I'm no fan of Feinstein -- but it's obvious when I listen to someone writing from their place in the Conservative PR bubble. The OP describes her as
a "progressive" since that's the new target of the corporatists.
I don't expect this to get through to partisan extremists, but it's just a message in the bottle for people who are confused about the issue.
Feinstein doesn't describe herself (to my knowledge) as a Progressive. There's nothing about her that's progressive. The only people saying this is
the same people who claim Democrats thought Obama was "the One" -- meaning, it's totally a fabrication inside her head.
Feinstein and her husband invest heavily on military defense contractors. They are merely smooth politicians, and they probably flipped a coin one day
and figured they'd make bank becoming Democrats -- it probably seemed like a good shot in the location they were in and the candidates they ran
Progressives aren't about a "nanny state" - or the "deadbeat dad" Republican state, nor is this the Progressive party and ideology of 100 years
ago when another group shared that name. It's all about what works. It's about SOLVING problems and any very large problem, or endemic one requires
an organized structure like a government.
There are only a handful of people in Washington that the Progressives consider Progressives -- and people on the RIGHT don't get to tell us who they
are and then tarnish these ideals with their straw men.
Now there are quite a few running as Progressives -- and I can't vouch for everyone. I'm guessing that no Democrat or Republican want's to adopt
EVERYONE with an R or D after their name either.
Here's the list for Congress.
Here's the "SENATE Progressives" meeting with Obama to push back on his plan to "negotiate" with Republicans by cutting entitlements and against
the "Sequester" where Obama threatened Republicans by giving them more than the asked for.
Here's a page showing policies pushed by the Progressives in the Senate; LINK
We are always going to have government -- unless we live in some post-apocalyptic nightmare -- there's no way millions of people with our current
society can organize and feed themselves without one. So we want an honest and transparent government where the people decide on a case by case basis
without ideology, whether it does or doesn't do something. But I don't want mercury in my food -- so I want an agency to make sure it doesn't get
there. I don't want crony capitalism, or subsidies to companies that can convince politicians to give them money.
>> Well, rant over. I hope everyone can have honest debates with good information, and not follow the playbook of some NeoCons who peter tea-sipping
Liberals who like to play dead for them and they'd LOVE to label every corrupt politico a Progressive. Right now, there isn't much money in being a
Progressive -- selling out to a company just isn't part of the platform. I also don't think there is any way we can manage the complexities of the
future, deal with labor issues in the dawning age of robots, or allocate resources without the PUBLIC being in charge of the rules of the game. Any
vacuum that the Libertarians manage to leave with their idealist notion of "government too small to be corrupt" will of course be filled by groups
with money and power. And that's either going to be a company, special interest, or union. Nature abhors a vacuum.