(I come at this from about the opposite direction, but I think it will make for some good discussion. – promoted by blogswarm)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.  I’m sure many folks here will disagree.

Several months ago, I opposed moving California’s Presidential primary to February 5th because (a) there’s no guarantee it will give us major influence in picking the next President, (b) it will front-load the primary schedule so that lesser-funded candidates have no chance in hell, and (c) California would be a “magnet” for other states to have an early primary – creating a primary season that starts early and ends early.  Now Florida has snuck ahead by pushing its primary to January 29th, despite sanctions from both national parties that the Sunshine State will get fewer delegates at the national conventions.  South Carolina is furious because Florida has jinxed its game, and now New Hampshire plans to exercise its God-given right of “always being first” by pushing its primary back to December – almost a year before the general election.  While it’s easy to get mad at Florida for crashing the party (and who doesn’t hate Florida when it comes to Presidential elections?), California and 24 other states have no one to blame but themselves for this fiasco when they pushed up their primaries to February 5th.

There are many good reasons for giving California more of a voice in selecting our presidential nominees.  We’re the largest and most diverse state in the union, but because we’re a solid blue state we are pretty much irrelevant in the general election.  Presidential candidates love coming here to raise gobs of money, but they don’t talk to voters because the nominees are always decided by the time California’s primary comes around. 

But when California unilaterally pushed its primary to February 5th, a lot of other states had the same idea.  As of this writing, California will vote on the same day as New York, Texas, Illinois, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Missouri, Delaware, Arizona, Michigan, Tennessee, Utah, Rhode Island, Georgia, Connecticut, Kansas, Alaska, Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, Arkansas, Alabama and New Jersey – just three weeks after the Iowa caucus and two weeks after the New Hampshire primary.  Forget the “Super Tuesday” primary – now it’s “Super Duper Tuesday on Steroids.”

Why February 5th?  Because the Democratic National Committee, in a feeble attempt to “control” a chaotic primary schedule where every state wants to have the most impact, set up some ground rules about when states could have their primary.  Iowa will have its first caucus on January 14th, followed by Nevada on January 19th.  New Hampshire will still have its first-in-the-nation primary on January 22nd, followed by South Carolina on January 29th.  No other state could go before February 5th – or else get penalized with fewer delegates at the national convention.

But along came Florida who (like 25 other states) had decided to move up its primary to February 5th.  Sensing that it will get drowned into oblivion by sharing its primary on such a crowded day, the Florida legislature unanimously voted this week to push up its primary a week earlier to January 29th – on the same day as South Carolina.  Just like California, Florida has argued that a big, diverse state should have more of an impact in picking the presidential nominees.

And getting fewer delegates at the convention is a small price to pay, they concluded.  “At the convention, people get invited to a big party where they drop a balloon and wear funny hats,” said Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio. “But they don’t have any role to play.”  Which is true – delegates at the National Convention don’t get to decide who is the party nominee.  The states who have the earliest primary get that privilege.

Naturally, South Carolina went berserk.  “South Carolina will name a date that keeps us first in the South,” said state Republican chairman Katon Dawson. “It could be as early as Halloween, and our own version of trick-or-treat, if we have to.”  Meanwhile, New Hampshire has a law that requires it to be the first primary in the nation – and its Secretary of State has said that they will move up their primary before any other state, going back into 2007 if necessary.  At this rate, the nomination could decided by Christmas and California’s February 5th primary will be irrelevant.

None of which is healthy for democracy.  We’re still more than eighteen months away from the next Presidential election, and already candidates are raising obscene amounts of money – while those who can’t compete are dropping out.  Ending the primary season by February 5th is also not good, because it then leaves a nine-month period before the general election.  Voters get bombarded with information, and eventually lose interest.

In contrast, France just had their presidential election – with only a two-week gap between the first and second rounds (i.e., primary and general elections.)  Having a smaller window of time makes the general election more interesting for the casual voter.  While we bemoan low voter turnout in this country, France had an 86% turnout in a race that was decided by only six points.

Some have argued that if all the states are moving up their primary to February 5th, why not simply have a “national primary” so no state gets an unfair advantage?  But if so, why does a national primary have to be nine months before the general election?  If we’re going to have a national primary, it makes more sense to shorten the amount of campaigning and bring it closer to the general.

