Senator Dianne Feinstein gets primary opponent

’bout time.

Levitt Announces US Senate Candidacy

Levitt’s campaign platform advocates policies in the public interest: investment in sustainable energy, infrastructure jobs and education, single payer health care, ending the drug war, and popular policies on energy, war, and finance that PAC-friendly party leaders don’t dare to endorse.

Drug warrior Feinstein is connected to all the big money, so this won’t be an easy one, but it sure is refreshing to see. It’s been a long time since she’s been forced to care about her constituents.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Senator Dianne Feinstein gets primary opponent

  1. paul says:

    Best of luck to him. Although he would clearly be another money spending Democrat in these troubled times, if he votes consistently to end the drug war, and speaks out against it, he can be senator for life, as far as I’m concerned.

    Feinstein is awful on just about every issue I can think of–a better than 90% perfect contrarian indicator of my own preferences. Getting her out and replaced with ANYONE would be a happy day, and if Levitt replaces her and delivers on his drug war rhetoric, he is welcome to waste taxpayer money until we finally just run out of the stuff.

    80% of Republicans would do the same, so not much difference there, anyway. They just funnel money to a different set of parasites.

  2. paul says:

    Oh, by the way, I know this isn’t terribly on-topic, but it supports my “not a dime’s worth of difference” point, and it is really rather brilliant:

    Judge Napolitano has spoken out against assaults on our liberty and against the drug war for years. I rather think you’ll like this five minute clip.

  3. OhutumValik says:

    This one from the Guardian seems to support KaptiNemo’s belief that budget considerations will be the downfall of prohibition — again:

    Legal highs evade being banned as scientists run out of cash to test them

    Funding cuts mean crime networks can flood Britain with new drugs.

    Scientists studying Britain’s rapidly increasing number of synthetic recreational drugs are struggling to assess the risks they pose because money for testing is being cut. Legal highs are flourishing as their manufacturers seek to stay ahead of drug classification laws by tweaking the chemical composition of their legal products to replicate the effects of illegal ones.

    Crime networks in China and elsewhere in Asia are increasingly being blamed for selling large volumes of the chemicals needed to create synthetic drugs such as BZP, mephedrone and “Ivory Wave”, to a burgeoning group of entrepreneurial chemists exploiting loopholes in British law.

    Now Britain’s’s leading expert on synthetic substances is warning that a sharp rise in the number of legal highs coming to the UK’s streets, coupled with acute funding constraints, has meant many of the drugs are not being tested – with potentially dangerous consequences for public health. /snip/

    A recent survey of English police forces found nearly half were expecting to reduce their drug detection work: 44% said they expect to reduce their scientific testing, while 45% said they were cutting the amount of test purchasing of suspect substances.

    Roger Howard, chief executive of the UK Drug Policy Commission, the independent body that analyses drug laws, said: “Tough spending decisions mean many police forces are reducing the amount of money they spend on forensic testing. If we think that temporary bans will somehow solve the problem we will be deluding ourselves. We should be looking to use powers like trading standards regulations, which could encourage retailers to work with the authorities to reduce the damage that drug use can cause.”

    Sorry for OT.

    • kaptinemo says:

      It’s not OT.

      Remember the old word, ‘ecology’? You don’t hear it too much anymore, but that doesn’t matter. Because there’s an ecology to drug prohibition, and the whole system works off of interconnecting subsystems…fiscal, social, political, etc. but all part of the same vicious, disgusting ‘environment’. An exceedingly toxic one. Think of it as institutionalized gangrene. And Feinstein enabled that. Which makes her as toxic as the system she supports.

      Time for a little political disinfectant…

      • ohutumvalik says:

        Remember the old word, ‘ecology’?

        Back in the second half of the 1980s, during the Soviet occupation, we learned about the science of “biogeocenosis” instead. It was not easily apparent (for a seventh-grader) that it boiled down to what most of the rest of the world called “environmental science” (or, as you pointed out, ecology), and that the convoluted notion was mostly included in the textbooks because it was “discovered” by a Soviet scientist instead of a non-communist.

        (And that’s definitely OT)

  4. Dano says:

    I’d love to see someone else in that seat. If there’s an alternative to Feinstein on the ballot that isn’t crazy they’ll get my vote for sure!

    I agree with Paul – she seems to be 180 degrees away from most of what I’d like her to take a stand on.

  5. Peter says:

    ive looked briefly to see if she or her husband hold stock in corrections corp or geo etc but havent come up with the smoking gun yet. anyone know of any financial incentive for her fondness for life sentences for third drug offences?

  6. Yes!! Primary challenges are EXACTLY what we need to focus our efforts on. California hasn’t had a non-Democratic US Senator since 1969, and the chances of that changing this year are slim to none -ut a better Democrat than Feinstein? That works!

    All you California voters out there remember your primary election will be held on JUNE 5. Top two vote-getters advance to the general election. Let’s get some of our people into the Senate!!!

  7. Dante says:

    I am both saddened and amazed at how Congress continues to receive poor performance ratings (down to 11%) and yet the incumbents continue to gain re-election. I believe the rate of re-election is in the high 90% range.

    Every time, like clockwork. Yet almost nobody supports them?

    How is that possible, unless there is election fraud?

    Answer: There is election fraud. It’s always about the money.

