This past week has seen a real grassroots uprising in California. Frustrated with Senator Dianne Feinstein's constant caving to Bush, whether it be on Attorney General Mukasey, on Judge Southwick or her stated support for telecom immunity in the FISA bill, California Democrats composed a resolution censuring Feinstein to be presented at the CDP executive board meeting in Anaheim this weekend. The therefore clause reads as follows:

[...] Therefore be it resolved that the California Democratic Party expresses its disappointment at, and censure of, Senator Feinstein for ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials.

The beauty of it is that this all came out of a DFA meet-up. An e-mail blast from my colleagues at The Courage Campaign, which has been leading the online charge on this, tells us how it all went down:

On Wednesday night, California Democratic Party Progressive Caucus co-chair Mal Burnstein stood up at an Oakland "Democracy for America" Meetup and read his original censure resolution aloud to dozens of attendees, including several members of the East Bay for Democracy Democratic Club. Inspired by Mal's call to action, East Bay for Democracy officers unanimously endorsed Mal's censure resolution a few days later. The endorsed resolution then went viral over the holiday weekend, as activists across California emailed it to friends, Democratic Clubs, progressive organizations and grassroots groups.

The week culminated with MoveOn.org sending a blast out to its California list yesterday asking people to join the call for the CDP to censure Feinstein. It really was this amazing grassroots/netroots collaboration that expressed with one voice our collective frustration with the ineffectiveness of the Democrats in congress to stand up to Bush. Senator Feinstein gave us a convenient target. As a practical matter, however, it looks like the resolution is dead in the water at the CDP. First of all, it's a late resolution and thus subject to veto by just one member of the resolutions committee, which I'm told is the most likely scenario when it comes before the committee tomorrow. In addition, the establishment within the party is mobilizing behind Feinstein. CDP communications director Roger Salazar:

"This party supports our Democratic senator and will continue to do so. Period."

Steve Maviglio from Speaker Nunez's office at calitics:

Imagine if all that energy and effort was being channeled to attack Republicans or help Democratic candidates.

And Bill Cavala, a veteran of many California Democratic campaigns, hailed Feinstein as a great representative for California, "giving" on certain issues to "get" for her state, although I'm still waiting to hear what all these great compromises she's caved on have gotten us.

So if I were a betting man I'd wager that this resolution goes nowhere, but it was anything but a waste of time or energy. Dave Dayen at Calitics points to an interesting bit from the NY Times on the FISA bill that came out of committee yesterday. As I wrote yesterday, while Feinstein did vote against Russ Feingold's amendment to strip telecom immunity from the bill, she ultimately voted for a bill that had no immunity because that's what Leahy put up for a vote, deferring the telecom immunity debate for the full senate:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who also opposed Mr. Feingold's measure, pleaded with Mr. Leahy to defer the immunity issue because she wants more time to consider several compromise proposals.

I agree with Dayen's take on Feinstein's newfound enthusiasm for compromise.

Feinstein had no need for compromise earlier in the week.  She was gung-ho for telecom immunity.  Clearly the pushback in the Senate amped up the desire for compromise, even if Specter's is a fig leaf that would still get the telecoms off the hook while effectively stopping lawsuits through an expected invocation of state secrets.  But I have to assume that the heat Feinstein is taking from the grassroots back in California is driving her thinking as well.  If Leahy passed out immunity she would be seen as the biggest cheerleader for it - AGAIN, after Southwick and Mukasey.  It would be the last straw.  So she's trying to get out in front and take credit for some kind of compromise that will eventually come.

So the progressive movement can take a little credit for winning this battle.

There will still be a fight in front of the full senate to win the war, of course, but for the moment, it appears that we've weakened Feinstein's hand. Check in to calitics all weekend for updates on the resolution at the e-board meeting and if you'd like to add your name to the call for accountability for constantly caving to Bush, sign the petition HERE.