But hasn’t California already benefited from an early primary?  After all, practically every candidate was at the state Democratic Convention two weeks ago – highlighting the importance that our state will have in picking the next President.  Not really.  In 2003, when we had a later presidential primary, all the major candidates came to Convention anyway.  I doubt the candidates would have ignored the convention if we hadn’t moved up our primary.

Which brings us back to Florida’s mischief.  Twenty-five states – including California – have sabotaged themselves in a vain effort to get “more attention” in the presidential primary by moving up earlier that they will end up getting no attention.  So Florida got clever and decided to move it up sooner.  It’s easy for everyone to get mad at Florida, but let’s get real – they figured out what a sham this system is, and decided to game it to their own advantage.

It didn’t use to be that way.  In the 1970’s (and even the 1980’s), presidential primaries were more drawn out so that a grass-roots candidate with low name-recognition could steadily pick up support and win the nomination.  Jimmy Carter would have never won the Democratic presidential nomination under today’s front-loaded schedule.  As I’ve argued before, we’re never going to clear up this madness until the national parties set a schedule of state primaries that is drawn out, fair to big and small states alike, and allows everyone to have a meaningful impact in the nomination.

There is a potential solution – the American Plan.  Created by S.F. State Professor Tom Gangale, the American Plan would stretch out the primary schedule over several months, with a randomly selected number of states holding primaries every two weeks.  This would allow a marathon – rather than a sprint – of presidential primaries that avoids front-loading and gives every state a fair shot.

The Democratic Party likes the American Plan, and is looking at implementing it for the 2012 election cycle.  That’s great, but I think it should be put into effect for 2008.  But when talking to members of the D.N.C., they told me that trying to use it for the upcoming cycle “could cause pandemonium” as states will not be prepared for a completely new primary election schedule on such short notice.

But it sounds like we have chaos already.  And Florida’s just proven how insanely broken the system is.

Send feedback to [email protected]

(Way to go! : ) – promoted by atdleft)

X-posted from California Notes by Randy Bayne
The Bayne of Blog

Over 2000 school employees and nurses formed an impressive sea of blue and red as they packed the grounds on the north side of the state capitol on Tuesday to call for health care for all. More specifically, they wanted legislators and the governor to know they want single payer, also know as Medicare for All. Senator Sheila Kuehl, who spoke at the rally, is carrying the bill they want – SB 840.

A thousand California School Employee Association (CSEA) members arrived from all over the state by bus. I talked to CSEA members from as far away as Palm Springs, and saw some I know from San Diego. They piled out of the buses and then marched about four blocks the north steps to shouts of support and horns honking along the way as they chanted demanding “health care for all.”

Red shirted nurses gathered to escort the CSEA members up the walk to the capitol steps.
The first speaker was Cynthia Campbell, a Registered Nurse, who is fighting both cancer and the upcoming loss of her health insurance. She started by thanking everyone who came to the rally, and then told her heart wrenching story of coverage denied because she dared to use it. Then she had the temerity to contract two kinds of cancer.

I have been in the workforce for 30 years as a registered nurse. I always paid into the insurance program, have rarely used the policies, but now that I do need to use them, there is no insurance plan available to me. How can this be?

Last year I was on a short term policy while I was awaiting a full time position. Things got delayed and I needed to extend the policy, so I called the insurance company and they asked me one question. Had I ever used the policy? I said yes. The agent said if you have ever used the policy, even once, then you’re cancelled. Cancelled.

Her husband followed, telling the crowd, “Never have I seen a group of more loving, caring protesters.” He went on to tell his own story of what it has been like moving through the maze of trying to get his wife’s bills paid, and closed by saying, “There is an answer, it’s Senate Bill 840.”

Lt. Governor John Garamendi has long been an advocate of single-payer health care. He took the stage next and talked about the universal, single payer health care system we already have in the United States.

“It’s about time, isn’t it. It’s about time that we have a universal, single-payer health care system in this state and country. This is not new, it’s not new to America. In fact, we actually figured out how to do this forty years ago. Because there is in America today a single-payer, universal health care system, that provides every person in that system to use any provider they want to go to. It operates on three percent administrative cost. The present system here in this state and this nation – thirty percent of every dollar goes to administrative cost.

