Daily Archives: April 24, 2007

Uncategorized

From Jerry McNerney: Please vote for Charlie (again)

4 Comments

(Vote for Charlie first. Then go chip in some support to Jerry and Charlie at our Brew House ActBlue page. – promoted by juls)

(cross-posted from Jerry’s Blog)

I have an urgent and important request.

Please take just a few seconds to vote for Charlie Brown right now in the second and final round of Democracy for America’s "Grassroots All-Star" congressional campaign competition, ending Wednesday at midnight.

Your vote last year made me DFA’s 2006 "Grassroots All-Star," giving me a critically early boost in our campaign to defeat Richard Pombo. Your vote today can make Charlie Brown — the only California candidate in the competition — DFA’s 2007 "Grassroots All-Star" and help him defeat scandal-plagued Rep. John Doolittle.

From our district to Charlie’s district, we’re building a movement to clean up the GOP’s culture of corruption in Congress. Join us by voting for Charlie now at:

http://www.democracy…

Thank you!

Jerry

California, Orange County

Voter Intimidation Bills before the Assembly

2 Comments

Are you sick and tired of seeing headlines like this regarding voter intimidation in Orange County? Have you had enough of candidates using scare tactics to prevent legally eligible voters from actually exercising their right to vote? Do you want to make sure that we never, ever see anyone trying to scare people away from the ballot box ever again?

Well, here’s our chance to do something about voter intimidation in California. My Assembly Member, Jose Solorio (D- Santa Ana), is actually teaming up with Republican Van Tran (R-Garden Grove) to offer some real solutions here. Follow me after the flip to find out more.

Here’s what Solorio’s office has to say about this:

Assemblymen Jose Solorio (D-Anaheim) and Assemblyman Van Tran (R-Garden Grove) have introduced a package of two bills that seek to prevent voter intimidation, such as the case witnessed in Orange County in 2006. 

“I am proud to partner with Assemblyman Van Tran to help discourage future voter intimidation cases from occurring in Orange County or elsewhere in the state.  Our bills will ensure that candidates are aware of the state’s voter intimidation laws and deter future offenses by stiffening the penalties for voter intimidation,” said Assemblyman Solorio. 

“Freedom to vote is one of the most important rights Americans’ have.  Our laws must protect every citizen’s right to vote and allow us to vigorously prosecute anybody who tries to intimidate voters,” said Assemblyman Van Tran.

AB 122 (Solorio) requires election officials to give potential candidates for elected office a copy of the provisions of law that prohibit voter intimidation and the penalties for violating those provisions of law.

AB 46 (Tran) would increase penalties for an individual convicted of committing voter intimidation by making it a felony, punishable by a minimum of 16 months or up to three years in prison.

Both bills have passed the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting with bipartisan support.  AB 122 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee last week and AB 46 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee tomorrow. 

The bills were introduced in response to an October 2006 letter that was mailed out by the campaign of a U.S. Congressional candidate to some 14,000 Latino voters in Orange County in an attempt deter them from voting in the November election.  In fact, Assemblyman Solorio received one of those letters himself. 

The letter incorrectly stated “you are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or your are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported for voting without having a right to do so.”  This statement is extremely misleading at best because immigrants can vote if they become citizens.  In response to this voter intimidation effort, the Secretary of State’s office sent letters to these 14,000 Latino voters who received a letter reassuring these voters of their right to vote. 

Isn’t it about time that we pass something like AB 122? Isn’t it about timke that we protect people’s right to vote from such horrid and nasty scare tactics? Isn’t it about time that we pass something like AB 46? Isn’t it about time that we prosecute these folks who try to scare voters away from voting?

If you care about our right to vote, it might be a good idea to call your Assembly Member and ask him or her to support these bills. Our right to vote is just too precious to lose. Or be scared away from.

Uncategorized

CA-04: D-Trip Web Video

I’ve always thought that the DCCC had a very good Web video team, they seem to be quick and direct.  They’ve put up a new website called “Doolittle Facts” with information about our favorite corrupt Congressman, and they’ve just released this video.

It’s good to see the D-Trip piling on.  You, of course, can support a return to honesty and integrity to CA-04 by joining us at a blograiser for Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney this Friday. 

