Why did Feinstein do it?In 2004, the Republicans got lots of states to have anti gay marriage initiatives on the ballot. Gets out the base, and all that. And it may have helped Bush win over Kerry.
So why did Democratic senator Diane Feinstein, from a safely blue state (though up for reelection*), co-sponsor an amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag from "desecration"?
True, the amendment failed in the Senate by one vote, but if it had passed, it would have been a major political issue going into the elections. Instead of about a dozen states with marriage initiatives,
all fifty states would have been debating the flag amendment. That's because after passing the House and Senate, it's off to the states for 3/4 approval. It would divide Democrats more than Republicans and nationalize state races on the theme of "defending the flag".
Nothing is guaranteed, so it's not a sure thing that the flag issue would make a big difference, but
the risk was clear.
Why did Feinstein support something that, if it had passed, would have endangered the Democrats' chance of taking back one of the houses of Congress and many, many local races?
* -
with a 55% - 30% advantage in the polls, hardly anything to worry about
posted by Quiddity at 7/02/2006 10:07:00 PM
Feinstein is a puzzle. Boxer won easily, and is far left of Feinstein. I'd gladly vote against Feinstein in a primary.
My theory is that she has greater aspirations than her current position. This causes her to take wrong positions, such as supporting Bush in the authorization to screw up Iraq.
She and Hillary both have this problem.
