Make no mistake, at this point, a vote for Judge Mukasey is a vote for torture.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California say the will support Michael Mukasey’s nomination to be attorney general. Both are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

They did the old Friday-afternoon get-out-of-Dodge news dump on it, too.  Guess DiFi learned a lot on that Air Force One ride with George.

Michael Mukasey has refused to explain whether waterboarding is torture.  Allowing him to be the nation’s highest law enforcement official means sanctioning that opinion at the highest levels.  Worse, Mukasey’s views on executive power – believing that the President has unenumerated powers in wartime – sanction official lawbreaking at the highest levels, and emasculate Congress in their attempts to do anything about it.  DiFi just eliminated her need to show up at the office.

UPDATE: A bit more here.

In announcing her support for Mukasey, Feinstein, D-Calif., said “first and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales,” referring to the former attorney general who resigned in September after months of questions about his honesty.

Inspiring!

Wow, the standards of government have gone completely into the toilet.

The latest Fabian Nuñez story concerns charities:

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez used a small charity as a conduit to funnel almost $300,000 from companies and organizations with business in the Capitol to events that helped him politically.

By giving to the charity, the donors whom Nuñez solicited earned tax deductions for which they would not have qualified had they given directly to Nuñez’s campaign accounts. They were also able to donate more than the $7,200 maximum allowed under California’s campaign fundraising rules.

Those donors include Zenith Insurance Co., AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc., the California Hospital Assn., the state prison guards union, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Blue Cross of California — all groups with high stakes in legislation.

The money was used for events including “Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez’s Toy Drive,” “Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez’s Soccerfest 2006,” “Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez’s Inaugural Legislative Youth Conference” and airplane flights for 50 children from Nuñez’s district for “Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez’s Sacramento Student Summit,” according to state documents.

It’s murky whether or not this constitutes a violation of federal tax laws or state ethics laws.  If he’s soliciting the donation and then directing how it’s used, maybe.  And apparently the charity itself was shut down for failing to file tax returns a couple years ago.

I would submit that the legality question is completely irrelevant.

Here’s the problem.  Power is almost entirely centralized in the leadership in the California Legislature.  If you are a business in the health care industry, and you want to impact policy, there’s only one member of the legislature that means anything to you – Fabian Nuñez.  And so you will use a variety of techniques to try to gain access and influence over the process.  If they can be so specifically directed, it’s inevitable that stories like this will permeate.  The problem is what’s LEGAL.  It’s a structural problem that invites corruption or the appearance of corruption.

The Founders decentralized power so there would be competition between the various branches.  Spreading out the number of powerful actors lessens the chance of access-buying.  The Founders foresaw political parties and factions and were violently opposed to them, and I would guess that this kind of artificial centralization was precisely the reason.  This has been a longtime problem in both national and California politics, made worse here by all the bottlenecks created in the legislature, which make certain parts of the calendar completely confusing and ripe for control by individual actors.

I’m not sure what the answer is to dilute the power of the legislative leadership, but unless you do, you’re going to keep seeing stories like this.  The target for special interests is so inviting and so focused. 
See Also:

No, I’m not worried that he’s going to come to my house and beat me up, I’m more worried that he’s going to take some of his big pile of GOP dotcom loot to some crazy propositions and campaigns. Now, if it came to fisticuffs between me and the Insurance commissioner, I’m sure the early money would be on Mr. Poizner. But as I’ve said in the past, I’m scrappy. But in the end, I’m sure he could just hire somebody to do any dirty work.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is a report from yesterday’s Capitol Weekly. You see, there’s some wild speculation that Poizner will bring a bit of his fortune to the No on 93 Campaign, otherwise known as the refuge of scoundrels like Kevin Spillane. While Capitol Weekly says that Poizner is a billionaire, he didn’t make the cut for the Forbes 400, so he’s likely sitting at less than 1.3Bn. Pauper!

They say you can tell a lot about a person from the company they keep. Well, then, his signature on the No on 93 ballot argument says that Poizner is a real nutjob masquerading as a “moderate.” Who else signed the argument? Well, TABOR champion and Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association President Jon Coupal and Martha Montelongo of the California Term Limits Defense Fund. Woot…All Aboard for CrazyTown!

The signature on the ballot argument might not be it either. Apparently Sacramento is abuzz with what could end up as a battle between the bank account of Poizner and the campaign account of Speaker Nunez:

The Committee for Term Limits and Legislative Reform, a creature of Speaker Fabian Nunez, has raised more than $2.6 million so far this year, according to records from the Secretary of State’s office. More than $2 million of that money has already been spent. Nunez has another $5.2 million in his personal account that could also potentially be used to fund the Yes campaign.

Meanwhile, opponents of the measure have raised just over $200,000 so far this year. … Privately, a number of Capitol insiders said Poizner was actively considering financing the campaign against Proposition 93. (Capitol Weekly 11.1.07)

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that he could use the anti-93 ads to promote himself, like he did with Prop 77. Poizner has gubenatorial ambitions, and this would help him with his GOP base as well. It’s like he’s an evil genius or something.  He masquerades as a moderate for the general electorate and then does favors for the far-right. No, he’s no moderate, he’s just an evil genius. And that’s one dangerous man.

See also:

“Veterans commit fraud.”  (John Campbell’s [R, Ca-48]) Listen to the story, told by the veterans to whom he made the statement.

