Daily Archives: September 10, 2007

Uncategorized

Peace Activists Speak Louder to Bush Dog Jim Costa

Fresno peace activists are taking it to Jim Costa.  A coordinated effort from throughout the region is coming together

to “pressure Democratic Representative Jim Costa to vote NO on the September bill to continue funding the occupation of Iraq.” [Peace Fresno president Bill] Simon wrote that “each group will take one day a week to picket in front of Costa’s office and perhaps to go into the office to say ‘No more funding’. We will also encourage passers by to call their Congressman and Senators.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey recently said that moderate Democrats need to hear the message that people in their district care.  In Fresno, the message is getting through to local activists.  Jean Hays, President of WILPF (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom) explains the strategy: “Some say Congress is not listening to us; we say maybe WE ARE NOT TALKING LOUD ENOUGH!!”

This is how we apply pressure and bring about change.

There was a great discussion over the weekend at DailyKos sparked by Major Danby’s How to be a more effective irrational pressure group diary.  The diary and subsequent discussion explored the best pressure points at which to apply pressure in order to bring about political movement.  It fits nicely with the OpenLeft conversations about the Bush Dog campaign that has included much hand-wringing over the potentially negative consequences of belligerence.  But note that this is in-your-face activism without a threatening stick.  These aren’t people calling for Rep. Costa’s head.  They aren’t screaming for a primary campaign.  They’re simply constituents calling on their representative to do the right thing.

This is what the Bush Dog campaign, and responsible citizenship in the first place, is all about.  It’s about both insisting that your representative do the right thing and demonstrating that when they do the right thing, there will be support at home and at the ballot box.  This may be tough love, but it most certainly is love.  It’s validation not only that it’s ok to do the right thing, not only that people expect it of Costa, but that people have faith that he has the willingness and capacity to do the right thing.

The response will be interesting to see, both immediately and in his votes.  He’ll have plenty of opportunity to change his voting habits on the Occupation of Iraq in the coming weeks.  In the meantime, it’s an encouraging sign to see people taking to the streets in a visible way to protest this occupation and to reassure Representative Costa that there’s support to end this outrage.  The people are behind you Rep. Costa.  Where are you?

Also at OpenLeft

Uncategorized

Michael Blood and AP Coverage of Dirty Tricks Initiative

Two and a half weeks ago, Jamison Foser wrote:

There are, in short, very few things more significant to the outcome of next year’s presidential election than this California ballot initiative. It is, then, vitally important that the media thoroughly, accurately, and fairly cover this fight — and not just the California media — the national media as well. The initiative may appear only on the California ballot, but it will impact the entire nation, and the campaigns for and against it will no doubt be waged with the help of national donors, activists, and operatives.

The initiative is beginning to draw significant media attention, but much of that coverage has been lacking.

Michael R. Blood of the Associated Press seemed to miss the memo…

In a September 9 Associated Press article on the California Republican Party state convention, AP political writer Michael R. Blood reported that “Republicans at the convention also endorsed a proposed ballot initiative to change the way the state awards electoral votes in presidential contests,” but he did not note that the initiative was originally proposed by a lawyer with deep ties to the state GOP. Blood also did not report any Democratic criticism of the proposed initiative, which, as he noted, would award two electoral votes to the winner of the statewide vote and divide the rest among the winners of California’s congressional districts.

Sacramento attorney Thomas Hiltachk, the managing partner of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, submitted the ballot measure to the California attorney general’s office on July 17. Hiltachk has served as legal counsel to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), and Bell McAndrews’ senior partner, Charles H. Bell Jr., is general counsel to the California Republican Party.

Hiltachk has played a role in several Republican campaigns to pass ballot initiatives that would benefit that party. He served as counsel to Ted Costa, the former chairman of the Sacramento County Republican Central Committee who filed the petition seeking the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis (D). Hiltachk also represented and served as a spokesman for Rescue California, a ballot-measure committee that spent $3.6 million promoting the recall initiative. The Sacramento Bee reported in a July 1, 2004, article that Rescue California “gathered 1.3 million of the signatures that got the measure on the October 2003 ballot.” On October 7, 2003, Davis was recalled from office and replaced by Schwarzenegger. Hiltachk also served as treasurer of Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Recovery Team, a ballot-initiative committee that supported measures to mandate judicial redistricting of California’s congressional districts and require employee consent for the use of union dues for political purposes.

