DiFi, Congress and beyond

I was going to write up a response to Glen Greenwald's well-meaning but under-researched piece against Diane Feinstein (whom I've always detested), but one of his readers beat me to it. First, Greenwald:

Could the universe be any larger between what Feinstein's constituents want and what she is doing in the Senate? Here are the latest views of California voters of the President to whose agenda Feinstein is displaying such ferocious fidelity:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as President?

Approve -- 28%

Disapprove -- 70%

Among California Democrats, a grand total of 9% approve of Feinstein's beloved President; 90% disapprove.

Salon reader Ché Pasa:

Noted with interest that you present SurveyUSA's Bush approval ratings, which are in the toilet, but not Feinstein's -- which are still in the Stratosphere (she being California's Most Popular Democrat and all). To wit:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Dianne Feinstein is doing as United States Senator?

Overall:

Approve: 55%

Disapprove: 39%

Not sure: 6%

Among Dems:

Approve: 70%

Disapprove: 24%

Not sure: 5%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7b20ec7f-5ac5-43ed-b41a-d77d69bea681

And the reasons for this massive approval of a Liebermanesque Bush Enabler when Bush is so wildly unpopular?

So far, at any rate, she has not been linked with Bush in the public mind in California (though she did tour the fire devastation with him recently.) Her actions to support and defend her Leader (Bush) in the Senate are not widely recognized yet. Her apparent corruption is not widely recognized yet. It's been reported, but it falls into the category of Pelosi's rich husband's winery in Napa. Getting on her case for something her husband is doing (or not doing as the case may be) is a purely political smear.

And among California pols (Dem and Republican) DiFi is very well liked. Whereas the Abrasive Barbara Boxer isn't so much.

Oh. And of course DiFi was re-elected last year (overwhelmingly) and has apparently indicated this will be her last term. There is nothing anyone can do to her now. She can do whatever she wants, and no, she doesn't have to listen to her constituents. Not that she ever has.

DiFi's actions in the Senate are revolting, and they need to be hammered hard, but ultimately, like so many other things, it's too late to do anything about it.

I guess the Good News is that Schwarzenegger allowed as how he wasn't going to run against Boxer in 2010; whew.

My primary disagreement here is the use of the term "abrasive" to describe Boxer. First, she isn't. Second, the term implies that style, not stance, accounts for her relative lack of appeal. Boxer's margins of victory have always been much thinner than Feinstein's. If the Republicans had not run a succession of idiots against Boxer, she would not be in the Senate.

I don't completely understand Feinstein's popularity, except to say that much of California is redder than the rest of the country seems to think. Orange County, San Diego, the deserts, the agricultural middle, the conifer-covered north: All conservative, and that's a lot of territory.

That said, conventional analysis of her bill co-sponsorship history shows that she isn't a right-winger. In fact, this chart places her to the left of Webb, Obama and Byrd, and roughly equivalent to Feingold. (Read the "deeper meaning" notes to understand how these rankings were attained.) Of course, that record will mean little to the people for whom war and impeachment are the only issues.

The current hate-the-Dems mood cannot touch Feinstein, but it can hurt Boxer, the courageous senator who challenged the legitimacy of Bush's 2004 election. In a poll matching her against Schwarzenegger, Ah-nold would have won -- by a tiny amount, admittedly, but a win is a win.

(To read the rest -- and I won't print your comment unless you've at least skimmed the rest -- click "Permalink" below)

Fools like Greenwald are so mired in the Progressive ghetto that they have no idea what California -- or the rest of the country -- is really like. Yes, most of the electorate has turned against Bush. But the voters are still more conservative than progressives think.

They still think lower taxes equal greater government revenues, they still think the military is under-funded, they still don't like gay marriage, they still like guns, they still read Left Behind novels, they still watch Fox, they still listen to Rush, they still go to mega-churches, they still think Reagan was a great president, and they are still suckers for any con-artist peddling a wedge issue or a fake statistic.

I wish the situation were otherwise, but one must face reality.

The problem is that progressives socialize only with other progressives and read only progressive blogs. They genuinely believe that Dennis Kucinich is the only permissible candidate, even though he would not carry a single state. The genuinely believe that Hillary Clinton is a conservative who would continue the war. They genuinely believed, back in 2000, that Al Gore was politically indistinguishable from George Bush.

They genuinely believe that the current unpopularity of Congress stems entirely from the Democratic leadership's alleged refusal to end the Iraq war. (Actually, Bush vetoed a Democratic plan that would have begun the pull-out on October 1. Progressives have not only forgotten all about that, they will tell you "You're wrong" if you remind them!)

Here are some numbers from last May:

A close look at polls on Iraq show that, while public opposition to the war remains consistent, there are some signs that Democrats may be overreaching in their attempts to cut off funding for the war. When asked who is more responsible for the troops not having funding, 44 percent blamed congressional Democrats, while 34 percent blamed President Bush. [CNN/Opinion Research Poll, May 4-6, 2007]. Importantly, while a majority of the public (57 percent) believes that the president strongly supports the troops, less than a third (31 percent) of the public believes that Democrats in Congress strongly support our troops.

The same poll found that a majority of 60 percent opposed cutting off funds to end Iraq war.

I can't find more recent data addressing these specific questions. (If you can, please pass along a link.) This Zogby poll from August is disturbing:

Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support.

Count me in the 18%. That doesn't mean I'm going to hallucinate that mine is the majority opinion.

Attitudes will not change much: Democrats in Congress remain very vulnerable to the "You don't support our troops" charge.

Thus, any Congressional strategy for defunding the Iraq war must first de-fang the argument that Democrats are anti-military. Which is why the Mukasey deal cut by Harry Reid was as smart as it was distasteful.

Many progressives tend to decry Daily Kos as a site run by a "gatekeeper" for the dreaded DLC. (In the real world, the DLC is no longer a factor, but in Progressive Fantasyland, the DLC is Mordor.) Yet even on Kos, a recent poll showed that the visitors to the "gatekeeper" site were far, far angrier at the Democrats than at the Republicans.

Every other post on Democratic Underground and Think Progressive Purist delivers the same message.

Progressive Dem-hate inevitably translates into Republican election victories. The historical record is clear and inarguable on that point.

I recall the Anderson movement in 1980. All good progressives back then considered Carter a Republican clone. Happy with the results, lefties?

I recall the Nader movement in 2000. All good progressives then considered Gore a Republican clone. Happy with the results, lefties?

It's happening again. I've seen it before, and I know how these things start.

Adios, Barbara Boxer. Hello, President Rudy. Goodbye, Tehran.