Russ Warner is hammering David Dreier over his SCHIP vote.  This is a great ad:

Warner is using the vote as a symbol for how out of touch Dreier has become over his 28 years serving conservative ideological masters instead of his constituents.  The other thing that strikes me is the quality of the ad, and that he’s releasing it on the Web.  At 44 seconds it takes its time to explain the issue in a bit more detail (though I’m sure it can be cut down into a :30 television spot), yet it plays very much as something that would be broadcast. 

I kind of wish there was some Democratic branding in the spot, but overall it’s very good.

(UPDATE: The ACLU and CREDO, formerly Act For Change, are also pushing Sen. Feinstein.)

In addition to the buzz in the blogosphere about activist efforts to censure Dianne Feinstein for her votes with Bush Republicans on key issues, some of the top progressive organizations have DiFi in their sights.  MoveOn is asking their California members to call Feinstein about tomorrow’s vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee over the revised FISA bill, and tell her not to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies who violated the law by handing over information to the Bush Administration.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is facing tremendous pressure from the Bush administration. Tomorrow, she will likely vote on whether or not to let the phone companies off the hook for helping the president illegally spy on the phone calls and emails of innocent Americans.

President Bush wants immunity for these companies to cover-up his own illegal actions. The pending lawsuits against companies like AT&T may be the only way we ever find out how far the Bush administration went in breaking the law.

We have to make sure Sen. Feinstein hears from us right away. Can you call Sen. Feinstein and tell her to vote against immunity for big corporations who break the law? Tell her that voters want accountability and oversight-not immunity.

Here’s where to call:
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: 202-224-3841

DiFi has already signaled her intention to allow telecom immunity for lawbreakers, but clearly she needs to feel the pressure.  What is far more interesting is DFA’s effort to have Feinstein removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee altogether.  on the flip…

In California, we have a law — commonly called the three-strikes law. And, like all laws, I think it ought to apply to everybody — including my Senator, Diane Feinstein.

Too many times Senator Feinstein has failed to represent the people of California. Now she has announced that this Thursday she will support President Bush for the third time in two months. And it all comes down to Senator Feinstein’s role on the Judiciary Committee.

Strike One: A Bush nominee for the federal bench, Leslie Southwick has a long history of rulings in lower courts that violate equality laws. Feinstein cast a deciding vote to give him a lifetime seat.

Strike Two: Michael Mukasey, nominated for Attorney General, refused to say he would oppose torture. But Feinstein voted to send his confirmation to the Senate floor anyway.

Now she’s poised for her third bad vote in a row, on a rework of the FISA Act — the law that’s supposed to protect us all against illegal wiretapping […]

Please call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid right now and demand he remove Senator Feinstein from the committee and replace her with a Democrat who will stand up to President Bush’s abuse of power.

Senator Harry Reid
202-224-3542

As I’ve said, progressives in California are looking for ways to get DiFi’s attention, and inform her that she works for the people of this state, not elites in DC.  These are two national organizations working at the local level to do just that.

CTA is out in force trying to prevent the CDP from endorsing Prop 92, just as they did with the Clean Money proposition last year. The reason they’re against it is that most community college faculty are AFT members rather than CTA. The California Labor Association is in favor of Prop 92.

If you’re an eboard member, please join me this Sunday in voting to endorse Prop 92. A letter from Senator Jack Scott follows.

Dear Fellow Democrat:

According to a statewide survey recently released by the Public Policy Institute of California, over 70 percent of Californians say that the state’s economy will need a higher percentage of college-educated workers in 20 years.  In addition, over 75 percent say the state’s college system is “very important” to California’s future.

Unfortunately, a strong majority (65 percent) also say that many residents who are qualified don’t have the opportunity to attend college.  Two-thirds of adults think that the cost of college prevents qualified, motivated students from pursuing higher education.

P.S. The California State Labor Federation recently endorsed Proposition 92.

(A cool event if you can make it to SF’s Civic Center at noon today. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Last month, Brian wrote about the return of Proposition 90. This “Son of 90” initiative is once again rearing it’s ugly head in California — today marks the kickoff of the opposition campaign.

At noon, across the street from San Francisco’s City Hall, Assemblyman Mark Leno will rally against this deceptive ballot measure with Susan Leal, General Manager, SF Public Utilities Commission; Ted Gullickson, SF Tenants Union; Barbara Blong, Senior Action Network; John Rizzo, Sierra Club; Tim Paulson, SF Labor Council and the League of California Cities.

