Those who know me know I'm a grumpy old man trapped inside a young but aging body. And so here goes my Andy Rooneyesque comment.
In the 2004 Nevada presidential caucuses (held on February 14th), a total of 9,000 people caucused in the entire state. No, that was not a typo. No, I did not forget some zeroes. 9,000 people. Yes, a total of 0.3 percent of Nevada's population bothered to show up to decide who their party's presidential candidate should be.
Some argue that by moving up the Nevada caucuses, the turnout will increase. For example, the Nevada Democratic Party says it expects “three or four times” that number. (Hazaaa!!! 36,000 people!) Even if that optimistic projection comes true, that's still only 1.5 percent of the state's population. That tells me that the only people who are going to show up to caucuses tomorrow are the die-hard supporters of a particular candidate , not a representative sampling of the state.
So, please tell me, why do we care what 9,000, or even 36,000 people in a politically apathetic state have to say?
On a union rooftop in downtown LA, I stood and waited for John Edwards. I took day off from work to drive from Irvine to LA. The traffic was bearable and I managed some parking as well. I ran into other local Edwards supporters from Orange County who were volunteering through the Progressive Democrats of America. It was nice to see some friendly faces and I was eager to hear John Speak, as was the rest of the crowd. They broke into changing “John Edwards” and their enthusiasm gave me the chills.
It seemed like people were paying attention, that they knew we had to give him a chance to speak and I really hope more than the people on the rooftop will have a chance to hear what he said, it’s for all of us.
Go here, to Brad Blog for the entire speech, it is well worth the listen and it was amazing.
John made an important point about why California mattered this year. Are you reading this California? If you support Edwards, it is imparative that you not only vote for him, but that you make your presence known, let people know John is still in the race, not just for you or me, but from them too.
“I am an underdog campaign, but this is where you come in,” he said in closing, his voice rising. “You can help us here in California, help a grassroots movement that spreads across this state, that spreads across this country. When that tidal wave of change is finished, we will be able to look our children in eye and say, ‘We did for our you what our parents did for us.'”
Edwards took the time to criticize Arnold for his massive spending cuts to Education, Health Care, etc. The state is losing revenue from guess what? That’s right, the housing crisis. The last thing we need to cut are services that help families that are on the verge of losing their homes or are upside down on their mortgages due to the huge decline in housing values. My home has lost 10% of it’s value in one year, what if I have a major illness? What if I lose my job? I would be that much closer to losing my home when it’s not even worth what I bought for a year ago.
He fired up the crowd by ripping into California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed education and state health care budget cuts. “The last thing that needs to happen in the state of California is to have any of the funding that is that is necessary to provide health care for Californians cut,” he said, adding: “Who in the world in America thinks we have too much money invested in public education? This makes absolutely no sense.”
Above are three of the people who helped introduce Edwards to the LA Crowd in the downtown headquarters of a local SEIU Union Hall. I really enjoyed Annelle Grajeda’s introduction the most, she really focussed on why Edwards is the candidate not just for union families, but working families.
“John Edwards is the change candidate in this campaign — the candidate with not only the boldest ideas for change, but the candidate who can win in November, strengthen Democratic majorities in Congress and at the state level, and make his ideas a reality,” said SEIU CA State Council President Annelle Grajeda. “John Edwards can go to any part of the country and help Democrats down-ballot. With John Edwards as our nominee, we can get the change we need.”
“I’m proud to support John Edwards because he understands, better than any other candidate, the challenges facing working Americans,” said L.A. City Councilman Richard Alarcón. “Whether it’s truly universal health care, fixing America’s trade policy or ending America’s involvement in Iraq, John Edwards has offered real solutions to the challenges Americans face, and he’s determined to be a voice for regular people. I truly believe we need his leadership in the White House.”
“After eight years of George Bush, it is critical that we have a Democrat in the White House,” said L.A. City Councilman Herb Wesson. “We need a candidate who can bring real change to America and who can win. That candidate is John Edwards. He can compete and win in every part of the country, including red states and battleground states because Americans identify with who he is and what he stands for – fairness and opportunity and making sure everyone has a chance.”
Alercon made a great point, why are we paying so much attention to New Hampshire and Iowa? Californians need to change the tone of the race and really send the most important message of all, well monied campaigns are great, but it doesn’t mean they have to win, even in big states like California.
