Final Day Push – Contribute to the Calitics Match

((I’m told that Act Blue is back up and running, so you can donate now.  And we’re almost to our goal! $180 left! Who will put us over the top?) – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

Goal Thermometer

Thanks to everyone who has supported our five candidates in the Calitics Match thus far.  We’re past halfway to our goal, and Debbie Cook has well surpassed our $500 match (way to go!).  

Today is crunch time.  It’s the final day before the end of the third quarter, which is the reporting deadline for federal candidates.  This is the best opportunity to make your donations the most meaningful; the quarterly fundraising announcements are key to gauge support, and money put into field and messaging now will pay bigger dividends in the future than a quick cash infusion at the last minute.  Please support these candidates and Calitics will match you dollar for dollar.

The Yacht Party Republicans still think you’re stupid.  They believe they can hide behind the gated communities they’ve created through gerrymandering, and that Sarah Palin’s presence at the top of the ticket will lift their hopes.  No, really:

A statewide poll this week underscored the effect Palin has had on the Republican base. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, GOP satisfaction with their presidential choice has doubled since Palin joined the ticket. Unfortunately for McCain, that has not translated into gains against Democrat Barack Obama in California, which has gone to the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four presidential elections.

Still, state Republicans were rejoicing at the possibilities. Thomas G. Del Beccaro, the state party vice chairman, said new volunteers were streaming in faster than at any time since the 2003 recall election. Republicans, he said, were hopeful that a resulting increase in voters would help the party in legislative and congressional races where they might not have been as competitive otherwise.

This is bravado.  The wingnut base wasn’t going to stay away from a Presidential election.  It’s the growing decline-to-state base, along with increased Democratic registration statewide, that has the potential to sink the Yacht Party just as Sarah Palin’s favorable ratings have sank as voters face the terrifying prospect of her in a position of power.  This is the real shift in the electorate:

Since the two parties largely settled on presidential nominees in April, voter rolls have increased by roughly 19,500 – or 2 percent – in Placer, El Dorado, Sacramento and Yolo counties, according to new figures from the California secretary of state’s office. Democrats accounted for 10,500 of those new voters. Just 2,400 were Republicans. Most of the others declined to state an allegiance.

The regional numbers mirror a statewide trend. California’s Democratic voter rolls have increased by 181,118 since April while the number of Republicans grew by 6,823. Republicans saw a net loss of registered voters in 25 counties, including a loss of more than 15,000 in conservative Orange County. Similar trends are playing out nationally, in several battleground states.

You can see the data for yourself.  Particularly in this financial crisis, Californians are ready for a new direction away from failed conservative policies.

All that stands between our five candidates and victory in November is making sure they have the resources to compete.  We can help provide that today.  Please visit the Calitics Match Act Blue page and give what you can.  We’ll double your donation to make it that much more meaningful.

I Took My Vote Off The Table :: An Open Letter To Charlie Brown, Candidate For CA-04

Nota Bene: This is an open letter to Charlie Brown, Democratic candidate for CA-04’s open seat. I have notified the Brown campaign of this diary by email. It is also crossposted at Daily Kos.

***

Dear Charlie,

I supported you in your race against John Doolittle back in 2006. This year I would like to support you again in your open seat race against Tom McClintock. While I would never under any circumstances vote for Tom McClintock, as things stand right now I cannot in good conscience vote for you. I do not currently intend to cast a vote in the CA-04 House race.

Almost one year ago I decided to write to you because I wanted assurance from you on a matter that became very important to me after the 2006 elections. After a few brief formalities, I wrote the following:

Subject: A Constitutional Question

To: The Charlie Brown Campaign

Date: 10/1/07

… I have come to realize that my support depends entirely upon your answer to the following question:

Is the Congressional power of impeachment an oversight and investigative right which the House may exercise or not exercise at will, or is it an oversight and investigative duty which the House is obliged to fulfill for the sake of the Constitutional system itself?

I trust you can intuit the subtext of this inquiry.

A couple days later I received the following response from your campaign manager, Todd Stenhouse.

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Me

Date: 10/3/07

Thank you for your question. Charlie asked me to respond to you directly on his behalf.

Charlie views the issue of impeachment as part of Congress’ oversight power – which includes everything from the power of the purse, to investigation, to censure, and on up the chain. That said, just like a district attorney may choose not to bring charges, so the House might choose not to bring impeachment charges.

As a number of investigations continue, the decision to actually vote on impeachment is a decision each member of the House must make – carefully considering the costs and benefits of such a decision – not just on the business of government, but the nation and world community as a whole.

