(If you ever wanted a voice…here you go. (format editing) – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)
Hello Everyone,
The California Democratic Party Platform Committee, including Calitics' own Dante Atkins, is beginning our work putting together the 2008 Platform. In order to start the process, the Committee crafted a draft Blueprint for the Golden State and encourages all to participate in sending testimony. We invite all Democrats to help shape our Blueprint for 2008. Please share your values and priorities at [email protected].
The Regional Directors will be convening regional meetings in October 2007 that will include platform hearings. Please stay tuned for a full calendar of events.Look forward to working with everyone. To read the 2006 Platform, please follow this link: http://www.cadem.org…
Best, Christine
Christine Pelosi CA Democratic Party Platform Chair
Here is the Blueprint:
America's strength derives from people coming together and working for the common good. We believe in a strong economy that increases political, social, and cultural opportunity. We believe in inclusion and equality so that all can reach their fullest human potential. We are committed to upholding our Federal and State Constitutions, protecting and defending ourselves and our civil liberties, and ensuring justice, freedom, and equal opportunity. We believe that by standing firm and acting positively on these values, America can reclaim her vision and lead the world as a beacon of optimism and unity.
The people of California deserve a government that supports their hard work and shares their hopes for the future. Our Platform represents the Democratic vision for our State, embracing and implementing the dreams of Californians. We firmly defend these American beliefs, values, and traditions and will work with elected officials and activists to achieve our vision in government and in our communities.
The California Democratic Party will:
Promote peace, real security, the rule of law, and human rights both at home and abroad
Provide guaranteed support for first responders, military servicemembers, and veterans
Fight to restore the Constitutional balance among the branches of the federal government
Create a 21st century economy built on a diverse workforce educated by quality public schools with the right to organize
Promote access and equality in employment, educational, and economic opportunities
Ensure universal, comprehensive, and affordable health care for all Californians
Protect a woman's right to choose how to use her mind, her body and her time
Secure a dignified retirement for our seniors, including Social Security and Medicare for future generations
Make California the most energy-independent state, build new industries in the effort to fight global warming and pollution, and protect our natural resources
Build smart, sustainable, safe, environmentally sound, and caring communities
Support the arts, especially in our public schools
Insist upon fiscal common sense, responsibility, and accountability in California and Washington
We have 15 months to go before Election Day, and it’s time for another roundup of Congressional races. I am going to continue to focus on the top 10 challenges to Republican incumbents. There is certainly a concern in CA-11 with the Jerry McNerney/Dean Andal race, particularly after McNerney’s “I’m a moderate” comment seemed to depress supporters. On the bright side, he did vote against the ridiculous FISA bill. And as we go into September, I would hope he would continue his efforts to end the occupation of Iraq. I will certainly cover the McNerney race in future roundups.
But for now, let’s take a look at the top 10 challenges. I’m going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup. I’m also adding the “Boxer number.” Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is. If I put “57,” that means Boxer received 57% of the vote. Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)
1) CA-04 (Doolittle). Last month: 1. Boxer number: 40. Charlie Brown got some amazing news this week. Mike Holmes, an Auburn city councilman and a Republican, announced he was running in the primary to unseat ethically challenged Rep. John Doolittle. Holmes ran a primary race last year and got around 30% of the vote. This gives Doolittle two challengers next June (Eric Egland has already announced), which is a lot better for Doolittle than one challenger to which anti-Doolittle forces can focus their energies. This makes it more likely that a wounded Doolittle will survive the primaries (if he’s not indicted by then) and face Brown, who’s flush with cash and unopposed in his primary. Brown also made a great impression at the Yearly Kos Convention, so there will be plenty of online support for him.
2) CA-26 (Dreier). Last month: 2. Boxer number: 48. Another candidate who made a big impression at Yearly Kos was Russ Warner. At the California caucus he gave a version of this speech:
Warner’s fundraising stats were already impressive for the district, and now we’re starting to see some grassroots support. If he can tap into what Hilda Solis has been doing online (Solis has endorsed him), there could be a groundswell. Meanwhile, Dreier is whining that local Democrats blocked funding for expanding the Gold Line light-rail service to “focus on projects in their districts rather than regional priorities.” Right, because the Gold Line doesn’t mainly go through Pasadena, in Adam Schiff’s district. Dreier is such a tool.