“So, do we know how to do it? Absolutely we know how to do it. Forty years ago we created that universal, single-payer health care system. It’s called Medicare. All you need to do is live long enough to get into it.

“SB 840 is the way to go.”

“We love Sheila, we love Sheila, we love Sheila,…” was the call bringing SB 840 author, Senator Sheila Kuehl to the stage. “I like that, loving protesters,” she quipped, and went on to tell the crowd they were “we’re not just protesters today, we’re advocates, we’re advocates for the real deal.”  She gave credit for keeping the health care debate alive to the thousands of advocates who refuse to let the issue die.

Kuehl pointed out major flaws in Governor Schwarzenegger’s health care proposal saying,

“Universal health care doesn’t mean some, it doesn’t mean most, it certainly doesn’t mean some of the time, it does not mean you gotta buy it whether you can afford it or not. That is not universal health care.”

She called Schwarzenegger’s plan “mandatory substandard insurance.”

“One size can fit all,” she said, “if the size is big enough.” The plan that fits all Californians, “very well,” is SB 840 says Kuehl.

To those who say single-payer will never happen, Kuehl says, “they’re just flat out wrong.” It will become a reality because the people have to have it, want it, and they will keep bringing it up until they get what they want and need.

According to Kuehl, health care is hurting the middle class working families the most. The cost of health insurance, says Kuehl, has increased four times as fast as wages over the last six years and is “bankrupting the state, is bankrupting the businesses, and sure as hell is bankrupting us.”

Insurance companies cannot be counted on to contain health care spending in a patient centered manner, claimed Kuehl. 

“Blue Cross is double cross, Blue Shield is no shield. They have so many gaps in coverage, so many ways in which they’re going to deny you insurance, and there’s the co-pays, the deductibles, the unaffordable premiums, and as you see, just getting kicked off. Why? Because you used it.

“Only, only, only, only, 840 does it. Only 840 is universal. You know it provides total choice, you know it stabilizes the cost of the system, you know it works as John Garamendi said, ‘Medicare for all Californians.’

Calling the assembled school employees and nurses the “real advocates” for health care, Kuehl left them with this.

“I don’t frankly care if this governor vetoes the bill again. He is irrelevant to universal health care.”

Michael Mazzanti, a CSEA board member spoke about the greed of insurance companies. His prepared comments will be posted later.

Lou Paulson of the California Firefighters talked about what firefighters and paramedics see every day. Ambulances being diverted because of insurance concerns and hospital emergency rooms being closed. He implored that we “show the country that California can lead the way in health care.”

John Sheard of the California Physicians Alliance was the final speaker. His comments will be in a separate post later.

A bit of street theater closed out the day as a Trojan Horse was wheeled up the walkway and mocked the Governor’s health care plan.

More pictures are available on my Flickr site.

It’s well-known that Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata wasn’t particularly happy with the sellout prison construction bill that the Governor signed last week.  It’s also well-known that none of the “reforms” in that prison bill will do anything to lower the prison overcrowding rate before the fast-approaching deadline for the state to appear before a judge and prove that the situation has changed.  So Perata is using some old-fashioned arm-twisting to get some real reforms in the corrections system.

The Senate Democratic leader is urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to use his administrative power to change parole rules to ease severe prison crowding, possibly by as many as 8,100 inmates.

Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata, D-Oakland, said Republican opposition kept parole reform out of a $7.8 billion plan to ease overcrowding through a building program and transferring some prisoners to other states.

Perata said speculation at the Capitol that the bill signed by the Republican governor last week includes an unwritten “side deal” to have Schwarzenegger bypass the Legislature and administratively enact parole changes is inaccurate.

“I wouldn’t call it a deal,” Perata said of talks with the governor. “What we said is we couldn’t put it in the bill because the Republicans wouldn’t support it.

“We said further that if you don’t do something with parole, you can’t make any of this work,” said Perata. “So you’ve got the ability to do it. It’s up to you to do it.”

Of course, I’d rather they tried to put this in the bill, dared the Republicans to block it, and then run on the consequences.  But clearly, Perata is trying to leverage the judicial deadline (which is the only reason anything got done on a prison bill in the first place) to bring about a saner policy.  I don’t like that the Democratic leadership appeared to cave on this policy and gave the Governor most of what he wanted; I personally think that, without real reform, they’ll have to do the same damn thing five years from now.  But at least Perata is trying to use the deadline to his advantage, after it was used to his detriment previously. 

