The untold secrets of Dianne Feinstein:
She’s arrogant, condescending, above talking or debating Elizabeth Emken but that’s not all.
I am one of the senator’s constituents and write her frequently. When she chooses to reply it’s an all purpose say nothing boiler plate, ” I take your concerns seriously and will factor them into my decisions and votes on the issue. Sure she will!
What issue were you talking about Dianne? Raising taxes, guns, the Keystone Pipeline?
By Jim Campbell
I know Dianne Feinstein and understand why she won’t debate the more vibrant and better suited for the position of United States Senator, Elizabeth Emken.
It’s a relatively simple issue, much akin to President Obama’s future debates with challenger Mitt Romney. Obama will be required to defend his record, one dutifully voted for by Dianne Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein has never faced an opponent of Emken’s caliber and experience. She has always refused to debate believing that what she could hide wouldn’t hurt her. She’s been led to believe by the San Francisco liberal establishment that she was unbeatable.
Senator Feinstein also has a misguided take on this years electorate who are turning away from the 79 year-old senator.
Sorry Dianne, debate or obfuscate, 2012 will not be your year.
Feinstein’s record is woeful on issues that will help turn around our country. Senator Feinstein’s positions are diametrically opposed to those of Emken’s who favors a pro growth smaller federal government.
1. Taxation: Wrong
2. Wrong on health care with the inability to understand employers aren’t hiring, they are firing, and insurance companies have been forced to raise their rates in anticipation of what will be a failed one size fits all program.
3. No understanding the economics of job creation
4. An inability to admit the relationship between raising taxes and job loss has resulted in loss of companies and employee jobs to California.
5. Wrong on energy
6. Wrong on The Second Amendment.
Voter’s from CA must decide in November if they want to keep following failed policies that have destroyed California’s economy, or turn to the fresh new ideas of Elizabeth that will begin setting California and the entire United States back on the road to prosperity.
It’s conceivable that Feinstein might say something that would open the door to Elizabeth mentioning one of a number of Feinstein’s many ethical problems that have plagued her throughout her past 24 years as she played U.S. Senator from California.
She may do well on spot segments on Sunday T.V. talk shows that typically prep progressives like Feinstein with softball questions she can answer, but in a debate with Elizabeth Emken who at this moment in time lacks name recognition only, the Feinstein campaign would likely implode after the first debate.
Elizabeth served in management, financial analysis, and corporate operations at IBM. As an efficiency and cost cutting expert, Elizabeth utilized activity-based cost analyses to identify administrative savings across IBM U.S. – helping streamline operations, eliminate waste, and save the company millions of dollars.
Elizabeth graduated from UCLA in 1984 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Her studies included course work at Cambridge University, where she focused on political and economic issues in China and the Middle East.
“Nothing screams ‘entrenched incumbent’ more than a refusal to debate an opponent.”
Face your rival, Sen. Feinstein
Sen. Dianne Feinstein had an excuse for not debating her opponents in the first round of this year’s election — there were 23 of them. But now that the voters have winnowed the field to two, the four-term Democratic incumbent owes it to California’s voters to appear publicly with Republican challenger Elizabeth Emken.
Emken, an advocate for autistic children, is obviously the underdog in this election. But she received 12.6% of the primary vote in the crowded field, almost twice as many votes as the third-place finisher. More to the point, as the only alternative to Feinstein, she has earned the right to challenge the incumbent on the issues — and to be challenged in return.
Please visit the rest of the article here:
It would be a disservice to the voters — and perhaps self-defeating — for Feinstein to remain aloof from any give and take with her opponent.In what can fairly be called an opening bid, Emken has called on Feinstein to engage in a series of five televised debates that would focus on regional issues — including water in the Central Valley, jobs and the economy in the Inland Empire, education in Los Angeles, national security in San Diego and energy on the Central Coast. The debates would be moderated by local media.
We suspect that even Emken’s most optimistic aides aren’t expecting Feinstein to agree to five debates, and though different regions in this vast state have particular concerns, it is a federal office Emken is seeking. An overly local orientation for debates would ignore the fact that all Californians have an interest in how Feinstein and Emken differ on issues such as healthcare, the war against terrorism and U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Ideally, debates would address a mix of subjects.
Established candidates such as Feinstein often resist debates with lesser-known challengers for fear of giving them free exposure. Indeed, debates would raise Emken’s profile, but they also would require her to articulate positions on issues with which Feinstein has long familiarity. So far, Emken’s platform consists of boilerplate Republican positions on domestic issues, including opposition to President Obama’s healthcare law, new taxes and “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. On foreign and national security questions — a strong suit for Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee — Emken is a comparatively blank slate.
Feinstein’s long tenure and familiarity with California were obviously assets for her in the primary — she is, by most measures, the state’s most highly regarded public official. But the risk for any long-serving official is the perception that she is taking her public trust for granted. Nothing screams “entrenched incumbent” more than a refusal to debate an opponent.