“I’m asking you, California, are you going to follow Iowa? Are you going to follow New Hampshire? Or are you going to stand alone as Californians and also send a message across America?”
John addressed an issue that is so important to Californians, alternative sources of power. I came across this on youtube from yesterday’s rally and wanted to add it.
Didn’t take this one, it was from the opposite side of the rooftop.
The comments that hit me the most are the ones about comparing the the wages and bonuses of CEO’s (Health care CEO makes 200 million) and the profits of large corporations (Oil company rakes in 40 BILLION in profits as families struggle to pay for heating oil!) to the millions of Americans who are lacking Health Care, housing, food and education.
John Edwards does not want to cut profits and wages, he wants to insure that no one is left behind while the people on top profit to excess. It’s the disparity that’s troublesome to me, to John and to many others. At what point is it okay to make a profit while denying coverage to people who pay their benefits? And John is standing his ground on Mandates, he’s proud to say his plan requires that people get health care and that pre-existing conditions will be a thing of the past. Your health care should go with you, where ever you work and what ever you do. Imagine that?
You could tell how much he loved the crowd and how happy he was to be there, his energy level was amazing as was his candor, his honesty and his ability to bring it down to just a few important points. The system is broken and when it does work, it’s working for far too few and leaving so many out, mostly working families and single household families with working mothers. (Personal rant, why the hell can’t we help those women who stick, who stay to raise their children? Why must shelters turn away women with children to go back to the streets? How is this okay in any society? I ask this as a child of a single mother, who lived in dingy apartments, relatives basements and other conditions to escape an abusive relationship. This was a bold move for my mother to make in 1972 and it’s not any easier 35 years later?)
“To get real change, we need a president who will stand up against the big corporations and powerful interests who control Washington,” said Edwards. “The American people – whether they live in rural areas or urban areas, red states or blue states – need a President who will stand up for them. As President, I will make sure the voices of all Americans are heard in Washington. If we fight together, we can get the change we need and America will rise.”
And there were a few times where John had to stop talking because th cheering was just not going to quit. He loved it, he knew his message was getting to the right people.
The photo I took as I tried to get closer and talk to John. Ha! Right.
This is where I was, in the back, happy to see all the media and news vans, thank God.
At the end John was swarmed by so many people and I had chosen to be far back rather than up front where I started. I regret not being a bit closer, just so I could at least tell him one thing, I’m proud that I support him, I’m proud of the campaign he’s running and I don’t regret being such a vocal supporter of his, he’s really proven to me that I made the right choice. He’s still fighting, so I too will continue.
This woman and her son were waiting to say hi to John, but she didn’t dare try to push forward, so I asked if I could take their photo. Her son was so happy to be there too, he was bouncing, he was giggling and he was joyful. It made my day!
And here are some photos of the rally that other people took, which are so much better than mine. I need a nicer camera!
I voted for John yesterday as did my Mother. She was happy too.
I saved this from our kick off meeting, Orange County for Edwards. It’s Stephanie, my cousin and some kid I found hanging out at my house 🙂
We just arrived on the Strip about 20 minutes ago. We’ll be at campaign events for Obama and Clinton tonight, and out at the caucus sites tomorrow (Mittens Romney will be out at a caucus site at 7:30am, so that could be fun).
I find it instructive to watch the local news reports on caucus eve. Despite what you’d think, there’s been about 3 minutes of coverage of the caucuses in the last half-hour. They’ve actually devoted more to the local women’s roller derby team than the caucuses. (ah, local news). One station had an end-of-the-newscast story where the reporter showed a bunch of pictures of the candidates to people on the street and asked them to name them. It wasn’t pretty.
When people say they don’t know who’ll show up to these caucuses, I believe it. It doesn’t seem as central to the local scene as, say, the Danny Gans show.
One thing I did notice on the news: Nevada’s unemployment rate is up to 5.8%, the highest rate since April of 2002. I’ve heard that it’s been a bad winter in Las Vegas, which may impact the desire of people to caucus if it means missing their shift at the casinos. (By the way, the casinos made $25 billion last year, so they’re not exactly hurting; but the employees aren’t doing all that well.)
Obama and Clinton both have ads up; Clinton’s has this old NFL Films music on it, and it’s a little surprising that they went el cheapo on the score).
