General Discussion

Xithras

(16,191 posts)

130. Republicans do NOT vote for her.

Fri Sep 20, 2013, 03:02 PM

Sep 2013

I live in one of the reddest parts of the state, and she's pretty much considered to be an incarnation of Satan herself by our local Republicans. In contrast, the Democrats merely dislike her.

DiFi maintains control because of Willie Brown. The Republican Party holds no statewide offices in California because they are such a minority, so the state is solidly under the control of the Democratic Party. Willie Brown still exerts an enormous amount of power in the state party and is a longtime friend of Feinstein.

One of Brown's longstanding rules states that, if you run against a sitting Democrat who is in good standing with the party, you will be blacklisted from party support FOREVER, for ANY race. Running against his chosen candidates is the kiss of death. The party incumbent will have the official support and funding from the state party, relegating you to a grassroots campaign at best. The simple fact that you ran will end your career.

Feinstein will have that seat for as long as she and Brown want her to have it. Challenging her would be the kiss of death to any Democrats political career.

My expectation is that she will stay in that seat until 2018, when it will be handed off to another Willie Brown protege, a guy named Gavin Newsom. You've probably heard of him once or twice.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

255 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wow... George Orwell Would Be Proud... The "Free Flow" Of Information Act... [View all] WillyT Sep 2013 OP

Oh, DiFi. Is there anything you won't do to piss off liberals? NuclearDem Sep 2013 #1

Not just liberals. woo me with science Sep 2013 #3

Yep - ya beat me to it! polichick Sep 2013 #54

She's a goddamned menace to society pscot Sep 2013 #6

With Democrats like her, who needs Republicans? LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #7

I can't understand why Dems keep voting for her FiveGoodMen Sep 2013 #16

Because LA is not close enough to San Fran nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #58

So the Dems in LA are as Right-Wing-Worthless as she is? FiveGoodMen Sep 2013 #61

No, they just did not have her in city government nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #69

Post removed Post removed Sep 2013 #180

It was the same pattern in the 2012 primary, according to our Secretary of State petronius Sep 2013 #181

Because Republicans vote for her and that is how she gets elected. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #82

Don't the republicans have a republican to vote for? FiveGoodMen Sep 2013 #85

A lot of them vote for Feinstein. Whether a plausible Republican runs depends on the election. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #132

Lol. It's California. No. Xithras Sep 2013 #133

Republicans do NOT vote for her. Xithras Sep 2013 #130

MONEY! BillyRibs Sep 2013 #195

Damned liberals, always defending and protecting the Constitution, even though merrily Sep 2013 #27

Shit, she doesn't give a fig about liberals. lark Sep 2013 #55

+++++++++++++++ n/t 2banon Sep 2013 #111

The very worst of the Democratic party embodied in one Senator. n/t Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #2

Durbin has turned out to be a bit of a dick too. Fuddnik Sep 2013 #17

On military/intel/foreign policy, Durbin is a disappointment leveymg Sep 2013 #29

Really? merrily Sep 2013 #74

How do you mean, "Really?" leveymg Sep 2013 #76

I mean I'm surprised. merrily Sep 2013 #115

Just one? Have you checked the yeas and nays on the Patriot Act? merrily Sep 2013 #32

"Stop us before we subpoena again." questionseverything Sep 2013 #162

I don't think the new bill will stop them. merrily Sep 2013 #166

Not the only one by far, but pretty close to the perfect representation of a thoroughly, blatantly Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #183

no two others come to mind nvme Sep 2013 #206

I didn't mean to imply in any way that she is alone or even the worst. Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #213

Gee. Liberal Democrat stalwarts would rather protect the Banksters, Warmongers and Traitors... Octafish Sep 2013 #4

This deals with PRIVILEGES not rights accorded to journalists. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #5

Why are you here? Enthusiast Sep 2013 #10

Why can't you articulate an intelligent argument against what I just said? geek tragedy Sep 2013 #11

Ya See... THAT Was A Major Point Of The First Amendment... The Government Does NOT Get To Decide... WillyT Sep 2013 #12

