R.I.P. Dianne Feinstein

[Sabin]

danfrank wrote
I think it’s a smart choice by Newsom. Given the current state of unions, the fact that she (and her wife) have a long history of labor activism is a big plus. He’s courting multiple Democratic constituencies: The Black and queer communities, plus labor, plus pro-choice women (leading Emily’s list gives her great cred in that regard).

Newsom has NOT asked her to serve as just an interim, so let’s see how she does. The 2024 race for this seat looks to be an exciting one.

Unless the decision to appoint someone who doesn't live in California massively backfires (and I don't think it will because I just don't think Democrats care), I think this is probably the best choice Gavin Newsom could have made. With growing concerns over age of our politicians, he has launchd a new career. That's certainly going to help his standing with black voters, a group that he's going to need to court for his political future. I think generally they were more supportive of having a black woman in the Senate than Barbara Lee specifically. While I like Lee, I think Newsom has an excellent dodge in being able to say "There's a race for the seat and it's unfair to pick the person in third place." I'd honestly be fine with Schiff, Lee, or Porter because they're better options than most voters will get but I'm not in the tank for any of them (even Lee whom I would probably back for her actions 20+ years ago, but still... 20+ years ago) but I won't lie: I'd give anything to be a fly on the wall to hear their campaign morning meeting. It would be hilarious.

I'm increasingly wondering if Gavin Newsom is going to end up President next year. What 87 step plan does he already have in motion?

EDIT: my other favorite thing about this choice is that it does a spectacular job of making the right enemies, i.e. right-leaning people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. True, she doesn't live here; how many Democrats really are going to care when Gavin Newsom just appointed a leading figure of one of the issues that Democrats care the most about?

LAST EDIT: um, fingers crossed she's not corrupt.

LAST LAST EDIT: well, that didn't take long. She represented Uber to fight classifying drivers as employees and was on the board of public policy and campaigns for Airbnb. Not the best... probably doesn't get to call herself a tireless advocate for working people but... I don't know, not the worst.

[danfrank]

I think it’s a smart choice by Newsom. Given the current state of unions, the fact that she (and her wife) have a long history of labor activism is a big plus. He’s courting multiple Democratic constituencies: The Black and queer communities, plus labor, plus pro-choice women (leading Emily’s list gives her great cred in that regard).

Newsom has NOT asked her to serve as just an interim, so let’s see how she does. The 2024 race for this seat looks to be an exciting one.

[Big Magilla]

Laphonza Butler gets the job.

The current president of Emily's List, she was an aide to Kamala Harris when she was Senator.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/01/us/n ... utler.html

[danfrank]

[quote=danfrank post_id=169429 time=<a href="tel:1696040033">1696040033</a> user_id=8]
I think the tide turned as the state became more diverse (Southern California in particular has completely different demographics than when I grew up). Somehow San Francisco started to dominate state politics with Feinstein and Boxer in the Senate, Willie Brown as speaker of the state Assembly, of course Pelosi, and them Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Somehow the Bay Area’s more progressive politics took hold and became the norm.

Something I forgot to mention: Pete Wilson defeated Feinstein in that 1990 governors' race, but in a way, that event -- and the subsequent policies Wilson pushed -- enabled the rest of Feinstein's career and CA's turn to the left. At this time when, as dan notes, the state was diversifying, Wilson got behind Prop 187, which stigmatized immigrants. As I recall, the proposition passed (and Wilson was re-elected in 1994), but it was widely felt that alienating the growing Hispanic population hastened CA's major blue turn. (The fact that Schwarzenegger had significant appeal to Hispanic audiences(voters) had a lot to do with his being the only statewide GOP winner since Wilson.)
[/quote]

That’s a great point. Of course Schwarzenegger was also greatly aided by being a celebrity. California has had not one but two movie star governors.