3) CA-24 (Gallegly). Last month: 3. Boxer number: 47. The August recess is retirement season for GOP Congresscritters. We’ve already seen three of them go this week alone. So naturally thoughts turn to who’s next, and Gallegly, who tried to get out in 2006, is a prime candidate. There certainly must be some talk about it in the district: he’s got four declared candidates already: Jill Martinez, Brett Wagner, James “Chip” Fraser, and Mary Pallant.
4) CA-50 (Bilbray). Last month: 4. Boxer number: 48. Michael Wray has dropped out of the primary in CA-50, leaving John Lee Evans and Nick Leibham to contest for the right to battle Brian Bilbray next November. The best way to attack Bilbray, who doesn’t get off that illegal immigration message for a second, is to highlight his pro-Bush, anti-progress voting record, including denying health care to 6 million American children with his vote against SCHIP last month. Leibham apparently raised $89,000 last quarter, and Bilbray has a paltry $213,000 CoH, which is interesting.
5) CA-42 (Miller). Last month: 7. Boxer number: 41. The big news here is that we have a candidate, and it’s blogger Ron Shepston. You’ve undoubtedly read a little about him on Calitics. LA City Beat has a nice article about Ron and the netroots movement behind him in this race. It’s not going to be easy. But Ron has raised about $7,200 on ActBlue alone, and his offline fundraising is progressing. And Miller is still taking heat from the DCCC, who sent out a notice to reporters attacking his vote against SCHIP.
6) CA-41 (Lewis). Last month: 5. Boxer number: 43. Like with Gallegly, we’re waiting to see if the rumors about Lewis’ impending retirement are true. We do know that Lewis has continued to bring home the bacon (a little questionable earmarking isn’t going to stop him) to his district, and then there’s this:
A lobby firm connected to a federal investigation has seen business boom this year for its clients, many of whose projects are in a powerful House appropriator’s district.
The House Appropriations Committee’s ranking member, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), has sponsored or co-sponsored $55 million worth of earmarks in this year’s defense spending bill – close to half of the funds won by the California Republican in the legislation – for clients represented by one firm.
A former appropriations aide to Lewis, Letitia White, and former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.), who is friendly with Lewis, work at the company, Innovative Federal Strategies (IFS).
Tim Prince is all but in this race. I met him a few weeks back and he seems like a nice guy.
7) CA-44 (Calvert). Last month: 6. Boxer number: 45. Last month’s ruling that a city government agency illegally sold Ken Calvert a bunch of land hasn’t gotten a ton of traction yet. He has been targeted by MoveOn in a Riverside-area protest where protestors presented him with a report on how much money district taxpayers have spent on the war in Iraq. Calvert is dug in on Iraq, which is of course going to be a major issue in 2008. Bill Hedrick will be Calvert’s opponent, and, um, check out the blog!
8) CA-45 (Bono). Last month: 8. Boxer number: 49. Still no opponent named, and I’m flirting with the idea of dropping any race out of the top 10 unless there’s a named candidate. This is really a missed opportunity right now.
9) CA-46 (Rohrabacher). Last month: unranked. Boxer number: 45. I’m adding nutcase Dana Rohrabacher to the list for a couple reasons. One, he has an announced opponent (Jim Brandt, who ran against him last year) UPDATE: sorry, I read something wrong, he has no announced opponent yet. Two, it gives me an opportunity to print this quote.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/ Long Beach, was baffled when asked recently about his use of the popular online gathering site Facebook.
“Faith book?” the befuddled congressman replied.
Hilarious.
10) CA-52 (open seat). Last month: 10. Boxer number: 44. Duncan Hunter was unable to beat people who weren’t running in the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa. He’s gone from this seat, but his son is running and it’s a safe bet that the Republicans will retain it.
Flip it for the weekly 50 state roundup. Thanks to the folks at BlueNC for putting this one together.