So, journalist shield laws are unconstitutional then. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #14

From the article at the OP... WillyT Sep 2013 #18

Shield protections are not granted by the constitution. Otherwise there would be no need geek tragedy Sep 2013 #24

Freedom of the press is in the Constitution. merrily Sep 2013 #35

That doesn't contradict what I'm saying nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #40

You are merely wrong about that. merrily Sep 2013 #43

Some Of What I Worry About Here... WillyT Sep 2013 #80

I'm having trouble finding a copy of the bill as it passed the committee. Do you have a link? nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #87

Actually, found it: geek tragedy Sep 2013 #99

If I'm Reading This Right... DiFi Introduced An Amendment To Schumer's Bill... WillyT Sep 2013 #107

They compromised--they didn't accept DiFi's amendment completely. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #109

"While many Mainstream Media outlets support the law" Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #146

The point of the thread is GOVERNMENT certification of journalism, not need/not-need of shield. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #191

Wrong. A person becomes a journalist when they report, not when the GOVERNMENT accepts them. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #190

So anyone who basically paints a 'J' on his or her head is a journalist. randome Sep 2013 #15

Well... The Crown In England Certainly Didn't Consider Paine A Journalist, They Considered Him... WillyT Sep 2013 #23

Point. But that's what courts are for -to 'help' us make the determination. randome Sep 2013 #25

Funny. He got fired from his U.S. government job for revealing secrets. merrily Sep 2013 #46

Reductio ad absurdum. merrily Sep 2013 #37

Nowadays folks like to play at edginess, rebelliousness, and being out front. Paine lived it. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #215

Actually, Enthusiast did articulate an intelligent argument against what you just posted. merrily Sep 2013 #95

There's the crux: "not only people the GOVERNMENT considers journalists". Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #189

Cut that crap out Stuckinthebush Sep 2013 #210

You have the right to remain silent. Fuddnik Sep 2013 #20

What are you talking about? Media shield laws keep journalist out of jail. merrily Sep 2013 #34

Those are protections created by the government, not granted geek tragedy Sep 2013 #36

Again, freedom of the press is in the Constitution. merrily Sep 2013 #41

Which do you favor? geek tragedy Sep 2013 #44

I favor the rule of law, which means abiding by the Constitution. merrily Sep 2013 #49

The constitution doesn'texempt journalists from cooperating with geek tragedy Sep 2013 #51

The Constitution doesn't permit government to pick and choose among journalists, either. merrily Sep 2013 #59

No, it doesn't allow them to pick and choose among journalists. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #62

No it doesn't allow government to treat journalists differently from non journalists. merrily Sep 2013 #72

So, again, I ask you: geek tragedy Sep 2013 #77

I answered that already. Besides, it is not a matter of what I prefer. Its the CONSTITUTION. merrily Sep 2013 #84

That is not a question that is relevant to the issue of freedom of the press. sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #177

What do those choices have to do with who and who is not a journalist? whopis01 Sep 2013 #227

Who should determine who are nvme Sep 2013 #207

Yeah, I support allowing everyone to refuse to testify against other people. 2banon Sep 2013 #123

Decisions on 1st Amend. privilege are accorded deference by the courts, as would an enumerated leveymg Sep 2013 #38

What compelling interest does government have in deciding who is a "real" journalist"? merrily Sep 2013 #42

That question would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Congress shouldn't legislate leveymg Sep 2013 #48

Exactly. Congress should not decide who is a real journalist and who isn't. merrily Sep 2013 #50

I'd like to amend my original response: None of the three branches of government should be merrily Sep 2013 #88

Courts have refused to create such protections. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #45

There have been many federal cases on this issue. There is 1st Amend case law. leveymg Sep 2013 #56

So, then a federal journalist shield law would be unconstitutional and an assault geek tragedy Sep 2013 #65

No, just an overly-restrictive one, like DiFi and Durbin's leveymg Sep 2013 #67

How can you have a journalist shield law without bothering geek tragedy Sep 2013 #68