As for what Gavin Newsom will do: when he appointed Alex Padilla (definitely a nod to the Latinx community, who have been greatly underrepresented in California), he received flack for not appointing another Black woman, as Kamala’s vacating of the seat would leave none in the Senate. No doubt thinking he would not likely have a second opportunity to appoint a Senator, Newsom said his next appointment would be a Black woman.

Since Barbara Lee had already announced her intention to run for the Feinstein seat, along with formidable candidates Adam Schiff and Katie Porter, Newsom announced fairly recently that he would not be appointing Lee. This infuriated her. Early polls show her running behind Schiff and Porter, so obviously having incumbency would have bolstered her candidacy enormously.

It seems that Newsom wants to appoint someone who will be a filler. The most prominent Black women politicians in California, besides Lee, are unlikely candidates. Karen Bass just became mayor of Los Angeles, and Maxine Waters is both too old and too controversial. Names being mentioned include the current Secretary of State, Shirley Weber, and a couple of others whom I have never heard of.

Some pundits are suggesting that the 2024 ballot will include 2 Senate races, one to fill out the rest of th current term, which would only be for 2 months at that point, and one to fill the next 6-year term. The same candidates would likely be for both slots. A little weird, but apparently that’s how it’s set up.

In any case I hope Newsom appoints someone quickly. One vacant seat makes the Democrats in this Senate.

[Mister Tee]

I think the tide turned as the state became more diverse (Southern California in particular has completely different demographics than when I grew up). Somehow San Francisco started to dominate state politics with Feinstein and Boxer in the Senate, Willie Brown as speaker of the state Assembly, of course Pelosi, and them Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Somehow the Bay Area’s more progressive politics took hold and became the norm.

Something I forgot to mention: Pete Wilson defeated Feinstein in that 1990 governors' race, but in a way, that event -- and the subsequent policies Wilson pushed -- enabled the rest of Feinstein's career and CA's turn to the left. At this time when, as dan notes, the state was diversifying, Wilson got behind Prop 187, which stigmatized immigrants. As I recall, the proposition passed (and Wilson was re-elected in 1994), but it was widely felt that alienating the growing Hispanic population hastened CA's major blue turn. (The fact that Schwarzenegger had significant appeal to Hispanic audiences(voters) had a lot to do with his being the only statewide GOP winner since Wilson.)

[danfrank]

Yes, California was a purple state while I was growing up and into the earlier part of my adulthood. It would vote in solid Democrats like Alan Cranston, who served for a long time in the Senate, but also vote for many Republicans including Nixon and Reagan (being from California helped them, obviously), and a bunch of governors. I think the tide turned as the state became more diverse (Southern California in particular has completely different demographics than when I grew up). Somehow San Francisco started to dominate state politics with Feinstein and Boxer in the Senate, Willie Brown as speaker of the state Assembly, of course Pelosi, and them Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Somehow the Bay Area’s more progressive politics took hold and became the norm.

Boxer was indeed fortunate to be elected. She was perceived as far too progressive for the state as a whole, and she was not well-known statewide as Feinstein was after she had run for governor. As Tee mentioned, she had the good fortune to run against a terrible Republican candidate. Perhaps equally as important, Feinstein took the chance of taking her under her wing and the two ran as a team. I heard Boxer on the radio today talking about how fortunate she was that Feinstein did her that favor.

As for Tom Bradley, he was considered a formidable candidate. Many attributed his loss to racism, which certainly could have been a factor. He had been ahead in the polls. “The Bradley Effect” became a meme that came up when Obama ran for president Bradley himself did not think race was a factor. Others have attributed his loss to his controversial endorsement of a ballot measure that year that proposed putting a freeze on new gun sales. Advisors told him not to do this but he wouldn’t be budged.Being anti-gun would not be a losing issue in California now, but in 1982 it was not politically wise.

