This gives me vibes back to the call for Breyer and RBG to retire... Dems call for Feinstein to resign {Updated: Feinstein has passed} (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

While California is a safe Senate seat for Democrats, her absence is causing delays and friction in getting nominations through (which counters what I said in a previous thread). I think they're right for calling for her to step down. It seems selfish.

Feinstein asks to be ‘temporarily’ replaced on Judiciary amid some party pressure to resign from the Senate | CNN Politics

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Wednesday night that she had asked to be “temporarily” replaced on the Senate Judiciary Committee while she is recovering from shingles, but the California Democrat remained committed to returning to the Senate amid pressure by some in her party to step down.

www.cnn.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Of course. They use Pelosi like a boogeyman. The devil incarnate.

There could be some truth to it as well.

 

[J-DONK]

There could be some truth to it as well.

Yeah if you read the article, it's lays out Pelosi's motive. I don't know that I believe it. Does Nancy want Schiff in the CA senate seat this bad? It's a hard a sell for me.

 

[Saintman2884]

Yeah if you read the article, it's lays out Pelosi's motive. I don't know that I believe it. Does Nancy want Schiff in the CA senate seat this bad? It's a hard a sell for me.

But it wouldn’t be beneath Pelosi to do something like this. She’s always been cold, calculating, ruthless when necessary political ideologue if the opportunity warranted it or necessitated being that way. One doesn’t reach the dizzying heights of becoming SOTH if you’re not willing, or capable to figuratively slit some throats, routinely make or break promises and then betray once-political allies or friends if it’ll achieve some greater political goals.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This is not good at all. She and Mitch need to strongly consider calling it quits.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein had to be corrected and told to vote during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday.

The California Democrat, who has been in frail health following a shingles diagnosis in the spring, has appeared confused at times since her return to the Capitol.

Feinstein, who at 90 is the oldest member serving in the US Senate, has faced questions about her health in recent years, and members of her own party called on her to resign her Senate seat after an extended absence earlier this year following the shingles diagnosis. She returned to Washington in June.

During Thursday’s hearing, Feinstein was meant to cast her vote on the Defense Appropriations bill, requiring her to say “Aye” or “Nay,” when her name was called. When she didn’t answer, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state tried to prompt her.

“Say aye,” she said, repeating herself three times to Feinstein.

Feinstein then started to read from prepared remarks, and was interrupted by an aide whispering in her ear.

“Yeah,” Murray said once again. “Just say ‘aye.’”

Feinstein gets confused in Senate Appropriations hearing and has to be prodded to vote | CNN Politics

Sen. Dianne Feinstein had to be corrected and told to vote during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday.

www.cnn.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Hoping to keep the politics out of her death announcement just out of respect. That being said, let's talk the politics of her replacement. Newsom is on record saying that he if it came to this, Feinstein's replacement would be a black woman and that replacement had to commit to not run for the fulltime seat. Some folks are pissed about this, but I actually think placing in someone who doesn't run is fair considering all of the others who have announced their candidacy since Feinstein announced she wasn't running for re-election.

Any names to throw out there? I would have said Karen Bass, but I doubt she wants to leave her job as mayor for a temporary role.

 

[MT15]

Hoping to keep the politics out of her death announcement just out of respect. That being said, let's talk the politics of her replacement. Newsom is on record saying that he if it came to this, Feinstein's replacement would be a black woman and that replacement had to commit to not run for the fulltime seat. Some folks are pissed about this, but I actually think placing in someone who doesn't run is fair considering all of the others who have announced their candidacy since Feinstein announced she wasn't running for re-election.

Any names to throw out there? I would have said Karen Bass, but I doubt she wants to leave her job as mayor for a temporary role.

I think Bass is planning to run for the seat anyway.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Feinstein's replacement would be a black woman and that replacement had to commit to not run for the fulltime seat.

Ugh...why do they insist on corning themselves like this and limiting their options??? And why do soo many insist that they do? How about just doing it without making it such a big deal! These public announcements of appointing someone just because they check-a-box is just extreme pandering. These public vows also put that person at a disadvantage because, right or wrong, they will always be seen as an "affirmative action" pick rather than the most qualified for the job.