We don’t have anything fancy like ClemG’s post last week, just a plain Jane A-Z roundup. Thanks to everyone who sent in submissions – especially to Mike for saving me with a nice long list.
In California David Dayen of Calitics outlines how national Dems should take cues from California in the upcoming budget battles. Also at Calitics, California Reps want to change Electoral College from winner-take-all to proportional, causing a potential Blue-to-Red spectrum shift in votes nationally.
Follow below the fold for the rest of the roundup.
In ColoradoSquareState has a plethora of goodies to choose from. From wacky things those wingnuts say to wacky things they do, SquareState has them covered. Lamborn: “If we want to win this war, we can“: he actually said that. The Macaca blog is apparently up and running: There’s a blog that’s been around for a few months that seems eerily familiar to CO-GOP chair Dick Wadhams’ old antics.
Maura at Connecticut’sMy Left Nutmeg wonders where Chris Shays has been after his 18th trip to Iraq. He’s been silent, but his Dem companion seems to be channeling Shays.
At Minnesota Campaign Report they are running a column about Jim Ramstad, who earns his keep in Congress as a “moderate” Republican, but has been pretty loyal to the White House instead of his constituents on Iraq issues.
A Mississippi Republican can’t face an ’08 red state bloodbath. Can’t blame him It’s going to be ugly for Bush apologists. Please take Trent Lott with you, sir. CottonMouthBlog has the story.
At Montana’sLeft in the West Jay Stevens gives us A little slice of rhetorical pie from Dennis Rehberg
New Nebraska reports on troubling practices by Nebraska vote-counters.
Sven at My Silver State is reporting that Obama is running his ads for the Nevada primary in Spanish.
New Hampshire Dems are disappointed in Congress. What could it mean for primary turnout? Blue Hampshire has the story.
New York has reports from two blogs. At Daily Gotham is reporting that NYC libs are horrified that Guiliani is running out front. To know him is to not want to know him.
Also in New YorkThe Albany Project has an excellent piece of original investigative reporting. Stop by and watch them unravel The Strange Case of Michael Caputo.
Loaded Orygun has several stories to choose from. In Oregon “It was a bad week for Senator Gordon Smith. The Eugene Register-Guard accused him of “bending and selectively omitting the facts” about 2002’s massive fish kill in the Klamath Basin, his potential election opponent Steve Novick called him out on those facts, and LoadedO’s FOIA requests on Smith show a level of involvement and intervention he’d likely rather you not know about. Too bad, Gordon!”
(Courage Campaign’s working on the effort to push back against this right-wing power grab. Click HERE to sign the pledge opposing it. – promoted by Todd Beeton)
The Courage Campaign has launched a petition drive against the Republican power grab otherwise known as the “Presidential Election Reform Act.” Click here to fight back against this transparent attempt to steal electoral votes in a move more brazen than anything Katherine Harris even dreamed of back in 2000.
As you may already have heard, a team of GOP lawyers have filed an initiative with the state attorney general for the June 2008 ballot that would reduce California’s voice in electing the president of the United States by moving California from a winner take all electoral system to one that allots electoral votes proportionally by congressional district.
They call it The Presidential Election Reform Act. We call it a rightwing power grab because the net result would be that the Republican candidate could win as many as 20 of California’s 55 electoral votes or the equivalent of Ohio.
In the wake of several recalls of toys containing lead, Fiona Ma is talking about enacting a law in California prohibiting lead in children's toys. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, sent a letter to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency responsible for regulating harmful chemicals in consumer products, demanding a speedy prohibition of toxic lead in products used by children, the most vulnerable of the population.
Why Fiona Ma's legislation is unnecessary (and why it is so necessary) on the flip . . .
The fact is that there already are state and federal laws that prohibit lead in children's toys.
42 U.S.C. section 4831(c) states:
Prohibition by Consumer Product Safety Commission in application to toys or furniture articles. The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall take such steps and impose such conditions as may be necessary or appropriate to prohibit the application of lead-based paint to any toy or furniture article . . . .
