"Four U.S. senators, including three Democrats, as well as three former Feinstein staffers and the California Democratic member of Congress told The Chronicle in recent interviews that her memory is rapidly deteriorating. They said it appears she can no longer fulfill her job duties without her staff doing much of the work required to represent the nearly 40 million people of California."
like i said, the attacks are all anon and refutations are all on the record.
Ok then.
Chotiner Interviews Sen. Stabenow
I recently spoke by phone with Senator Stabenow. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why she sees double standards at work, her feelings about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision not to retire during Barack Obama’s Presidency, and her sense of Feinstein’s mental capacities.
Why do you think sexism is playing a role in the situation with Senator Feinstein?Well, first, I really want to back up, Isaac, and just say that Senator Feinstein has been a real icon, a real leader for women in this country. I’ve even admired her since she was mayor of San Francisco. This is somebody who, when I came in, in 2001, was already an incredible leader. We wouldn’t have had a ten-year assault-weapons ban if it had not been for her. There was her effort on the Violence Against Women Act. She has just been a courageous, passionate leader.
To get to your question, she is now eighty-nine, the oldest sitting United States senator. When I came in, Strom Thurmond was in the Senate. He stayed until he was a hundred years old. He wanted to be the first senator to hit a hundred years old, but he literally would lie down in the reading room off of the reception area of the Senate. Then, for voting, they would put him in a wheelchair, and he would come in to vote. I don’t recall people saying that he should step down. I don’t recall it happening to other colleagues of mine who now are also in their late eighties and having various challenges, so I’m sensitive to that.
Do you think your sensitivity arises in part from your own experience of sexism in politics?I’ve been in the state legislature, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate, and certainly I’ve experienced sexism over the years. My antenna goes up when it appears that a woman is being treated differently, when it’s unfair. I’m not saying that Senator Feinstein doesn’t have health challenges, as do male colleagues. I mean, Mr. McConnell was out for how many weeks?
Mitch McConnell has not had multiple colleagues from his own party call his mental faculties into question though, right?First of all, how many folks are we talking about?
Well, I know multiple Democratic senators told the San Francisco Chronicle that they were concerned or thought that Feinstein couldn’t really do the job anymore, at least not without extensive help from her staff.I would say that, first of all, we should look at the fact that there’s a primary happening in California, and different people are supporting different candidates. That brings us a different agenda, I think, depending on who you’re supporting and so on. I’ve been very disheartened to see public calls from California members for her to step down. I’m not saying that there aren’t challenges. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that she should be respected like anyone else is respected. And, yes, there are challenges. We also have male colleagues with challenges.
I don’t know if anyone called for Thurmond to resign. He was certainly a joke by the end of his career, but I don’t think he was serving on an evenly divided Judiciary Committee and therefore keeping his party’s nominees from coming up for a vote.We could go back and look at the various votes that came up with Senator Thurmond. He had a full-time male nurse with him and was in a very elderly, challenged situation when he was here. But let me go to the Judiciary situation as well. What should be acknowledged is that Senator Feinstein has said she’s not going to run again. She asked Senator Schumer if she could step down while she was gone and he could put someone in. Frankly, Republicans did something unprecedented. Normally, you respect each caucus to make its own decisions on who goes on committees. It could have been very routine.
But we know they’re not going to do that, right? The Republicans are not going to help Democrats.Well, I know, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
Of course not.It’s like we assume that all the bad stuff they do is O.K. You know what I mean? It’s like, well, we know they’re going to be bad. The reason I’m saying that is that if there was someone new who came in and needed committee assignments, do we know if they would be seated? The reality is that we need Senator Feinstein to be back with us, and she wants to be back with us. So, rather than people disrespecting her right now, I would prefer that they were wishing her well and rooting her on to be back with us, which is what she wants.
Offering her thoughts and prayers?Right, and it doesn’t help her credibility to have that happening.