 

[J-DONK]

Ugh...why do they insist on corning themselves like this and limiting their options??? And why do soo many insist that they do? How about just doing it without making it such a big deal! These public announcements of appointing someone just because they check-a-box is just extreme pandering. These public vows also put that person at a disadvantage because, right or wrong, they will always be seen as an "affirmative action" pick rather than the most qualified for the job.

Pelosi really wants Schiff to get that seat. So whoever takes it over apparently can't run because incumbency is a huge advantage. This is all internal CA politics at play.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh...why do they insist on corning themselves like this and limiting their options??? And why do soo many insist that they do? How about just doing it without making it such a big deal! These public announcements of appointing someone just because they check-a-box is just extreme pandering. These public vows also put that person at a disadvantage because, right or wrong, they will always be seen as an "affirmative action" pick rather than the most qualified for the job.

I kinda understand Newsom's rationale however. He appoints Schiff, for example, and Schiff has a leg up in the campaign cuz the appointment can be seen as an endorsement.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I kinda understand Newsom's rationale however. He appoints Schiff, for example, and Schiff has a leg up in the campaign cuz the appointment can be seen as an endorsement.

That is a valid concern, my beef is with the people that are demanding that he select a black woman and him vowing to do so.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

That is a valid concern, my beef is with the people that are demanding that he select a black woman and him vowing to do so.

It's a valid complaint though. He should have replaced Harris with a black female IMHO; the argument over representation in the Senate is a valid one.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Apparently, the CA Sec. of State is one of the women at the top of Newsom's list to replace Feinstein.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

It's a valid complaint though. He should have replaced Harris with a black female IMHO; the argument over representation in the Senate is a valid one.

It's not a valid complaint though. He chose to check a different box by selecting a Latino and by doing so he pissed off those demanding a black female. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Demanding an elected official to publicly commit to appointing "X" to "X" office is just lame. How about just doing so without the outside pressure. We should have the confidence that todays Democratic leaders would do the right thing without having to resort to ridiculous demands.

 

[MT15]

It's not a valid complaint though. He chose to check a different box by selecting a Latino and by doing so he pissed off those demanding a black female. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Demanding an elected official to publicly commit to appointing "X" to "X" office is just lame. How about just doing so without the outside pressure. We should have the confidence that todays Democratic leaders would do the right thing without having to resort to ridiculous demands.

He chose who he wanted. He didn’t bend to calls for another black woman then. I think the idea that he is ‘caving’ to demands might be overblown.

 

[J-DONK]

It's not a valid complaint though. He chose to check a different box by selecting a Latino and by doing so he pissed off those demanding a black female. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Demanding an elected official to publicly commit to appointing "X" to "X" office is just lame. How about just doing so without the outside pressure. We should have the confidence that todays Democratic leaders would do the right thing without having to resort to ridiculous demands.

The other side of this argument is that it's an honorary placement. Whoever occupies the seat won't keep it. It is the perfect situation to make a political statement about race, gender, or sexual orientation. Also, whoever gets appointed will be better then the previous holder.

 

[MT15]

The other side of this argument is that it's an honorary placement. Whoever occupies the seat won't keep it. It is the perfect situation to make a political statement about race, gender, or sexual orientation. Also, whoever gets appointed will be better then the previous holder.

Good way to think about it.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

He chose who he wanted. He didn’t bend to calls for another black woman then. I think the idea that he is ‘caving’ to demands might be overblown.

I agree, he did choose who he wanted. I'm just saying he shouldn't have committed to appointing a black female at the demands of others.

Newsom under pressure over appointing Feinstein’s replacement | CNN Politics

The death of pioneering Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has put California Gov. Gavin Newsom under immediate pressure over whom he picks as her replacement, with Democrats clinging to a narrow Senate majority and Congress likely nearing crucial votes over government funding.

www.cnn.com

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The other side of this argument is that it's an honorary placement. Whoever occupies the seat won't keep it. It is the perfect situation to make a political statement about race, gender, or sexual orientation. Also, whoever gets appointed will be better then the previous holder.

Then just do it! He don't need to make a grand announcement about their selection. To me, it would be more of a genuine effort than something that came at the behest of others.