(I was working on a similar post, but I’ll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new “when the chips are down” scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA’s congressional delegation, in descending order.

Senate:

92.86 Boxer, Barbara
90.45 Feinstein, Dianne

House:

100.00 Pelosi, Nancy
98.43 Sánchez, Linda T.
97.49 Capps, Lois
97.18 Lee, Barbara
96.43 Richardson, Laura
96.24 Solis, Hilda L.
95.92 Woolsey, Lynn C.
95.91 Filner, Bob
95.30 Matsui, Doris O.
95.19 Becerra, Xavier
94.98 Farr, Sam
94.67 Honda, Michael M.
94.65 Lofgren, Zoe
94.03 Roybal-Allard, Lucille
93.42 Napolitano, Grace F.
93.42 Thompson, Mike
93.38 Eshoo, Anna G.
93.31 Waters, Maxine
93.20 Miller, George
93.10 Davis, Susan A.
93.10 Tauscher, Ellen O.
92.79 Sherman, Brad
92.45 Schiff, Adam B.
92.38 Berman, Howard L.
91.80 Watson, Diane E.
90.51 Lantos, Tom
90.28 Baca, Joe
90.19 Sanchez, Loretta
89.49 Waxman, Henry A.
87.74 Stark, Fortney Pete
84.86 Cardoza, Dennis A.
83.86 Harman, Jane
82.97 Costa, Jim
82.45 McNerney, Jerry

TPM has the video.

Henry Waxman is doing yeoman work today at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Blackwater, not only taking them to task for the irresonsible and lawless behavior of their security personnel within Iraq, but directly blaming the State Department for blocking meaningful investigation.

Waxman pointed to a Dec. 2006 incident, in which a drunken Blackwater contractor shot the guard of the Iraqi vice president:

The State Department advised Blackwater how much to pay the family to make the problem go away and then allowed the contractor to leave Iraq just 36 hours after the shooting. Incredibly, internal e-mails documented the debate over the size of the payment. The charge d’affaire recommended a $250,000 payment but this was cut to $15,000 because the diplomatic security service said Iraqis would try to get themselves killed for such a large payout.

Waxman noted that in light of such evidence, it’s hard “not come to the conclusion that the State Department is acting as Blackwater’s enabler.”

In response to these revelations, another member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa, basically threatened Waxman with a fragging.

If Henry Waxman today wants to go to Iraq and do an investigation, Blackwater will be his support team. His protection team. Do you think he really wants to investigate directly?

It’s hard to characterize this as anything but a veiled threat.  Disgraceful.

(Incidentally, for another California connection, the CEO of Blackwater was an intern for Dana Rohrabacher many years ago.  Can you say “conflict of interest”?)

A few stories of interest that I wanted to pass along:

• Chris Lehane and the Fair Election Reform Group are calling for an investigation into the funding of the Dirty Tricks Initiative. Lehane and others allege possible violations of federal election law.
• The Humane Society is gathering signatures for an initiative to regulate factory farming practices.  “The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act provides basic protections requiring that animals be able to turn around and extend their limbs. It will prevent the use of inhumane factory farming practices such as keeping animals confined in small crates or cages—specifically, veal crates for calves, battery cages for egg-laying hens, and gestation crates for breeding pigs.”
• State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has some ideas for balancing the budget. According to Bill, they are just ideas and he doesn't necessarily endorse them. Good thing, too, because one of his “ideas” is totally cutting off the UC system from state money. Brilliant idea, there.  You know what else we could do? Charge the kiddos for public school, that would free up billions!
• LA might need to pass a replacement phone utility tax if the current law is struck down in court.Villaraigosa is trying to get the measure declared an “emergency” to allow passage with a simpple majority.
• Student leaders from across the state rallied for the California Dream Act in Sacramento yesterday.
• LGBT organizations across the country are decrying Speaker Pelosi's decision to exclude the transgendered from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I've heard that the Speaker, and her staff, have been getting in earful here in the district as well. Almost all organizations are standing together saying that they will not leave part of the community behind, except, that is, the Human Rights Campaign. I guess they need some achievements to justify that building they own by Capitol Hill. Too bad any passage of ENDA without the entire community would be a complete sell-out of those who they were supposed to represent. 

(Not precisely CA, but many of our Reps (and both Senators) are implicated – promoted by jsw)

Over the weekend, Rep. John Hall (NY-19) posted a diary on DailyKos announcing his intention to introduce a House resolution censuring Rush Limbaugh today:

I know that there is a back and forth about whether another condemnation is worth the time. I happen to believe it is in this case. Therefore, I’m introducing a resolution that shows emphatically that Congress will not condone ad hominem political attacks on U.S. troops. On Monday, I’m introducing legislation to express the Sense of Congress that this body rejects and condemns Limbaugh’s heinous remarks, and will continue to engage in a debate on ending our involvement in Iraq that eschews character-based attacks on our Armed Forces.

Hall’s action followed on the heels of an email blast sent out by Jerry McNerney under the heading Chickenhawk Limbaugh Goes Too Far:

Yesterday, right-wing icon Rush  Limbaugh insulted everyone who has served our nation in uniform.

In an exchange with a caller, he actually called troops who return from Iraq and voice their opposition to the war “phony soldiers.”

Where does Rush Limbaugh get the moral standing to pass judgment on our heroes who wore this nation’s uniform and returned to exercise their First Amendment rights? Even for Rush, that’s too far!

Will you join me in calling the following radio stations to demand they take Rush’s show off the air?

Meanwhile, Mark Udall (CO-02), the Colorado Congressman who is running for Senate in 2008, is seeking support for his own resolution to censure Limbaugh.

So why is it that after nearly 20 years of listening to Limbaugh’s blather, these Congressmen are suddenly SO offended by this particular comment? Gee, you don’t think it could be anything so politically craven and cowardly as a CYA for their votes in favor of censuring MoveOn, do you?

That’s right — all three of these Congress members voted to “condemn in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the advocacy group MoveOn.org impugning the integrity and professionalism of General David H. Petraeus.” So when they faced the inevitable strong blowback from their supporters (why are these guys always surprised by this stuff?), how did they respond? By trying to paint their stand as a noble, bipartisan defense of our troops. With all the problems facing us in the world, their primary concern is protecting our soldiers from rhetorical slings or barbs. You want to let them be blown up? Fine. But call them a name? Not on their watch!

Meanwhile, all of the members of Congress who voted to censure MoveOn and who are now contemplating censuring Limbaugh, have violated their oath of office: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

See how on the flip…

Here’s how Justices Black and Douglas put it, concurring with the majority opinion in BATES v. LITTLE ROCK:

First Amendment rights are beyond abridgment either by legislation that directly restrains their exercise or by suppression or impairment through harassment, humiliation, or exposure by government.

And why are these First Amendment rights held to be so inviolable? Again, I’ll defer to the Justices – this time Brandeis and Holmes in WHITNEY v. PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence [274 U.S. 357, 376] coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed. […]

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Cross posted on The Progressive Connection

(You’ve got until 5pm to get in your nominations – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)

So, here we are again. The ActBlue Page is wiped clean (save the Calitics PACs), and we are picking new candidates in our new process. Once we get the nominations, we’ll do a conference call to talk about what we would like to ask the potential endorsees.

So, for now, we’re looking for Northern California candidates for the CA Legislature in 2008 or Congress.  Let’s say the cut-off is 5PM on Wednesday. Post your nominations in the comments.