[Big Magilla]

Another bit of trivia is that although Feinstein was the first seated Jewish female senator, she and Barbara Boxer, who is also Jewish, were elected at the same time but because Feinstein was filling Wilson's unexpired term which had been filled by Wilson appointee John Seymour from January 1991 who she beat in the general election, she was seated on November 4, 1992, the day after the election. Boxer was not seated until January 1993. That made Feinstein the state's Senior Senator.

[Mister Tee]

danfrank wrote
The progressives, who were increasing in numbers during her tenure as mayor, couldn’t stand her. She was considerably more conservative than the average San Franciscan, though she kept getting voted in. Funny how people tend to like conservatives in executive positions, even when they otherwise vote more liberal. I think she was better suited for an executive role than a legislative one, and indeed she ran for governor of California after she was termed out. She lost to Republican Pete Wilson (see my earlier point), then decided to run for Senate.

This is a good point. Wilson beat her by 3.5%. Not a wipeout. But I see that in a post-Jerry Brown California, we see three consecutive losses for the Democratic Party in Tom Bradley and Dianne Feinstein combined. Tom Bradley's losses have been discussed. Was this loss attributed to anything in particular?

Because CA is now the foundation of the Dem coalition, it's probably lost on many that, prior to 1992, the state was anything but. Having native sons Nixon and Reagan as presidential ticket leaders had something to do with that, but, even in between, Ford beat Carter there, and, afterward, Bush I topped Dukakis (though the tight margin there, as in IL and PA, foretold the coming Dem electoral resurgence). Dems did better in Senate and gubernatorial elections, being at least competitive, but they lost about as often as they won.

This changed dramatically over the course of Bush I's term -- polling showed Clinton well ahead pretty much all of 1992 -- but it wasn't as if the state suddenly flipped wide-left. Feinstein's centrist profile was viewed as about the right place to be. Yes, I know Boxer also won that year, but Boxer drew a right-wing radio host as opponent, and only beat him by less than 5%, where Feinstein faced a more white-bread suburban GOPer, and walloped him by 16%. Feinstein's positioning also was seen as helpful in her surviving the debacle of 1994, where Dems lost control of both houses.

The problem thereafter was that CA changed dramatically -- moving ever-leftward, and, except for the Schwarzengger oddity, electing Dems pretty exclusively -- but Feinstein seemed impervious to this, and evolved into a Senator considerably less liberal than CA merited. It wasn't Lieberman v. CT or anything -- Feinstein was mostly a reliable party member -- but it did get to be annoying in later years.

As for her final act -- the is-she-all-there/why-won't-she-quit? tango we've all observed this year -- I choose to look past them, and dwell on her many years of service.

When I heard today she was the longest-serving female Senator, it took me a while to realize, of course she was: when she was elected, there were only two others (Mikulski and Kassebaum), and she outlasted them. Patty Murray should soon pass her -- elected that same night in 1992, but Feinstein, filling out the term of Pete Wilson, got to take office a few weeks earlier.

[Sabin]

danfrank wrote
The progressives, who were increasing in numbers during her tenure as mayor, couldn’t stand her. She was considerably more conservative than the average San Franciscan, though she kept getting voted in. Funny how people tend to like conservatives in executive positions, even when they otherwise vote more liberal. I think she was better suited for an executive role than a legislative one, and indeed she ran for governor of California after she was termed out. She lost to Republican Pete Wilson (see my earlier point), then decided to run for Senate.

This is a good point. Wilson beat her by 3.5%. Not a wipeout. But I see that in a post-Jerry Brown California, we see three consecutive losses for the Democratic Party in Tom Bradley and Dianne Feinstein combined. Tom Bradley's losses have been discussed. Was this loss attributed to anything in particular?

danfrank wrote
The rest is a better-known history on a national level. She broke a whole bunch of glass ceilings, and did some good things as a senator, e.g., coming out forcefully against torture in Guantanamo, and pretty consistently voted with the blue caucus. As Californians became increasingly blue and progressive, though, she was always at least a few steps behind. I believe she voted according to her principles, frustrating as some of them were.

