Even Malia and Sasha not safe from the NRA, watch this disgraceful ad

Senator Dianne Feinstein, "GET WITH THE PROGRAM ON HEALTH CARE", PLEASE

DiFi on State of the Union, stating, "....we don't have the votes..." Will she get with the program and work to get the damn votes!!! Especially with California, this state has 18% of its residents UNINSURED.

I don't think Democrats in D.C. understand something, the something is that if you don't work with Barack Obama for public option in the health care bill, there are some Democrats who will go DOWN in 2010. I hope these D.C., out of touch, blowhards understand this.

After the CBS/NYT poll came out that over 70% want a public option, Feinstein and the rest need to get with the program. And for Grassley to state, our budget is trillions in deficit spending, where was HE AT during the BUSH REGIME???

And the debt to the Chinese? Ask the former Bush Administration, who put this country in more debt than any former adminstration ever had.

nuff said.



Home Page

Senator Dianne Feinstein, "SEAT BURRIS"

Feinstein, (D-CA) says, "Seat Burris."

Damn, Harry Reid, are you not getting the message yet? The law is on the side of Burris.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) broke with her party’s leadership Tuesday in calling for Roland Burris to be seated in the Senate once his paperwork is signed by the Illinois secretary of state.

Feinstein, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said that not allowing Burris to be seated could broadly undermine future gubernatorial appointments.

“I can’t imagine the secretary of state countermanding a gubernatorial appointment,” Feinstein said. “The question, really, is one in my view of law. And that is, does the governor have the power to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? And the answer is yes.

“Does that affect his appointment power? And the answer is no until certain things happen.”

She added if Burris isn’t seated “it affects gubernatorial appointments all over the country.”

And on this note, as I am not a fan of Senator Feinstein, I AGREE. Seat the man and send the circus to another town.

Source

The Fight with Dianne Feinstein

There is much conventional wisdom being tossed around today about the comments or anger of Senator Dianne Feinstein not being consulted about the choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA by Obama.

There are those who state not informing her was political poison, but maybe Obama did not want to inform her because it would have been leaked out and shot down before Obama could compose a press release. Maybe not forming her was intentional.

Feinstein, along with Senator Jay Rockefeller are now out in the open criticizing this choice, which gives the Republicans ammunition to criticize Obama for choosing Panetta instead of someone inside the agency.

My take, Barack Obama want a complete cut from the Bush Administration by this choice. Remember Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller was lock step with the Bush Administration with regards to intelligence. They definitely were not in the front rows at protesting against the use of torture.

Obama is sending an unequivocal message that controversial administration policies approving harsh interrogations, waterboarding and extraordinary renditions _ the secret transfer of prisoners to other governments with a history of torture _ and warrantless wiretapping are over, said several officials.

On the record, Feinstein has stated she would prefer Steve Kappes, this is fine and good but the decision is for Barack Obama. This from Glen Greenwald:

Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it.

Bush enabling senators. Yes, that sums it up about Feinstein and Rockefeller. They have been in LOCK STEP with Bush; there is no denial about that. That is their record on intelligence.

But John Aravosis has another take on this matter:

First, a word about Difi, Rockefeller and Panetta.

1. Difi drives us nuts, and anyone who reads the blog knows it. She's the Dem we're always having to beat up in order to get her to do the right thing (though Max Baucus comes a close second). So, I readily acknowledge your, my, first impulse to be "who cares what Difi says?" The problem is that America cares. To us, Diane Feinstein is a pain in the butt. To my mother - aka Middle America - she's a smart person, who is an expert on the issue, who has a D after her name, and who thinks the guy may not be qualified. She also has power and can screw with Obama mightily, now and in the future. Our dislike for Difi is irrelevant to this equation.

2. Then there's Rockefeller. Totally worthless human being and an absolute joke as the outgoing Intelligence chair. But to America at large, he's the outgoing chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a Democrat. What he says matters to ma and pa in the sticks, even if the rest of us think he's a joke. And when he questions Obama's nominee in such a critical area, it matters to the public at large.

