Fuss Over Panetta Should Remind Hill Dems: It's Not About You

Just in case some of the Democrats on Capitol Hill didn't get the message, let's be perfectly clear: A Democratic president is going to be inaugurated on Jan. 20. That means, among other things, It's Not About You, congressional Democrats. It's about Barack Obama and his overwhelming majority and the fact that Democrats pulled together to win a national election.

That's why it was so dispiriting to see the first comment on Leon Panetta's selection as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) come from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the next chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who said: "I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director." Feinstein said she prefers an "intelligence professional" in the job. Similarly, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W VA), who heads the committee now, said he's concerned about Panetta's lack of intelligence experience.

The fact that Feinstein eventually came around to supporting Panetta not withstanding, the whole exercise was just not necessary. After her public "indignation," Obama called and apologized. Her ego salved, and with promises that the CIA guys she likes will stick around, Feinstein gave her blessing.

Let us repeat, senators: "It is not about you." If anything, the Feinstein statement calls to mind the famous New York Daily News cartoon of former speaker Newt Gingrich as a crybaby for not getting a seat on Air Force One with President Clinton. The fact that Feinstein was "not informed" is secondary. Granted, the Obama team screwed up by not running the Congressional traps and notifications first. That's no excuse for popping off.

Assuming Feinstein has a legitimate beef, there were better ways to handle it. She should have put out a statement like this: "Leon Panetta has a long and distinguished career as a public servant. I look forward to discussing intelligence issues with him." Then she should have picked up the phone and called Rahm Emanuel and reamed him out, should she so desire.

Feinstein said often during President Bush's tenure that the president deserves his own cabinet. One of the times she said it was on the Alberto Gonzales nomination, and she voted spoke against him because of the tortuous definitions of torture that emerged from the Justice Department. It's now clear that the CIA was actually engaged in torture, so if Feinstein wants to be consistent she should welcome the appointment of a former Clinton chief of staff who opposed torture. Similarly, it would have been diplomatic for Rockefeller to take his views privately to the Obama team.

Ironically, the most positive comment came from Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. He said what the Democrats should have said, telling the Washington Post that new civilian leadership would be good for the agency. (Note: Did the Post story look as if it was written by embittered intelligence "professionals" pissed that one of their own got passed over?)

In making their comments, Feinstein and Rockefeller gave crafty old Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) another reason to sit back and grin. How did Republicans object to Bush appointees? That's a trick question because by and large, they didn't. And if they did, the public didn't hear about it much.

The last election showed clearly that the public wants Democrats to govern. That means Senate Democrats, House Democrats and the Executive Branch led by President Obama. The hubris of the Congressional Democrats helped doom Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, because of the constant stream of stories about Congressional Democrats fighting the president of their own party. That's an irresistible story for any Capitol Hill reporter.

For the time being, that story has to end, and end now. Obama comes into office with a clear election mandate, and the last thing he needs is the public view of a bunch of squabbling Democrats (see: Burris, Roland) doing the GOP's work for it.

Note: These views are my own, and not those of Public Knowledge.

Comments

[lepere]

Are you kidding? This last diastrous 8 years has been staffed by people with stunning resumes; Rummy, cheney ,Tenet - there's an intelligence pro for you- Colin Powell, -fill in your own list.

No, the big problem with Panetta is that he is liable to start turning over stones and find out who signed off on what during those super secret oversight briefings.
the last thing you want as head of CIA is someone liable to go to jail over what's been done there over the past eight (60?) years. That includes almost any senior intelligence 'expert'.
Think about it people!

[Dixiepopulist]

For all those who think that being an intelligence professional is not a condition for being head of the CIA, a simple question: Suppose Barack Obama nominated a lawyer or professional politician to be Surgeon General. Suppose he nominated as Surgeon General someone who never attended medical school, is not a doctor, and has no medical credentials whatsoever. Would you support that nomination?

[jake1az]

Was the elder Bush in the spy business before he headed the CIA?

[WorkingClass]

Panetta has been a spy all his life. Its supposed to be a secret.

[mnyegele]

I agree. We do not have time for hizzyfits and ego trips. Since I live in California, I will write to Feinstein immediately and tell her that I do not appreciate her all-about-me behavior. I'd every other Californian reading this post to do the same. Barack Obama has his act together. He deserves a better Congress. (And a better Democratic party.)

