> We definitely need to support someone who actually has a track record for this.
Ahem. Russ Feingold is best known for his collaboration with John McCain on campaign finance reform, but was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time (joined by a few others the second time). Voted against the Iraq war. One of 3 Democrats to vote against Geithner as Treasury secretary. Fought pork, returned his raises to the government. Voted against dismissal of impeachment charges for Clinton, brought a resolution to censure George W. Bush for illegal wiretapping. After losing his seat to a Tea Partier, he formed a PAC, Progressives United, which has opposed Citizens United, Wall Street and SOPA, and calls out the Democrats when their spine softens, but was just shipped off to an African ambassadorship.
> I believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better off without her
As a Californian, I am constantly ashamed at calling her "my" senator. Why the fuck can't someone reasonable run against her? I guess for the same reason that Bernie is having so much trouble: the Democratic Party is sorta like the Communist Party in USSR; you have to be an insider to get anywhere.
I mean, yes. Feinstein is better than the alternative in the General. The Primaries are the way to get rid of her, I can't believe no one has booted her out yet.
> Since she was just reelected and there's no recall procedure, we're stuck with her-- but we could get her off the intel committee with just a Senate resolution.
"Just a Senate resolution". So you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree.
> Feinstein has a faulty understanding of the Constitution and seems pro-elite and authoritarian.
Neither "pro-elite" nor "authoritarian" are likely viewed as a problem by other Senators.
> I'm a constituent of hers and want to start a campaign, but have never done this before.
It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways or resign than to get her off the intel committee (and I'm not saying either of the former options is easy.)
> I'm saying that they are the only party that doesn't actively portray you as a villain to their base.
On surveillance? They do. High-profile Democrats consistently talk about privacy advocates and encryption developers/users as threats to the security of the country. This is my point - surveillance is perhaps the most nastily bipartisan issue going.
More broadly: I absolutely support primary challenges from the outside. But I see no particular reason to pretend that Feinstein is any more open to change stance on this issue than your conservative of choice; if anything she's more unapologetically pro-surveillance than Republican moderates like McCain.
You’re splitting hairs.
Feinstein was mostly alone in her convictions but not completely.
Again:
> In the United States, there is effectively nobody in this position. The committee hearings on anti-trust and encryption have little overlap between interested parties or ideology.
> there is effectively nobody in this position.
Wrong. There are people and Feinstein is a great example of someone who worked quite hard to kill encryption while also being on various committees handling anti-trust.
If her anti-encryption bill passed or if she was able to push through some anti-trust through the Judiciary committee she would brag about it in her reelection campaign.
Feinstein is perfect model for someone who would gladly tout her legacy while on the judiciary committee and equally her accomplishments on a national security subcommittee.
You are wrong sir, now tuck your tail and go away. I’m done wasting my time with you. But now I know you quite well, you are a narcissist and you have to have the final word. So go ahead and prove me right…
> Just because he's "good" on this issue doesn't change that... You have to deny them victories, even on issues that you support
I understand this argument when it's something like a good stance on education, with bad stances on abortion and the environment. There are lots of people on the left who would share that education stance, and they should be championed instead.
But that's really, really not the case on surveillance. We don't have the luxury of siding with the left and denying the right (or vice-versa). Dianne Feinstein is the Congressional Democrat's standard-bearer on surveillance. We don't want to empower the right, great. But this is a hugely important issue where the left is terrible. So is most of the right - only a handful of figures on each side (especially Wyden, Udall, and Paul) doing anything good.
So what the heck does party discipline look like? Surrendering the entire issue because the Democrats are so profoundly wrong?
> Our own Senator Feinstein regularly votes against the interests of Silicon Valley
So when are you (plural you) going to put your money and your time where your mouths are and find someone to challenge her, including in the primaries?
She's an anomaly among Democrats. She may as well caucus with the Republicans, given her abysmal record in this area.
reply