The San Francisco Sentinel reports:

Opponents argue the Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property measure could displace 180,000 residents living in rent-controlled residences.

“If this measure were to pass, thousands of San Franciscans would be forced out of the city,” said Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenants Union.

“Seniors especially would be hard hit if they lost their rent control protections.”

Paul Hogarth has a long piece for Beyond Chron:

But you don’t have to be a tenant to be outraged about CPOFPA – you just have to drink water. Other parts of the ballot initiative – which would be enshrined in the state’s Constitution – would prohibit the acquisition of land and water through eminent domain to develop public water projects. The initiative would ban eminent domain for private use, but Section 19(b)(3)(ii) includes such “private use” as the transfer of property rights to a “public agency for the consumption of natural resources.”

What does that mean? Any construction projects to deliver running water would be ruled unconstitutional. San Francisco’s long-term plan to revamp Hetch Hetchy that provides our clean water would be nixed, as well as other efforts to bring public drinking water to California’s growing population. That’s why Susan Leal, who manages our Public Utilities Commission, will be speaking out at today’s rally in opposition.

Anyone who cares about the environment should oppose CPOFPA. The proposition would ban laws or regulations that “transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner.” Because the courts have ruled that virtually all land-use decisions and environmental laws can transfer an economic benefit from one party to another, these laws could suddenly be out the window. That’s why John Rizzo, who chairs the local Sierra Club, will be speaking out today. Other environmental groups are expected to come out in opposition as well.

Right-wing proponents of CPOFPA are hoping that voters will get confused – and simply support it because it says it will restrict eminent domain. There are legitimate reasons to oppose eminent domain abuse – nobody wants the government to take someone’s property and give it to a private developer like Wal-Mart. The Supreme Court’s 2005 decision allowing a local city to take peoples’ homes for private use was certainly misguided. But the solution is not to ban rent control, repeal environmental laws and make it impossible to provide clean drinking water.

Attend if you can.

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

If you work for Hillary Clinton and your candidate’s ahead in the polls, your job is to avoid unpleasant surprises – even if it means planting questions in the audience.  Last week, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old college student, attended a campaign event in Iowa – where a Hillary staffer asked if she wanted to ask a question.  When Muriel told them what question she wanted to ask, they said “no” and gave her a typed query – one that would not make news, and allow Clinton to repeat her campaign talking points.  I got to ask Hillary a tough question at the Yearly Kos Convention in August – but Clinton has done her best to avoid such unscripted moments, as her “inevitable” nomination rolls along.  After Muriel got some media attention, the Hillary camp asked her to stop talking to the press.  Kind of reminds me how two Clinton staffers confronted me after my exchange with the Senator.  Hillary’s campaign is running a tight ship, but planting questions to control the message speaks volumes about a candidate we simply can’t trust.

I really feel for how Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff went along with what the Clinton camp asked her to do.  Ten years ago, I was a politically minded college student myself – eager to attend events and talk to high-level politicians.  Right now, candidates in Iowa are swarming the state to win the presidential caucus in January – so being a college student in Iowa is very exciting.  Muriel attended a Clinton campaign event because she wanted to learn more, and was thrilled to be asked if she had a question.  “I thought it was a great opportunity,” she told CNN.  “[Hillary] might be our next President.”

But when the camp asked Muriel before the event what her question would be, they were not happy with what she had in mind.  She wanted to ask how Hillary’s energy plan compared with what her Democratic opponents’ had to offer, but an aide said he wasn’t sure if Clinton knew enough about the other plans to give an intelligent response.  So he pulled out an official binder, tore out a page with 8 pre-written questions – and told her to ask the one that was under the heading “college student.”

The question they told her to ask – “As a young person, I am concerned about the long-term effects of global warming.  How does your plan combat climate change?” – was a softball question that allowed Hillary to give a detailed response about her platform.  Politicians don’t like questions that make the news, because it takes them off-message.  They would rather repeat their talking points that reporters will jot down, and avoid anything that could shift the outcome of an election.  The question they gave Muriel allowed Clinton to do just that.

In fact, it sounds a lot like the first question Hillary got asked at the Yearly Kos Convention that I attended.  That question – “How will you reform No Child Left Behind?” – allowed Hillary to give a long-winded nine-minute response in a break-out session where only 30 minutes were allotted to take questions.  I don’t know if that first questioner was a plant, but it certainly ate up time where Clinton could have been grilled about Iraq in a crowd skeptical about her presidential campaign.

