« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D, CA) Rotten Week.

These things usually come in threes.

  • First and foremost is the highly embarrassing – and possibly expensive – Kinde Durkee affair. For those not following along with that story: Durkee was a Californian accountant used by numerous Democratic campaigns on the federal, state, and local level. Said campaigns are all now freaking out, because Durkee was just recently arrested on multiple accounts of mail fraud involving various politicians’ campaign funds*. Sen. Feinstein was one of the politicians who used Durkee; and aside from an at-the-time comment made to Politico about her being ‘wiped out,’ Feinstein is keeping mum about how much of her 5.2 million dollar war chest is still accessible to the campaign.
  • Next up: this Field Poll about Senator Feinstein (via Andrew Malcolm**) give some pretty bad numbers, here. 41/39 approval/disapproval (a severe drop from her normal approval ratings) and she’s underwater (41/44) on her re-election numbers (also a severe drop). If you’re wondering whether this is a big deal, well, Reuters primly notes “A spokesman for Feinstein, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992 after a long career as San Francisco’s mayor, could not be reached for comment.” Also: Feinstein’s polling has been steadily getting worse since 2006.
  • Finally, here’s an interesting rumor: former talk radio host and hard-line conservative Michael Reagan (adopted son of Ronald Reagan is apparently contemplating a 2012 Senate run. While the Feinstein campaign might argue that this is good news – Michael Reagan has never held public office, and the California of 2012 is not the California of 1966 – it remains true that Sen. Feinstein has not yet committed to running for re-election in 2012. The woman is 78 years old, has been in the Senate for almost two decades***, and it is considered unlikely that she will be the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee after next year’s elections.

This would be the point where I would caution readers about thinking that all of this means that Senator Feinstein would fold like a cheap suit if challenged strongly… and then I thought of something: if you had asked me in September of 2009, I would have given the same well-meant caution about pinning one’s hopes on getting rid of Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Obviously, the real answer here is to go find a candidate as good as Senator Ron Johnson, and get him or her to run.

Because there’s ain’t no such thing as an unwinnable seat.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*To give you an idea of how bad it is: the conspiracy theory has been publicly floated that Kinde Durkee is actually a deep-cover GOP operative that has been activated in order to destroy the California Democratic party for 2012. She’s not, but California Republicans should think about at least sending her care packages when Durkee finally takes up residence at Club Fed. Noblesse oblige, and all that.

**Congrats to Andrew on his new gig, by the way.

***First elected in a 1992 special election.

COMMENTS

  • acat

    As with most things Liberal, once the rubber’s been meetin’ the road a little bit .. less and less popular.

    C’est la guerre.

    Mew

  • johnt

    so much better when they kep it in the family. Wolves wouldn’t even do that.

  • joecollins

    . . . then we’ll get another Carly Fiorina or Meg Witman, and we won’t win. There has got to be a way to work a-r-o-u-n-d the party to find a quality conservative with name recognition. Perhaps Chuck DeVore, but he tried (and failed) a run in 2010.

  • kinggold

    Replace every instance of ‘Dianne Feinstein’ with ‘Barbara Boxer’ and you get the overly-inflated projections for 2010.

    You know as well as I do, Moe, that Feinstein – or her replacement – would utterly destroy Reagan the Younger in post-Pete Wilson California. Destroy him without batting an eye.

  • freemanja1991

    If Michael doesnt run

  • RSSS

    She is really old.
    She has a lot less funds for advertising.
    Wisconsin was a true blue state for a long time.

    Maybe there’s hope for California.

    As far as the NRCS’s resources go, they need to concentrate them on North Dakota, Virginia, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Nebraska, & Florida first, though.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    If the DSSC had to actually help finance her defense of this seat.

  • jomo2009

    Tom McClintock? He came close in his race for state treasurer in 2002. And he got 13.5% of the vote in the recall election in 2003. As you said Moe, the third time’s the charm.

