This just in my email box by way of the California Young Democrats. Fromer Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards will stump for Phil Angelides.
Please Join the next governor of california Phil Angelides for a TAKE BACK CALIFORNIA RALLY with special guest Senator John Edwards.
Saturday, September 9th
4:30pm ?E6:00pm
Booker T. Washington Community Center
800 Presidio Avenue
San Francisco, CA
Be there and help change California’s future!!
(cross-posted at D-Day and Governor Phil)
The close of this week’s legislative session drew an unequivocal distinction between Democrats and Republicans in this state. It was not in any way a victory for bipartisanship. If it were, you would be able to find ONE Republican in the State Senate or the State Assembly who actually voted for the “cap-and-trade” greenhouse gas emissions bill. You’d be able to find more than Abel Maldonado, the only Republican in either chamber to vote to increase the minimum wage. You’d have a SINGLE Republican member of the State Assembly, and more than TWO Republican State Senators (Denham, Harman) who voted for the bill providing universal health care in California. The only “bipartisanship” on display was between a Democratic legislature who moved California forward on the big issues, and a Governor trying to save his job in an election year. In this way California is a mirror image of the country at large. In election years of the recent past, Republicans have typically thrown red meat at their base, hoping to increase turnout among conservatives to carry them to victory. California’s governor has completely abandoned that strategy, and in so doing neutured his party for decades to come.
By accepting such major legislation on global warming, on prescription drugs, on the minimum wage (although trying to steer a middle course on all, and rejecting universal health care), the governor has essentially validated that the progressive message is the right message for the state. He’s enabled Democrats to make the argument that they have the only positive message on legislative issues, that they are the only ones with any ideas to move the state ahead.
This website is about the 2006 California governor’s race. But I think it’s notable that Governor Schwarzenegger, in his desire to appeal to everyone and sell out his own party’s core principles time and again, has destroyed the CA GOP’s chances to win in 2010, 2014, 2018, and maybe beyond. There is no electable Republican in the state for the next decade and a half. Schwarzenegger is proving by his campaign that the only electable Republican is not a Republican at all, but a Republican that becomes a Democrat for three months leading up to the election. Republicans are out of touch on global warming, on health care, on wages for working families, on pretty much every major issue facing the state.
This really was not always the case here. In 1992, Bill Clinton broke a 28-year record of California voting for Republicans in the Presidential election. We’ve had a string of Republican governors and colorless technocrat Dems like Gray Davis. The changing demographics of the state and the disaster of Prop. 187 have shifted the balance. And this year’s legislative session provided confirmation that the only ideas that work in the Golden State are progressive ones.
This is where Phil Angelides comes in. He can deliver the knockout blow to the state Republican Party. If a guy who basically adopts dozens of Democratic frames can’t win, no Republican will be able to for a long time. Angelides’ Harry Truman analogy is apt: When given the choice between Democrat-lite and a true Democrat, what would you do? Take the guy who governs from the left for three months to get elected, or the guy who’s been calling for a progressive vision his entire career?
This is how the choice must be framed. This is what voters need to hear. And given those options, this can be a winning strategy that would send the California Republican Party home, licking their wounds, in a cataclysmic event that would reverberate for a long while.
I meant to post a little update about this earlier, but, well, it never happened. I’ve updated the Calitics Poll HQ to include the recent batch of polls. I’d also like to point out a great piece of software, NVu. It’s an open-source competitor to Dreamweaver. I recently got a Mac, and I thought I was going to have to trudge back to the ol’ PC to get the Poll HQ updated. Well, I found NVu, and I’m a happy guy. Yay open source!
Ok, so back to the polls. Rasmussen, as I reported a few days ago, has Arnold up 48-42. That’s the same margin as he held at the end of July. So, at this point when Arnold has outspent Phil by vast margins, stable isn’t bad.
As for the bond measures, it seems they are veering towards the inexorable no vote. As I’ve mentioned before, propositions tend to drift towards no as the election draws closer. You heard it here first: at least one of these bonds will not pass. I actually think 2-3 of them will fail. I would also not be surprised if all of them failed. People have begun getting scared about the $43 Billion pricetag on these bonds and how we are going to have to repay them eventually.
| Poll/Prop | 1B: Transp. | 1C: Housing | 1D: Educ | 1E: Disaster | 84: Water | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | U/DK | Yes | No | U/DK | Yes | No | U/DK | Yes | No | U/DK | Yes | No | U/DK | |
| PPIC 8/30/06 |
50 | 38 | 12 | 57 | 32 | 11 | 51 | 39 | 10 | 56 | 35 | 9 | 40 | 45 | 15 |
| Field 7/28/06 |
54 | 27 | 19 | 33 | 42 | 25 | 48 | 37 | 15 | 47 | 33 | 20 | 49 | 31 | 20 |
| Field 6/5/06 |
57 | 24 | 19 | 39 | 38 | 23 | 48 | 34 | 18 | 58 | 25 | 17 | N/a | N/a | N/a |
| PPIC 5/06 |
62 | 32 | 6 | 60 | 37 | 3 | 74 | 22 | 4 | 62 | 34 | 4 | N/a | N/a | N/a |
Now that doesn’t mean that Tom McClintock (Arnold’s “running mate”) or his far-Right Republican allies will propose actual solutions to the questions posed by our infrastructure and general funding questions. No, the GOP has gotten really good at saying no. No new taxes, No immigrants, No Spanish, No universal health care, no control on CO2. No, no, no, no,no! Well folks, you get what you pay for. If you pay for a developing world infrastructure, that you will get.
