Some things from around the state:
I will reiterate that I support Scott. I do so not because of his politics. I disagree with him on occasion, and perhaps agree with Peskin more often. But the fact is that Scott has a done a great job at the nuts and bolts of party building.
I work for Courage Campaign
Thanks to Bob Brigham, who brought these to us in Austin, we have a number of buttons that read “iCensure DiFi” – you see mine at right:
(also pictured are buttons for the heroic Darcy Burner)
We’ve passed out several dozen already to Californians and others who support holding our Senator accountable for her repeated failures on the Constitution and on protecting the rule of law. Interestingly we’re distributing them while Harold Ford is speaking.
Support for iCensure here in Austin mirrors the support we’ve found for relaunching the censure resolution of DiFi – 95% of the 12,000 votes cast supported a new censure resolution.
If you’re here in Austin and want some iCensure schwag for yourself, come find me or Eden James or Julia Rosen and we’ll happily hook you up.
I have been looking over the candidates for District 3 Supervisor and, at this point, I am leaning toward supporting Lynn Jefferson as my first choice. Joe Alioto is no option, Wilma Pang is out to lunch, Claudine Cheng seems too closely tied to the Downtown developers and I have serious doubts about David Chiu’s readiness (nothing related to the unfortunate swiftboating). From what I have read and heard thus far, Jefferson seems like someone with the right balance. “Moderate” seems to be a nasty word in the City, but thre is a differnce between moderation and Carmen Chiu’s reactionary voting record.
But before I commit to anyone, I need a Devil’s Advocate, someone to make the case against votoing for her. Yes, I know she is a member of the North Beach Chamber of Commerce but I don’t think business is inherently bad. Here is the one message form her website that really stands out.
I strongly support preserving our neighborhood character and have spent countless hours before the Planning Commission fighting to keep our neighborhood character vibrant and unique. But the zoning policies pursued by our current leadership have gone beyond keeping chain stores out and have hurt the very businesses that make District 3 the neighborhood residents and visitors love so much.
When zoning policies are driven by narrow special interests, we end up with vacant buildings and storefronts that no one can afford to operate a business in. We can keep our neighborhood character and ensure the success of small businesses that serve the needs of residents and visitors.
It IS out of hand. Too many building are left vacant because there is always one group ready to object to a certain kind of development and we let the perfect become the enemy of the good. So there it is. Who do you think is the best choice out there?
After having made an excellent tax revenue proposal to solve the budget, are Democrats setting themselves up for an epic FAIL on the budget? Unfortunately it seems that way as they seriously considering raiding transportation and local government funds to balance the budget:
Legislative leaders are drafting a complicated scheme to help close the state’s massive deficit by raiding funds voters have set aside for transportation and local government services, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday, adding that it probably would force a state sales tax hike….
The legislative plan would balance the state budget with the help of $1.1 billion voters set aside for transportation projects and at least $1.4 billion earmarked for local governments under Proposition 1A, which was approved in 2004, Schwarzenegger said. State law requires that the money be paid back — at a steep interest rate — in three years.
To say this would be a bad idea is an understatement, and not only because it relies on a very bad form of borrowing to balance the budget. No, it is flawed because it would make the state’s economy much worse. This plan is being floated to stave off a cash crisis in August, but is that crisis worse than cutting buses and trains from mass transit? At a time when Californians are flocking to transit to avoid gas prices we need to be increasing service, not cutting it and thereby turning away from a crucial opportunity to shift our state in a more sustainable direction. And of course public transit cuts will worsen the strain on working families.
The impact on local government is even more damaging. By raiding their funds there will be mass layoffs in cities across the state – libraries, street maintenance, permit approvals. Firefighting would also be hit, as during the last budget crisis when many cities balanced their budgets by cutting back on fire department staffing. Surely the fires in our state right now would suggest the risk of this approach.
Dems might respond that they have little choice because of Republican obstinacy on taxes. But that is absurd. Democrats have done almost nothing to sell their budget plan, which was agreed to rather late in the process. They haven’t done the public work to explain why the budget cannot be closed via cuts. And make no mistake – raiding transit and local governments IS a budget that emphasizes cuts. It gives Republicans everything they want with little in return.
Republicans claim they don’t negotiate in public but we all know that’s untrue. Californians perfectly well understand what their stand is – no new taxes. What have Democrats responded with?
Democrats should not embrace this plan. All it will accomplish is increased distrust of the Legislature – if possible – and sour voters on Democrats due to their leadership failure. Dems will have difficulty generating the public support necessary for long-term fixes if they agree to a plan which will cause confidence in government to plummet. This will only hurt Democrats over the long-term and they would be smart to take a step back and consider what they’re doing.
[Update] I wrote this in a panel here at Netroots Nation on building progressive activism to help the “middle class” that includes our own Juls Rosen and David Sirota. The panelists are making brilliant points about how tax reform is the key to addressing the collapsing middle class – and how the right has effectively used taxes to pass themselves off as populist. People want tax fairness. Democrats need to be forced to take a stand on taxes. California Dems are once again looking to punt and are going to hurt working Californians in the process.
Prop 8 was highlighted in today’s Field Poll release (PDF). And there is some very good news here:
Prop 8: Yes 42%, No 51%
No, this isn’t old data. The numbers have been completely static since the May Field Poll (PDF). Marriages have happened, and yet the sky hasn’t fallen. Those people that the Gail Knights, Dennis Hollingsworths, and Randy Thommasson need to convince that the world will surely end if committed loving LGBT couples are allowed to marry are just not buying it. The anti-marriage forces were not all that successful in getting coverage on June 16 when the marriages began. The stories in the media were all about the stable relationships that were now being granted the same standing as any other marriage. How can you be against Del and Phyllis solemnizing their relationship after 55 years? Or Carol and Rachel after 13 years? Or any of the other committed relationships?
The answer is a resounding silence. Californians are not outraged. A whole lot of nothing.
There are all sorts of great numbers in the full report on Field’s site. Eventually, you’ll be able to get full cross-tabs on the CapAlert site. The thing that jumps out most obviously is party affiliation. Interestingly, “Other” (DTS, etc.) was pretty much equally likely to vote no as Democrats. Also interesting is that while young voters are the most likely to oppose Prop 8, even voters over 65 aren’t as strongly opposed as they once were. In fact, the vote is pretty much even in that category.
| Prop 8 | Yes | No | Undecided |
| Democrats | 30 | 63 | 7 |
| Republicans | 68 | 27 | 5 |
| Others | 27 | 66 | 7 |
| 18-30 | 41 | 55 | 4 |
| 65+ | 46 | 47 | 7 |
I’m a bit skeptical of these age numbers. Ok, more than a bit skeptical, as the 50-59 numbers are totally wacky at 38% Yes, 57% No, quite a flip from the May numbers. I’ll try to contact the Field folks about this and see if they have any thoughts on this switch.
UPDATE: Here are the CapAlert cross-tabs(PDF). The 50-59 group is a set of about 190 people, so not a completely tiny set of respondents there.
There is a new Field Poll on Proposition 8 – the Hate amendment. The dead-enders still supporting the Yatch Party are going down with the ship. But 63% of Democrats are voting no and so-called Independents are even more progressive with 66% against putting discrimination in the Constitution. That accounts for a current score of 51% No to 42% Yes. That’s right, it is way under 50, hell, the good guys are up by 9 pts.
This year brings the third iteration of Energize America, a netroots project launched in 2006 by a group of Kossacks including A Siegel and Jérôme a Paris of European Tribune. This year’s panel is heavy on Democratic candidates – US Senate candidates Jeff Merkley and Mark Begich are here, as is Debbie Cook, who is of course running for Crazy Dana’s seat in CA-46. It’s great to see them taking such a lead on energy policy.
[Update] Jérôme opens with a chart showing where oil was in 2006 – $75/bbl. We’re nearly double that today. “If you’re just grumbling it’s not high enough yet.”
Provides a good overview of Peak Oil. The only way out is demand destruction – “you’re going to have to stop burning oil whether we like it or not.” The only issue is how we will destroy demand – whether it’s forced upon us without any plan or whether we can plan for the inevitable.
Mark Sumner – “anybody who thinks we can drill our way out is crazy” – oil producing nations are heading into decline, so there’s not enough oil on the North Slope or off our own coast in California to make up for this ongoing decline. Points out that the estimates of high costs and lost jobs from the 1990 Clean Air Act never materialized – so why should we trust industry/right-wing estimates being floated today?
A Siegel floats a 5-part agenda for progress: improve capacity for change, 50 state impact, public-private and fed-state-local partnerships, not a comprehensive solution, and establish freshman class (in Congress) leadership. This last part is vital – Democrats are doing an extremely poor job in Congress on energy issues. New blood can help turn that failure around.
Debbie Cook is up now – the peakists haven’t yet won, we still have work to do explaining peak oil. Our national policy agenda is “more of the same” – drill, flatten mountains, starve people to put corn into our gas tanks. She is really good on this – clear and engaged.
Cook makes a point I’ve personally argued but never seen anyone else point out – we lived perfectly happy lives in America before the oil age. We don’t need oil to find prosperity and contentment. Extolling walkable communities and community gardens. Red meat (to me at least!).
What will we look like in 50 years? Uses her town, Huntington Beach, as an example of change – from oil derricks to new density (though not nearly enough of it).
Mark Begich up now – currently mayor of Anchorage and candidate against Tubes Stevens in Alaska. It is VERY significant that he is here – for an Alaskan politician to speak out against new drilling, drilling that results in an actual check to Alaska residents, is a welcome act of reality that more Democrats would do well to emulate.
Most of his talk is about retrofitting existing buildings and cities to be more energy efficient. It’s useful but not exactly bold.
Jeff Merkley is at the podium, currently the speaker of the Oregon House and running against Gordon Smith. Now we need “Energy Smart Congress” to complement the other Energy Smart projects. Amen to that. Sort of a campaign speech as opposed to the policy-focused talks that came before.
Q&A over the flip.
Matt Stoller points out that we have a framing problem – the right is getting traction from “Drill Now!” because it’s clear leadership, whereas Democrats are more muddled. How do we counter this?
Mark Begich takes the first response – says we need to know where we’re going first. Not sure that’s a good answer to Stoller’s concerns but if developed this can have value. Stoller wants to know how we can help but Begich doesn’t give a clear response. Merkley doesn’t really do it either.
Cook has a much better response – borrows from Lakoff, “drilling is killing.” Makes a key point – we don’t need another Apollo or Manhattan Project, this isn’t a scientific government project, but it instead need to be a citizen-led effort. Absolutely – unless Americans take responsibility and become participants in this, we will never change how we live.
Merkley calls for a West Coast high speed rail from Seattle to Portland to CA. Woohoo!
My conclusions: Debbie Cook is brilliant. Begich and Merkley aren’t as willing to be bold. The other three activists – A Siegel, Jérôme, Mark Sumner seemed a bit overshadowed by the candidates, which is a shame, but this has the potential for good collaborations, especially once these folks get in office.
In an unanticipated flip flop (this one in particular, not the flipping in general) this past weekend while in San Diego addressing the National Council of La Raza, John McCain signaled his unequivocal support for the DREAM Act:
Q: “Will you support humanity all across the world and support The DREAM Act that we are trying to pass?”