Prisons

Arnold Plays the Fear Card

1 Comment

At a CCPOA rally, Arnold requested that crime victims demand that their legislators pass his $10+ Billion prisons package.  Unfortunately, he went for the ol’ tried and true GOP theme: FEAR.

“If we don’t have a prison reform plan by next month, the federal courts will take over, put a cap on our prison population and order the early release of inmates,” Schwarzenegger said. “And those criminals will be roaming around on your streets and in your neighborhoods, and your neighborhoods and streets will not be safe.” (SacBee 4/24/07)

All of this comes in the context of Arnold’s plan to ramp up the incarceration in California.  Hey, Governor, do you think you could ramp up state mental health programs, so that we could avoid some of the crimes? Or improve dropout rates and the economy so we can prevent these crimes? Or facilitate better communication between police and the communities they serve so that we can catch criminals that are actually committing crimes?

  It’s not that prisons aren’t overcrowded, they are. It’s just that Arnold’s solution, endless prison construction, only just leads to a feedback loop of more crime. Let’s work on getting solutions on the table, not just stop-gaps.

Uncategorized

Oops! She’s Doing It Again

1 Comment

Cross posted from The Progressive Connection

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketSeems like it’s about time for Ellen Tauscher to check herself into Interfering Politician Rehab. You might have thought that after last year’s Steve Filson debacle in the CA-11 primary, she’d have gotten the message that Democratic voters are perfectly capable of choosing their own candidates. But nooooo, the woman is out of control.

With Guy Houston being termed out of his AD-15 seat, there are presently five Democrats vying to replace him:

  • retired airline pilot Steve Filson
  • electrician Steve Thomas
  • retired entrepreneur Fred Klaske
  • small businessman Davies Ononiwu and
  • high school principal Chris Van Schaack

So you might look at this group and ask yourself, “Exactly what’s missing from the mix; what more do we need?” And the answer would be — why, it’s the Ellen Tauscher Seal of Approval™. Apparently, Filson has fallen out of favor; I’m guessing that Tauscher feels like he let her down in CA-11, rather than the more obvious alternative: that, just maybe, Democratic voters resent Tauscher’s interference in their elections.

So meet the new, sixth candidate in AD-15, Joan Buchanan. A 17-year member of the school board in San Ramon and generous contributor to Tauscher’s past campaigns, Buchanan appears poised to catapult to front-runner status based on her powerful political connections to Friends of Ellen and her prodigious fundraising potential. Sound eerily familiar?

What is Tauscher thinking? Isn’t there anybody who can stop her before she hurts someone? K-Fed? Anyone?

Uncategorized

Steal These Resolutions: What You Can Do to Bring Big Telecom Under Control

(OK, will do! : ) – promoted by atdleft)

All of us are familiar to one degree or another with the evils of media concentration, corporate ownership, and deliberate misreporting/bias against elected leaders of the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, and liberal ideas.  There are multiple parts to this problem but, since power flows from the grass roots up, it is necessary for us to push for action through our Party structure.  Below the fold are six resolutions you can introduce and support in your local Democratic club, county central committee, and state Democratic Party caucuses to help bring about constructive change:

– A Resolution in Support of the Free Flow of Information
– A Resolution in Support of Net Neutrality
– A Resolution in Support of Returning the Fairness Doctrine, Equal Time Provision, and News and Public Affairs Requirements
– A Resolution in Support of Copyright Reform
– A Resolution in Opposition to Funding of California Elections by Corporations
– A Resolution in Opposition to “Personhood” for Corporations

These resolutions, as written, conform to the California State Democratic Party requirements.  Your state requirements may vary.  Three of the resolutions — the first two listed above and the second from the end of the list — will be reviewed by the Resolutions Committee at the California State Democratic Party Convention in San Diego this weekend (April 27th-29th).  I invite you to join me in supporting them.  Have your local club or central committee endorse them or adopt them as your own.  Just replace “[insert your club/central committee name here]” with the name of your organization.  Also, get active locally by joining your local Democratic club and/or getting on the Democratic central committee in your county.  Form your own club if none exist in your area.

Details on the resolutions below the fold.

First is the resolution on the Free Flow of Information passed by the Northern Solano (California) Democratic Club (see resolution #5 at: http://northernsolan… ) and the Solano County Democratic Central Committee. 