Same reason you have Freedom of the Press without defining the Press. When you start leveymg Sep 2013 #73

So, so long as the definition isn't overly exclusive, the government CAN define geek tragedy Sep 2013 #75

No. If the gov't wants to provide explicit exemptions to other laws, it may do so as long as leveymg Sep 2013 #86

This law doesn't restrict anyone's freedom. It expands the rights for some, leaves geek tragedy Sep 2013 #89

You'll need to demonstrate that by excerpting present law and demonstrating who's rights leveymg Sep 2013 #98

Here's the statute: geek tragedy Sep 2013 #103

Do a line by line of Sec. 11 Definitions. leveymg Sep 2013 #114

No one is currently afforded the protections of this bill. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #118

Nonsensical to suggest that government should decide who is a real journalist. merrily Sep 2013 #119

Yes, you've gone on the record stating that reporters shouldn't be exempted geek tragedy Sep 2013 #120

I didn't, but you've gone on record stating that the Constitution should be ignored. I disagree. merrily Sep 2013 #125

last word is yours, this is tedious nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #127

You find my responding to you in the same way that you posted to me tedious? merrily Sep 2013 #134

Yes, just like laws discriminating on the basis of race left the rights of whites as they were befor merrily Sep 2013 #105

I applaud your effort HangOnKids Sep 2013 #83

+1 n/t NealK Sep 2013 #196

Ironic. Many have no problem defining "arms" in the 2nd. But go ape over defining "press"... Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #218

Many states have them. merrily Sep 2013 #79

And you just presented the problem with 'shied laws'. Congress should NOT sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #198

Wasn't unwitting, at all. Congress made the same mistake w/FISA when they limited Title III warrant leveymg Sep 2013 #222

FISA is not part of the Constitution. It was another pretext to be doing what was already sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #224

The current Bill is very much another intended end-run around the First Amendment leveymg Sep 2013 #226

Thank you. I completely agree and am glad that people are not fooled by the pretext sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #230

The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from passing any law that limits freedom of the press. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #129

So, in your view the 49 state journalist shield laws that have passed geek tragedy Sep 2013 #141

Those parts that would limit in any way the freedom of the press are unconstitutional JDPriestly Sep 2013 #174

If you cannot define the press than the 1st amendment Progressive dog Sep 2013 #194

If the Founding Fathers had wanted to define the press, they would have done so. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #199

So the first amendment "freedom of the press" must be meaningless. Progressive dog Sep 2013 #247

Actually, part of the problem is that our censorship laws, which the government calls JDPriestly Sep 2013 #249

Governments have always had secrets and Progressive dog Sep 2013 #255

That's the problem. Congress shall make no law. That includes "definitions." Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #219

So don't let Congress make new laws, just continue Progressive dog Sep 2013 #248

Nope. Congress makes no laws abridging freedom of press. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #251

Even though press has no deined meaning? Progressive dog Sep 2013 #254

Wow! sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #175

I'm talking about extending legal privileges to journalists so that they geek tragedy Sep 2013 #176

"What are you supporting here?" NealK Sep 2013 #197

That lockstep mentality don't fly here like it used to, does it? Skip Intro Sep 2013 #201

�News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.� Lord Northcliffe Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2013 #8

Have they completely lost their fucking minds? Enthusiast Sep 2013 #9

Establishment Democrats GETPLANING Sep 2013 #13

Why is it the name of the act always seems to imply the opposite of what the Ed Suspicious Sep 2013 #19

Because the "Taking a Giant Shit on the 1st Amendment Bill" did not sound as snappy. Glassunion Sep 2013 #22

Apparently. n/t Aerows Sep 2013 #30

+1 woo me with science Sep 2013 #64

I think that is a great title. PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #112

What we should do is require journalists to get a journalist license and have to Glassunion Sep 2013 #21

DU is at risk. Licensing Journalists is Very Bad. This law is unconstitutional. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #26

So you think the law should be defeated, and the current system kept as is? nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #28

