 |
| The former mayors of SF and Oakland in August |
she's heard nothing from her challenger, Elizabeth Emken, that she needed to debate. "There's just nothing constructive coming out of their campaign," said the four-term Democratic senator.That's a hilarious construction--"nothing constructive", when the real reason is that there are many downsides and no upside in debating a little-known opponent. However, there are not many Republicans who are incensed about her pending victory. Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat whom they can work with.
Senator Feinstein has been known to break with the more extreme elements of her party, especially when it comes to national security. She chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, one of the least partisan committees in Congress. Whether her role is that of chairman or of ranking minority member, her continued presence should help Senators reach agreement on future issues that will arise in this sensitive area. She has my vote.
[Update: Note how Dianne Feinstein carefully chose her words on October 17th about the Obama Administration's changing story re Benghazi:
"I can tell you this, I think we do know what happened now. There’s no question but that it was a terrorist attack, there is no question but that the security was inadequate and I think that there is no question that we need to work on our intelligence."She didn't give some Republicans the red meat they were looking for--particularly regarding Administration decision-makers' motivations--but she didn't excuse the Administration for the disastrous outcome either. A good politician or someone who's looking out for the national interest? Both, maybe, but if I had to pick one it would be the latter.] © 2012 Stephen Yuen
“I think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very good individual, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment. I think that was possibly a mistake.”
No comments:
Post a Comment