Perhaps Perata could get Mike Jimenez of the CCPOA, who’s disinclined to the Governor’s plan, to join him in calling for parole reform.  And he should go further and introduce Sen. Romero’s legislation for an independent sentencing commission.  But this is making the best of a bad situation.

({This is Part 9 of my special report on the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road to San Onofre State Beach (aka Trestles). If you’d like, you can find the other stories in the “Speeding Our Way to Trestles” series here. As the debate heats up over Trestles and the 241, I’d like to go in depth and examine all the issues involved… And I’d love for you to come along for the ride as we explore what can be done to relieve traffic in South Orange County AND Save Trestles Beach. Enjoy! : ) } – promoted by atdleft)

Oh, my! Will Washington now enter the fracas that is the proposed Foothill-South 241 Extension to Trestles? Look at what I just saw in today’s OC Register:

A proposed toll road through parkland that has become Orange County’s most explosive environmental controversy could be jeopardized – and perhaps even killed – if a small amendment added to a defense authorization bill is approved today.

The Foothill South toll road, which would bisect San Onofre State Beach park and cut through highly sensitive natural habitat, has pitted environmental activists against residents who say the road is vital to prevent south county gridlock as populations rise.

Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, who is sponsoring the amendment, believes she has the votes to repeal a 1999 law that authorized the military to grant the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency the right to build a road on 340 acres of parkland.

Authorization from the Navy is necessary before the toll road, which must clear a variety of other regulatory hurdles, can be built.

So can this mean the end of Foothill-South? Follow me after the flip for more…

The House Armed Services Committee will likely be voting on the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill, and Rep. Susan Davis is hoping that her amendment is included in that bill.

“She’s heard from constituents in the district who enjoy the parks and the beaches and have a lot of concerns about the process,” said Aaron Hunter, Davis’ press secretary.

In essence, the amendments would revoke congressional authorization for the military to convey building rights to the toll road agency. It would also erase previous legislation intended to insulate the toll road from state and federal laws that could prevent its construction.

Activists who were aware of Davis’ effort Tuesday said they did not believe her amendment would kill the toll road project but would simply create a “level playing field,” forcing the agency to obey the same laws as other road builders.

“This abuse must stop,” said James Birkelund, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica. “The agency should comply with federal and state laws.”

Davis’ staff said her action wouldn’t prohibit construction of the road. It would “just have to follow the same rules and regulations that all other state projects do,” Hunter said.

But apparently, TCA is not happy with this. They are convinced that Davis is conspiring to kill the toll road. And they are livid!

“It takes away from the Navy the ability to grant us an easement,” said Rob Thornton, an attorney who often represents the tollway agency. “I think it would kill the road in this location. The state obtained the lease with the understanding that the Navy reserved the ability to approve the construction of roads.” […]

“What she’s trying to do is kill the road,” said Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona. “The millions and millions of dollars that have been spent on environmental studies to advance this would be for naught.”

Well, why did all that money have to be spent in the first place? All Calvert had to do was have one of his staffers read the Coastal Act. It would have been much cheaper, and they could have determined immediately that the proposed path of Foothill-South violates California state law.

And again, isn’t it obvious that the proposed path of this toll road would drive us to complete environmental catastrophe? It would alter the sediment flow of San Mateo Creek, thereby destroying the world-famous waves of Trestles. It would destroy the habitat of at least seven endangered species, including the California gnatcatcher, the Southern California Steelhead Trout, and the Arroyo toad. Their humble abode would be gone if TCA were to have its way. And oh yes, wouldn’t this violate a certain federal Endangered Species Act?

All Susan Davis wants to do is ensure that TCA is following the letter of the law when it comes to this Foothill-South 241 Extension. Why would they feel so threatened by this? Oh yeah, that’s why.

Until I visited it on a hike through Griffith Park this April, I had no idea Dante’s View even existed.  And when I found out, I became quite partial to it.  After all, my real name is Dante–it was nice to have a view named after me.

But Dante’s View is no more.

Now, it’s early May.  We should be having nice spring weather.  But no.  I live in the Miracle Mile region of L.A. and it has been in the mid-90’s the past couple of days.