Blood scored bonus points for not pointing out the fact that the initiative has been bashed by pretty much every single editorial board in the state which realize it is a blatant dirty trick designed to keep Republican control of the White House despite the fact the voters hate the Republican Party.

To put that in context with what is in the news today, that means that this initiative is designed to ensure we are stuck in Iraq forever. Blood didn’t mention that either.

Ouch.

Uncategorized

Ruben Navarrette Jr. Condescends to Hispanics and Readers

3 Comments

Ruben Navarrette Jr. has a commentary for CNN up today ostensibly discussing last night’s Univision Presidential debate.  But here’s how he starts off:

In politics, Hispanics are a bundle of contradictions.

Although most are registered Democrats, they’ve supported moderate Republicans — i.e., President George W. Bush, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, Arizona Sen. John McCain and others. They tell pollsters that they care about issues besides immigration — education, health care, Iraq, etc. — and yet, when GOP hardliners try to score points off their backs by resorting to racism and trying to demagogue the immigration issue, they’ll circle the wagons and go elephant hunting.

Anything jump out at you?  What jumped out at me and others was terming President Bush as a moderate Republican.  Thinking about it a little more, you may notice that he’s saying that Hispanics are a bundle of contradictions because they claim to care about a wide range of issues but only care about immigration. (ed. note: I’m not saying they only care about only immigration, I’m breaking down Navarrette’s argument only)   By extension, that Hispanics are naturally inclined to be Republican except for concern over immigration.

Mr. Navarrette seems perplexed that out-and-out racism would be a strong political motivator. Funny how that works isn’t it?  There were a lot of people over the past decade who were sucked in by the “moderate” veneer of the Republican Party who have since woken up to reality.  It’s quite possible that when Hispanics voted for a supposed moderate like George Bush, it was because they thought, along with not being racist, he might be remotely competent or responsible, might not view non-millionaires and non-white people with an alternating contempt and indifference.  It might be that they were expecting their interests to actually be served.  To presume that Hispanics are deserting Republicans because of immigration alone is a ridiculous, unfounded and insulting claim.  It seems at least as reasonable to presume that, like many other Americans, Latinos have been abandoned by the Republican Party.  That they’re patriots who respect the rule of law, the Constitution, and basic human rights.

But his antipathy isn’t just reserved for Hispanics.  A friend of mine asked him to explain his terming of President Bush as a moderate.  Navarrette responded (spaces removed):

Sure. Glad to.

Moderate: 

http://www.sanluisob…

http://www.chron.com…

http://www.cnn.com/A…

Extreme:

Tancredo
King
Rohrbacher
Bilbray
Buchanan (formerly of the GOP)
Hayworth

[second email]

forgot one:

add “wilson” to extreme list….

and add this to bush’s moderate bonafides:

http://members.tripo…

now what about your credibility? (smile)

off you go,

Ruben Navarrette

Wow. Any particular need to be a jerk? Probably not, but I suppose it fits with the tone of the commentary in the first place.  If he’s so down on the ability of anyone else to make sense, it’s reassuring that he’s so full of himself.  What’s interesting here is to note that Navarrette clearly defines moderate and extreme only in terms of immigration.  No risk of running into a “bundle of contradictions” there.  Cut the nuance or the critical thinking and go straight for the knee-jerk and the convenient.

So yes, Mr. Navarrette.  If a group of people willing to support a political party up until that political party stops serving the interests of said group is contradictory, then we have a bundle of contradictions.  If a group of people willing to support moderation but not extremism is contradictory, then we have a bundle of contradictions.  If a group of people demonstrating the ability to have complex, nuanced political perspectives is simply contradictory to you, then we have a bundle of contradictions.  But to me, it looks more like responsible citizens participating in democracy.

Also Orange

Uncategorized

Hanging With Russ Warner In Toluca Lake

5 Comments

Last night I spent a couple hours in the hills above Hollywood with bloggers and supporters at a fundraiser for Russ Warner.  Many of you know that Warner’s district in CA-26, held by Bush rubber stamp David Dreier, offers the best chance in Southern California to flip a Congressional seat in 2008.  Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake was there, and she offers this report:

Russ had a really moving tale to tell about his son Greg who served 17 months in Iraq, and how he was motivated to run as a result of his experiences there. Greg is now in West Point.