Back in November Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he was going to undertake a new initiative to privatize more of the building and management of public works projects here in California. Known as “public-private partnerships” or “P3,” they’ve been employed around the world with poor results. At the time I denounced it as a dangerous giveaway, and Democratic candidate for AD-27 (should Prop 93 fail) Emily Reilly added her perspective on the failure of outsourcing design/build projects.
The Schwarzenegger administration is contemplating a plan, probably requiring state legislation, to create a California agency to oversee state and local public-private partnerships, aides said. Modeled after one in British Columbia, it would be staffed by professional financiers and other experts who could oversee the structuring of deals by both state and local governments.
But in reality, the BC model is NOT one we want to follow, as it instead proves that P3 is a costly waste that gives us nothing but higher costs and poorer quality services. So argues Bill Tieleman, one of the province’s leading left-of-center voices. Tieleman claims BC Premier Gordon Campbell, a right-wing champion of P3, has “pulled the wool over the terminator’s eyes” on these projects:
In the vast majority of examples here in B.C. and elsewhere, the costs are higher as the public gets hosed to provide private corporations with substantial profits.
The Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre was to cost $211 million under the original P3 budget and open in 2005 – the current estimated cost is $355 million, a 68 per cent jump, and it will open this year instead.
The William Bennett Bridge in Kelowna – priced at $100 million, now estimated at $170 million, up 70 per cent.
The rapid transit Canada Line to the airport was budgeted at $1.55 billion but will now cost $2 billion, or 29 per cent more.
Or look to Brampton, Ont., which was promised a new P3 hospital with 608 beds for $350 million. It now has a hospital with just 479 beds for $550 million.
Read on for more details and examples of how this is already being implemented, without a vote of the Legislature…
As Tieleman explains, the fundamental architecture of a P3 means that it has no hope of being a good deal for Californians:
The higher costs only makes sense because can any corporation, even the world’s largest, borrow money at lower interest rates than a government? Of course not, but these enormous capital projects require significant loans to be completed.
The real reason governments use P3s is to take public infrastructure costs off their books and falsely claim they are balancing budgets and reducing debt. In reality they are borrowing money at higher rates over longer periods of time than if they had done them as public projects.
Read that again. To undertake a massive public works project, like a new Bay Bridge or high speed rail requires massive borrowing. Government can almost always borrow more cheaply than the private sector. Further, credit is becoming very difficult – and expensive – to come by in the current credit crunch. The low interest rates of the last 25 years are not likely to be seen again, certainly not on a consistent basis. Yet even before the current crunch, P3 projects have run into serious financial problems and cost overruns.
All P3 accomplishes is an accounting gimmick. The claims of savings to public budgets is Enron accounting at its finest.
Deputy Secretary James Bougart from the California Department Business, Transportation and Housing announced the formation of a performance based infrastructure group that will form private public partnerships. The mission and methods partnerships will contain elements found in British Columbia and Ontario Canada. Commissioner Zarian asked if there was a list of private providers, but Mr. Bougart replied that some capital fund managers are interested in such partnerships and once the CTC has ‘real authority’ to lead, private contractors will be contacted.
So even though, as Tieleman noted, P3 in BC and Ontario has been a colossal failure, we’re plowing right ahead? And I assume it’s just happenstance that “some capital fund managers are interested.”
Over twenty years, California expects to spend $500 billion on infrastructure, formerly called public works.
Ah, newspeak rears its lovely head. When exactly did we all agree to this name change?
California has over a century of success with using public agencies to build public works. Our freeways are one of the world’s great engineering marvels, as is the California Aqueduct, BART, the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach, etc. But because Arnold isn’t willing to properly fund public works, we’re going to go down a path that brings us a lower quality service for a higher cost. Taxes are never fun, but they are FAR more affordable to Californians and bring much better, effective projects than P3.
Hopefully we’ll listen when friendly British Columbians point that out to us, and not let our government repeat the mistakes of theirs.
