More

Jane Hamsher

Jane Hamsher

Posted January 6, 2009 | 01:46 PM (EST)

Obama's Savvy Choice Of Panetta Shakes Up Stagnant Senate


It may not have been intentional. 

Obama was still in his first term when he hit the campaign trail, so it was only natural that he would forge most of his close connections to DC insiders within the Senate.  But as he filled out his administration with one Senator after another, what ensued was a desperately needed shakeup in that musty, ancient, bloviating and self-important entity that considers itself "the most exclusive club in the world."

The musical chairs began when Democratic leadership decided the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of disbursing more than $1 trillion a year in federal spending, was too important to be chaired by the 91 year-old Robert Byrd (who was sending his aides to the meetings he didn't sleep through).  But they observed those august rules of Senate seniority and replaced him with the largely ineffectual Daniel Inouye, 84, so that hardly signaled radical change.

Inouye's decision to take over Appropriations meant he had to give up  Commerce.  Then Biden's departure from Foreign Relations triggered a mad scramble for powerful committee chairmanships that ended with Kerry taking over after he failed to receive a cabinet appointment.  Mary Landrieu took over Kerry's chair of small business.  Rockefeller gave up Intelligence and took Inouye's seat at Commerce, and Diane Feinstein assumed the Intelligence helm. 

And that was that.  The Senators decided amongst themselves how power would be distributed -- they swatted away the pesky gnats who questioned their right to decide what goes on in their club and handed a gavel back to Joe Lieberman, and everyone set out to assert their new authority and exercise control of their new turf.

We are not amused howled Feinstein when Obama had the temerity to offer Leon Panetta the helm of the CIA without consulting her.  Jay Rockefeller and Evan Bayh were sighing about how this is very disconcerting indeed, and they are hailing Feinstein's decision to do something she never did to George Bush -- put forward her own candidate, Stephen Kappes.  They are flashing the ever fashionable fuscha terror alert button and wagging their fingers about Panetta's lack of intelligence background, but the message was clear -- this challenge to their authority was not acceptable.    

They all sound like Sally Quinn.

There is insufficient space here on this blog to recount all the things that the Intelligence Committee has screwed up in recent years, but suffice to say that Feinstein enabled most of it.  She has been a key Bush ally who cast critical votes in support of his most extremist assertions of power.  Her default position is consistently to protect establishment power, and she never batted an eyelash about casting votes that were worth billions in defense contracts to firms owned by her husband.  There are few people in public office more territorial and consumed by a sense of entitlement than Diane Feinstein.

Bush neutralized meaningful opposition to his worst, most extra-legal and noxious actions from Congressional Democrats by bringing them into the fold, flattering them and playing to their own sense of self-importance as he explained to them the things he hid from the public.  Chief among those were Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and  Jane Harmon (who was evidently a Feinstein favorite for the CIA post). 

If someone truly were to come in from the outside and try to find out what happened at the CIA with regard to torture and illegal spying, the complicity and ensuing silence of this entitled crew risks exposure.  They've already demonstrated they'll do just about anything to keep that from happening -- that's how we got retroactive telecom immunity in the first place.

It's notable that Ron Wyden, who also sits on the Intelligence Committee, was consulted about Panetta and approved of his choice. 

I have no idea if Panetta would make a good CIA chief or not. But it's encouraging that Obama didn't let his arm be twisted by those in the intelligence community anxious to cover their tracks of the last eight years. And I can't think of a better place start for Obama to start shaking up Washington DC than with those currently in high caterwaul about Panetta's appointment.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