And we’re also treated to news like this:

Downtown Los Angeles is close to setting a record for lack of rainfall. County officials issued a report earlier this week that found the moisture level of hillside brush was 50% lower this May than a year earlier. The brush is expected to dry considerably more during the summer and early fall.

And this:

The fire was the park’s worst in at least three decades and was the latest of several to strike the Hollywood Hills in what has been the driest year on record.

I was going to take my mom to the poppy fields by Lancaster for Mother’s Day.  But–what do you know–there aren’t any.

It’s true that we had record rainfall in 2005–but that was an aberration.  We’ve been getting increasingly drier down here in Southern California.

Our climate is changing.  I don’t know why it’s so hard to convince people that we ought to do whatever we can to at least slow it down.

How much more beauty and life will we need to lose?

I’m going to try to do this every night. Some tunes and some politics. Black Star – Definition.

“Stop actin like a bitch already, be a visionary”

And yes, it will be earlier in the future.

(And you thought Dana was just crazy… – promoted by atdleft)

Thanks to a tip from an OC friend, I started to look at the connection between Dana Rohrabacher and Blackwater, the mercenary soldier of fortune organization that was founded by Erik Prince, himself once a Navy Seal.  I did not have to look very long.

I have not thought very much about civilian armies.  I know that the militia stories that circulated all over after Oklahoma City bombing were scary.  Maybe we have all been anesthetized by the military entertainment complex churning out Rambos or Delta Force or television’s 24 Hours or The Unit. But I grew up on a higher class of movie. More like The Manchurian Candidate or Dr. Srangelove.

Connect it all to Crazy Dana on the jump.

The result of all of that is I don’t always trust the government and I surely don’t trust the creation of an army created precisely because they don’t have to play by the rules of engagement.  We have seen the results when America’s forces step over the line: Abu Graib for example.  Even when it was not intentional, like today’s US Air Strike that hit an Iraqi school, it turns the non-committed into committed enemies.  So, Blackwater’s army lets us do the dirty work without taking the blame… except that everyone knows who these “contractors” are.

How difficult would it be to take that same Blackwater force and to start it operating within the US? That is where the television series would take us. We should not be hiring thugs to do what we don’t want to have blamed on us.  We should be wary of government officials who have anything to do with them.

It was easy to find direct connections between Blackwater and Rohrabacher.  According to a story posted recently at Democracy Now, Prince once interned with Rohrabacher.  There is no clear definition of exactly what he did for Dana, but there are plenty of examples of an ongoing relationship.

This is from the Democracy Now source:

But also, Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater worked as an intern for Representative Dana Rohrabacher, another California Republican. In fact, when Blackwater was founded, both Dana Rohrabacher and Representative John Doolittle were brought out, at the company’s expense, to be at Blackwater’s grand opening. So these are deep Republican ties in California that Blackwater has.

Those deep Republican ties also includes Duncan Hunter.

This is going to be an long story.  Rohrabacher has left a trail behind him that should be easy to follow.  For example, did he actually account for that trip to the big show by his one-time intern?  The FEC filings do not show it and the other online source of records of Congressional travel American Radio Networks,  does not go back before the year 2000.  There is probably another story for someone who wants to go through all of those trips. I would bet you could like a few to the Taliban photo I have heard about.

Cross-posted from Ditch Crazy Dana

Ironically, it is the California Republican Party that has taken note of the success of Howard Dean’s 50 state plan, and has moved in 2007 to give significant early resources to eleven counties in strategically targeted regions.

A review of first quarter spending reports  by the California Republican Party shows that the following counties are getting $4,000 a month.   Some have already hired full-time, paid coordinators:

Northern CA
Placer County

Bay Area
Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties

Southern CA
Orange, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties
San Diego and San Bernadino Counties

Central Valley
Fresno and Kern County

Democratic Party activists have been pressuring Chairman Art Torres to commit similar resources to regional party-building.  This would be a big shift from previous election cycles, where funds were spent mostly on central campaign staff and consultants, media and mailers.

Financial resources appear to be similar for both the California Republican and Democratic Parties — the Republican party raised $4.9 million in the first quarter,.while the California Democratic Party raised $4.6 million.

(Full reports on the FPPC CalAccess website)