A Resolution in Support of the Free Flow of Information

WHEREAS radio and television stations license holders are granted a public trust for a fixed period of time to broadcast over the public airways and stations are licensed for the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and

WHEREAS ownership of multiple stations in a single market as well as ownership of multiple information distribution systems and/or simultaneous providing of content constitute a restraint of trade that is harmful to the public interest, and

WHEREAS vertical integration of an industry is detrimental to free enterprise and the free market,

Therefore, be it resolved that the [insert your club/central committee name here] supports creation of federal legislation and Federal Communications Commission regulations that limit:

the number of broadcast stations that may be owned by one company to no more than one AM radio station, one FM radio station, and one television station in a given market — with no ownership of newspapers within that same market, and

to no more than 5 AM radio stations, 5 FM radio stations, and 5 television stations in the United States, that may be owned and/or operated by a single licensee, and

the assignment of broadcast licenses to only United States citizens and/or companies

and

be it resolved that the [insert your club/central committee name here] supports creation of federal anti-trust legislation that limits a person, company, or organization to either only (1) own or operate broadcast stations, or (2) own or operate information distribution systems, or (3) provide content — that is operate a web site and/or create and produce broadcast programs — to broadcast stations or information distribution systems. 

As a side note, radio station ownership (and ratings) for each broadcast market can be found here:
http://www.radioandr… (click on “show all markets”, then select) a city.

Next is a Resolution Affirming “Network Neutrality”.  It was endorsed by the Solano County (California) Democratic Central Committee as well as the California Democratic Party organizations listed.  I was unable to find a link to this resolution.  If you can find one, please post it in the comments.

RESOLUTION AFFIRMING “NETWORK NEUTRALITY”

Submitted to the California Democratic Party

By the CDP, Computer and Internet Caucus

Adopted by the Big Bear Valley Democratic Club, March 6, 2006

Adopted by the San Bernardino County Central Committee, March 22, 2007

WHEREAS:  “Network Neutrality” is the delivery over broadband, or high speed internet access, of any content or use of any service in a neutral fashion without a preferential structure favoring some providers of content or services to the detriment of other providers, thereby ensuring the free flow of information and political and religious speech that makes for a strong and vibrant democracy; furthermore, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has outlined network neutrality principles including the right of consumers to have access to the lawful Internet content of their choice; to run applications and use services of their choice; to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and to have competition among network providers, application and services providers, and content providers, and

WHEREAS:  The telecom and cable communication sectors have been adopting more strategies towards vertical integration of networks and services, and the consolidation and diversification of broadband providers into content providers has the potential to lead to such discriminatory behaviors as the control of access to and pricing of broadband facilities, and the favoring of network-owned content, thereby placing unaffiliated content providers at a competitive disadvantage; and

WHEREAS:  The Supreme Court of the United States [Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)] has held that four freedoms of the Internet are:  1) The Internet presents very low barriers to entry;  2) These barriers to entry are identical for both speakers and listeners;  3) The Internet provides significant access to all who wish to speak in the medium, and even creates a relative parity among speakers. 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:  That the [insert your club/central committee name here] affirms the right of all Internet users to enjoy equal and equitable Internet access free from commercial bias, known as network neutrality, and will work to prevent the Internet from becoming a multi-tiered system favoring large established businesses or those with ties to broadband network providers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:  That [insert your club/central committee name here] adopt a position in favor of effective and enforceable network neutrality legislation at the state and federal levels such as the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” (S.215). 

The next resolution was written too late for submission this year, but it will be brought back next year.  As of now, it is not endorsed by any club or committee.  Who’ll be first? 

A Resolution in Support of Returning the Fairness Doctrine, Equal Time Provision, and News and Public Affairs Requirements

WHEREAS radio and television stations license holders are granted a public trust for a fixed period of time to broadcast over the public airways and stations are licensed for the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and

WHEREAS an informed citizenry is essential to the functioning of free and open government, and

WHEREAS radio and television stations reach more people more effectively than any other communications medium,

Therefore, be it resolved that [insert your club/central committee name here] supports introduction and passage of federal legislation and Federal Communications Commission regulations that reactivate:

the “Fairness Doctrine” on issues of public importance,

the “Equal Time” provision for candidates running for elective office, and

minimum news, public affairs, and public service programming requirements

for all licensed radio and television stations in the United States of America, to include possessions and territories.

The following resolution deals with an issue closely related to our communications problems:  copyright.  For some background on copyright, see “Bound By Law” at http://www.law.duke….

A Resolution in Support of Copyright Reform

WHEREAS the public interest is served by creative work in the public domain, and

WHEREAS a period of copyright protection is necessary to protect the economic interest of the original owners of copyright material, and

WHEREAS the current periods of copyright protection are excessive and fail to serve the public interest,

Therefore, be it resolved that [insert your club/central committee name here] supports creation of federal legislation to rollback the maximum time of copyright protection from current limits — such as life of the creator plus 70 years for recent works — to no more than 7 years, after which such work will be deemed in the public domain, but creators must always be credited for their works. 

The last two resolutions deal with the power and influence of corporations in general.  The first was passed by the Northern Solano (California) Democratic Club (see resolution #3 at: http://northernsolan… )

A Resolution in Opposition to Funding of California Elections by Corporations

WHEREAS the interests of corporations are often at odds with the citizens of the State of California, and

WHEREAS corporations are not eligible to register to vote, and

WHEREAS political involvement by corporations is incompatible with democracy and representative government

Therefore, be it resolved that [insert your club/central committee name here] supports the creation of state legislation prohibiting any corporation to fund any campaign or other political activity, to include lobbying, by corporations, whether or not the corporations are incorporated in California.

Finally,

A Resolution in Opposition to “Personhood” for Corporations

WHEREAS corporations are not flesh-and-blood human beings, and

WHEREAS it was never the intention of the founding fathers of the United States to place the interests of corporations ahead of the public good, and

WHEREAS defining corporations as “legal persons” separate from the owners (e. g. stockholders) and managers of those corporations,

Therefore, be it resolved that [insert your club/central committee name here] supports the creation of state and federal legislation to repeal the legal concept of “personhood” for corporations, including a United States Constitutional amendment, if necessary.

Much more needs to be done to reign in the power of corporations, but the above two proposed resolutions are a start. 

I hope you find these resolutions helpful and other organizations can adopt them.  Feel free to improve them.

If you know of a good site to “trade” resolutions, please post the link in the comments. 

As Scoop Nisker of KFOG in San Francisco used to say:

“If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own.”

Let’s go make some news.

Uncategorized

CA-04: When You Lose John Fund…

The S.S. John Doolittle just got a little lighter today, as The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund becomes the latest rat to desert the sinking ship.  The opening line is devastating:

It’s sad when someone you’ve known for decades gets in trouble and you’re not surprised.

It gets worse from there, and if you read closely, you can almost hear the tiny chorus of the world’s smallest violin section.

Over…

…political observers back in Mr. Doolittle’s hometown of Sacramento agree his congressional career is over. Last year, publicity about his ties to Mr. Abramoff caused his popularity to plummet. He won re-election by only 3% in a district President Bush carried by 24% in 2004. Now he is almost certain to face a primary challenge from a local GOP state legislator, as Republicans scramble to make sure the seat stays in their hands.

That’s new information there… even if he sticks around, he’ll be primaried?  I’ll believe that when I see it.

This is the part where the Vasoline gets smeared on the lens and Fund takes you back to those halcyon days when Doolittle was just the Conservative Mack, man!

It will be a sad end to a political career that began with such promise. In 1980, when I met Mr. Doolittle, he was a 30-year-old lawyer and political upstart and I was a California college student. Mr. Doolittle had just defeated an incumbent Democratic state senator in Sacramento County, which had elected only one Republican to partisan office in the past generation (and she soon switched parties).

Mr. Doolittle, a confirmed Reaganite, inspired an entire generation of local Republicans to take advantage of demographic changes in the state’s capital. Today, Sacramento County often votes for Republican statewide candidates, and outside of the central city elects only Republicans to the Legislature and Congress. In the state Senate, Mr. Doolittle amassed a solid record as a fiscal conservative and championed ethics reform in the wake of an FBI sting operation that sent several legislators to jail. In 1990, he ran for and won a seat in Congress.

He was such a good man!  He fought corruption and everything!  Until some sort of Satanic bacteria got in his water (probably some liberal concoction out there in DC), John Doolittle was the finest public servant the world has ever known!

The rest of it is kind of hilarious, as Fund does what conservatives always do when faced with a corrupt or incompetent member of their own party – claim that they’re not a true conservative.  See, he didn’t support term limits and he once talked to Maxine Waters:

When Mr. Doolittle went to Washington, he clearly didn’t intend to sacrifice much. True, he gained headlines as a member of the “Gang of Seven,” a group of reform-minded freshmen who tweaked Democratic leaders for their abuse of the House Bank and Post Office. But at the same time, just two months after taking office, the ostensible reformer teamed up with Democrat Maxine Waters, a left-liberal firebrand with whom he’d served in the Legislature and who went to Congress in the same election as he did. Together, the two proposed a wish list of new perks that would make even European Union bureaucrats blush.

Conservatism never failed, it’s just never been tried…

The truth is that John Doolittle did what every Republican in the 109th Prison Basketball Team Congress did; he got himself on a powerful committee and used it as leverage to personally benefit himself and his family.  And he did it while being a rubber stamp for every conservative cause he’s ever voted on.  Here’s another example of this neat little trick by Fund, where he claims essentially that no real conservative has ever written an earmark.

Fiscal conservatives will shed few tears over Mr. Doolittle’s likely departure from Congress. Ever since he joined the Appropriations Committee in 2001, he has been preoccupied with shoveling pork back to his district, telling one reporter he had adapted his small-government principles to the system Congress had created to spend money: “You work with what you’ve got.” In conversations with me, he would marvel at how well Democrats and Republicans got along on the Appropriations Committee because “we so often have the same priorities”–namely spending other people’s money.

Bullshit.  The problem is that the GOP Congress sought to run a criminal enterprise out of the Capitol building because they have no interest in doing anything else.  Doolittle was perfectly following the conservative script – fight any effort to make government work while making it work for his bank account.  It’s true that there’s nothing conservative about it; but don’t give me this fiction that he’s not a “real conservative” because of it.  Because if that’s true, then there are no real conservatives in the whole Congress.

We shouldn’t let anyone get away with this dodge.  John Doolittle is as conservative now as he’s ever been.  The movement is trying to jettison him because his days are numbered.  But in truth the conservative movement only serves to destroy government and reward friends.  Which is all John Doolittle has ever done.

P.S. Oh yeah, come to our blograiser for Charlie Brown.

Uncategorized

Doolittle Replacements or Covering Our A$$es in CA-04

5 Comments

(Well worth thinking about. The Republicans already are… P.S. Vote for Charlie! – promoted by juls)

(cross-posted from Daily Kos)

With the impending implosion of John Doolittle, it has occurred to me that it might be good to start paying attention to likely Doolittle replacements.  At the very least, Doolittle will face a tough primary fight in 2008 (connections to the Placer County Republican Central Committee have confirmed that they are searching for another candidate).  Of course, Doolittle may also be booted from office or forced to resign before then, in which case we will have a special election.

Below is a list of possible Republican candidates, with a quick paragraph for each one.  We should be working to find out more about these people and also make sure we are aware of any other possible candidates not listed here.  It is crucial that we make sure that Charlie Brown wins this seat in 2008 (or sooner).

Also, there are possible Democratic spoilers in the event of a special election.  People to definitely keep an eye on.

If I left anyone out, please let me know.  I am not as familiar with El Dorado County politics, so I am sure I am missing at least a couple of credible contenders.  I’ll update this as needed based on the comments.

*Possible Republican Candidates*

Sam Aanestad – State Senator for the 4th SD, which overlaps some of the 4th CD.  He was elected to the State Assembly in 1998 and then to the State Senate in 2002.  He is a UCLA trained Oral Surgeon.  I am not sure of his place of residence (and thus his eligibility to run in the 4th CD).

Dave Cox – State Senator for the 1st SD, which overlaps with much of the 4th CD.  He was elected to the State Senate in 2004, having previously served for 6 years in the State Assembly. 

Ted Gaines – State Assemblyman for the 4th Assembly District.  The 4th AD overlaps with much of the most populated areas of the 4th Congressional District.  Doolittle and Gaines were very close during the 2006 election and even held a joint victory party.  Though a Doolittle protégé, he is well liked and has not been around long enough for anyone to dig up any real dirt on him.  He smashed his opponent (Rob Haswell) in the 2006 election by almost 2-1.  (This of course means that MANY voters voted for Charlie Brown and Ted Gaines on the same ballot.)  He is high on the list of possible Doolittle successors. 