Says Russ:

“By the end of 2007, 1.3 billion dollars will have been spent on the war just from my district, CA-26 alone – which is enough to provide medical insurance for 150,000 children. It’s time that we end this war and bring the money home to be used for our children and the future of this country.”

Russ indicates that he would not vote for the $50 billion supplemental that Bush is now asking for, and believes that the same thing is happening to the United States that happened to the Soviet Union when it went into Afghanistan – we’re being bled dry by Bush and Dreier’s ill-conceived war.

Blue America is trying to build a surge of support for Warner leading into the end of the third quarter.  Warner is within a couple thousand dollars of $100,000 raised on ActBlue.

(pictured from bottom left: Jane Hamsher, Russ Warner, Howie Klein of Down With Tyranny, me, Todd Beeton of MyDD, Lucas Gardner of The Battle School.)

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California

Redefining Ronald Reagan in Indian Wells

1 Comment

Oh, boy, today's a cool news cycle. I mean, how can you not love the fact that every newspaper in the state is running some article about how the GOP is tearing itself apart. So, let's get right to it.  On Sunday, Tom McClintock, thrice a statewide loser, argues that in fact his vision (you know, the one that lost three times) is the way the GOP needs to go.  Well, I'm  sure the state is just lining up to ditch the minimum wage and all those pesky consumer protections in exchange for vague promises of the market making everybody's life utopian.  That's worked really well in the past, right? So, from the state's conservative leader:

“Today, I hear some say that we need to redefine who we are as Republicans,” McClintock told roughly 200 people who hung around Sunday to listen to the final speeches of the California Republican Party's three-day convention. “I've got news for them. We don't need to re-define our principles, we need to return to them.” (Oak  Trib 9/10/07)

Well, first, I love that the GOP convention ditches the resolutions too, and that nobody stuck around to listen to ol' Tom. But, what are those values that Tom wants to return too exactly? Wait, I know! Ronald Reagan:

Bono agreed. “President (Ronald) Reagan renewed the hope of our nation  shared his vision of America,”  she said during her address. (Desert Sun 9/10/07)

That would be Mary Bono, not the incredible lead singer of U2. Ronald Reagan was a person, flesh and blood, not a principle. During his tenure, the defecit balloned and we got involved in wars of choice. Is that the principle McClintock wants? Or is that Arnold's principle? I get confused, because everybody claims Reagan, because, “Me First” is a great principle to live by.  Flip it…

And then you have to love the bumper stickers that they sell at the GOP convention. The SacBee notices ones like “Republican Women like Men”. Wow, sanctimony, hypocrisy and homophobia play together like the best of friends in the GOP.  Holier than thou is a whole way of living!  But the Bee gets back to the back and forth between 2006's “ticket”:

In a Sunday address to about 250 delegates, McClintock mocked the governor's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020 as a “so-called global warming bill” and said such reductions would be a tall order because “carbon dioxide is an integral part of all human activity, starting with exhaling.”

Replied Schwarzenegger communications director Adam Mendelsohn: “That is not a sentiment shared by the vast majority of California Republicans. The sooner we figure that out, the sooner we'll be back on the road to success.”

McClintock said the Republican problem in California is that GOP voters are staying home because they believe their party has lost its core values.

“We can win some short-term victories by compromising our philosophy for political expediency,” McClintock said. “I've actually watched some people do that. But a party that does that soon discovers it has ceased to be a party. First, it loses its soul. And then it loses its supporters.”  (SacBee 9/10/07)

At some point, the GOP will have to get its head out of the sand. While Arnold is far from perfect, at least he ackowledges some of the reasonable “facts on the ground”. There is no longer need to argue about whether we face a climate crisis, we must now do something about it. But the GOP and its base clings to last century's economy and last century's science (if they acknowledge science at all).

 I suppose I could go on with the coverage of the GOP tearing at its own wounds. (Maybe they need one of those dog cones –>) There are plenty of stories left around the news world (I highly recommend George Skelton's take), but I'll just sit back and smile and watch the GOP attempt to chase its tail. It couldn't happen to a more deserving party.