We have our fair share of labor skirmishes here, (I refer you to my WTF is up with SEIU posts) but Nevada has its share as well. In the presidential caucus battles, well skirmishes would be putting it nicely. Marc Cooper describes it in different terms:
But this is no run-of-the-mill get-out-the-vote campaign of the sort frequently run by labor in election season. This isn't a ground game, to use the parlance. It's a veritable ground war. Campaign against campaign. Union against union. Unions against the Democratic Party. Even faction against faction inside some unions. (Marc Cooper 1/17/08)
The battle seems to really have been set up when the Culinary Workers, who represent many casino workers, endorsed Barack Obama. Just two days later, the Nevada State Education Association, who are generally considered unofficial Clinton supporters, sued to block caucus locations in casinos. Well, the Culinary workers aren't exactly digging that. And this election might be different than other Nevada elections, with powerful ramifications for the unions:
“This was mock outrage from the teacher's union. It stinks,” Eric Herzik of the University of Nevada, Reno tells the Huffington Post. “These rules have been in place for the last six months, and they file a suit two days after Culinary endorses [Obama].”
“Filing the suit was ill advised,” Herzik said, “because by losing the suit, all you have done is irritate Culinary. So now you've riled up Culinary, they get upset and they go vote for Obama.”
But with media attention now so intensely focused on the union role in Nevada's caucuses, especially that of the Culinary, is labor's clout being unrealistically over-estimated? “Definitely a possibility,” says Nevada historian Green. “I think this could be very dangerous to Culinary if Obama doesn't win.”
The union has an impressive record of carrying local and sometimes statewide elections, Green says. But there's no guarantee that clout is transferable to national contests. “Culinary might have bitten off more than it can chew,” he says. “I don't think anyone really knows how much influence the union leadership has over some newly arrived workers who are trying to make up their minds among three candidates with strong national presence.”
More from Nevada when we get there this afternoon.
KPBS is reporting that a Superior court judge has tentatively ruled against a lawsuit by the San Diego country registrar of voters. As reported here on Calitics, the SD registrar had sued California Secretary of State Debra Bowen because, basically, San Diego county doesn’t like the idea of being forced to have clean elections. The larger issue at stake is how much authority Bowen has in assuring clean, fair elections for all Californians.
The argument was over a requirement for counties with electronic voting to hand count 10% of votes in the event of a very, very close election (within 0.5%). Recall that our registrar of voters is a former Diebold sales rep, and the deputy registrar is the notorious Michael Vu, whose underlings from his previous registrar job are now in prison for violating elections law. Good times!
The issue at stake in this lawsuit was a claim by the SD Registrar that Debra Bowen exceeded her authority by setting the 10% requirement (previously only 1% of votes had to be hand-counted). The SD registrar argued that “absent an express command” from the legislature, Bowen cannot act. As I understand it, the counter-argument is that without these additional safeguards, e-voting systems are not certifiable at all (as per Bowen’s in-depth analysis of them last year).
All I can say is thank goodness for Debra Bowen, and thank goodness this case has reaffirmed her power to ensure fair elections for everyone.
This ruling is tentative. If the judge stands by the decision in the next step, the county has vowed to appeal. Boo!!
Two groups of Caliticians will be hitting Nevada for the weekend to cover the caucuses on Saturday afternoon. I will be with Todd Beeton of MyDD in Las Vegas; and Brian, Juls and I believe Lucas will be in the Reno area. In Vegas, we’ll be hitting the “closing argument” events from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Friday night (John Edwards actually has a morning event in Vegas that we’ll probably miss, and then he leaves Nevada for Oklahoma and Missouri), and we’ll make an appearance at one of the at-large precinct caucuses on the Strip on Saturday. I’ll let the NorCal component check in with their plans.
Obama also complained that his supporters were getting calls and fliers from Clinton supporters accusing his health care plan of leaving 15 million Americans uninsured. Obama brushed aside the charge and then proceeded to criticize President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for attempting health care reform “the wrong way” last decade. “They went behind closed doors to do it and allowed lobbyists the and health care industry to shape the plan and eventually kill it.”
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, of New York, and John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, said they would require all Americans to get coverage and would provide subsidies to that end, while Senator Barack Obama, of Illinois, says that as president he would require only children to have coverage. Mr. Obama’s plan would require employers to provide coverage or contribute to a new public program.
Note that word “requires.” The Times is buying into the framing of the insurance industry, and their proposal to solve the healthcare crisis by an “individual mandate”-requirement-that everyone purchase expensive, for-profit insurance products.
