges.
In any event, if you believe the GOP can push through the nuclear option without difficulty, then there’s no point in postponing that day. You don’t get one free filibuster. You can either filibuster today and face the nuclear option; or you can roll over today, filibuster the next nominee and still face the nuclear option.
If you let yourself be scared out of filibustering because of the nuclear option, then the result is the same as if the nuclear option had already been invoked. All you do is preserve the filibuster for the future when you’re in the majority and it’s the other party seeking to filibuster.
The Other Steve
Then why aren’t you commending Feinstein for doing the right thing? Instead of this bullshit.
What exactly is it that you want?
and I agree with the others. People on the left don’t Swift Boat. That’s a uniquely Republican phenomena.
The Other Steve
Zifnab
Swift-boating doesn’t have to be a bipartisan thing. But Republicans have definitely raised it from a practice to an artform. And they’ve brought petty local politic tricks to the national level.
That said, while dKos has a history of going after Democrats it doesn’t like – Liberman being the posterboy – I’ve never read an article that went out of its way to just make shit up. No one in the mainstream Democratic party is going to call Fienstien a rapist or claim she takes money from Abramoff or once had her ex-boyfriend killed or any garbage like that. They’ll oppose her on policy. They might not oppose her with kid gloves, but dKos and NARAL will generally keep to the high ground.
I hope.
Vladi G
Apparently John doesn’t have a problem with politicians who tell they’re base that they will do one thing:
then turn around and do exactly the opposite.
Bob In Pacifica
And how did Kos “swift-boat” Lieberman? Did he hand out purple band-aids and promote lying sacks of shit to besmirch him?
No.
neil
Old quotes that make you sound like a hypocrite are a Swift-boater tactic, aren’t they?
PC man vocal as Swift boat vet, _The Fremont (Ohio) News-Messenger_
Paddy O'Shea
The nasty insinuation here is that certain Democrats, enraged over the Feinstein comments cited above, will engage in the same sorts of loathesome behavior that Rove and assorted other Bush puppeteers are practicing against John Murtha.
It is hardly worth discussing.
ppGaz
I agree with the Senator, precisely. She is not talking about her vote … I think, being too lazy to look it up, that she indicated she’d vote Nay. But the quote above is in reference to a filibuster, not her vote.
It’s a reasonable thing for her to say, and she is a reasonable and responsible member of the body. Of course, this little factlet isn’t worth much in a snark-dominated world.
Slide
No “swift-boating” is a tactic of YOUR side of the aisle. “Swift Boating” is making shit up to attack the credibility of the opponent. You know, like saying Kerry shot himself to get medals… like saying Murtha didn’t deserve his medals…. like saying Max Cleland was the cause of his triple amputations…. You get the point don’t you? Funny how the chickenhawk right wing cowards are always saying that wounded vets didn’t deserve the honors they received for serving their country.
jcricket
This is exactly the problem with the current crop of Democrats. Republicans will do anything to win and/or maintain their majority (eliminating rules that protect minority rights in the Senate/House, eliminating ethics rules, non-constitutional gerry-mandering, swift-boating, bitching about the filibuster, but then using it, etc.).
Since Democrats won’t do these things, they get screwed when they’re in the minority and when they’re in the majority. At this point, I’d rather have the Democrats call the Republicans bluff, lose the ability to filibuster and then (in a few years when Dems control congress) turn around and giving a big fat FUCK YOU finger to Republicans when they cry their crocodile tears about not being able to filibuster or use other “minority party rights” that they themselves eliminated while in charge.
I feel totally comfortable with Dems doing that (as opposed to sinking to the level of Republicans and their swift-boating ways).
Bob In Pacifica
neil: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/26/politics1217EDT0548.DTL
From the article:
During an Oval Office conversation in 1971, John O’Neill tells President Nixon he was in Cambodia in a swiftboat during the war — a claim that is at odds with O’Neill’s recent statements that he wasn’t in the country.
“I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border,” O’Neill is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the former president’s secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O’Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.
“I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months,” O’Neill said of the conversation. “I was about 100 yards from Cambodia.”
neil, Big Daddy wants you to protect him.
Darrell
Did he say that it was “seared” into his memory?
Bob Davis
My contribution to the criticism, not swift-boating, of Diane Feinstein.
radish
Bob in Pacifica, ROFLMAO re O’Neill telling Nixon he was in Cambodia. The satire industry has officially gone the way of the phototypesetting and buggy-whip industries…
I have no idea how I managed to completely miss out on that, but thanks for sharing.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Sure Kos and NARAL will vehemetely disagree with DiFi, but they won’t swiftboat her. Seriously John, swiftboating your own side is what Republicans do.
Sojourner
Will you please explain this to the Senate Dems? They can’t seem to get there on their own.
Sock Puppet
Bush “Swiftboated” John McCain in 2000, and now McCain is his special bitch.
Democrats just need to learn to lie back and enjoy it.
Sojourner
Nah. All the whores are in the Repub party.
demimondian
Sheesh! Yes, damn it, I’m a corporate whore, but, my God, I’m not *like that*. I’m a practicing Democrat!
Daren
Sorry John,
Wrong party. Democrats may criticize you, and we may even run someone against you, but I don’t see Kos accussing Diane Feinstein of being a treasounes, commie-loving, mother of some brown baby, liar anytime soon. That’s not our style.