3. Panetta. Interesting choice. Opposed torture, not wedded to the national security special interests. I acknowledge all of that, and applaud it. But because he's an unusual choice, even an unconventional one, I'd argue that you need to handle this nomination very carefully, so as to avoid any possible hiccups (Democrats per se need to tread carefully in the area of national security because we've spent so many years letting Republicans pummel us with it).

This is another reality. Folks from the left are angered to high heaven and have been for some time with Feinstein and Rockefeller, but most of America knows these two as competent, able, centrist, okay, Democrats. In this matter, I disagree.

The bottom line, we must stand with Barack Obama on this appointment. Obama campaigned on the atrocities of Gitmo and the illegal use of the intelligence community, especially with Iraq. This needs to be cleaned up. There would not be an Iraq War today had the intelligence not been tampered with to back the reason for invading Iraq. That is what happened, that is the truth, which is why it is time for sweepers at the CIA.

Source

Home Page

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is mad at Obama

I mean she is having a hissy fit....

“I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I’ve read,” Feinstein said in a statement. “My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”

I am not sure that Obama meant to slight Feinstein, but his pick is one that she can not manipulate around her little finger.

And as for Obama's pick of Leon Panetta, he gets thumbs up by me, so far, for this statement:

Our forefathers prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment" because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.

As Feinstein's lips are twisting in the wind, she is sending Obama a sound message that she is not happy with this pick. Hell she loves Bush's appointment in the CIA now, Mike Hayden. This same fellow who has indicated through leaks that he wants to retain the position as Director of the CIA. Obama did right, CLEAN HOUSE.

A Feinstein spokesman told CNN’s Dana Bash that the California senator found out about Obama’s pick after her staff showed her a New York Times report.

"The President-elect will now have a chance to make his arguments,” the spokesman said. “Her next move is to listen."

I am not a Feinstein fan for several reasons, she is a product of the old "status quo", and I have some issues on her votes or mainly her loyalty for her husband's business through her votes:

Critics have argued that Feinstein's support, as a member of the Senate's Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, of policies that may benefit her husband may raise the appearance of a conflict of interest.[5] Suburban newspaper Metro Silicon Valley reported in 2007 that Feinstein's husband holds large investments in companies that have won large government contracts without competitive bidding. In April 2007, Feinstein's office denied there was a conflict of interest and stated that her departure from the subcommittee had nothing to do with the reports in the Metro weeklies.

At any rate, she will play politics in this appointment, or attempt to. Obama, Panetta I am sure you got your game on.

The Real Deal on Dianne Feinstein's Positions
Feinstein's husband makes milions, thanks to the war

Obama's intel pick an intentional break from the Bush Admin policies

Home Page

Afternoon Delight....

obama with ninety-five-year-old charles edwards as he gave him a walking stick in bristol, va

and if congress don't pass his bills???



::

Well, it was the press corp that was left holding the bag. The meeting did commence last night with Senators Obama and Clinton, but it was not at Clinton's home, instead Senator Feinstein's home. Once this information was found out, the meeting was done and over with. Don't blame 'em. How can you meet with thousands of reporters constantly badgering you? Obama and Clinton got the last laugh on this one.

"They just want an opportunity to meet together alone," she told reporters. The meeting started about 9:00 pm ET.

"I received them. Put them in the living room, two comfortable chairs facing one another and left." No staff, no security, just water for candidates. One person from each campaign sat in Feinstein's study. "They talked. I went upstairs and did my work."

About an hour later... "They called me when it was over. I came down and I said, 'Good night everybody. I hope you had a good meeting.' They were laughing, and that was it."

::

Is Barack the Democratic Gamble?

::

MUST READ: Whitey Hoax blown wide open....and more interesting rundown, here....

::

McCain Complete Reversal on Spy Program: Now Supports Bush

::

Obama taking weekend off, date with wife and EIGHT SEVEN YEAR OLDS OVER FOR A SLEEPOVER

::

Another reason why McCain wants all these townhall meetings, his speech delivery is HORRENDOUS.

::

Folks, this article says it all for the exit of Clinton: When Push Came to Shove....

.....and Clinton surrogates need to stop with the dishonest talking point of her winning the 'popular vote'. This will not bring her any closer to the VP spot, in fact they need to follow Clinton's lead and just STFU. JMHO.