Feinstein Wimps Out on Alito. Dem's Still Have a Lot to learn About Winning.
"This is a man I might disagree with. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court." So said California Sen. Diane Feinstein Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." And there you have it. In one single sentence, Sen. Feinstein demonstrated why the Democratic Party is having such a hard time winning elections and defeating the political, social and legal agenda of the radical right. Can you ever imagine anyone, anyone, on the Republican leadership side--Frist, DeLay, Hastert, Blunt, Cheney etc.--ever being so damned fair and balanced? Not until hell freezes over. That's because Republicans get it. Republicans have one goal in mind: winning. It's something the Democrats have yet to fully grasp.
Feinstein plans to vote against Samuel J. Alito Jr.'s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. But she will not support a filibuster. Feinstein, a lifetime supporter of women's reproductive rights, called the anti-abortion Alito "clearly qualified" and said she was "very impressed with his ability to maintain a very even demeanor during this entire thing and his ability not to specifically answer any questions." Shouldn't this last statement be reason enough to do whatever possible to block his confirmation?
continued
Having recently re-located to San Francisco when George Moscone and Harvey Milk were assassinated, in November of 1978, I came to admire the new mayor, Dianne Feinstein. She was the mayor for the entire time, almost 9 years, that I lived in the city by the bay.
San Francisco is a very diverse city, and one, I would think, not so easily governed. She did a good job during tough times for the city. She was fair-minded, showed integrity in her decision-making and I always felt that she could be trusted to do what she considered the right thing, within the law.
I was quite glad when Californians decided to make her their senator, along with Barbara Boxer, in the Year of the woman, as It was called.
But sometimes, I have to wonder about Dianne's sense of people.
I was open mouthed, when it was finally very clear that Bill Clinton had lied to the American people, including her, when he stated, bluntly, that he had not had sexual relations with Lewinski, that Dianne seemed genuinely miffed and shaken by that "revelation."
Why, I wondered, is she surprised?
I certainly wasn't. I knew the minute he made the statement that he was not being truthful.
Is she really that gullible, I wondered?
I still admire Dianne. We all have our shortcomings, and if her only short-coming is that she wants to believe what people say and trust her fellow man, she is a much better person than many of the people with whom she serves in congress.
But, Dianne, Alito lied to you, and he lied to you about something far more serious to our nation than a consensual adult act, no matter how disgusting when exposed to the light of day
Is that the kind of person we want appointed to the high court for life?
How can anyone believe that Alito, a lawyer, remembers nothing about a rather notorious club to which he belonged, especially after he sighted that very club as part of his application to work in the Reagan administration?
How can the Senate give consent to the appointment of a man or woman who feels that it is OK to lie to congress? That is what he did, and we all know it.
Why are we not all suspicious of anyone's agenda when they feel they must lie and evade questions? Why does anyone admire someone's ability to get through a hearing without honestly answering a damn thing?
As Americans, have we gotten to a point where we are so accustomed to being lied to that we seem to actually admire a good liar and evader?
Since when is a steady, consistent lying and evading considered good judicial temperament?
If that is all that is required, any sociopath will do for the high court.
No comments:
Post a Comment