If those are the only two alternatives, then absolutely defeat the (proposed) law. But it's not. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2013 #33

False dichotomy. merrily Sep 2013 #144

So if you aren't approved by Corporate America, you're not a journalist. Marr Sep 2013 #31

A drawing I made about this issue dead_head Sep 2013 #39

A press that has to answer to the government when it prints something the government doesn't like JoeyT Sep 2013 #47

So, only the BOUGHT CORPORATE "journalists" can have info... polichick Sep 2013 #52

I have said it many a times nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #53

Why do people keep voting for DiFi? Vashta Nerada Sep 2013 #57

Here nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #60

Thanks. Vashta Nerada Sep 2013 #63

She runs again, I ain't holding my nose in the general nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #71

i DIDN'T vote for her this time around.. frylock Sep 2013 #124

I'll support your decision. Vashta Nerada Sep 2013 #137

yep.. 2banon Sep 2013 #151

As opposed to voting for a Republican? LOTE. merrily Sep 2013 #135

So what's the difference between her and a Republican? Vashta Nerada Sep 2013 #138

How should I know? I didn't say there was a difference, did I? merrily Sep 2013 #154

Charlie Pierce tears DiFi a new one in a way in which I could only dream! bullwinkle428 Sep 2013 #66

WOW !!! - Thank You For That !!! -MUST READ !!! WillyT Sep 2013 #96

Do You Want To OP This, Or Should I ??? WillyT Sep 2013 #117

Go for it, Willy! I'm just glad to have stumbled across it, bullwinkle428 Sep 2013 #165

outstanding. 2banon Sep 2013 #157

Will her husband get the Certification right$? GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #179

oh AMEN to that! (n/t) bread_and_roses Sep 2013 #209

So only Corporate Media hacks can report on Corporate Government. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #70

We will have to form news cooperatives. JDPriestly Sep 2013 #78

On the other side of the spectrum... Oilwellian Sep 2013 #192

Obama should veto this piece of crap - but will he? [n/t] Maedhros Sep 2013 #81

Veto it? Who do you think DiFi has been pushing it for? merrily Sep 2013 #91

A veto/signing of this bill would serve as a good litmus test Maedhros Sep 2013 #160

Yes, but I can't see him vetoing, unless the bill does not contain a national security exception. merrily Sep 2013 #167

He kissed those rights goodbye long ago Oilwellian Sep 2013 #193

Co-sponsors ProSense Sep 2013 #90

And? merrily Sep 2013 #92

What? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #93

I assumed your post had a point. If so, the point is not self evident. merrily Sep 2013 #94

Yes, "the point": co-sponsors. ProSense Sep 2013 #97

Very visible, as are you. merrily Sep 2013 #101

You're "visible" also, too. ProSense Sep 2013 #104

I have no problem whatever being as visible and as transparent as you are. merrily Sep 2013 #108

Well, ProSense Sep 2013 #110

It's not a problem for me. merrily Sep 2013 #113

It's like hunting snark. Warren Stupidity Sep 2013 #182

Duzzy!!! westerebus Sep 2013 #200

The point PS was trying to make was 2banon Sep 2013 #164

Ha! If only... whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #171

"to inform us of the list of Traitors who co-sponsored this fascist bill." ProSense Sep 2013 #173

"afraid of information" ... huh? 2banon Sep 2013 #178

These people are DANGEROUS. woo me with science Sep 2013 #100

Here's the version the committee passed: geek tragedy Sep 2013 #102

I wonder if posting on DU makes me a journalist? JoePhilly Sep 2013 #116

Should it matter? merrily Sep 2013 #139

I just want to determine if I can use these legal protections. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #153

If you are asking if you would be protected under the draft federal shield bill, merrily Sep 2013 #155

so the bill takes us from questionseverything Sep 2013 #121

Incorrect. Right now NO ONE has those protections. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #122

so you think we NEED questionseverything Sep 2013 #131

and next time there's a Republican? nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #136

how will we know the difference? questionseverything Sep 2013 #147

Tom DeLay's conviction/prosecution has absolutely nothing to do with the President. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #148

geek said questionseverything Sep 2013 #159

You appear to have missed the point of Questions Everything's post. merrily Sep 2013 #163

