Sunday, 6 August 2017

Feinstein to Critics: ‘I Consider Myself a Liberal’

quote [ But there’s no denying that the energy in the Democratic Party is currently with the far left, as evidenced by the single-payer advocates who gave Feinstein so much trouble at a town hall meeting in April. For all her accomplishments, Feinstein’s claim that she’s a liberal is not entirely accurate. ]

Interesting conversation.

Reveal
KQED Menu
KQED News
TOPICS
PROGRAMS & BLOGS
SPECIAL COVERAGE
NPR
PBS
Donate
Search
CLOSE
Popular
KQED HOME
LISTEN LIVE
WATCH EPISODES
PODCASTS
RADIO SCHEDULES
TV SCHEDULES
MOBILE/APPS
DONATE
Sections
RADIO
TV
NEWS
ARTS
FOOD
SCIENCE
EDUCATION
SUPPORT KQED
ABOUT KQED
Public Media for Northern California
THE CALIFORNIA REPORT
Feinstein to Critics: ‘I Consider Myself a Liberal’
Sen. Dianne Feinstein at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2015.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2015. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
By Scott Shafer
AUGUST 4, 2017
SHARE
By one measure, Dianne Feinstein is at the peak of a long political career, with her seniority, temperament and experience giving her unprecedented influence in the U.S. Senate.

And yet, at age 84 and the oldest member of the Senate (the second-oldest, Orrin Hatch, is nine months younger), she can’t quite shake the whispers that it might be best for her not seek re-election next year.

The whispers broke into a shout this week with an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times.

Titled “Why Dianne Feinstein Shouldn’t Run Again,” the column by Harold Meyerson, executive editor of the American Prospect, concluded with this sentence: “Dianne Feinstein does herself — and her state, and her party — no favors by running for office one more time. Best to call it a day.”

“I read that piece and I was surprised,” Feinstein told KQED this week. “It didn’t mention any accomplishments, what I do, what I’ve achieved. The kind of day that I have, my ability. It’s all sort of done on the basis of a numerical age and the fact that I’m not as liberal as some, although I consider myself a liberal.”

Feinstein is right that the column focused more on actuarial tables than actual results of her career.

But there’s no denying that the energy in the Democratic Party is currently with the far left, as evidenced by the single-payer advocates who gave Feinstein so much trouble at a town hall meeting in April. For all her accomplishments, Feinstein’s claim that she’s a liberal is not entirely accurate.


Feinstein, Harris Reactions to Comey Firing a Study in Contrasts
In her KQED interview, Feinstein acknowledged that “I may not be as liberal as some … maybe not to the extent of Bernie Sanders. But certainly that’s been my history as a mayor (of San Francisco) for nine years.”

Those who were present for her mayoralty would beg to differ. Feinstein took office under the worst of circumstances the day in November 1978 that Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated in City Hall. Anyone who saw the video of Feinstein that day knows she was a tower of strength and composure. She did an extraordinary job pulling the city together in its darkest hour and afterward.

But to say she was a liberal mayor doesn’t entirely comport with history. Among other things, she vetoed a piece of legislation that would have allowed women to get equal pay for equal work.

And in 1982 she vetoed legislation to allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners and receive benefits like health insurance. At the time, she said, “I must believe in what I am defending. I would love to go out and defend a document for the changing lifestyles we have in our city. This is not that document.”

Twenty-two years later, after Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed same-sex couples to marry in San Francisco, Feinstein, then a U.S. senator, said it contributed to John Kerry’s loss to President George W. Bush. “So I think what the whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon,” Sen. Feinstein said. “And people aren’t ready for it.”


Is Feinstein's Age an Issue? Many Voters Think So
Of course, many would agree. In fairness, as mayor, Dianne Feinstein took the lead in developing an extensive model of AIDS support services when other officials, like President Reagan and New York City Mayor Ed Koch, mostly looked the other way. It became known as “the San Francisco model,” and the gay community was deeply grateful for it.

Whether Feinstein is “liberal enough” is unlikely to determine whether or not she wins another six-year term. If she runs, she likely clears the field and wins.

“I’m at a position now, and some say it’s seniority and I think some of it is drive, to be able to get even more done,” Feinstein told KQED.

Feinstein gives every indication she’s running, but given her age and, more importantly, health challenges faced by husband Richard Blum, she still has time to change her mind. If she does, stand back lest you get run over by a horde of ambitious Democrats seeking to succeed her.

EXPLORE: NEWS, POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATE


0 Comments
Related


Feinstein's S.F. Town Hall Will Test Her Political Skills

Feinstein 'Resting Comfortably' After Pacemaker Procedure

Could Dianne Feinstein Face a Democratic Challenge in 2018?

Harvey Milk Stamp Draws a Crowd to Castro Post Office

Who’s Behind the Colorful Lights at San Francisco City Hall?

Cleve Jones: Marriage Equality Is An Extraordinary Victory for Everybody
Powered by
AUTHORSCOTT SHAFER
Scott Shafer migrated to KQED in 1998 after extended stints in politics and government to host The California Report. Now he covers those things and more as senior editor for KQED's Politics and Government Desk. When he's not asking questions you'll often find him in a pool playing water polo. Find him on Twitter @scottshafer

VIEW ALL POSTS BY THIS AUTHOR
Post navigation
ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA REPORT

The California Report provides daily coverage of news and culture throughout the state.

Contributors
Contact
Tune In
ABOUT KQED

About
Jobs
Internships
Donate to KQED
Website help
SUPPORT FOR THE CALIFORNIA REPORT IS PROVIDED BY

Eric and Wendy Schmidt
The California Endowment
California HealthCare Foundation
Rowbotham
The Westly Foundation


The James Irvine Foundation
Barracuda Networks
Blach Construction
Personal Capital
Collective Health
PaintCare
COPYRIGHT © 2017 KQED INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. | TERMS OF SERVICE | PRIVACY POLICY| CONTACT US

GET THE FACTS!

Your Email
GO!
[SFW] [politics]
[by lilmookieesquire]
<-- Entry / Comment History

Taxman said @ 12:40pm GMT on 6th August
Stop it with the 'suppression of freedom of speech' nonsense.

Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. That's IT. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean freedom from consequences.

Your name can be dragged through the mud on social media. Your business can be boycotted out of existence. Universities can choose to not have you speak on their campuses. The are all perfectly legal and constitutionally protected ways of expressing disapproval of hate speech. None of them involves the government.

So until you show me where the left is having the government ARREST people for what they're saying, knock it off.


Taxman said @ 12:41pm GMT on 6th August
Stop it with the 'suppression of freedom of speech' nonsense.

Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. That's IT. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean freedom from consequences.

Your name can be dragged through the mud on social media. Your business can be boycotted out of existence. Universities can choose to not have you speak on their campuses. These are all perfectly legal and constitutionally protected ways of expressing disapproval of hate speech. None of them involves the government.

So until you show me where the left is having the government ARREST people for what they're saying, knock it off.



<-- Entry / Current Comment
Taxman said @ 12:40pm GMT on 6th August
Stop it with the 'suppression of freedom of speech' nonsense.

Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say. That's IT. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean freedom from consequences.

Your name can be dragged through the mud on social media. Your business can be boycotted out of existence. Universities can choose to not have you speak on their campuses. These are all perfectly legal and constitutionally protected ways of expressing disapproval of hate speech. None of them involves the government.

So until you show me where the left is having the government ARREST people for what they're saying, knock it off.




Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur