« Illinois Sec. of State And Atty. Gen.: Really, The Burris Appointment Doesn't Need The Signature | Home | Profile in Courage »
Feinstein's Aboard For Panetta
Via AP, we see that incoming Senate intelligence chairman Dianne Feinstein is now supportive of Leon Panetta's nomination to head the CIA.
Seems that Panetta called Feinstein last night and she is "confident he'd surround himself with good personnel" at the agency, as AP reports. Sounds like an indirect agreement that current CIA No. 2 Stephen Kappes will remain at the agency.
That's one Democratic schism resolved for the week; one more to go...
Advertisement
Thank Goodness! DiFi is satisfied, we can all rest easy now.
January 7, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not satisfied, mollified.
January 7, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not mollified, egopied!
January 7, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone is running for CA Gov in 2010. Doesn't want to be on Obama's bad side.
January 7, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, poor gal, she got smacked by just how much support Obama had. She got due deference from Biden and Obama and Panetta and now feels very soothed.
Will someone puh-leeze show up in the primary to defeat this gal???!!!
January 7, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw DiFi.
January 7, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
okay...maybe someone can answer this for me...was it absolutely necessary that the president-elect and his transition team inform sen. feinstein on their nominee for this position?
i understand her role as committee chair of the sen. intelligence committee, but she does not have a role on the transition team in vetting the the p-e's choice, on deciding how it would fit his view of executive branch's role on the committee, nor would any advice she would give be the only advice he would take into consideration.
i also understand that it would be a matter of courtesy, but then why not inform the ranking member on the committee? or all intelligence committee members?
okay...i understand the common courtesy of a phone call, but i guess it just seemed odd that she would publicly come out and say that she was disappointed. if it was truly and honestly a flabbergasting move to her, she would pick up the phone herself and call up rahm emanuel. but she decided to go through the press at a time when "democrat infighting" is becoming the phrase of the new year.
could it be that sen. feinstein herself is still upset that the candidate that she backed during the democratic primary did not win?
January 7, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since she's the incoming head of that committee, it does make sense that she would be notified of the choice...which she was. After the third highest ranking member was briefed before her. Taking it to the press is the perfect strategy, because the press has been conditioned for years to bleat about the disarray in the Dems.
Take today's deadtree edition of the Times. The headline is about a "rift", and Obama and Biden were described as "scrambling" to heal said "rift".
She was just using the tools availablel to her.
January 7, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see maddow's take on this yesterday. I really liked it. Basically difi and the rock were supposedly overseeing the war crimes of the administration. They wanted someone else who believes that 24 is a reality show and who thinks torture is a good thing, so obama ignored them, went behind their backs to make sure that he could get confirmation of someone who abhores torture and war crimes to clean up the cia first. It will be interesting to see what happens with the dems on the intelligence committees who coddled the war criminals during the truth and reconcilliation hearings that will be coming. Bottom line, no more torture and war crimes. New day in the USA.
January 7, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really liked her take on it. I really want it to be true. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people are forced to endure consequences for their behavior during the Bush Administration? What a concept. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this.
January 7, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me two. I hope that my expectations are not too high. I really like what I see so far though. Somebody with character and convictions as the president? Somebody who is, dare I say, honest? Who would have thunk it.
January 7, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, from what I've seen it's clear Obama went around DiFi. Frankly, she's out of touch and coasting on brandname and seniority, since the end of the cold war really.
DiFi has no vision for 21st century conflicts and oppurtunities. Her mindset is still cold war with financial imperialism and military backing. Her ties are all to banking and global finance who are also locked into that mindset. People who want another Reagan to run covert police operations while opening new markets, and even imagine that's still possible.
January 7, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right that her pique was mostly with the fact that she and Sen. Rockefeller both supported Mr. Kappes who is the current Deputy, but I think she also felt genuinely dissed by having to read about the nomination in the paper.
Also galling would be the statement that Senator Wyden had been informed by the transition team. This has led some people to conclude that the slight was intentional. I suspect that Biden and the transition team are being truthful in acknowledging a mistake.
I understand the the idea is that the story broke in the NYT before they could give Senator F. the word in advance.
It is also possible that they broached the subject initially with Wyden to get the "lay of the land" b/c they knew Sens Feinstein and Rockefeller supporting the other guy.
The Obama team has seemed pretty straightforward in their dealings, at least so far. tks rich
January 7, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably all true, but so booooring. A big Machiavellian drama makes so much better copy.
January 7, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not surprised that this played this way. Since the Mukasey and telecom immunity fracases DiFi has been polishing her "mavericky" credentials. I think Panetta has been greatly underestimated by the media which seems stuck on the "No Experience" angle. I think the real fear is that Panetta is a proven Manager who is going to hold people accountable.