Pursuant to the authority delegated to it by Congress, the Consumer Product Safety Commission promulgated 16 C.F.R. part 1303.4 which provides that:
The following consumer products, manufactured after February 27, 1978, unless exempted by Sec. 1303.3, are banned hazardous products * * *
(b)Toys and other articles intended for use by children that bear “lead-containing paint.”
The laws clearly are on the books – the lead pain that was on Mattel's children's toys is clearly illegal. The problem is that the CPSC, like most other federal watchdog agencies, has been neutered by a federal government that has been run by Republicans for too long. In short, they are asleep at the wheel. And it is our safety that is on the line.
The CPSC does not have Chairperson who has been confirmed by the Senate. Instead, it is being run by Acting Chairwoman Nancy Nord. Before being appointed to the CPSC, Ms. Nord was the Director of Federal Government Relations for Eastman Kodak Company. (That title sounds to me like a fancy name for a corporate lobbyist.) Surely her days protecting Kodak's interests before governments abroad gave Ms. Nord a wealth of experience protecting consumers from dangerous products. If not, I'm sure she cut her teeth tirelessly fighting for the little guy while she was at the American Corporate Counsel Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And Ms. Nord was a step up from Bush II's first choice for CPSC Chairperson, Michael Baroody. Mr. Baroody was the senior lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers, a well group dedicated to consumer protection (Ahem!). The public outcry was so strong that even the Bush Administration made Mr. Baroody withdraw his nomination.
Putting aside the Chairwoman's personal biases, she is one of the two people who make decisions at the CPSC. The CPSC is supposed to have three commissioners, but since July 2006, it has had only two of the three Commissioners. This means that Congress has had to pass laws to allow the Commission to meet its quorum requirements necessary to conduct business.
Congress has repeatedly slashed the budget for the CPSC. When Ronald Reagan stepped into the White House in 1980, the CPSC has 800 employees. Over the last 27 years, that number has shrunk by half. There now are fewer than 400 employees at the CPSC. “Small government” is so good! CPSC Commissioner Thomas Moore put it best:
Two years of significant staffing cuts and other resource reductions have limited the Commission’s ability to carry out its mission and have left the agency at a point where it is now doing only what is absolutely necessary for it to do and little else. Staff morale is very low. Employees see the agency being gradually but continually downsized; managers cannot fill vacant positions and employees either take on additional jobs as their colleagues leave or see projects shelved for lack of funding. Many employees at the agency are looking for other jobs because they have no confidence the agency will continue to exist (or will exist in any meaningful form) for many more years. The clear signal from the administration is that consumer protection is just not that important. The Commission can either continue to decline in staff, resources and stature to the point where it is no longer an effective force in consumer protection or, with the support of Congress, it can regain the important place in American society that it was originally designed to have.
California also has laws on the books.California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (known as “Proposition 65”), provides:
No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual, except as provided in Section 25249.10.
Proposition 65 establishes a procedure by which the State is to develop a list of chemicals “known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.8.)Lead was placed in the Governor's list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity on February 27, 1987.It is specifically identified under three subcategories: “developmental reproductive toxicity,” which means harm to the developing fetus, “female reproductive toxicity,” which means harm to the female reproductive system, and “male reproductive toxicity,” which means harm to the male reproductive system. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 12000, subd. (c).)“Lead and lead compounds” were placed in the Governor's list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer on October 1, 1992. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 12000, subd. (b).)
California's Attorney General has many means to enforce Proposition 65, including injunctions under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
I applaud Fiona Ma's effort to take on this dysfunctional agency and tell the CPSC that if it does not protect the safety of Californians, California will.But it's not necessarily another law that we need.While Congress should strengthen many consumer laws, what we really need is for Congress to: (1) restore funding for the CPSC to its pre-Reagan-era levels, and (2) vote to not confirm Bush's crony and industry's whore, Nancy Nord, as Chairwoman of the CPSC, but instead insist upon a qualified person with a track record of experience protecting consumers.
And Jerry Brown should use Proposition 65 along with the other weapons he has in his arsenal to do the job that the CPSC is not doing and protect Californians, especially our children, from unsafe products containing lead.