NOTE: I will be voting for Angelides. I do NOT support Arnold and never have.
California Democrats were faced with the choice of two Pyrrhic victories this year. Play partisan hardball (a la Republican Congress) with the Governor after his 2005 special election defeat and nudge people towards Angelides, or deal with Arnold and destroy motivation for independents to head to the polls in November.
They chose the later, and it’s done a lot of good, but it will Kill Phil.
More on the flip…
It started with the deal on the infrastructure bonds. Sure, there was some wrangling, but that’s just high stakes negotiation for you.
The budget was on time. More money for schools.
All of that was wonderful and needed. Then came the two killers.
My theory of California politics is that it’s much more linear than national politics. The labor/corporate axis is dominant, at least much more so than on the national stage. So when Arnold made a deal on the minimum wage, it mollified, to some extent, a large part of the Democrats’ support. In essence, it sent a signal that Arnold was someone that could be dealt with, so ridding us of him was not an emergency.
He did the same thing to environmentalists with the global warming bill, playing into his supposed reputation as an environmentalist, Hummers notwithstanding.
So, who’s left? Social liberals? Arnold has been very quiet on the social front. Check.
That leaves us partisan Democrats. Even asuming 100% turnout among us, we don’t win an election without a jolt from independents, and Arnold now owns them. (See the PPIC poll.)
I’ve been a big Phil naysayer on this site. So, you can take what I say in that context. I believe that given these dynamics, unless he was going to run a campaign for real change in our state he was going to lose. Now it’s almost certain.
Blame whoever you want, but unless lightning strikes, it’s the Democratic legislature that did it.
I’m glad they acted this way. They were responsible to the people first. If only the other side would act that way.
I’ll make a deal with readers of this site. If there’s not a trend in the next few polls showing independents continuing to break for Arnold, I’ll shut up about this whole thing.
For the GODDDAMN doomdayers that are registered as California Democrats, and they were our worst enemy in CA-48’s Special Election last year where I was Staff Communications Director [far more than the Republican in the race], here’s more proof that this race is close.
Last week I quoted on Calistics, a California Blog, that Zogby/WSJ poll had the race within 4pts and was shouted down that it was an interactive online poll and meant nothing. Bullshit.
Here’s a poll that no one can dispute, although the GODDAMN California Democrats will find away to cause trouble instead of getting involved and helping, (Do I sound just a little pissed off? Sorry):
In California, One Race Close, One NotCalifornia Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is maintaining a six-point
lead over challenger Phil Angelides (D), according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll. Schwarzenegger currently beats Angelides 48% to 42%.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. Senate race, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is crushing state Sen. Richard Mountjoy (R), 56% to 34%.
Hat tip to Political Wire. If you’re not reading Political Wire 3-4 times daily…you’re not in politics.
crossposted at Political Dogfight. A blog with over 430 posts of substance.
(Yes, we wouldn’t want to reform government until we’ve thoroughly broken its back, now would we? – promoted by SFBrianCL)
(Cross-posted at dKos)
The Orange County Register is hardly known for its liberal bias. And true to form, its editorial page came out yesterday against Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. It’s hardly a surprise, but what’s noteworthy is that they really can’t name much that’s wrong with it. The editorial even admits, in a snide way,
The idea is to level the playing field, allowing candidates without access to big money to compete, and centering campaigns on ideas rather than money. Nice thoughts.
So then, what’s their problem with it?
A more fundamental objection is that limits on contributions and spending by political campaigns are limitations on freedom of political speech – the kind of speech the First Amendment was most specifically designed to protect. Elections should be about the people telling the government what to do, but if government regulates elections tightly the people’s options become limited.
Ah, the Freedom of Speech concern. The Register is clearly worried that you and I, the average voters, are being denied our right to free speech. I’m sure the limits on corporate contributions have nothing to do with their concerns.
And the kicker:
Campaign spending limits put the cart before the horse. Big money is interested in politics (aside from the ego factor) because government decisions can make or break businesses and entire industries. This can’t be fixed until government power is limited. If it isn’t, interests affected by government decisions will find ways, including money, to be persuasive to those making the decisions.