    Just like the Mafia. Except we have to pay for it.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      Humbug. It’s the “lesser of two evils” syndrome. Keep your eyes open and listen to the reasons people give that we should vote to re-elect Mr. Obama despite the fact that he threw us under the bus. It’s all better the devil we know than the devil we don’t.

      It’s beyond absurd to believe that there’s a vast, nationwide conspiracy. Like the morons that believed that Florida was rigged in 2000. The fantasy worked fine until one came to the part where the rest of the country had to be rigged to put Florida in the position of being the deciding vote, and even more absurd it required Ralph Nader to be in on the conspiracy. Mr. Nader is a left wing whacko. Thinking him involved in a conspiracy to put the Republicans in power is absurd. Thinking he’d be in on it to put George the lesser in power is positively deranged.

  8. claygooding says:

    It is obvious that our congress isn’t even discussing marijuana,medical or otherwise,,and I suggest we flush Washington DC down the proverbial toilet,,,vote all out that support the war on drugs,,it is time to move beyond the drug warriors as rapidly as we can.

  9. Oh! Oh! Sabet’s got an article with comments open! Maybe we can get him to send another troll our way!

    • darkcycle says:

      Okay, I’m Daddy all day today, and can’t spend much time, but I socked Sabet with this one:
      “The FDA approves specific medical products produced by a particular “innovator” (for branded products) or generic manufacturers.”Then why is marijuana even subject to FDA regulation? It is not a synthetic drug, it was not produced by any “innovator”, and boasts a four thousand year safety record. Doesn’t the FDA approve NEW medicines for use? Ones that don’t have a long history of safe effective use? Can you answer me this? Has ASPIRIN ever been throught the FDA process, and where would I find those records?

    • claygooding says:

      Posted,,awaiting moderator,,,,it’s a little long and may get cut but it exposes Sabet’s ties with ONDCP policy plus others were already giving him hell.

    • Nice. I have to confess that I think Kevin, more so than other prohibitionist mouthpieces, actually helps our cause with his pedantic anti-legalization missives.

      The way he attempts to use a reasonable tone (Hey, let’s not allow extremists to hijack the conversation!) to put a smiley face on the violence of prohibition enforcement is simply grotesque and provides considerable fodder for comments section mockery.

    • kaptinemo says:

      Keep in mind that this is the same organization that, in its’ previous incarnation as the ‘Partnership for a Drug Free America’ (heavily subsidized, then and now, by Big Pharma) fraudulently used the brainwave pattern of a comatose person as being typical of a cannabis user in their anti-drug commercials…and were later forced to withdraw it when medical researchers contacted TV stations and complained.

      They are inveterate, shameless liars…which should make “Dr.” Sabet feel right at home, given that he had official dispensation to lie, courtesy of working for ONDCP.

      Interesting, isn’t it, that they have never tried to take anyone to court for calling them liars? Hmmmm. I wonder why?

    • kaptinemo says:

      Oh, and one more thing: their sources of funding are no longer as transparent as they used to be.

      SourceWatch used to have a fairly current page devoted to them in which you could see the donors to it. Now, when you google SourceWatch and go to their Webpage and plug the name of the organization in the search block, you are taken directly to a page that is written by their supposed target.


  10. ezrydn says:

    Anyone except HER! It’ll be nice to see a contender on the ballot. All her money can’t buy my vote.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      So does that include the Republican nominee? Or do you mean any other Democrat/left leaning Independant?

      • ezrydn says:

        Simply put, what ever it takes to get that specific hag outta office. And I care not one bit over theit titles.

        • Duncan20903 says:


          Well you’re the exception from my observations. There are so many that hate anyone Republican, also vice versa. It’s so ingrained that candidates know that they’re going to get x% of the vote just because of their particular label. For the most part campaigns are tailored to the tiny minority of people who are willing to consider both candidates as their representative. In the here and now the right and left are akin to the double yellow lines in the middle of the road, with right and left defined by which direction one is traveling.

          The only way it’s possible to “vote the scoundrels out” will be for a significant percentage of the voters to hold their nose and vote for someone that they hate. Perhaps Ms. Feinstein can be defeated in the primary. I’m not very hopeful that it’s possible. If it doesn’t then the only realistic option is to elect her Republican opponent, and that candidate is most assuredly going to claim a mandate from the people in his favor, rather than the people mandating against Ms. Feinstein. Multiply that times 468 or 469 minus those races with no incumbent and it looks positively impossible to me.

  11. Duncan20903 says:

    Senator Feinstein will be 79 years old on Election Day 2012.

  12. thelbert huffman says:

    due to 64 years of largely undetected crime, i am a registered california voter. diane will not be getting a vote from me because she has consistently gone against the intersts of me and all californians except the police staters and rich folks she hangs with.

  13. Joe Bob says:

    Why can’t we get credible, electable primary opponent for DiFi? She’s 78 for cripes sake and a huge DINO. She lives in the pockets of lobbyists. Aside from her drug stance she’s been a huge supporter of internet censorship, like the PIPA and SOPA bills. She’s a joke.

  14. Actually, there are several Democrats running against Feinstein, with credibility. Check out their ballot statements at:

    Glad for you to check us out and give us your comments at Mike Strimling’s campaign at

Comments are closed.