It may not have been intentional.  Obama was still in his first term when he hit the campaign trail, so it was only natural that he would forge most of his close connections to DC insiders within...
It may not have been intentional.  Obama was still in his first term when he hit the campaign trail, so it was only natural that he would forge most of his close connections to DC insiders within...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 83
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
09:40 AM on 01/07/2009
Great post, Jane. I hope Mr. Obama is as steadfast in this decision as he has been in the face of the blowback about including Rick Warren in the inauguration ceremony. This is the first thing he's done that has actually given me some hope that he's going to be able to make some changes.
09:15 AM on 01/07/2009
Make my words and take names of all congressmen and women that are objecting to his appointment ,because I predict they know he will clean house of corruption and they are scared..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:01 AM on 01/07/2009
Me either Jane. Great post!
10:15 AM on 01/07/2009
Agreed, a knockout post Jane!
01:56 AM on 01/07/2009
Watching Countdown tonight gave me hope that Feinstein has opened the door to the press to poke into how Congress dropped the ball on "oversight." She and Rockefeller basically collaborated with Cheney and Bush by not whistling to the country about wire-tapping and other abuses. (Yeah Jay, we know, you wrote the protest letter about TIA in 2003 to CYA). Never mind Feinstein's assistance with the last Patriot Act update!!! Let's hope the spotlight really shines on her!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ohsnap
10:43 PM on 01/06/2009
Did we elect Fenstein? Who cares what she says?
10:28 PM on 01/06/2009
You hit the nail on the head, she wants to cover her rear-view mirror!!!!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Articulator
09:20 PM on 01/06/2009
Interesting viewpoint, in a way a break from the good ol boy network.

With the little I know it seemed some what like Obama was disappointingly politicizing the position but I am very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as long as he doesnt look me in the eye and lie to me all the while knowing full well that every one knows it's a lie (as has been standard operating procedure for the last 8 years).
09:02 PM on 01/06/2009
Time to start over from ground zero. Our entire system is so corrupt it's just sickening. The waste of the peoples' money . . .

Ah well, when the dollar is worth what's it's worth . . . about a peso . . . then we'll see some real change.

Pretty soon, too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
vietveter
Wish ididnt know now what ididnt know then
08:39 PM on 01/06/2009
I LOVE IT when you are right, Jane! ;~)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
milo9
08:25 PM on 01/06/2009
You're spot on Miss Hamsher. Panetta might uncover the disgraceful secrets of Feinstein and Rockerfeller.
07:57 PM on 01/06/2009
Panetta is a great choice. He was congressman in my district in California, I've met him. He's very smart, very honest, a straight-shooter. He's exactly what is needed in a demoralized agency like the CIA. I can't think of a better man for the job. As for Feinstein--her nose is out of joint because she wasn't "consulted" first. But she's been wrong on everything from her support of the war in Iraq, Condolezza Rice for Secretary of State, her support for Porter Goss, and just about everything else having to do with intelligence and national security. She's batting zero in my book. I hope she doesn't hurt Panetta's chances. He's too good to lose this one.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
vippy
Carpe Diem!
07:26 AM on 01/07/2009
It is high time for us to assist Obama and clean up the senate! Get rid of the old dinosaurs and
their "experience" at more and more pay raises only and everything that is bad for the people!
07:03 PM on 01/06/2009
This CA resident is sick to death of DiFi. I wrote her to voice my opinion about her (crappy) votes on the telecom immunity. Her office wrote me back to say that the Telecoms hadn't done anything wrong, so the immunity wasn't really important. I wrote them back to say that although I am not a lawyer, I'm not stupid enough to believe that someone lobbying for IMMUNITY has done nothing wrong. I never got a response. Figures.
09:28 PM on 01/06/2009
Yes, I had determined some months ago, because of her bizarre statements, that I could not support Feinstein again. What is her problem? Yes, her husband's contracts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wendynyc
It's about time!
06:42 PM on 01/06/2009
Panetta is a great choice - especially if he's ruffling so many feathers!
06:27 PM on 01/06/2009
Jane I think you hit it right on the head. Many of the points you mentioned I have been thinking for a while. Glad to see it in print. I completely agree with your contention that the one area that needs attention is the US Senate. They are a stagnate body that has been completely ineffective. Most honest legislation gets bogged down as the nation plunges into crisis. Between the Filibustering Republicans and DLC Democrats like Feinstein it is no wonder our country is in such a mess.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CrankyCurmudgeon
Livin' La Vida Retiredo (but still working a bit)
06:07 PM on 01/06/2009
I long ago wrote Senator Feinstein and told her it would be a cold day in hell before I'd ever vote for her again. I could have sworn she had at least a few progressive bones in her body, but she's proven to be about as reactionary as they come. We won't even talk about her conflicts of interest with her husband's businesses, as Jane alludes to.