Dianne Feinstein today: 'I am totally opposed' to NSA surveillance of US allies.[2]

People talk a lot about economic class (1%/99%, rich/poor, etc) but there is another way to think about class: rulers versus ruled. Feinstein is part of the US ruling class and has been for decades. She now has more in common with foreign leaders than US citizens she supposedly represents. Once you understand her mindset her views make perfects sense.

Unfortunately these paternalistic views are pervasive with our leaders so I doubt replacing her would help. Rockefeller, next most senior on the committee, is the forth generation of a ruling class family. And Wyden, apparently the only opponent of mass NSA surveillance, would simply be outvoted by the rest of the committee.

And I doubt elections will turn on this issue. However I do get the sense that they are getting tired of spending so much time on this issue that it is interfering with their preferred agenda. So perhaps the continued hassle will eventually wear them down.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/20/nsa-call-re...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillanc...

Senator Mark Udall is another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a longtime opponent of mass NSA surveillance.

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-...

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22271546/colorado-sen-mark-udal...

It seems really hopeless situation with the Republicans. Either they are people of conviction that can I only support in certain areas (e.g. Cruz) or corporate shills that would have mainstream appeal (e.g.Christie).

The President is just a number on the scoreboard. It makes some things easier, but it isn't the goal.

So the primaries and final campaign, for Republicans, becomes a soapbox rather than a serious effort. (And man it shows, doesn't it?)

Second, find other candidates for which this issue trumps all other issues, example, image you could foresee the future, if there was someone running against Feinstein who if elected would result in Roe v. Wade being overturned would you still vote for them instead of Feinstein?

What about if they would cause a permanent government shutdown over the issue resulting in the US defaulting on its debt?

If the answer is no, then just give up now.

Now that you know what you want, and are willing to do anything to achieve it, go start fundraising for people who oppose mass surveillance and will do ridiculous things like shutdown the government to get it.

"Oooh, oooh the other guys are worse" Politicians know that they have a powerful machine, or a durable demographic advantage in their district, and that all kinds of tribal "the other guy is worse" defenses will come to their aid.

It's time to start going after the individuals in the government who allowed this to happen, because they have proven themselves to be treacherous, as opposed to any hypothetical rivals that who might not agree with you on the finer points of government.

What congress has allowed the NSA to do is inexcusable, and far more important than your personal preexisting political inclinations.

EDIT: totally misread your comment, I agree with you.

The question is can we peel away enough Dem votes for the #2 in the open primary to be a more liberty-centric candidate rather than her last challenger, Republican Elizabeth Emken.

Also even a failed primary challenge could pressure her to swerve left.

I do agree that "Stop spying on us" is way more appealing than "Remove Feinstein from the Senate Intelligence Committee" :)

Stop thinking locally, start thinking globally, a few thousand dollars could turn a congress race in a close district in the middle of nowhere.

You're allowed to donate to where ever and whoever you want, as much as you want, you're allowed to vote once where you live. Which do you think is a more effective strategy?

Ideally what you want is a kind of sabre metrics for politics, it's about dollars for seats, not votes.

I'd say my idea is easier to accomplish, Diane Feinstein isn't going anywhere, she has consistent 20% margins. Diane Feinstein will only be unseated by her death.

Is this because no one bothers to run against her? Why exactly do her constituents like her so much?

No, Republicans don't let either of California's Senate seats go uncontested.

They don't run good candidates (that is, candidates that are good at appealing to any but already-committed Republicans as even the lesser of two evils), but that's pretty true of what they do for all statewide offices in CA -- there's a reason why they've been pretty much shut out elective statewide offices for a long time (and, the last one they had -- Governor Schwarzenegger -- was elected in an unusually-structured recall election which paid a high premium to name recognition in a crowded field, and then reelected with the power of incumbency.)

Seeing as, here, we are discussing replacing Feinstein on the Senate Intelligence Committee and not replacing Feinstein as a Senator, you'd better believe I'd not care about the replacement's position on Roe v. Wade.

"Just a Senate resolution". So you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree.

> Feinstein has a faulty understanding of the Constitution and seems pro-elite and authoritarian.

Neither "pro-elite" nor "authoritarian" are likely viewed as a problem by other Senators.

> I'm a constituent of hers and want to start a campaign, but have never done this before.

It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways or resign than to get her off the intel committee (and I'm not saying either of the former options is easy.)

Who'd filibuster in her support?

> It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways

This campaign would be a form of pressure. She's starting to feel a little heat, today she called for a full NSA review:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_real...

Since the Senate doesn't require "active" filibusters in practice, just the absence of sufficient votes to invoke cloture, you'd just ask who'd use Senate procedure to keep her.

> This campaign would be a form of pressure. She's starting to feel a little heat, today she called for a full NSA review:

That's probably a response to the White House saying that reforms are necessary (which itself is probably a result of recent revelations about what the NSA monitoring of allied leaders and the ensuing diplomatic crisis), not to any public campaign.

Boxer: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=201...

Feinstein: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=201...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKI7nHIkD20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_...