Health Care

Health Care Updates: AB 8 to Pass, But What Will Final Compromise Look Like?

3 Comments

Over the last few days there has been significant legislative movement on AB 8, the Núñez/Perata health care reform bill. Anthony Wright of Health Access California describes some of the crucial amendments that passed on Friday, amendments which Randy Bayne notes garnered the Cal Labor Fed’s support of AB 8 as the bill now includes some cost containment protections (though not as much as hoped, since caps on hospital billing weren’t included).

AB 8 seems set for legislative passage, but after that an Arnold veto is expected, writes Bayne. So what next for health care? As the legislature and the governor plan a special session, the details of any final compromise will be absolutely important – and will determine whether the bill will actually be useful, or will be a cure worse than the disease. More…

In today’s Sac Bee, Daniel  Weintraub suggests that a health care deal “is coming into focus” and describes the details:

The agreement would likely come in two pieces — legislation that lawmakers would approve this week or soon after in a special session, and a separate measure that would appear on the November 2008 general election ballot to finance the plan.

The legislation would outline a program requiring nearly everyone in California to buy insurance, with subsidies for people making less than four times the federal poverty rate, or about $80,000 a year for a family of four. Insurers would have to cover everyone who applied, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and could not charge customers more because they had been sick in the past.

The subsidies, along with an expansion of free care for the poorest of the poor, would be financed by a new payroll tax, an increase in the sales tax, a special fee on hospitals and an infusion of federal money. [A tax that would have to be put to voters – Robert]

It’s not clear where Weintraub is getting this from – but it is a major cause for concern, because such a compromise includes the thoroughly odious individual mandate. The centerpiece of Mitt Romney’s reform, individual mandates have proved a disaster in Massachusetts, with sky-high premiums and insufficient guarantees of care. Even if subsidies materialize – and as the current plan depends on federal funding of programs like S-CHIP for this that is being opposed by the Bush Administration, it seems those subsidies are far from certain – it will not be enough to prevent the premium costs from ruining many who are underemployed, work part-time, or face other sources of financial stress.

An individual mandate is poison, and must NOT be a part of any final health care plan. All it would accomplish is a massive transfer of wealth from struggling individuals and households to insurers, who would still be able to deny care, slash benefits, and raise premiums. At worst it would be junk insurance that folks would be forced to buy.

I have expressed my skepticism of AB 8 in the past. I think it suffers from a common misconception in America, that the problem is a lack of health insurance, when in fact insurance is by no means a guarantee that people will receive the care they need, or that they will get that care at an affordable price. As it stands now, AB 8 does appear to be a worthwhile plan. Even though the California Nurses Association is right that it won’t do much to solve the core problems, and that we should be trying to get rid of the health insurers, AB 8 seems like it would be able to extend to more Californians some kind of coverage with sufficient, though incomplete, cost containment provisions. As a stopgap until we get single-payer, AB 8 may work, although I am also skeptical about whether it’s worth a ballot fight – those resources should be reserved for a single-payer ballot effort.

That conditional support of AB 8 would vanish entirely if an individual mandate were to be included as part of a final compromise. And as that idea keeps getting floated, it becomes all the more important that we let our Democratic legislators know that an individual mandate is completely unacceptable.

As someone who is currently uninsured, I would be willing to fight against an individual mandate plan, and would certainly vote against a ballot measure to fund a plan that included an individual mandate. Californians want health care reform – but that doesn’t mean any reform is good reform.

Uncategorized

California GOP Proposes Law to Block Democratic Presidential Win

4 Comments

This headline is actually a headline on Fox “News”:

You know the old saying: if you can’t beat em, change the rules. That’s the new motto of the California Republican Party. Taking a break from complaining about their governor, who as usual is right where they’re wrong, and who is also, not coincidentally, the only Republican in state-wide office in California, they’ve decided to try to change the rules for electing the next president to make it more difficult for a Democrat to win.

The CA GOP just jumped the shark. Here are three things you can do:

1. Sign the Petition

2. Support Bloggers and the Courage Campaign by making a donation

3. Tell Arnold to read the initiative