  • steve010

    talk to Harry and Pass my Bill Now, Pass my Bill Now, Diane. If you Love me, you’ll Pass my Bill Now. Where are you Diane, Pass my Bill Now.

  • YnotNOW

    As Coldwarrior would say, if you want the Party to be better, than you had better BE the party.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I will also repeat this sentence:

    Obviously, the real answer here is to go find a candidate as good as Senator Ron Johnson, and get him or her to run.

  • Adjoran

    because the bank isn’t letting any of the 400 campaign accounts Durkee managed have access UNLESS they sign a waiver absolving the bank of any liability – the funds are all part of a criminal case, but it appears Durkee had lawful access to all of them – and nobody is signing, so nobody knows how much is left. The lady apparently was living pretty high on the hog . . .

    This isn’t 2010, and Obama just this month went underwater in state polls in California. That’s a 13-point turnaround in a couple of months. He was still getting 60%+ last November.

    Feinstein would be a favorite if she runs, but as Moe points out, it is a lot less fun being in the minority in the Senate, and she is getting older, maybe time to retire and enjoy her golden years . . .

    Thank God she won’t be Chairman of the Intel Committee! As Mayor of Frisco, she dropped key info about the Nightstalker case in a presser that may have tipped off the killer to the investigation. We don’t need her or Leaky Leahy anywhere near sensitive data.

  • californiagold

    Contrary to what many redstaters believe, the entire state of California isn’t as left wing wacko as some might think. Afterall, California produced two republican presidents, Nixon and Reagan, while electing numerous conservative governors. Furthermore, on social issues like gay marriage, California voters have repeatedly voted in opposition to same sex marriages.

    A republican can win running on a conservative platform in California. Governor Reagan did it, followed by Deukmejian, Wilson, and recently Schwarzenegger. (Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger didn’t govern on the platform that he ran on.)

    One problem republicans face is the hispanic influx of citizens going back to the days of Reagan’s passage of amnesty laws during the 1980′s. Amnesty, combined with Governor Wilson’s support of anti-illegal immigration laws, has made it very difficult for a republicans to get the support of hispanics needed to win presidential elections.

    In addition, California has multiple large metropolitan TV markets that are very expensive to run ads. In order to win, a republican needs name ID. Fiorina lost to Boxer not because she was a poor candidate, but because she spent millions on ads introducing herself to the voters, while Boxer was already well known. Boxer was able to run negative ads from day one portraying Fiorina in a bad light and Fiorina wasn’t able to recover from those negative ads.

    The point is, a conservative can win against Feinstein (particularly in this bad economy). But whoever the republican candidate is, he/she better have a well known name with plenty of funds to compete. Ideally, the perfect republican candidate in California would be hispanic with name ID. Whom that might be, I have no idea.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    He was very outspoken against the crap the central valley took at the hands of the Feds water management policy.

    Well?

  • nod90

    However, I’m astonished at how bad Feinstein’s polling is. She was always the unbeatable one, so this is a big turn around.

    California has nearly the worst unemployment rate in the country, and outside of tech the economy is dead. More rules and regulations are on the way, thanks AB32, the greenhouse gas law. It has been a very wet year, so the water situation in the Central Valley has improved. Hopefully farmers won’t be losing their jobs to the Delta smelt (a small and very ugly endagered fish).

    House prices are stagnant, and will probably stay that way for a long time.

    Whoever the candidate is, they need to be good at talking about jobs and the economy. I didn’t support Chuck Devore last time around, but I was favorably impressed by what I saw. He has experience in the legislature, he ran a decent campaign against Carly and he is particularly good on energy. I have no idea if he would be interested, but he would make a high quality candidate. I didn’t support him last time because I felt he was a little too conservative for California, and that running a woman against a woman would work better.

    I don’t think California should be a priority for the national Republican Party. However, if Massachusetts can elect a Republican Senator and New Jersey can elect a Republican Governor, I suppose anything is possible.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    they apparently don’t even know how to protect their own.