3 ms·
That makes more sense to me than Feinstein really. He looks after wealthy Kentucky interests, and is a very powerful senator shaping policy for the whole Republ
by mattnewton 4y ago
That makes more sense to me than Feinstein really. He looks after wealthy Kentucky interests, and is a very powerful senator shaping policy for the whole Republican Party; Feinstein seems unaware of Silicon Valley’s interests and basically votes along party lines.
- saltcured 4y agoI think you can say the same thing about California. Your mistake is conflating "Silicon Valley's interests" with "wealthy California interests". I imagine it is also true that Kentucky does not have one monolithic base of wealthy or elite agendas. I think it is more accurate to say that both of them have transitioned into iconic status. The political/marketing machinations have lofted their identities so high that it barely matters that they are humans at all. They are brands. There is also the basic senate rules mentioned elsewhere, which institutionalize seniority. Look at the list of longest serving US senators and ask yourself if Feinstein is really an anomaly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_... Edit to add: remember when we used to have this conversation about Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd? It's idiomatic.