John Campbell [R Ca-48] says “Veterans Commit Fraud.”
Steve Young stands behind our veterans.

I want to reach every veteran in the country to let them know how Campbell feels about veterans. Three veterans heard Campbell’s macaca statement. I made a commercial to tell the truth, and to demand that Campbell apologize to veterans.

$25 pays for one airing of this commercial in my District. How many times would you like to see this commercial play?

Go to Actblue:  https://secure.actbl… (and contribute) to tell George Bush and John Campbell, “Stop posing in front of soldiers, and start standing behind our veterans.”

Look at my website at www.SteveYoungforCongress.com.

Do you want to know why I am so committed to the veterans and their benefits? I took the time to put it on tape so you can hear it from the horse’s mouth:

If I am the kind of man you want in Washington, then I need help: 1.  Please contribute to my campaign at ActBlue:  https://secure.actbl… 2.  Hit the “recommend” button to keep this message visible.  3.  Send a link to this post to everyone you know who cares about veterans and their issues, no matter where they live.
Thank you,
Steve

The latest Rasmussen poll in New Hampshire shows Dennis Kucinich in fourth place, tied with Bill Richardson at 7%. This shouldn’t come as such a surprise, however.

First, Kucinich has already been tied with Richardson in various national polls, such as Rasmussen, Fox, Diego/Hotline. It’s really been the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire that Kucinich has been significantly behind in the polls, a result of the intense money being spent in those states. 

But, second, and more significantly, the Kucinich Campaign has been actively working with leadership in the Independent voting community. Jim Mangia, head of Independent Voice, who has been instrumental in introducing Kucinich to other Independents working to reform the political process; meetings with leaders in the national movement like Linda Curtis, director of Independent Texans, and Jacqueline Salit, executive editor of The Neo-Independent magazine and president of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, which:

mounts political, legal, legislative and organizing challenges to partisan control of the political process. It has pioneered methods of organizing independents without a political party, creating independent voter associations to project the voice of the 35% of the electorate that considers itself independent.

As I posted before, two weeks ago, Kucinich met with and addressed a few hundred Independents in New Hampshire, at a conference sponsored by the New Hampshire Association of Independent Voters, where he received an overwhelmingly positive response. To cheers and rounds of applause he stated:

“The Democrats have learned nothing since 2006,” he said. “Back then, the Democrats promised that if they were put back in control (of the House and Senate) that the war in Iraq would end. Now (estimates) predict there won’t be an end until at least 2013.”

“I want a Democratic party that’s responsive to the needs of all Americans . . . (politicians) shouldn’t be called upon to be loyal to one political party, we’re elected to be loyal to something with much more power – the Constitution.”

As Independents are largely a growing number of dissafected Republicans and Democrats seeking genuine political reform, ending the domination of special interests groups in the political process, and positioning themselves aggressively against this war/occupation, Kucinich is the Democrat who can best mobilize these votes in the primary and general election.

Independent voters, who now make up between 35%-42% of the electorate, have nearly grown into the majority in New Hampshire. As Jacqueline Salit noted at the conference:

registered independents in New Hampshire, for instance, have increased from about 28 percent of total voters several years ago to roughly 45 percent today…

“Why are so many (voters) becoming independents?” Salit asked. “Because by declaring ourselves independents, we’re saying we don’t like what the political parties are doing to our country.

These are the voters who are willing to take a stand. These are the voters who will not be told who is or is not electable. These are the voters that could well decide this election, and could well decide it for Kucinich.

Electability is not a fixed characteristic of a candidate, it doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. It’s easy to dismiss a candidate polling at 2-3% as unelectable. All one does is point to the polls to effectively undermine any other argument. This, further, provides the media with an excuse to not cover voices like Kucinich, creating a viscious cycle that virtually ensures the polling to remain low.

And this has been Kucinich’s major obstacle. It is the first 10-15% that is critical. Once you get there the myth of electability is no longer tenable, forcing more media coverage, exposing more voters, pushing the polls still higher, and opening the door for every Democrat who has ever said, “I like Dennis Kucinich, but…”

So, get ready, America. At 7% we’re half way there in New Hampshire!

Bill Cavala knows what he’s talking about.

In a story printed in today’s Sacramento Bee, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa is said to be “sending out letters to the same voters who signed the recall position in 2003”.

But that’s against the law. California Elections Code 18650 states clearly that, “No one shall knowingly or willfully permit the list of signatures on an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to be used for ANY PURPOSE other than qualification of the initiative, referendum or recall”. [Emphasis added] Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? Wouldn’t you expect a Member of Congress to know the law? Well, maybe we can’t expect a Republican Member of Congress to obey the law??

Somebody alert Jerry Brown.  Darrell Issa is breaking the law, and look what the result could be:

While the violation involving the use of the data is only a misdemeanor, providing the signatures, database, and anything else owned by the Recall Committee is an “in kind contribution”– an unreported contribution. The Recall committee needs to approve it in order to provide this asset to the “California Counts” committee that is trying to qualify the Electoral College scheme on the ballot. Such a use could be in violation of the trust provisions that govern ballot measure expenditures (felonies). And the unreported contribution and the person controlling the committee could be prosecuted under the criminal misdemeanor provisions of the political reform act. (Where the penalty is loss of office) (emphasis mine)

I don’t think that you could remove someone from federal office at the state level, right?  But dare to dream.  Would that be some sweet justice for the architect of the California recall, or what?