Obama Team Consulted Wyden on Panetta Pick -- But Shut Out Feinstein
Just spoke to Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-OR) office, where a spokeswoman confirmed what was hinted at this morning: Wyden had been in contact with the Obama transition team to discuss the Leon Panetta nomination, while incoming Senate intelligence chairman Dianne Feinstein was still in the dark.
We checked in with Wyden because Bloomberg's report described him as "being consulted" on the choice -- whether he was consulted by the Obama camp or by Panetta, a former ally of Wyden's from their days in the House, remained unclear.
But now that we know Wyden had talked to the Obama transition, two questions arise:
1. Who else on Senate intel knew about it before Feinstein, whose support for AG Michael Mukasey had aroused the ire of many progressives?
2. Is this a case of the New York Times getting the news before the transition could inform Feinstein ... or a case of a powerful senator kept in the dark on purpose?
My vote's on the latter.
If there was one thing that the campaign demonstrated, this is a group of individuals who do things deliberately, with the path set out far in advance.
January 6, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
left her in the dark on purpose--definitely!
January 6, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Wyden! Let's hear it for Oregon! Whoop whoop.
Anyone? Anyone?
(crickets chirping)
January 6, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here I am!
January 6, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rock Me Like A Hurricane!
January 6, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rock Me Like A Hurricane!
January 6, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rock Me Like A Hurricane!
January 6, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Washington, but I really like Wyden. He stood in front of Powell's one day, shaking hands with everyone, including us.
Feinstein in the dark? She obviously ticked someone off...and they have ways of getting even.
January 6, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. They'll bend over backwards to accommodate real Republicans, why not DiFi, who's only mostly a Republican?
January 6, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Wyden's knowledge/relationship with Panetta made him more appropriate to include in the vetting process and this contact was more for vetting purposes than Senate approval purposes?
Then the Panetta choice gets leaked prematurely.
Nah, let's assign the most sinister, gossip- worthy motives possible.
January 6, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein is part of the problem. She wants an insider at CIA who she can easily control and one who can continue to definitely cover up her and Rockefeller's cooperation with the illegal activities of the Bush-Cheney gang. Given her abysmal bend-overness for BushCo, it's DiFi who should probably rethink her position on the Intel committee and resign.
January 6, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, just like Arlen Specter talking up Holder as being like Gonzo - IMHO because Holder might hold Specter accountable for being the main enabler in the Senate of BushCo's criminality.
And Panetta might just hold DiFi's feet to the fire - she'd love that.
Hey, we didn't let the Nazis off at Nuremburg. The higher ups all said they didn't know it was going on - and the Court said, "Who cares? You were in a position to know, and if you didn't stop it, you were part of it."
We even - ESPECIALLY - held the Judges (who obviously weren't gassing people themselves, but were at most 'just' enablers) in Germany responsible for letting something like that get a foothold in their courts. For those who don't know, there was even a special Nuremburg court just for the judges. It was the basis of the movie "Judgment at Nuremburg".
Enablers need to be held to answer, just as much as the ones they didn't stop.
Feinstein: Guilty on all charges.
Rockefeller: Guilty on all charges.
Specter: Guilty on all charges.
They all thought we weren't paying attention.
People! It was TORTURE! How in the HELL did you let it go on?
This to Feinstein, the Mukasey approver (I freaking couldn't believe it when she did that):
Eat me.
.
January 6, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein is part of the problem. She wants an insider at CIA who she can easily control and one who can continue to definitely cover up her and Rockefeller's cooperation with the illegal activities of the Bush-Cheney gang. Given her abysmal bend-overness for BushCo, it's DiFi who should probably rethink her position on the Intel committee and resign.
January 6, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What could possibly be gained by leaving Feinstein in the dark for a few days? No, this had to be a slip-up and I suspect someone will get taken to the woodshed.
January 6, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein would have treated the vetting as a trial balloon and publicly spoken in quite negative fashion, as she is now but to lesser effect. It would have been embarrassing and perhaps harmful if she had publicly come out against an intelligence outsider. Imagine, the chair of the Senate Non-Interference-Bend-Over Committee saying we need someone with insider experience and then the Obama transition team announces Panetta.
January 6, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for the Obamans. DINO DiFi has been an eager beaver accomplice for anything the Bush regime has asked her to do. Same with Jay Rockefeller, and both would have some 'splainin' to do if the details of their complicity were to come forward.
It's time for the club to get a little less clubby, and it's important to get qualified leaders, not just 'seniors rule!'
January 6, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, applause is in order to Elana Schor for getting her great reporting on this. I was unsure what the story was concerning contact with Wyden's office until she reported it.
January 6, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed...nice work Ms. Schor.
January 6, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
They left Feinstein in the dark? She's my senator and I'd like to leave her in the dust. Every time I write to her I get back this steaming pile of... rationalizations.
Di's part of the problem, not the solution.
January 6, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, applause is in order to Elana Schor for getting her great reporting on this. I was unsure what the story was concerning contact with Wyden's office until she reported it.
January 6, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who better than Obama, a former colleague, would know what a Bush-enabling POS Feinstein is?
Good for him for acting on the knowledge. He's sending out valuable signals that by no torture he really means NO TORTURE, and I give him major props for that.
January 6, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who f'n cares about Feinstein? But this does beg the question regarding the 60 member majority that was so desperately wanted. Add her to the list of Democrats that can be counted on siding with the Republicans when it really counts. Makes the Lieberman decision look pathetic.
January 6, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drown out Feinstein in 2010.
Take Pelousy off the table in 2010.
January 6, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just seems like a faux-pas on Obama's part. Otherwise he wouldn't have rushed to call DiFi after the news hit.
January 6, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although this is a tangent, it's worth mentioning (at least to me) that as a member of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Inauguration, Diane Feinstein would have known about the disgusting plans to have Rick Warren deliver the imprecation, as did Nancy Pelosi plus Harry Reid and Bob Bennett (both of whom are Mormon).
January 6, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink