(I’m thinking of making the endorsement process the subject of our next BlogTalkRadio show, where we will just take calls on the subject. Would you be interested in such a program, and calling in to discuss it? And if so, what time would work next week? – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

As you may have seen, we got a bit of blowback on our endorsement process. Rightly or wrongly, I did think there was a failure, mostly my own, to clearly annunciate our endorsement process. So, we are at a point where we will be reviewing all of our endorsements, so rather than do this piece-meal, I wanted to try to get this done all orderly-like.

So, here’s what we’re going to do. We are going to have a couple nominating posts, let’s say one for Northern California, and one for Southern California.  We can debate where the dividing line is, but hopefully it will be obvious. So, once we have a list of nominated individuals, we will design and distribute a questionnaire.  We’ll post the responses on the site (along with any youtube commentary from the candidates if they so desire).  Then, for each region we will select 3 candidates, regardless of the office they are seeking.  1/2 of the vote will come from voting on the site, and 1/2 from our editorial board.

Now, for timeline, I’m thinking I’d like to get this process started by the end of the month to allow us time to draw up the questions (through a post in early October) and then send them off to our prospective endorsees.  We’ll then do a multi-vote poll on the site as well as polling the Board.  The top 3 candidates will receive the endorsement, as long as they each have 3/5 vote from both the Board and the larger Calitics community. I’ll be devising a voting process, either within SoapBlox or using SurveyMonkey.com.

Any questions? Let me know.

Also, do me a favor and try the poll system.

  Isn’t it amazing
The Obama Campaign & Movement 
A World Apart
Posted 9/20/2007 2:15 PM
Fifty years ago today my universe was beginning to open at the speed of sound. I had survived the seldom easy transition from childhood to the first step on the stairs to adulthood. I had made it to the 8th grade. And I was virtually dizzy with the array of outward bound paths that had suddenly surrounded me. And everyone had a “yellow brick road” quality. Where would this one lead? What about this one; or this one? Who cared about that. The excitement was caused by the fact that they all pointed toward a way out.

Not that I had anything to run from…except for the ties that bind. Heck, even that lucky son-of-a-gun, Ricky Nelson was beginning to exhibit a wanderlous quality. And, he had it all. The looks, the girls, the big brother, two adoring (although admittedly over-bearing) parents. If Ricky could peek at the horizon, then, by golly, so could I.

I attended “neighborhood school”; I had always attended such schools as did all my friends. My friends were the entire student body. And, the best part, new freedoms were being granted like so much confetti at a new years eve celebration.

Not that there were no dark clouds on the horizon. Although our school was totally desegregated (roughly, 1/3rd white; 1/3 black and 1/3rd asian) it was simply a reflection of the affordability of the houses there. If you were a WW II veteran, and who wasn’t, you could and did buy your family a home of their own. A first for just about everyone.

Given this context for my take on the world, I was bewildered by what I saw on TV about what was going  on across the states in the south. Separate but equal was an oxymoron to my way of thinking. How could separate be equal. Why was one color poor and the other color less poor. (Truth be told, that all looked considerably poorer than anyone I knew.)

Then, 50 years ago today, the Little Rock travesty was recorded and shown to the Nation. Dogs, powerful waterhoses, a lynching mentality were used by one color against the other color. The horrors of the civil war were being re-enacted for each of us to see. I was shaken to my core and nauseated in my heart. Why, why, why? My yellow brick roads were much less appealing then.
 

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson of Speak out California

It’s quite amazing how the Constitution of our country seems to come through—even to skeptics who think it’s an antiquated or unrealistic set of principles. While those who don’t support its freedoms try  numerous tricks and subterfuge to undermine it (unfortunately, with some success), it nonetheless remains an extraordinary living and breathing document.  The most precarious of these principles, particularly “in time of war” is the First Amendment, dealing with the right of free speech. That’s the one that reads,

  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It seems that we have recently seen so many challenges to our rights and freedom in this country by the very people who are in charge of its government and are supposed to be preserving and protecting those very rights as defined by our constitution. They are often the very people who do not want the voices of the people to be raised in free and open exchange of ideas or criticism. Consider: All Saints Church in Pasadena, where its Pastor spoke openly against the war in Iraq and the IRS tried to challenge its tax-exempt status. Just this week, the IRS announced it was withdrawing its coercive effort. Then there is Erwin Chemerinsky,  the highly regarded constitutional scholar who was chosen to be the Dean of the newly created U.C. Irvine Law School, only to see his apppointment withdrawn by the Chancellor of the University in response to right-wingers who disagree with Chemerinsky’s  interpretation of the Constitution. But freedom of speech prevailed and after great public outcry, that appointment was properly restored.