And I don't mean "wake up and see that the other guys are right" but just "wake up and realize the rules were changed and a different strategy might better get you what you want." If some democrats vote for Dem-who-isn't-Feinstein because they want to lock down the general for Dem-vs.-Dem, and some Democrats vote for DwiF because they agree more with DwiF than F, and enough Republicans vote for DwiF because good god please anyone but F, things could look quite a bit different.

If she was running for, say, a House district focussed on San Francisco, the primary-system changes might make a difference. Running for a statewide seat, they really don't make a lot of difference -- it would be just as easy for a Democrat with more appeal to the left to unseat her in the old-style partisan primary than in California's non-partisan primary.

> enough Republicans vote for DwiF because good god please anyone but F

Strategically voting Republicans would be taking a pretty big risk of doing that, because that means they stand a good chance of ending up with a general electing of DwiF vs. F, and the realistic anti-surveillance Democratic candidates tend to be more opposed to Republican positions in every other area than Feinstein is.

You'll have to actually make a case here, rather than simply asserting it. In a general election, F vs. DwiF, with Republicans breaking to DwiF, F has much less of a downhill battle than typical.

"Strategically voting Republicans would be taking a pretty big risk of doing that, because that means they stand a good chance of ending up with a general electing of DwiF vs. F, and the realistic anti-surveillance Democratic candidates tend to be more opposed to Republican positions in every other area than Feinstein is."

They stand a good chance of yet another Republican losing to Feinstein, if they all vote for the Republican. Depending on who DwiF is, that may or may not be preferred. It may very well be that there's no one with the right positioning in the field at present; there very well could be by 2014.

None of this is to say that Feinstein is guaranteed (or even likely) to lose in 2014; simply that pointing out that the last races weren't close doesn't tell us much, and I think there is more of a chance then there has been.

Of course, she's also 80, so it could plausibly even be that she retires before we find out.

In a primary election, there is likely to be more than one Republican, and the opening of the primary system means that, instead of the Republican with most support from Republican activists being moved forward to the general election, in the absence of substantial cross-major-party-voting or massive supermajority Democratic primary turnout (unlikely in a statewide primary), the Republican with the most appeal to Republicans and Republican leaning independents voting in the primary will move forward.

The very same changes to the primary system that you are going on about are exactly why it doesn't make much sense for Republicans to cross-party vote, since the problem that has made them noncompetitive in statewide general elections is mitigated in the new primary system and, unlike registration-switching in the old partisan-primary system, cross-party voting actually means your party is less likely to even have a candidate in the general.

As a California Democrat, I'd love it if Republicans followed your plan, because I'd like nothing more than a D v. D general election.

"As a California Democrat, I'd love it if Republicans followed your plan, because I'd like nothing more than a D v. D general election."

That's precisely why it might work. Democrats should like it for the reason you specified; Republicans should like it if there is someone they prefer to Feinstein. If enough of both get on board, it happens.

Not that I'd trust her, I feel that politics and our country would be better with her running a lemon-aid stand.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6631068

But it's something. She was adamantly opposed before this, actively preventing any members in her committee from answering basic questions about oversight. She steamrolled over any objections Udall might have had, for instance.

The fact she acknowledges anything wrong with the NSA at all is a reversal for her. I'm hoping it will serve as flag for other Senators to vote for comprehensive reform legislation that's being introduced this week.

Perhaps our allies are reassessing their relationship with us and who they want to do business with? I am not suggesting that Europe or Latin American is planning for a "Byzantine siege" or cold war but rather that we are not boyfriend/girlfriend anymore?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban...

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

Then the staff would pay attention. Otherwise, I wouldn't count on much changing.

(415) 393-0707

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/state-offic...

Really the best chances of removing her from the intel committee are for her to suddenly decide due to family or health that she wants to leave Congress before her term is up.

The most positive way for that to happen would be for a mid-term replacement who could take over the parts of her legacy she cares most about (probably NOT intel committee or anything to do with NSA...) shows up, and the governor and Sen Feinstein agree that this person would be a sufficiently good replacement to justify retiring early.

Link? This Feinstein 2018 graphic seems to indicate she's running: http://www.diannefeinsteinforsenate.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban...

There are a lot of reasons for individuals to be anti-gun. There are people who are pro-gun and against many other forms of human rights. Humans aren't necessarily consistent in their positions.

(There are people who have much much more contradictory positions than anti-gun but pro-speech; stuff like being pro-economic development and also pro rent control, etc.)

The second amendment in particular is grammatically awkward, which facilitates misinterpretation. It is also, in its strictest sense, unworkable - nuclear ICBMs are discussed in "arms control talks"; the guy down the block shouldn't be able to keep and bear nuclear ICBMs. Now I think the best thing to do would be to update the second amendment, but we've sort of agreed (since about the 1930s) that we're instead going to be ignoring the strict wording beyond some arbitrary line. Once we're in that position, saying "your views are flagrantly unconstitutional because you draw that line differently than I do" is not really a well founded position. I say this as someone who thinks we've generally gone too far with gun control.

https://www.facebook.com/removefeinstein

Upvotes are evidence of hacker interest. TV news would not cover this, too inside-baseball. But I hear you, you're not interested.

This issue sits at the intersection of big data and politics. It's fundamentally cheap storage and networking which enables this surveillance.