Jim Holmes – Placer County Supervisor (District 3).  A respected and well-liked local Republican.  He was extremely supportive of Mike Holmes’ primary challenge to Doolittle and thus gains the same benefit of already having distanced himself from the Doolittle corruption.  Brother of Mike Holmes.

Mike Holmes – Former Mayor of Auburn, current Auburn City Councilman, and the only Republican to challenge Doolittle in the 2006 Republican primary.  Having already distanced himself from Doolittle as a “principled” Republican, he is essentially immune to criticism for “just another corrupt Republican.”  He did not, however, ever endorse Charlie Brown in the general election.  Brother of Jim Holmes.

Bruce Kranz – Placer County Supervisor (District 5) and Doolittle crony.  Kranz has been Doolittle’s man from day one.  Kranz is probably one of the best (for Democrats) candidates that could jump in the race.  He is fully involved in the Doolittle machine.  He is probably the biggest proponent of the Auburn Dam (after Doolittle of course).  He served as the supervisor for the Auburn State Recreation Area for a number of years, actively working to inundate it under millions of gallons of water.  Should not be difficult to dig up enough dirt on Kranz to bury him in an election against Brown.

Roger Niello – State Assemblyman for 5th AD.  His district does not overlap a great deal with the 4th CD, but he could run anyway.  He lives in Fair Oaks, which is just outside the district, so he would have to make a move (to just down the road really) to run.  Not too likely, but something to watch for.

Pauline Roccucci – Candidate for Placer County Supervisor in 2006 (against “Rocky” Rockholm) and former Mayor of Roseville.  Most Democrats voted for Rocucci both in the initial election, and in the November run-off against Rockholm.  Rockholm easily won.  As a very moderate (even liberal) Republican, she could siphon off votes from Brown if she runs.  Rumored to be a RINO.  Pauline is a registered nurse and the wife of Richard Rocucci.

Richard Roccucci – Roseville City Councilman.  Like Pauline, rumored to be a RINO.  He seems content to stay in his seat on the Council, but is someone to watch out for just in case.  Husband of Pauline Rocucci.

F. C. “Rocky” Rockholm – Placer County Supervisor (District 1) and a former Roseville City Councilman.  A relatively likable guy, Rockholm is not considered the sharpest tool in the shed and his general appearance is more “Blue Collar” than Congressional.  He is, however, a long time figure in Placer County politics and well liked among Republicans.  He is a Mormon, and thus, gains the same benefit Doolittle had of overwhelming support from the large LDS population in the district.

Jerry Simmons – Trustee from Area 4 for Sierra College.  His existence on the Board of Trustees is itself an example of the rampant corruption and cronyism that Doolittle has instilled in politics in Placer County.  By funneling money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) into this race, Doolittle ensured that his preferred candidate (Simmons) won.  A recall effort to get rid of Simmons (and Trustee Aaron Klein) in 2006 failed to do so.

Tom Sullivan – Sacramento Radio and Television personality, and close friend of Rush Limbaugh.  Sullivan hosts the most popular Sacramento radio show (The Tom Sullivan Show).  He strongly defended Doolittle throughout the 2006 election and took every opportunity he could to smear Charlie Brown.  He occasionally sits in for Rush Limbaugh when Limbaugh is out.  As a resident of Granite Bay, he lives within the district and could be potentially very dangerous as a candidate.  The key will be to demonstrate his pattern of defending Doolittle even when it was obvious that Doolittle was a crook.  He will energize the Republican base and really turn out the vote.

Kirk Uhler – Placer County Supervisor (District 4) and resident of Granite Bay.  Uhler was appointed to the seat vacated by Ted Gaines by the four sitting supervisors.  Previously served as a Supervisor from 1993 – 1996.  Not much name recognition, but in a race like this a no name Republican may be good for the Republicans since he’s hard to tie to Doolittle in any significant way.

Robert “Bob” Weygandt – Placer County Supervisor (District 2).  Weygandt has been on the Board of Supervisors for more than a decade.  He is VERY well liked and respected.  He does not seem to be tied in with the Doolittle Machine.  He would be one of the best candidates the Republicans could have.