Her credibility?Well, I mean in the sense of people in her own party suggesting that she step down or whatever. That’s not helpful. Anybody in elected office—it wouldn’t be helpful to me or anybody. I’m not trying to minimize the situation. It’s a difficult situation.
Let’s say that I’m a Democrat who wants to see my party’s judicial nominees confirmed, and I say, “The most important thing is getting these nominees confirmed, even if Feinstein has had this career.” I don’t totally understand how responding, “Well, when Strom Thurmond two decades ago was a member of another party, people didn’t call for him to resign, so it’s sexist for you to—”No, no, no. You were asking me how I was reacting in terms of the feelings, and the criticisms, and so on. No, of course. But Senator Feinstein, being responsible, suggested that she be replaced, and Republicans blocked it. The theory is that she resigns and then someone is appointed. It’s not clear if they would even seat that person. We would assume they would have to, but I’m just saying it’s more complicated than people think.
About a decade ago, there was a big debate about whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg should resign. There were a lot of charges of sexism—that this would not have been said about a male Supreme Court Justice. H
ow did you feel about that at the time, and, in hindsight, do you look at that any different?Well, I thought it was looking forward in terms of the Court. Whether it was a male or female Justice, that was something that people were concerned about. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was . . . there aren’t words to describe how amazing she was and the impact she had. I know some people felt that was sexist. From my perspective, given the fragility of the Court, and the majority, and everything at stake, that was something that I know she looked at and, I think, was certainly something worth discussing. But, again, I would prefer that those kinds of things be private.
What should be private?I would prefer not to have public calls for people to step down. I don’t think that was helpful with Justice Ginsburg. I would prefer those be conversations—Senator Feinstein is not running again. She resigned. When you asked how I feel about that, for me it’s more about how women are treated publicly, not whether or not it’s legitimate to have that conversation.
You know what I mean? I think it’s very legitimate to have the conversation. I’ve had that conversation with federal judges in Michigan who are eligible for senior status. Me saying, “Hey, right now we’ve got a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate—you should consider that when deciding whether or not to take senior status.”
You’ve actually talked to judges about that?Well, I just said to consider that as you’re weighing whether or not to take senior status, for people who care about the courts.
You said that you didn’t want public calls, and that it should be more of a private thing. But these are incredibly important public roles. I’m a little wary of saying that holding these jobs is a personal matter. Actually, the most important thing is that you’re one of a hundred or one of nine, and you need to think of yourself that way.I appreciate what you’re saying. It’s not like somebody owns that seat or should be able to just think of themselves. I understand what you’re saying. But for me, with male colleagues, it’s been private conversations. With Dianne, it’s been very public. That’s all I’m saying. That’s where the antenna goes. It’s not just for me but for other women in the Senate.
You think that’s not because it’s an evenly divided Judiciary Committee with a Democratic President trying to get appointments through?Well, I wouldn’t say, I mean, I don’t know. I appreciate the evenly divided Senate, of course. I wouldn’t say this is just sexist. I think that obviously there are serious issues here. But how it’s done in terms of public versus private conversations is what causes me to be concerned. With male-colleague concerns raised at various times in either party, because of respect for the colleague, it’s done in private.
When I asked about the three Democratic senators who’d told the Chronicle that they didn’t think Feinstein was mentally up to it, you insinuated that there were primary shenanigans going on. But these are other Democratic senators. Am I right to assume that you don’t think those claims have merit, and that you think she’s fully mentally functional?I think that she has some challenges, and she is not the only one in the Senate.
I don’t know if that’s the most heartening thing for voters to hear, or a great defense of Dianne Feinstein.
I guess what I would say is that, for me, this is about respecting an iconic woman leader. She’s making choices. She made the choice not to run again, which she decided is in the best interests of her state and of herself. I respect that, and I’m not interested in further analyzing this. Various people have challenges in their lives, various people have various kinds of challenges, and I’m supportive of people handling those how they think they should. That’s enough. ?