[countrycontemplative]

Feinstein, Lieberman and Rockefeller, Bush apologists all. No wonder Barack Obama didn't consult them. They are the incompetents who stood idly by while the US Constitution was trampled. They were the collaborators in the destruction of the United States during the Bush years. They signed off on the lies that led to the Iraq War. Panetta is just what we need a new face and a clean break with the past 8 years.

[bushlies]

Panetta's appointment is about COMPETENT MANAGEMENT, something this agency is sorely in need of. Stop the silly squabbling and let Obama take care of the business of fumigating this government of all things Bush!

[hempster]

ditto

[HT]

Being a voter in Panetta's congressional area, I was thrilled with PE Obama's choice of Panetta as
CIA Director. Panetta has always been fair, honest, and committed to human rights and the people that he respresented. He is a smart man who has outstanding managerial skills. He has plenty of experience on intelligence issues from the Clinton administration. PE Obama has every right to choose the person he wants to fill this position. Could it be that Senator Feinstein wanted to be CIA Director?

[randomx6]

Last time I checked the Legislative Branch was a co-equal with the King (saint?) oh, I mean President. It is NOT their job to kiss his ring or any part of his anatomy. That is how the Republicans behaved for the last 8 years. How did that work out for you?

[twocrows]

imho -- The article is not about the equality of the branches.
it's about public pissing contests being held between them when the people are FED UP with divisive politics.

Please, Congress, get down to the business of governing -- like taking care of the economy, the war, getting our Constitution back up and running. And stop playing one-upmanship with the president-elect who is, in case you hadn't noticed, a Democrat.
If you have a beef with the PE, phone him. Don't tell a reporter.

[DonsBlog]

Feinstein is a Democrat in the same fine tradition of Joe Lieberman

[Rule Of Law]

There are a bunch of Dems--blue dogs and stealth neo-cons like Feinstein and Rockefeller--who need to understand that Obama will treat them all as they should be treated.

[TEPK]

My fear in voting for Obama all along was that, if he won, he might become nothing but a mindless tool of the far Lefty Loon fringe in the Democratic Party - the San Francisco Values crowd! Sounds like San Fran Feinstein is already miffed that Obama hasn't turned hard left enough for her, nor kissed her outstretched left hand a sufficient number of times (Good for him!) - although - it does seem to me that selecting Leon Panetta to be CIA Director is about the equivalent of the Republicans going along with George W. Bush running for president - or approving of Quirk Queen Sarah Palin more recently running for vice-president.

The Bush II administration has clearly evidenced the fallacy of electing and selecting people for jobs in which they have absolutely no experience nor expertise.

And, the statement from the article - - "The hubris of the Congressional Democrats helped doom Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, because of the constant stream of stories about Congressional Democrats fighting the president of their own party" - - is right on the mark and is definitely also apropos for this occasion!

Hopefully, Obama will remain both staunchly independent and reasonably middle-of-the-road.

[RussellH]

I would love to know your definition of "reasonably middle-of-­the-road." Your using the phrase reeks of the right wingnuts insistence that our country "remains center-right!" Hogwash! Panetta is a brilliant man, a quality the CIA has not enjoyed in recent appointments! Do you recall Allen Dulles, the brother of John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secty of State? If not, read up on his moves to involve us is Vietnam!

[TEPK]

"Reasonably middle-of-the-road" is probably just about the mid-point between the outer-fringe politics of All Franken and Ann Coulter. And, while there are certainly as many "left" wingnuts as "right" wingnuts, I believe most opinion surveys substantiate the fact that the largest group of voters is registered as "Independent" or unaffiliated" - that there are more adults who call themselves "conservative" than those who call themselves "liberal" - and, politicall­y-speaking­, that some 60% of adults say that their personal political views are "moderate" or "middle-of­-the-road"­.

And, the fact that there may have been an inexperienced and inexpert CIA director some 55 years ago sure doesn't justify having another inexperienced and inexpert one today! As the saying goes: Prior bad behavior does not excuse current bad behavior.

Albert Einstein was an unquestionably 'brilliant man" - IN HIS FIELD - but I doubt he would have been a good CIA director.