*Possible Democratic Spoilers*

Bill Santucci – An obvious DINO, he was a “founding” member of “Democrats for Doolittle” in the 2006 election.  He was on the Placer County Board of Supervisors (1st District) until 2006 and served as the Board Chair for 2006.  He may be encouraged to jump into the race to steal votes for Brown in order to help Republicans maintain the seat.

Lisa Rea – Candidate for Congress in the 2006 Democratic Primary.  Virtually came out of nowhere and entered the race.  Claimed to have been a longtime member of the Lincoln Democratic Club, but few (if any) had ever heard of her.  As the most liberal candidate, she garnered a decent amount of activist support.  Anyone who knows the district knows that Lisa could NEVER win here.  Her supporters tried to stop the CDP endorsement of Charlie Brown after it had been given.  She refused to ever endorse Charlie Brown in the general election.

*Third Party Candidates*

I don’t think a Green will run (no Green ran in 2006).  Also, many of the Greens were active and important supporters of Charlie Brown in 2006.  They recognized the importance of sticking with the Dems in this race and I think they will again.  As for the Libertarians…

Dan Warren – Warren ran in 2006 and pulled in 5% of the vote, which I believe was about double the percent of registered Libertarians.  Clearly a number of people were unhappy with Doolittle, but didn’t want to vote for a Democrat.  I’m not sure if it would be possible to convince Dan to not run, but it would probably be helpful if it could be done.

Orange County

Ah, Mr. Republican Insider Finally Lost It

2 Comments

I’m not sure where to even being rebutting this post, which is a rich combination of paranoia and grandiosity that would make your hero Art Pedroza proud. […]
Andrew, if you really want to see a “noise machine” all you need to do is read your own posts: loaded with straw men, unsupported assumptions, jumped-to-conclusions, screechy rhetoric and paranoia.

Hey, looky here! Jubal/Matt Cunningham responded to my post, which was a response to Jubal/Matt’s response to Art Pedroza’s original “Chismes” post on Orange Juice that caused the entire Orange County Republican Party to explode. Ain’t it amazing how these supposedly omnipotent Republican insiders are shaking at the boots at the thought that their ridiculous scheme to allow someone who ran one of the most racist campaigns in Orange County history to run their “voter registration program” in minority-majority Central County is being exposed? And that the sheer stupidity of this plan of theirs is now out in the open, for all to see?

So why is Jubal/Matt still fuming over this? Well, he completely lost control. And why is he so angry about that? Well, I’ll tell you all about it after the flip…

So what’s the problem here? Well, the Republican Party’s master cyberspace spinner has lost control of the message. He tried so hard to save the OC GOP’s latest blunder from becoming a massive train wreck…

Smart move. There’s no shortage and wannabees and armchair consultants in OC politics. What there aren’t a lot of are campaign operatives with proven track records of success — especially in central Orange County. The OC GOP would have been remiss to pass up utilizing someone who’d been toiling in the central OC vineyards for the past year running very successful voter contact program. Saulo ran the most successful aspect of the Lynn Daucher campaign (the absentee ballot program), and then managed Trung Nguyen — who nearly everyone expected to do no better than third or fourth — to within 3 votes of victory in the 1st Supervisor District special election.

… But all that hard work and fast spinning of Jubal’s couldn’t save his party from the ultimate reality on the ground.

It looks like the first installment of this new column was quite a hit. The O.C. Register’s Total Buzz blog covered our chisme regarding the guy tabbed by the OC GOP to register new voters in central Orange County. That would be Saulo Londono, the campaign manager who sent Trung Nguyen to the border to stop the Mexicans. I’m sure that will go down real swell with the people of Santa Ana!

I love what Londono had to say about the story, over at the Total Buzz, “Although the blogs are heavily dramatizing the situation, the real reason for being quiet (about the new job) is quite simple: strategy.” Sure – great strategy. Maybe they can get Lupe Moreno and Tan Nguyen to help register new Reep voters too!

Red County/OC Blog stepped up to defend Londono, predictably. Matt Cunningham/Jubal referred to Londono’s successful track record. Last time I looked he LOST the last two campaigns he headed up. Maybe second place means first place in Jubal’s book?