Not so. A number of states have shield laws. merrily Sep 2013 #143

Every state besides Wyoming has some shield protections, judicial and/or legislative. merrily Sep 2013 #149

This is about protections from FEDERAL investigations. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #150

There is some SCOTUS precedent on point. merrily Sep 2013 #152

national security exception questionseverything Sep 2013 #169

Sure. Leakers are usually perceived by government to be a threat to national security. merrily Sep 2013 #170

Not exactly. This would, however, give government the power to decide who is merrily Sep 2013 #158

DiFi is a DiNO. PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #106

fuck feinstein frylock Sep 2013 #126

Another day, another travesty. TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #128

How many reporters back in the late 1700s earned a salary commensurate w/the NYTimes or WaPo? Roland99 Sep 2013 #140

Anyone who could hammer a piece of paper to a tree got First Amendment protection. merrily Sep 2013 #145

Exactly! Roland99 Sep 2013 #161

Wait just a minute. First of all it's a low blow to immediately use the "unConstitutional" card. rhett o rick Sep 2013 #142

Feinstein is proof of the new Orwellian theorem: jsr Sep 2013 #156

Fits Nicely With The Rest... WillyT Sep 2013 #185

Yet everyone laughs at Assange when he says America has a war on journalism and whistleblowers davidn3600 Sep 2013 #168

I sense synergy whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #172

Bottom line is mick063 Sep 2013 #184

That (D) does not mean much anymore RC Sep 2013 #212

K&R and WTF raouldukelives Sep 2013 #186

It's too late. blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #188

Welcome to the POLICE STATE. And Obama's 30,000 Drones are coming, too. blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #187

Feinstein and Durbin are TRAITORS. Faryn Balyncd Sep 2013 #202

They cannot get away with this. woo me with science Sep 2013 #203

Truly... AzDar Sep 2013 #204

It's exhausting to have to fight against your own party so much of the time. K&R. *sigh* myrna minx Sep 2013 #205

Journalism is .... Scuba Sep 2013 #208

Perfect. Check #216 below. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #220

If this "law" is passed... adavid Sep 2013 #211

"Right of the people" shall not be "abridged" or "infringed." Funny how that works in the BOR. nt Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #214

And Orwell would have a thing to say to DiFi about gun control: Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #216

That becomes hilarious when one considers the weapons the government / MIC control today. Scuba Sep 2013 #229

Explains why imperial/superpowers never lose against guerilla & insurrection forces. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #246

Maybe I'm missing something. Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #217

it is that the government defines who is a journalist Enrique Sep 2013 #221

But independent journalists don't have those protections now. Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #225

No, it does exactly the opposite. woo me with science Sep 2013 #232

So you think the shield law is unnecessary Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #234

Risen should never have been hauled into court, woo me with science Sep 2013 #235

But he WAS hauled into court and the court sided with the feds. Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #236

The solution is to get rid of the corporate authoritarians now corrupting our government woo me with science Sep 2013 #237

Agreed, but how? Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #239

No, you don't agree. woo me with science Sep 2013 #241

I agree that we need to get rid of corporate authoritarians corrupting our government. Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #242

btw, I still haven't been able to find where this law defines who is and is not a journalist Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #238

here Enrique Sep 2013 #250

thanks Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #253

What you are missing is that this is the latest outrage. treestar Sep 2013 #252

Wow. Lot's of amazingly bad stuff seems to happen every day. gulliver Sep 2013 #223

Two things MFrohike Sep 2013 #228

compelling Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #233

You're wrong MFrohike Sep 2013 #243

ah Sanddog42 Sep 2013 #244

That's what happens... 99Forever Sep 2013 #231

Your objection is a hallucinatory: the status of federal journalist privilege was "resolved" struggle4progress Sep 2013 #240

Yeah. That's bullshit right there. DirkGently Sep 2013 #245