[Bonobo]

It gets really annoying when you outstaters hear "Feinstein" and "San Francisco" and your knee automatically jerks to the assumption that she's a left-winger. It's unlikely she would have become mayor of SF if Moscone hadn't been shot (and then had the power of incumbency). As senator, she's been pretty consistently center-right, and probably would be a Republican if she had any real principles other than reelection.

[TEPK]

During my lifetime, there's no doubt in my mind that San Francisco is the living, breathing center of the fringe Left-Loon World. Demographically, it always also seems to measure as "extremely" Democratic. And, of course, the very phrase, "San Francisco Values" has become a brand-like ID for extreme political "Liberalism". And, of course, radiohead resident Michael Weiner Savage takes great delight in referring to the place as "San Franfreako" where "Liberalism is a mental disorder".

So - - while that's just the "media message" I've gotten over many years - - IF, in fact, San Francisco is one of the most liberal Democratic urban areas in this country - - how the heck does Feinstein get elected if she is, as you say, "center-right" or "a probable Republican ... if she had any real principles" ??? Wouldn't the definitively left-wing voters in the area "see through" her "act"?

If Feinstein is in fact a centrist Democratic - or especially a right-of-center Democrat - then I would develop a newfound respect for her!

And, of course, I'm hoping Obama will consistently preside as a centrist Democrat - - and if there are some issues, here and there, where he comes out for the "more traditional" or the "somewhat conservative" or the "little right of center" side of Democratic philosophy - - so much the better!

[2wit]

America voted for change - Entrenched Democrats need to get on board and remember 2010.
"Draining the Swamp" means anyone who cannot move forward - not just those on the Republican side of the isle.
Obama has given hope to many Americans who will not be pleased with anyone who would use their own ego to place obstacles in an already difficult situation.

Our country has many challenges to face without members of the President Elect’s own party playing "The Cement Shoe" when our crisis are many and hope is few. I only know of one instance when someone walked on water, still I feel Obama has the best chance of getting us on the right track at this point in time because he is willing to listen - the rest of us need to be willing to do the same. We have an excellent chance of saving ourselves if we swim not drown bickering.

Excellent comment from SiberianRat that is worth repeating . . .

"We've got a new, wonderful president--now we can focus on straightening out Congress. Perhaps we should remind them that their approval ratings are similar to Cheney's."

[bosse]

Amen .These self appointed , leaders like F stein should run for President and see how few people outside of SFO will even turn up to listen. Has she done anything in the hundred years she was paid a handsome salary, or she just facilitated good contracts in the military for her hubby!

[Bonobo]

SFO is the airport. If you were referring to The City, Feinstein hasn't had much to do with it in decades, and even back then was a representative of the old guard.

[scott63]

overwhelming majority?

[gomonkeygo]

It's not JUST whining...it's fear! They wanted an old crony who, like themselves, is ass-crack deep in the muck and mire that is the aftermath of the Bush telecom spying debacle, that is as pro-torture as they are, someone who will wipe their asses if they wipe his.

And Obama didn't FORGET to consult her, you can bet. That was a message to Feinstein and her Bush-loving Dem accomplices. It means that they better tow the line and finally do the right thing or else.

[ouroborous]

I think we need to be careful, here.

It is misguided to view the Senate and the President as all part of one big apparatus, "the Democrats." That might be the way things have operated, but that's not the way things are SUPPOSED to operate, at least not according to the Founding Fathers' vision of coequal branches of government.

Obama is not, and should not be considered, a king. The Senate has no duty whatsoever to blindly support him if they think he's in the wrong. This is not "squabbling." This is *DOING THEIR JOB*.

That being said, I think Obama's pick was brilliant, and I think Feinstein is just tantruming because she feels slighted (and also, possibly, because Panetta, being an "outsider," might dig up some skeletons that congressional Dems want to keep buried). Obama made a great choice, but let's not convince ourselves that the Senate should simply slavishly obey him in every choice he makes. That's what got us into trouble with Bush, and that's not how our government is SUPPOSED to work.

[mountainweb]

We may have a new Democratic president but we for sure, still have the same Democratic party that is once again practicing the art of self destruction. And bent on insuring the Obama will not be able to come thru with any of his campaign promises and seem dedicated to throwing rocks at Republicans with little regard for the welfare of the country.