Jubal is angry because Jubal can no longer control the message. In the bad old days, when OC Blog was really the only big kid in Orange County’s political blogosphere, Jubal/Matt can simply get the good word out on his clients and control what was said about them online. And since OC Blog was really the only big source for what was happening in OC’s political scene, everyone would just believe what Jubal and his minions were saying…

However, this isn’t the case any longer. Orange Juice now offers different perspectives on what’s happening throughout the county. The Liberal OC now offers a progressive point of view to counter the right-wing spin at OC Blog-land. And yes, now I’ve become a thorn on Jubal’s side as well. Basically, Jubal’s not the sole star of the show any more. The new kids on the block are finally growing up, and speaking out.

I guess this is the real issue here. Now it certainly is important in and of itself that the OC Republicans are hiring someone who was part of a VERY RACIST CAMPAIGN to head a minority outreach and voter registration program in Central OC. However, another major issue has entered into the fray. The Orange County Republican elite is no longer in control of what we say and what we think online. Competition has arrived, yet the supposed “champions of the free market” don’t seem to like the free flow of ideas and opinions.

Too bad for them. ‘Cuz this new diversity of thought is really letting some fresh air rush in behind the Orange Curtain. ; )

Health Care

Blue Cross: The Big Bad

6 Comments

(cross-posted from Working Californians)

We have an emerging villain in the health care debate and that is the behemoth Blue Cross.  They are the only major insurer who is opposing Arnold’s health care plan.  Blue Cross is making bank on the current system and opposes any change that might hurt their huge profits.  It isn’t just their opposition to reform that puts then in the big bad category.  How they conduct their business is reason enough.

Last week Californian physicians and hospitals joined a lawsuit against Blue Cross, accusing the company of failing to pay countless millions for medical care for their customers.  See, they have this nice little habit of canceling people’s policies when they get sick and not paying what they owe.  This only happens for individual policy holders.  Then the patients are stuck with the bill. 

Blue Cross claims that they are only canceling policies of those who “submitted incomplete or inaccurate applications for coverage.”  First of all, if they submitted incomplete information then it is Blue Cross’s responsibility to get that information before deciding to offer coverage.  They are deliberately looking for excuses to drop these people off their rolls.  It is not like we see the same thing happening for healthy people.  It is just the sick, cutting into their profit margin, that they are looking to ax.  It is an absolutely disgraceful policy and illegal to boot.

Let’s be clear about what is going on.  Individuals sign up for coverage and pay their monthly bills.  Some time down the road they get sick and need surgery or other care.  Their physicians request approval from Blue Cross for care, which is then granted.  At some point later, Blue Cross cancels the policy and then refuses to pay for care they already authorized.  This is what they have to say:

WellPoint spokeswoman Shannon Troughton said it was not that simple. Blue Cross contends that California law bars insurers from revoking authorizations for care, and Troughton said the company complied with that.

“Blue Cross’ pre-authorization for healthcare services is an advance determination of the medical necessity of a proposed procedure only; it is not a guarantee of payment,” she said, adding that the caveat is “stated expressly” when the pre-authorization request is made.

“Our authorizations for care, based on medical necessity, include express statements that they are not guarantees of payment,” she said.

Blue Cross is trying to claim that an authorization does not mean they promise to pay for it.  What good is Blue Cross saying that a procedure is medically necessary?  That is for doctors to determine.  It is up to Blue Cross to say whether or not they concur and are willing to pay.

California Medical Assn. President Anmol S. Mahal, a Fremont gastroenterologist, said Blue Cross’ refusal to pay in such cases was unfair.

“We’re talking about elective services that are provided by physicians in good faith after getting authorization,” he said. “The physicians are not the ones who should be punished.”

Nor should the individual policy holders who paid their money to have health insurance.  Instead, they are facing medical bills that can be many times their income.  It is impossible for them to pay, and given the new bankruptcy bill, even more difficult to file for that protection.

The suit alleges that such unpaid bills are straining the state’s healthcare network. As the state’s largest healthcare insurer, Blue Cross does business with most hospitals and physicians. California hospitals reported shouldering $7.7 billion in bad debt last year. It is too early to know just how much of that is due to retroactive cancellations, hospital group spokeswoman Emerson said.

But, she said, “it’s fair to say it’s potentially millions and millions.”

The doctor and hospital groups reiterated allegations of former policyholders that, in many cases, the rescissions were improper in the first place.

Our health care system is seriously broken and Blue Cross’s policies are a big reason why.