So, get rid of those pollution controls, forget about federal deposit insurance, stop regulating the stock market. When left alone, businesses do the right thing. And then we won’t need any campaign reform, because business won’t need to influence the government anymore.
It’s most interesting that the Register seems worried about the doom this “well-intentioned” reform will bring to California – yet doesn’t see fit to mention the turmoil in Maine and Arizona, who have had similar reforms in place since 2000. That’s because it’s not there. Clean money reforms are working well in those states. Voters there now have more choice in candidates and consequently are increasing their turnout at the polls. Maine was even able to pass a form of universal health care.
We are more than two months away from the election, and the Register feels the need to start attacking now. That tells me they and their corporate backers are scared. Scared that the electorate just might want to get back some say in the political process. And even more worried that if the proposition passes in California, there will be momentum spreading nationwide.
But when cornered, the special interests are already bringing out the big guns. The California Chamber of Commerce, representing big oil, insurance firms, HMOs, developers, and other businesses, has formed a committee to oppose the initiative. We have to be ready to fight back. Please help make clean money campaigns in California a reality, and in doing so, help bring us another step closer to clean money all across America. You can give money; you can give time. And if you’re in Southern California, you can give the Register a piece of your mind. Prop 89 makes politicians accountable to voters, not big donors.
The Angelides Team has posted a diary at DKos. Go give it a recommend!
(Thanks to BigDog for pointing this out earlier. I wanted to embed the video on the front page. – promoted by SFBrianCL)
I know, I know, this is not California politics in a very busy moment in California politics, but I had to include this. Keith Olbermann’s lecture on Countdown was one of those moments that you just want to praise every which way. It was a member of the media actually attempting to take on the administration and call out their folly. And he was right that civil discource is part of American soceity. We need to have the discussion and in the end we will be out of Iraq. It’s just a matter of time, ignoring the subject helps nobody, Mr. Rumsfeld. And so, I present to you the Olbermann smackdown of Rumsfeld. Also note that Keith has a new book coming out. Buy it; it should be a good one.
Cross Posted on Say No To Pombo and MyDD
The Hatch Act is a law that was originally enacted in 1939 to limit the participation of federal workers in political campaigns. To protect the public, it was decided that the interactions between politicians and government employees being paid with public tax dollars should be subjected to very strict and very specific laws.
In 1993, Congress amended the Hatch Act to make it less restrictive. Still, there are a solid set of rules and regulations that govern political interaction with government employees, especially when they are functioning in their paid positions and in a workplace setting:
Examples of activities prohibited by the preceding restrictions include the following: authorizing the use of a federal building or office as described above for campaign activities, such as town hall meetings, rallies, parades, speeches, fundraisers, press conferences, “photo ops” or meet and greets. […]
Federal agencies should ensure that candidates who visit their facilities to conduct official business do not engage in any political campaign or election activity during the visit.
The National Association of Letter Carriers puts the issue of campaign activities a little more succinctly at their website:
Bottom Line: Be off the clock, out of the uniform (and government vehicles), and away from the work place.
That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?
That’s why, when Richard Pombo and his campaign staff paid a visit to the Stockton Post Office yesterday, the postal employees were more than a little chagrined.
Congressman Richard Pombo came to the Stockton Post Office, 4245 West Lane today. He said he was there to thank the employees for their hard work in delivering the political mail and to be ready for more to come. After a couple of speakers, Congressman Pombo went around shaking hands. Some of the employees were upset with the fact he was campaigning on the workroom floor and they were a captive audience.
Also some things said by Dan Meyers, Customer Relations Coordinator, were inappropriate and offensive. When he asked an employee what she thought about Congressman Pombo’s appearance, she asked Mr. Meyers if it was proper to allow the Congressman to be in the post office while employees are on the clock. His response to her was, “What are they going to do, slap me on the wrists?” He asked another employee after seeing Congressman Pombo, if she was now going to vote Republican.
A formal complaint filed on behalf of the Stockton postal employees by Darol Stewart, President of the American Postal Workers Union, Stockton Local 320, made the following statement:
I believe this is a violation of the Hatch Act for the Congressman to be allowed on the workroom floor to campaign during business hours. I also believe it is coercion by Mr. Meyers, who is a staunch Republican and Postal Manager, to try to persuade employees to vote in his party, while all involved were in a pay status. These employees were forced to listen to the Congressman. They were then put into the uncomfortable position of shaking the Congressman’s hand while he was allowed to roam the workroom floor.
So this is how Richard Pombo upholds the laws of our country. Last May, in his lone appearance at a public forum with his Republican challengers, Pombo, scrambling to defend himself from charges that he has behaved unethically, stated:
To my family, to my friends and my neighbors, and to my kids, I have never broken any rules in the House of Representatives. I have never broken any laws. All I have done is fight for what is right.
Apparently, that’s a lie; he has broken the rules and he has broken the law. But it’s okay. After all, “What are they going to do, slap me on the wrists?”