NEITHER DIANNE FEINSTEIN NOR NEWT GINGRICH GIVES BUSH AND HIS FAILED REGIME ANY RESPECT TODAY

I moved to California in the late 70s and I never missed an election. I never voted for a Republican for anything and I never cast a ballot for Dianne Feinstein for anything. Before she began her highly profitable career in the Senate she was an uptight, developer-friendly hack on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. And when a deranged Republican supervisor, Dan White, went mad and murdered beloved Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone, Feinstein pounced on the opportunity to advance her career by running for mayor. I supported Jello Biafra in that race (Watch the video.)

This morning when I woke up, CNN was already capitalizing on an entire day of their sad version of political coverage leading up to this evening's Democratic debate with trite, superficial pseudo-analysis/infotainment-- something which neither provides any meaningful info nor the slightest bit of entertainment. My screen came to life with images of neo-Confederate former Democratic senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and DiFi. Shelby has apparently gone to Republican-office-holder-school and speaks in meaningless soundbytes meant to cause little electronic flickers of recognition in the dull, dull minds of Fox News' aged viewership. He said absolutely nothing in the time between me waking up and going to brush my teeth. DiFi, on the other hand, surprised me. Haggard and way past her prime, she actually had-- albeit inadvertently-- a cogent theme to her answers to Wolf Blintz's inane questions.

Her inarticulated theme was that when a small child or a severely mentally handicapped person is caused great pain by touching a hot stove they learn a valuable lesson. This is how Feinstein seems to view 7 years of George Bush in the White House. It also applies to those who are ignorant, or even disdainful, of history. Every question Blintzer asked her led back to the implied analogy between Bush and a child/retard/moron. I think Jello would have done it with more style and oomph-- but, nonetheless, the point was made.

BLINTZER: All right. I know what Senator Feinstein's answer is on that because I've spoken to her about that in the past. And she recognizes that was a mistake. Am I right, Senator Feinstein?

FEINSTEIN: That's correct. And I said from the very beginning if I knew then what I knew now, I wouldn't have voted. Now, having said that, I have to clearly live with it, and it's a very difficult thing to do.

But I believe that come September, members of the Senate are going to be in a much more flexible state of mind about the war. And I think even in the Republican Party, and I think you can pick some of that up this morning, there are changing points of view about this war. And I think increasingly large numbers of us want to see it over.

However we get there, let's get it over. One other point, the big learning experience is how really the mistake that was made was on the follow-on of shock and awe. Of not having a plan, both tactics and strategy to build a country in a unified way.

The terrible mistakes that were made with respect to de- Baathification in particular, I think, leaves this country very divided and very violent. And there's a big learning lesson. A very, very painful learning lesson. And I think we're learning it.

... BLINTZER: Well, what do you think, Senator Feinstein? How much time there is before Iran is beyond the point of no return? Some already suggesting it may already be beyond the point of no return towards developing a nuclear bomb.

FEINSTEIN: Well, I don't believe that right now based on what I know that I'm not going to go into. I do think this. I think Iran has determined that they're going to proceed. I think in a way this is a result of isolation. And I think talks are going on between Javier Solana and Ali Larijani.

Secretary Rice is now showing new flexibility of wanting to engage the discussions with our Ambassador Crocker on Iran. I think these are all very useful avenues to explore and to develop. I think not to talk, only to threaten, does not achieve the result we want. And that's another lesson that we have to learn.

I think discussions with Syria, discussions with the Iranians, exploring this idea of an international consortium actually running any program, preventing weaponization, allowing nuclear power but preventing weaponization, all of this I think needs to be carefully looked at. And then you have to see whether it's worth it or not. If we never explore the avenues, we never really know.

While Feinstein was groping towards the truth with Blinzter on CNN, the Newtster was doing a stint broadcasting on the GOP propaganda show, Fox News Sunday, pointing out that although Bush "means very, very well," his regime is hopelessly incompetent and dysfunctional. Citing Bush's inability to successfully handle the immigration situation in the last 7 years and his regime's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, Gingrich said "All you have to do is look at the examples I've given you today where the government simply fails... We have to have very relentless, dramatic change in American government." Nope, he wasn't endorsing Obama or Edwards. He actually went from that statement about "dramatic change" to praising three clownish Bush clones: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson, who he said are capable of "offering a very bold, dramatic vision. These are solid people," implying that McCain isn't a solid person (and probably more senile today than Reagan was in his last painful years in office).