Via Steve Soto, check out these white men from the Senate GOP Caucus hitting happy hour to celebrate their denying money to nursing homes, hospitals, and childcare centers.

Making life harder on the less fortunate can be fun!  I think I see Jeff Denham in there.  Somebody get this on a button!

UPDATE: And a budget deal has been reached, making this picture's quest for immortality moot (although I think my posting this made the pressure just too much to bear).  How about an open thread on the budget passage, then?

UPDATE by Brian: I've posted the Assembly Report on the Budget Deal. More coming soon, and as always, watch The California Progress Report. It's really great that we had to wait for 52 days because the Senate Republicans needed the applause of Jon Fleischman and other reactionaries.  Although this is finally through now, this is not the end. We still need to work to end the 2/3 requirement. And, oh yeah, get 2/3 majorities.

UPDATE by Brian: And from the SacBee:

Ackerman also noted that the ongoing state deficit will have to be dealt with again in next year's deliberations.

“We still have a lot of work to do in next year's budget, and I suggest we start doing that as soon as we finish this,” he said.

I have an idea! Bring back the 50+year old Vehicle License Fee instead of cutting state services.

Brian has the hard numbers below and an excellent post on how important voter education is going to be for this initiative.  I want to tackle the actual viability of the measure and how the media is reporting on it.

The lede in the Chronicle today on the Field Poll, is accurate, but fails to take into account historical results for these types of polling numbers. 

California voters are inclined to support a proposed ballot initiative that would change how the Golden State allocates its electoral votes in presidential campaigns, but they’re not yet sold on the idea, a Field Poll released today showed.

The actual number who supported the measure was only 47% of voters, with 35% against.  To actually be viable for passage at this stage of the game, an initiative in California needs to be polling at least in the mid-fifties.  Support for initiatives tends to degrade over time.  That is compounded by the tendency for voters who are not sure about the measure to vote against it.  The status quo for these voters is better than supporting something they are not confident about.  This initiative is in real trouble and it is not helped much when voters learn more about it.

Brian notes that support only goes up 2 points when it is pointed out that Republicans would gain from this measure.  Opposition on the other hand increases 7 points.  It still does not crack the 50% line.  Don’t know is 9, which is fairly small.

The motivation for the Chron’s lede was this quote from the Field Poll director:

Still, the survey showed there is “initial support for the idea to change the California’s system,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.

“I think voters on both sides tend to see the current winner-take-all to be a little bit unfair,” he said. “Even the Democrats in the first question (before political ramifications were explained) were nearly evenly divided.”

I wish the Field Poll had gone one further and polled the votes on their support for such an initiative, as part of a national move to change the electoral vote allocation process.  Voters do not like the winner take all system, but I believe they are susceptible to the argument that it not fair for California to change, unless the rest of the country does the same.  As written, this is simply a Republican power grab attempt.  If they were serious about reforming the system, they would put a clause that this would not go into effect unless the majority of other states passed a similar measure.

This from the Chron is just silly:

If the proposal is adopted, analysts suggest that a Republican presidential candidate would get a boost because Democrats can no longer count on all 55 electoral votes from California, which has voted for Democratic candidates since 1988.

They aren’t suggesting.  They are saying.  This initiative will cost Democrats electoral votes.  It is just a question of how many.  There is no reason for soft-pedaling this fact.

The SacBee article is much better on all fronts.

These are very reasonable polling numbers for the Democrats.  While I would have liked to see the numbers a lot lower, the failure to break 50%, even with a full description bodes well for our ability to defeat the measure.  Lots of voter education needs to be done and tens of millions will need to be raised.  People need to understand that this could cost the Democrats the Presidential election.  Republicans are weak and are trying every trick in the book to steal the election.

I was going to put this in a Quick Hit, but it’s such an important issue that I thought it should get a wider distribution.  Good for Jerry McNerney for calling B.S. on his OWN visit to Iraq and understanding that the dog-and-pony Congressional delegations only provide a brief glimpse into conditions on the ground.  McNerney highlights the excellent NY Times op-ed by returning soldiers, and renews his commitment to bringing our troops home from Iraq on a timeline with a firm end date.