I forgot that Annette Bening played her in The Report.

danfrank wrote
I have a close friend who has worked frequently with her staff and speaks very highly of them. They clearly took over for her when her cognitive and physical health declined. It was certainly disconcerting to see her propped up like she was, doing damage to her legacy as such a strong character. She should have called it quits several years ago, but her legendary stubbornness held sway.

She will be deservedly remembered for her numerous accomplishments, and I foresee significant streets, buildings, etc. named after her. She was one of the most significant politicians of her era. We can look forward to someone more progressive taking her seat, but for now it’s important to pause and honor her for her courage and her service.

I agree. This is true...
...
...
...okay, what's Newsom going to do?

[Big Magilla]

I lived in San Francisco from 1982-1984 and in the Bay Area until mid-2011. Feinstein was my mayor, and later my Senator. I voted for her in every election in which she was on my ballot. She may not have been perfect, but she was better than the alternative in every case.

I only voted for a Republican once in my life and that was for Arnold Schwarzenegger over Gray Davis who was a terrible governor.

[danfrank]

I’ve paid close attention to Dianne Feinstein for my entire adult life. I have decidedly mixed feelings about her politics, but I unreservedly honor her today. There is no doubt she was a principled public servant.

She first came to larger prominence when Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were murdered inside San Francisco City Hall by conservative Supervisor Dan White. That tragedy happened less than 2 weeks after the Jonestown massacre, whose victims were primarily San Franciscans. The city was shaken to its core. Feinstein, who had been president of the Board of Supervisors, was appointed as the new mayor. She deserves great credit for steadying San Francisco during a tumultuous time.

The progressives, who were increasing in numbers during her tenure as mayor, couldn’t stand her. She was considerably more conservative than the average San Franciscan, though she kept getting voted in. Funny how people tend to like conservatives in executive positions, even when they otherwise vote more liberal. I think she was better suited for an executive role than a legislative one, and indeed she ran for governor of California after she was termed out. She lost to Republican Pete Wilson (see my earlier point), then decided to run for Senate.

The rest is a better-known history on a national level. She broke a whole bunch of glass ceilings, and did some good things as a senator, e.g., coming out forcefully against torture in Guantanamo, and pretty consistently voted with the blue caucus. As Californians became increasingly blue and progressive, though, she was always at least a few steps behind. I believe she voted according to her principles, frustrating as some of them were.

I have a close friend who has worked frequently with her staff and speaks very highly of them. They clearly took over for her when her cognitive and physical health declined. It was certainly disconcerting to see her propped up like she was, doing damage to her legacy as such a strong character. She should have called it quits several years ago, but her legendary stubbornness held sway.

She will be deservedly remembered for her numerous accomplishments, and I foresee significant streets, buildings, etc. named after her. She was one of the most significant politicians of her era. We can look forward to someone more progressive taking her seat, but for now it’s important to pause and honor her for her courage and her service.

[Sabin]

It's a lousy thing to say but as a Californian, I almost feel relieved. I have no idea how strenuous the workaday life of a Senator is, but watching Dianne Feinstein's heath deteriorate over the last few years has been painful as has hearing all the rumors of political jockeying around her seat, which is both insulting to her as a human being as well as myself as a Californian. I'll just ignore that for the time being. I've going to spend much of today reading about her sixty-plus years of public service for major legislative achievements. Tbh, I know more about her major footnotes in history than I do about her legislation: first Jewish woman Senator, longest serving Jewish Senator, longest serving Californian Senator, first woman on the Senate Rules Committee and Intelligence Committee. For the bulk of my adult life, she's been known for being a bit more moderate a Senator than California should probably have (at least SoCal), except on guns where she deserves praise for introducing the Assault Weapons Ban. I'll be reading more. There's a lot to read. How many people leave behind a sixty-plus year career of public service?

And now we probably the most amazingly politicized open Senate seat of my life.

Anyway, RIP DiFi.

[Big Magilla]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... As#image=1