By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Feinstein is latest target of those with selective political memory loss
PERSPECTIVE
feinstein
Feinstein is latest target of those with selective political memory loss

“I shook his hand and he gave me a hug and I got holy hell.” — US. Senator Dianne Feinstein on the reaction to her being civil with Republican Lindsay Graham and judicial committee chair at the conclusion of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing.

 

The pitch fork and tar crowd is now screaming for Dianne Feinstein’s political head.

They want the California senator taken out not at the ballot box but because of sources cowering being the shield of anonymity saying she is losing her cognitive memory.

Since we live in the age of science, perhaps the original New York Post story by Jane Mayer that started the ball rolling on Feinstein being on the verge of losing her mind to the point she could end up walking down Pennsylvania Avenue in pajamas as some Twenty-somethings have been known to do although they call it fashion, should have explained to its readers a little bit more about what mild cognitive memory loss is and whether Feinstein is now a threat to democracy.

The Mayo Clinic indicates that it reflects memory loss that might be beyond what would normally be expected as someone ages. The well-regarded medical clinic on its website notes that often it never gets worse and sometimes even improves.

Yet bloggers, newspaper columnists, and the usual suspects have already issued their ironclad diagnosis — Feinstein must retire because they inferred she’s become a dawdling idiot.

Let’s be clear what precipitated a hit piece on the oldest U.S. senator and the first woman of Jewish faith ever elected to the Senate.

After all, Feinstein had the audacity to be civil and act in a bi-partisan manner to Darth Vader incarnate Lindsey Graham who served as chair of the judiciary committee that failed to do a Joan of Arc act on Amy Coney Barrett.

Feinstein isn’t losing her mind. Everyone else is.

When the mere act of being civil and reaching out to those of opposing political persuasions after you lose is a sign of severe cognitive memory loss, then Feinstein is guilty as charged.

There was a time 45 years ago when those who were diametrically opposed politically and elected to public office — think Ted Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, et al — didn’t take a buzz saw 24/7 to those that disagreed with them. Yes, it may have accelerated four years ago but at this point to blame one side for being worse than the other is akin to claiming a person who had been  completely submerged in reddish brown mud is dirtier than one who had been completely submerged in tannish brown mud.

Feinstein’s quote at the top of this column was made last week to Los Angeles Times’ Capitol Columnist George Skelton after a half hour phone conversation with the U.S. senator.

Skelton noted that she did repeat herself a few times pointing out that even though he had never noticed it in previous conversations with Feinstein it was indeed common for people as they get older to do so.

He also added Feinstein was articulate as ever.

Given there are people half of Feinstein’s age in key positions who have a tendency to repeat themselves, making such a transgression the new norm for forcing people to step aside could be quite interesting.

Of course the real problem isn’t whether Feinstein is repeating herself once in a while — the only diagnosis social media clinicians have made — but whether she passes the correct litmus test.

In this case Feinstein’s politics — while clearly on the liberal side — has historically been more moderate than many in her party. And given the fact she didn’t try to block Barrett as aggressively as she did other Supreme Court nominees although she still voted against her, she is now viewed as being one step away from being ready to go to an insane asylum.

Perhaps Feinstein toned things down because she believed it would do her party - and the nation - more harm than good in face of the inevitable is why the jackals were turned lose.

But that is not the point.

The fact people are calling for Feinstein to resign on the strength of an anonymous source talking about alleged cognitive memory issues that the smoking gun is the fact she forgets things occasionally borders on recklessness.

It adds credence to the innuendos that Joe Biden falls into the same category which he clearly doesn’t.

Feinstein was duly elected by 5.9 million Californians to serve a six-year term that ends in 2024. LA Times columnist  Erika Smith has expressed the opinion Feinstein should step down due to her “cognitive memory” issues so one man — Gov. Gavin Newsom — can handpick 100 percent of this state’s representatives in the U.S. Senate giving them the inside advantage to re-election as an appointed incumbent.

Feinstein’s “advanced” age of being 85 when she ran for re-election was dutifully noted in coverage throughout her 2018 re-leection campaign. However that did not seem to bother the electorate in a state with a median age of 37.

There is no constitutional upper limit on how old one can be and still serve in Congress or the White House for that matter.

Perhaps that is what some really want to see.

Why not argue for a constitutional amendment to force people out of office after they hit 80?

Smith would be thrilled to know that such a move would get rid of four other Senate octogenarians — all white, all male, and all Republican.

That way her pitch for a more racially and gender balanced U.S. Senate that was part of her argument for Feinstein to step aside could possibly occur in five instances.

Smith, of course, is taking a California-centric view given the other states are arguably lost causes for her perspective due to their politics not aligning with her views.

But why did Feinstein beat Kevin de Leon by 950,000 votes back in the Dark Ages circa 2018 to get re-elected to her fifth term in an allDemocrat ballot in the general election?

Could it be despite being an “old” white woman who has a tendency at times to be more moderate than the party animals among Democrats had a record and an outlook that resonated with Californians?

Perhaps the real problem is people using selective memory loss as a cover for unadulterated political hits against fellow party members.

 


This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com