My question at the session put Hillary on the defensive – where she got stuck defending the less pleasant parts of her husband’s Administration (Defense of Marriage Act, Telecommunications Act, NAFTA and Welfare Repeal), and quite a few media outlets picked up on it.  But it’s almost as if I got called on by accident.  Out of five lucky people who asked questions, I was the only one her Internet Director did not call out by name – as he instead addressed me as “the man in the red shirt.”

As Muriel left the Iowa campaign event, she overheard another attendee say that he too had been told by the Clinton camp to ask Hillary his question.  Only four people (out of 200) at the event got to ask the Senator a question, so Hillary’s campaign managed to plant half of the questions – as the national press corps simply looked on.  “The question-and-answer sessions in Iowa are really important,” said Muriel in a later CNN interview.  “But if you’re planting the questions in advance, that takes the voters out of it.”

Muriel said in the interview that she didn’t know if other campaigns pursue such tactics, but that if one does it the others probably do as well.  The Obama, Edwards and Richardson campaigns have all denied planting questions at their events – and I believe them.  At Yearly Kos, Hillary had her Internet Director call on people during the break-out session – whereas the other candidates blindly called on audience members.  John Edwards even allowed follow-up questions.

It’s an unfortunate part of this year’s primary season as Hillary plows ahead with the Democratic nomination under the guise of “inevitability.”  If she can avoid unscripted moments, she will be the next President because no unpleasant surprises means no momentum change for the other candidates.  Her campaign juggernaut is a machine that simply moves in cruise control – even if it means planting questions in the audience.

After they got busted in Iowa, the Clinton camp asked Muriel to keep things quiet.  When she told a college reporter about the planted question, Muriel asked as a courtesy that he notify the Clinton campaign – proving that she does not have an axe to grind with anyone involved.  Suddenly she got a call from Hillary’s Iowa Director of Publicity.  While they politely confirmed Muriel’s account of what happened, their last comment to her was “the campaign would like you to not talk about it anymore.”

Sounds like the contact I had with Hillary’s campaign after my question at Yearly Kos.  On the final night, as the delegates were all drinking at 1:00 a.m. to celebrate a great Convention, I suddenly got approached by two Hillary staffers – a man and a woman – who started a “good-cop, bad-cop” confrontation with me.  The woman thanked me profusely for “asking such a smart question,” while the guy said, “I’m not going to leave you alone until you become a Hillary supporter.”

Needless to say, he was not successful — and after we talked for about five minutes, he yelled “you’re helping the terrorists” and they both walked away.  Apparently, getting unscripted moments is just too much to handle for Hillary Clinton – as her campaign machine chugs along to win the nomination.  Question-and-answer sessions that give the appearance of “dialogue” are treated like TV commercials, and people who break through their machine are “problems” that need to be dealt with.  That is not the type of democracy that we deserve — and are brought up to respect.

EDITOR’S NOTE: To read Paul Hogarth’s self-serving advice on how to ask a tough question, check out this article.  Send feedback to [email protected]

In MySpace, a profile called Dump Arabo appeared with rainbow flags, a picture of men together, and other homosexual themes.

This site is in response to an incident where Auday Arabo, on behalf of his grocers association, apologizes for Miller’s sponsorship of a gay function in the Bay Area.

Whether true or not, I was struck by the use of a MySpace profile to hit a candidate in the primary. The fingerprints seem to point in the direction of Sacramento and here are my reasons:

The Arlie Ricasa’s campaign wouldn’t waste its time trying to tear down Arabo and Marty Block’s people are too establishment to think in this direction, at least in San Diego. Because in the 78th, the “gay issue” only really moves votes among conservative to moderate African Americans who, due to demographics, are falling as a voting bloc. The new voters, the new homeowners, and the recent immigrants are too much of a “wild card” to bet on as votes in the district so you go with what you know. It saves on money and manpower.

This is not how we San Diegans would call it, but this is how Sacramento would. If all you know of the 78th is what you read as far as registration goes, then you have misjudged the district and, lets be honest, Sacramento has done this hat trick too often to be an “accident” every time.

If it turns out that the hit is false, the LGBT community may otherwise look at Arabo as a viable option because he was attacked.

And the use of the Bronski Beat song? I mean, come on! That smells of someone called in to be stereotypical rather than real.

Which gets me back to MySpace. Unless you’re twelve, why would you even go there? Teens can’t vote. And the 78th isn’t know for being a hub of wireless Internet connections. Again, another example of how little is known about voters in the 78th and the sad attempts to manipulate the voters there.

Cross Posted at San Diego Politico