Just as in 2010, this year, a left-of-center Democratic woman is running for reelection to the U.S. Senate from California. And while two years ago, I devoted much space on this blog (and donated several hundred dollars from my pocket) to defeating the liberal up for reelection, this year I have all but ignored the Senate contest.
Now, to be sure, I will not be voting to reelection Senator Dianne Feinstein, indeed, have not voted for her in 2000 or 2006, years she was up for reelection when I resided in the (once-)Golden State. Unlike her junior colleague, Mrs. Feinstein has both shown respect for her ideological adversaries and actually accomplished some things during her Senate tenure. (Said accomplishments likely related to that respect).
Not only has Senator Feinstein, on occasion, showed respect for her ideological and partisan adversaries, but she has also dared, from time to time, to take issue with her party. As chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she does tend to put concern for national security ahead of partisan politics and has done so again this week, diplomatically adddressing intelligence leaks from the White House:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Monday that someone at the White House was responsible for the recent leaks of classified information.
“I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” Feinstein said in an address at the World Affairs Council, The Associated Press first reported.
Feinstein said she was certain that President Obama had not disclosed any of the classified intelligence, but believed others in the administration were responsible.
This puts the California Democrat at odds with senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod who “has denied that the leaks came from sources in the White House.” Feinstein’s contention that the president himself did not leak the classified information led Ed Morrissey to quip, “That’s why a President hires staff and appoints political players — to do that kind of work for him.”
“Leaks”, that 2010 CPAC blogger of the year adds
. . .usually occur for two reasons: to make someone look good, and to make someone look bad. Whistleblowing falls into the latter category, but it’s not the only impulse found with those kinds of leaks, either. With leaks of the first type, the best question to ask is: Cui bono? Who benefits? While that’s not an evidentiary process, it’s usually a pretty reliable way for investigators and non-investigators to narrow the evidentiary search rationally and effectively. Apparently, Feinstein agrees.
And these leaks do make Obama look good (well, largely for continuing programs put in place by his predecessor).