And then we have the contrived assault on an organization that dared to challenge the accuracy of a report to Congress about the Iraqi War from its general in charge. By playing off of General Patreus’ name, MoveOn.org questioned whether or not he should be called General “Betray us”, given his less than straight-forward or candid assessment of what is truly going on in Iraq.  Did MoveOn have the right to say what it did? Absolutely. Was it controversial and perhaps in “bad taste”.  Was the young man who challenged Senator Kerry in Florida slightly obnoxious? While many of us might find the comments and behavior to be distasteful and wouldn’t have approached the discussion in similar fashion, where in the Constitution does it say you have to be polite in the exercise of one’s right to speak?  But this is all obfuscation and distraction from the real issue here: The Truth.

Was the information in Move-On’s article accurate? Was the challenge to Patreus’ claims legitimate? Did MoveOn have the constitutional right to do what it did? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Remember, this ad was simple speech, well-documented allegations and challenges to a stone-deaf administration that refuses to listen to the American people or acknowledge what the rest of the world has long known: This war has been a complete failure

Did their ad rise to the level of a Congressional rebuke? Absolutely not. But it would be hard to challenge the facts that they so studiously included . So, in keeping with the way the Bush administration and its apologists respond whenever they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they attacked the messenger, since they can’t attack the message because it is true. Think of Richard Holbrook, Joe Wilson (and Valerie Plame), just to name a few who have been vilified for speaking the truth about this administration’s lies and deceptions.

Shouldn’t we be focused instead on the CONTENT of the objection, rather than either the messenger, in MoveOn’s case (a liberal group)or the delivery of that message? The answer for MoveOn’s supporters is clearly “yes” and we are likely to see more, rather than fewer attacks on the administration’s orchestrated misinformation in the days and weeks ahead.

But for proof of the real success and genius of this country’s set of principles, as embodied by Article One of the Bill of Rights we need only to  look to the response to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks at Columbia University yesterday. Clearly, the man is a loose cannon. His claims and statements are not credible and he did not serve his cause well. But isn’t it better to let him speak, to allow the people to see for themselves just who and what this divisive and out-of-touch demagogue really is? Shouldn’t we be trusting that the people can decide for themselves after hearing all points-of-view? Ahmadinejad may be a madman, but he’s also the leader of a very significant player in the Middle East. Isn’t it better to know the enemy, see how he thinks and thus be better equipped to deal with him? Or is it just for the “decider” to know—since we can surely trust his judgment and understanding of what motivates this hostile regime to do what it does and threatens to do?

And isn’t this exactly what America has stood for in the world–a place where people can come and express their differences in a peaceful yet passionate way, without fear of reprisal or sanction?  We can differ, and we must often agree to disagree, but one thing we should not disagree about is the power and sanctity of the First Amendment to our Constitution. We are a nation with a proud tradition of openness. We understand that speech is basically the articulation of ideas and opinions. It is why we let people speak when their hearts are full of hate and anger; why we allow people to stand on soap boxes and express opinions that are neither logical or coherent; It is, after all, what we are fighting for when we call out to protect liberty and freedom.

We must remember, however, that the fight for those freedoms begins first at home. Let us not forget that this right is what sets us apart from countries like Iran where there is no such freedom to dissent. It is our glorious tradition of openness and candor  that is among our greatest contributions to the world. With that freedom we have been able to discuss, debate and disagree our way into greatness of purpose and action. This is the gift our Founding Fathers gave us. This is the great tradition that nations have tried either to squelch through dictatorship or emulate through democracy. We are its bastion and its protector. We must rejoice in the debate and not allow those in power to destroy it. Otherwise, we become like the nations we so reject–where there is no freedom and no opportunity for  dissent, nations like Iran. We are better and must be better. Let us honor the tradition of openness in America. It has always served us well.

(bumped – promoted by Julia Rosen)

(also up in orange)
In what can only be described as yet another dirty trick, the campaign pushing the initiative to steal California’s electoral votes disclosed its main donor in a campaign finance report earlier this week.  The lone $175,000 donor was attributed to a Missouri based company called Take Initiative America (T.I.A).  The only name we have is Charles A. Hurth III, an attorney in the small town Union, MO and big donor to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign.  He is the guy who registered the company, way back on September 10th.  The donation came in on the 11th.  The proponents of the ballot measure swear they have no idea who actually gave the money.  (See also Shane Goldmacher’s story.  He broke it)

Let’s get this straight.  A ballot initiative was filed by the lawyers for the California Republican Party (CRP) to try and steal 20 of California’s electoral votes.  The only donor we know about appears to be a front company, set up the day before the donation was made in Missouri.  And we know that the lawyers for the CRP have done work for Bob Perry, the Switfboat guy in the past.  Is Bob Perry running money through a Giuliani donor in Missouri?  If not, who is?

This is clearly a front group.  Under the law we don’t have any right to know who wrote the original check.  We only know the name of the guy who is the registered agent for the LLC that gave the money to the campaign.

The Fair Election Reform folks point out in their email that the Giuliani connections go beyond just Hurth.

But the connections to Rudy Giuliani don’t stop there.  Two law partners of Tom Hiltachk — the Sacramento attorney who authored and filed the power grab initiative here in California — are also strong supporters of Rudy and contributors to Giuliani’s campaign, including a lawyer serving as the Deputy Treasurer for the Republican pro-initiative organization in California.