A: “Yes. Yes, but I will also enforce the existing laws. That’s why we must secure the border…”
McCain was a sponsor of the DREAM Act in 2003, 2005 and 2007, but NOW in 2007:
McCain Skipped Vote On DREAM Act But Said He Would Have Voted Against Bill That He Co-Sponsored. “Last week, McCain skipped a Senate vote on immigration legislation called the DREAM Act – Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors. He then said he would have voted against the bill, even though he was a co-sponsor.” [Myrtle Beach Sun-News, 11/2/07 ]
This is remarkable on its face and is a clear attempt to pull Latino voters to McCain and make California competitive, but it doesn’t exactly jive with the spin that was being pushed around yesterday after Obama’s luncheon speech.
The real absurdity of McCain’s strategy, at least with regard to reaching Latino voters in California, was on full display Sunday following Obama’s La Raza speech, and it basically boiled down to telling Latinos that the elected Latinos throughout the state are failures. Hector Barajas, Director of Communications for the California GOP ticked off the list of Democratic boogeymen: Antonio Villaraigosa, Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo. Not just three of the most visible Latino politicians in the state, but ones that are noteworthy for championing Latino causes. Heck, Cedillo sponsored the DREAM Act that McCain now supports.
The boiled down version of the McCain line: Latinos have elected Latino officials who champion Latino causes and issues, but those Latinos are specifically what’s wrong with politics and run counter to the actual, McCain version of Latino interests. With all the big talk about how serious this campaign is about California and how the Latino vote is ripe for the taking, if overt insults make up the strategy then it’s no surprise that Obama is blowing out McCain in California.
Nevertheless, there are two possible silver linings here. The obvious one that we’ve been talking about for a long time is that if California can be a time and money suck for the McCain campaign, super. Please come and try. The second seems less likely given the ineptitude of McCain’s Latino outreach, but if this maybe inspires the DNC, CDP and/or the Obama campaign in some combination to increase focus on Latino targeting, messaging and outreach, I certainly wouldn’t mind.
In the meantime, maybe McCain can expand this strategy to all Americans and tell them that the majority that they elected in 2006 doesn’t represent their interests by default. Oh wait…
Over at the Wall Street Journal, they want to talk about what the media narrative of the day: Obama Buyer’s Remorse from the Left. But here at the actual convention, there is quite a bit of enthusiasm here. Perhaps people can be disappointed in their candidate without abandoning hope? Well, not if the media has anything to say about it.
Sen. Barack Obama‘s support of a recent overhaul of domestic spy laws that rankled many on the left still has them rankled if the opening session at the annual Netroots Nation convention taking place in Austin, Texas, is any indication. (WSJ 7/17)
Matt Stoller responds to this general argument of “Buyer’s remorse” at OpenLeft
At any rate, the whining from DC pundits about how the left was undermining Obama’s chances at winning was absolutely wrong. His small dollar donor army wants him in that White House, and they are going to pay to put him there. While it’s often impossible for consultants in DC to keep multiple thoughts in their head, it is possible for most of us normal bluggers and blug readers to get that we don’t like his vote on FISA but we want him to win the White House desperately anyway.
The small dollar donors and the netroots folks here in Austin can walk AND chew gum. It’s really quite amazing. That was seen in California in the latest Field Poll where Sen. Obama solidified the left despite FISA and the surrounding hubub.
FISA is important, yet it is not the only important item. Wow, who knew?
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument in the case of Catholic League for Religous and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco.
This case relates to the church's a resolution the San Francisco
In 200___, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution ssss
The lawsuit names as defendants the City and County of S.F. and Aaron Peskin, the President of the Board of Supervisors. The only other supervisor named in the lawsuit is Tom Ammianio. Perhaps telling their followers that God was suing the gay member of the Board of Supervisors helped out at the collection plate that Sunday.)
The test to determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause ___ that law must: (1) have a secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) not foster excessive state entanglement with religion. The law must meet all three of these requirements.
District Judge Marily Hall Patel ____ in her Order.
Hug, Paez, Berzon