You can thank McNerney for his courage and insight at his blog.  I’ve excerpted a large portion of the email he sent to supporters on the flip.

A few weeks ago, I was honored to lead a bipartisan, all-freshman Congressional delegation to Iraq to gain a deeper understanding of the conflict. As I discovered, it’s one thing to read about what’s going on there. But it’s quite another to witness it firsthand and experience it personally.

I came away from this profound experience tremendously moved by the commitment of our brave men and women in uniform as well as the perseverance of the Iraqi people. Although I was proud to lead this delegation and personally meet with our troops, the trip was brief and limited to the locations picked by the military ahead of time.

For a grounded perspective on the war from those who are on the front lines, I urge you to read this critical first-hand account in the New York Times by a group of infantrymen just returning from serving in the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq:

New York Times Op-Ed: “The War as We Saw It”

As the poignant and piercing words of these seven soldiers demonstrates, the unfortunate reality in Iraq is that — while our troops have performed extremely well under very difficult conditions — the Bush Administration’s planning and execution of the war continues to be an abysmal failure.

Our women and men laying their lives on the line in Iraq have done everything we have asked of them. To honor their service, they deserve leaders who respect them enough to ask the tough questions, and — when something isn’t working — not only acknowledge it, but fundamentally change course.

In September, Congress will be participating in perhaps the most critical discussion of this conflict since it began in 2003. My campaign web site has been receiving increasing amounts of email from concerned citizens curious about my stance on the war. So, as we approach this pivotal debate, I want to clearly and unequivocally express to you where I stand on the question of executing a responsible redeployment from Iraq:

I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date (“date certain”) and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an “open-ended” timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently.

As many foreign policy experts agree, setting a date certain for withdrawal is fundamental to forcing George W. Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq and ensuring the Iraqis step up and defend their own country. That’s why — even as I consider all proposals as a matter of due diligence — I am standing strong on setting a definite redeployment end date (as an example, I recently voted for the “Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act” to safely draw down our troops over the course of nine months).

As this national debate begins anew, I am counting on you to stand strong with me as well. The only way that we, together, can bring this unfortunate chapter in our history to a close is if we remain united and steadfast in our collective commitment.

Back on July 30, Jerry McNerney, on his way home from a weekend visit to Iraq, held a conference call with reporters. Shocked by the ensuing quotes from the Congressman, I publicly questioned his commitment to the ideals he espoused during his campaign in 2006. Now, the quotes were all over the map, depending on which newspaper you read, but the one that started to show up the most reliably in the following days was from the AP story entitled “Democrats Praise Military Progress:

California Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney had a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he’ll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home.

“I’m more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,” McNerney said.

In that single quote, McNerney seemed to be simultaneously backing off of both a timeline with a concrete ending date AND spouting Republican talking points.

That’s why I was relieved to receive an email from the McNerney campaign today setting the record straight. Here is McNerney’s statement:

I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date (“date certain”) and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an “open-ended” timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently.

As many foreign policy experts agree, setting a date certain for withdrawal is fundamental to forcing George W. Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq and ensuring the Iraqis step up and defend their own country. That’s why — even as I consider all proposals as a matter of due diligence — I am standing strong on setting a definite redeployment end date (as an example, I recently voted for the “Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act” to safely draw down our troops over the course of nine months).

More on the flip…

Additionally, McNerney urged his supporters to read last weekend’s op-ed in the New York Times, The War As We Saw It, written by seven returning troop members. Based on their shared on-the-ground experiences, these soldiers were able to offer penetrating insights:

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense. […]

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux. […]

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run. […]

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

After wondering just what to make of McNerney’s confusing and seemingly contradictory positions over the last three weeks, it’s a relief to finally have a clear and concise statement of where Jerry McNerney stands on the Iraq occupation. I imagine that all his supporters are grateful for the clarification. If you’d like to comment directly to McNerney, you can post a comment at his blog.

Cross posted at The Progressive Connection