They are using this as an opportunity to go right after Giuliani.

When asked directly about this, Giuliani’s campaign spokesperson tried to dodge the question by saying they’re prepared to compete in 2008 based on “whatever the people of California decides is best” — while refusing to answer whether or not the money funneled through TIA had any connections to Rudy.  What’s more, a spokesman for the right-wing pro-initiative campaign here in California said that Rudy “probably” wasn’t involved.  Probably?  Isn’t this something their campaign would know for sure?

Why won’t Rudy Giuliani stop hiding and come clean on this?  The voters of California deserve to know the truth about who’s behind this effort to rig the 2008 election by splitting up California’s electoral votes.

The only way to do that is to put pressure on the donors to disclose who they are on their own and disavow any ties to the Giuliani campaign.  All along he has said that one of the bonuses to his campaign is that he would be competitive here.  Is he trying to guarantee that is true?

WAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

The list by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington names 18 Republicans and four Democrats.

Doolittle, whose connections to lobbyist Jack Abramoff are the subject on a Justice Department investigation, said the listing was an underhanded attempt to attack him from a liberal Democrat organization funded by billionaire activist George Soros.

“I just really think it’s unfair and wrong for an underhanded and vile organization like CREW, who disagrees with me because I’m a conservative Republican, to attack me on that,” he said. “Because of the atmosphere right now, it’s a very impactful thing.”

Doolittle has said he has done nothing wrong and wants the Justice Department investigation to come to a conclusion to clear his name. With a new congressional election coming in November 2008, Doolittle is already facing a Democrat challenger who ran a surprisingly strong campaign against him in 2006.

There’s the obligatory Soros reference, the dismissal of any criticism as partisan, but also the admission that CREW’s list, which includes 4 Democrats along with 18 Republicans, is “impactful.”  That’s because he can’t argue with any of the findings so he attacks the source.

By the way, Auburn Journal, it’s a DEMOCRATIC challenger.  And his name is Charlie Brown.  You can donate to him through the Calitics ActBlue page and then come down to one of our Q3 Quarterly events tonight.

Thomas Gangale

Never mind the partisanship behind Republican lawyer Tom Hiltachk’s so-called Presidential Election Reform Act, an initiative that seeks to peel off about twenty of California’s electoral votes to Republican presidential candidates in 2008 and indefinitely into the future.  Let’s just consider the question, does the US Constitution permit a state to determine via a ballot initiative how to cast its electoral votes?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 says in part: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”  The Legislature directs… how does this power devolve upon the voters?

Proponents of the Hiltachk initiative might argue that California’s initiative process permits the voters to assume some legislative functions, and that this includes changing the rules about allocating the state’s electoral votes.  Perhaps the initiative’s supporters will say that the state legislature gave citizens the right to “legislate” when it gave them the power to propose and pass ballot initiatives; so in effect, nearly a century ago, the state legislature “directed” a “manner” for appointing presidential electors that contemplated the abdication of this power to the people.

This is tortured logic.  The body of citizens is certainly not the state legislature.  When the Constitution says “legislature,” it means exactly that.  The initiative process is not an abdication of legislative power; the legislature still legislates.  Rather, the initiative process is an alternative method of enacting law.  It is not only outside of the legislative power, it is also outside of the executive power; the governor can veto legislation, but he cannot veto an initiative.  Therefore, an initiative is not just another kind of legislation, it is of its own kind.  Likewise, when we act as a body of citizens, we are not acting in the capacity of a legislature; we are of our own kind.

The distinction between the body of citizens and the legislature as sources of law goes back 2,500 years to the Roman Republic.  There were some types of laws that the Senate could pass, while others required passage by one of the various citizens’ assemblies.  Hence, SPQR, senatus populusque romanus, the Senate and People of Rome.  In the same vein, California’s legislature and its body of citizens are two distinct lawmaking entities; they aren’t us, and we’re not them.

Clearly, the Framers of the Constitution also drew this same distinction between a state’s legislature and its people.  From the beginning, members of the US House of Representatives have been elected by the people.  This is not true of the US Senate.  Originally, the Constitution provided for senators to be elected by the legislatures of their states; the Framers created two distinct methods of electing the houses of Congress.

The election of US senators by the people came about as a result of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.  This transfer of power from legislatures to the people was a very specific reform born of the Progressive Era.  To infer that another Progressive Era reform, the initiative process, also transferred the power to appoint electors, is a legal fallacy.  If Progressives had intended to transfer such power, they would have stated so explicitly, either in the Seventeenth Amendment or in a companion amendment.  They did not.

So, if neither the Framers nor the Progressives intended the people to have the power to direct the manner of appointing electors, the only possible conclusion is that the power does not exist.  If enacted, the Hiltachk initiative could not stand legal challenge, and the state attorney general would be forced to waste millions of taxpayer dollars defending a lost cause.  Rather than have our pockets picked by Tom Hiltachk, we voters should defeat his initiative at the ballot box.  Better yet, don’t sign his petition and keep the initiative off the ballot.