January 7, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No guts. It seems that Barack Obama has figured out that rolling Congress is a piece of cake. If George W. can do it, Barack Obama can make Congress sit up and beg. I'm glad he figured that out early.
January 7, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they only roll for Republicans, but still I'm gonna hold that thought as long as I can because it makes me very happy. ;)
January 7, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second.
I think they can be rolled for anyone...
January 7, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shit, man, I called my Senator to complain about potholes in my neighborhood, and I was put through to Reid, who did everything he could to make me happy.
I'll be starting as Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday.
January 7, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'll call my Senator and compl----never mind. I'm pretty sure Joe won't be taking any calls from me anytime soon.
Can I be on that committe too? I don't know what it does, but it sounds important, and that's the extent of the necessary knowledge base, isn't it?
January 7, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, what are you saying? Joe's a great senator. A great leader. A great....
whew, I just blew that V chip that was in my head. I am sure that Joe will listen to complaints as well as the White House has for the last 8 years. Remember when they even changed the whitehouse.gov website to make it harder to actually comment?
January 7, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
imho, it's more of a changing of the guard. DiFi and Rocky are about as "old guard" as it gets.
Wonks like Brzezinski know the game has fundamentally changed. Obama gets that. Other members of committees get it. DiFi and Rocky don't.
Next time she just wants to save face and appear more involved. But she's not really running the show.
January 7, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you do not kiss my ring I will scream. If you kiss my ring I will coo like the pigeon I have been for the past eight years.
January 7, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Democrats overall realized that there was just TOO MUCH DRAMA going on when the economy is tanking so they decided to CUT THE BULLSHIT and end the crap.
January 7, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So basically, someone who wanted to derail this nomination leaked it to the MSM (or to DiFi or JayRock who leaked it), DiFi and JayRock took a stab at sinking it, Obama stabbed back, out-manuvered and out PR'd them, so, seeing she's already lost, she's backing down as gracefully as she can. No doubt, she's put this on her list of things to get some payback for if the opportunity arises. Nonetheless, I'm grudgingly forced to admit that the entire concept of someone seeing they've lost, backing off and moving on is oddly refreshing after the last eight years of intransigence, filibuster threats and petulant recess appointments.
January 7, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You cock-eyed optimist! Congress has only been in session one day. There's time yet for all of these behaviors!
January 7, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were no percentages in anyone making a big fight over this. Obama and Feinstein need each other. This was over almost as soon as it started.
January 7, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think the smackdown by Maddow on MSNBC & the blogs showing a despicable hypocrite, Feinstein, has anything to do with her role reversal ?You bet ya!
January 7, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya mean "You betcha!"
January 7, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Dianne Feinstein goes to bed at night worrying about what Rachel Maddow or the blogs are saying about her. She folded because she has a losing hand. There's a new sheriff in town and there's no percentage in picking a fight you're bound to lose.
January 7, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In hindsight, I think the fact that the Joe the Plumber story did not break until today gave this story a chance to get heard.
January 7, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean, "Joe", the man formally known as Joe the Plumber? Former hits include "Rasberry toilet" and "Sexy Plumber-ucker".
January 7, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
IIRC, it's "raspberry bidet"
January 7, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How silly of me. You are correct!
January 7, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do these senators think that the transition team should ask for their permission before appointing someone, I know its customary to do so, but do they have to make a fuss about it until the prez-elect call them personally.
January 7, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Half of the Democrats in Congress (both houses)don't belong there. They got their nominations because politics is "inside baseball". And, they are in office because, at election time, the alternatives offered were significantly less acceptable.
Let's hope these wonders are as managable for the incoming admin as they were for the outgoing one.
January 7, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein may have converted because she realized she was waging a losing battle. Regarding Panetta and CIA, there is always the alternative point of view that the intelligence community could use quite a bit of external management infusion and oversight, (and not just at CIA) for reasons which should be obvious. This need has been obvious since the Bay of Pigs. We have had graphically demonstrated in the past few years the results of an inbred intelligence community “overseen” by inbred Washington politicians. This is not a slander of the working intelligence personnel, but an observation on some of the management, and government functions.
The argument for selecting someone with a serious lifelong focus on intelligence issues can, and usually does, result in the continuation of the status quo. In a broader perspective one might even assert, in fact, that replacing as many of the current elected and appointed members of government with persons of high personal integrity and sanity from outside the “duopoly” as possible would be of significant benefit to the country, as long as they possess the requisite skills to successfully perform their duties. The political science adage that the primary imperative of bureaucracies is to perpetuate themselves applies, and as Jefferson said, each generation needs to create its own revolution.
Eisenhower’s warnings in his farewell address assume greater significance every year (see esp. III, para.2).
January 8, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink