I have heard that politicians are like dirty diapers; they should both be changed frequently for the same reason. California Senator Dianne Feinstein embodies the stereotypical image of a career politician that has lost any meaningful connection to a concept of public service. She needs to be changed out for a newer model.
While I am certainly in favor of effective leaders staying in power, such tenures are predicated on the continued understanding by the politician that they are responsible to their constituency; that they have a responsibility to engage on issues. Feinstein has refused to debate with her challenger, Republican Elizabeth Emken. Despite several invitations to debate Emken, the career politician has refused to debate and engage on the issues in any meaningful way. Her willingness to provide answers has reminded me more of a recalcitrant suspect in a police drama than a senatorial candidate.
“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.”
We need to see more accountability from our representatives in Washington. There needs to be a reminder that government works for us, not the other way around. While debating a challenger is not mandatory, such hubris is galling and indicative of her willingness to make her stance on issues known.
However, if Feinstein’s aristocratic arrogance did not reveal itself in her unwillingness to debate on important issues for Californians, her hubris has fully revealed itself now as she recently walked out of an interview when the reporter had the nerve to ask her why she would not debate Emken.
“I’ve gotta ask you about Elizabeth Emken. She wants to debate you. The L.A. Times has come out and said that you ought to debate her…”
To which Feinstein replied,
“I’m running my own campaign. Thank you, Mark.” She then tried to leave, but was coaxed back to her chair. After defending her position by citing speeches she has given, Matthews asked, “Wouldn’t it be better for the voters to hear both sides?” Feinstein, having none of it, thanked the reporter before abruptly walking out on the interview.
Feinstein might be a career politician, but she is acting like a complete amateur. Surely this cannot be the first time a reporter has asked her a question that she did not much care for. The Democratic Party, so completely out of ideas are now, apparently, not even trying to feed us lies. They’re simply taking their ball and going home.