For the past 6 years, we saw Congress essentially abdicate its responsibility to provide meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch – or to deliver the results the people need on so many issues – healthcare, global warming, education, and a horribly mismanaged foreign policy to name a few. The nation spoke loudly last November. Regardless of who the next President is, Charlie Brown will never forget who he works for, or what his responsibilities are as a member of Congress operating within the system of checks and balances.

Just over a year from the next election, Charlie’s focus is on bridging the growing divisions in our country, solving the problems we face, and the vital cause of electing new leadership to our Congress and White House in 2008. Only then, we believe, can we bring the sad era of corruption, incompetence, and scandal ridden partisan politics as usual to a close.

I hope this answers your question, and I hope we can count on your support in the months ahead

Thank you again for your inquiry.

To this I replied:

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Todd Stenhouse, Charlie Brown’s Campaign Manager

Date: 10/10/07

Thank you for your reply. At the end of your email you said “I hope this answers your question, and I hope we can count on your support in the months ahead.” Unfortunately, no, you did not answer my question to my satisfaction. But I have not given up on you yet.

You wrote that “Charlie views the issue of impeachment as part of Congress’ oversight power—which includes everything from the power of the purse, to investigation, to censure, and on up the chain. That said, just like a district attorney may choose not to bring charges, so the House might choose not to bring impeachment charges.” Even if I put it in the best possible light, your answer is, in the end, a mere truism. Bringing impeachment charges implies the event of an actual vote of the full House on those charges. In such a vote the House does not have to vote (choose) to bring charges as they could vote against bringing charges.

The choice (the right) of a district attorney to bring charges or not is predicated upon there already having been an investigation into whether or not there are grounds to bring charges. The investigation is obligatory. While district attorneys often only review evidence and evaluate investigations conducted by law enforcement, in the House investigation, evaluation of evidence and the bringing of charges are combined in one body. The House functions to that extent less like a district attorney and more like a grand jury. While it is true that the House may ultimately vote not to bring charges, the question is really whether the House can choose not to investigate grounds for impeachment. That is why I did not ask merely about bringing charges, but about the investigation that necessarily precedes any decision over charges.

When I wrote initially I deliberately asked about the rights and duties of the office and chamber. I did this to spare you from having to answer the historical and specific version of my question. But perhaps I should ask it.

I agree with you that in the last 6 years we have seen “Congress essentially abdicate its responsibility to provide meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch.” For 5 years after 9/11 the Republicans proved themselves quite unwilling to provide such oversight. What I find reprehensible, however, is that in the one year since the Democrats took control of Congress they too have proven themselves unwilling to provide meaningful executive oversight. The reason for this delinquency is quite simple: Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Because of her decision Congress has left Bush’s claims of executive power entirely unchallenged and intact.

If Charlie is elected to Congress he will take an oath neither to me nor to you, nor to any party or any person. The oath will say nothing of “healthcare, global warming, education” or of our “horribly mismanaged foreign policy.” The oath will be to the Constitution itself – that would ultimately be “who he works for.” The oath would require him to affirm to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and it would require him to pledge his “true faith and allegiance to the same.” For a Congressman, when it comes to defending and supporting the Constitution there is no consideration of “the costs and benefits of such a decision.” He is duty bound in that regard.

Nancy Pelosi has forgotten and betrayed her oath of office. Her decision to take impeachment off the table has led to a dereliction of Congress’s Constitutional duty. Had a full investigation been allowed then it may very well have led inexorably to a vote on impeachment. But Pelosi had already said that impeachment was off the table. Consequently, no investigations could truly proceed and no oversight could truly take place. I consider her decision to take impeachment off the table every bit as dangerous to this country as George Bush’s extensions of executive power.

Indeed, Pelosi’s decision was arguably even more dangerous. The Constitution anticipates overextensions of executive power and provides impeachment as its specific remedy. Unlike “the power of the purse” and “censure,” impeachment speaks directly to the Constitutional question and has the express effect of defining and clarifying executive power. The Constitution, however, does not anticipate that Congress will render itself impotent by disavowing this remedial power because such a disavowal would grant the president de facto immunity from effective oversight and undermine the integrity of our system of checks and balances. That is, however, precisely what Pelosi has done.

So I can ask my question again in a different way: Does Charlie believe Nancy Pelosi had the right to “take impeachment off the table”?

If Charlie honestly believes that Pelosi had that right, then I, as a matter of conscience, will have to take my support for him off the table. More than that, however, if Charlie honestly believes Pelosi had that right then, should he be elected, he should not be able to take his oath of office in good conscience.

Now that I have told you where I stand on these matters, I hope you can tell me in specific terms where Charlie stands.

For several weeks I waited in vain for a response. Finally, I sent Todd Stenhouse another email:

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Todd Stenhouse, Charlie Brown’s Campaign Manager

Date: 10/29/07

Todd,

Should I consider your lack of response to my reply an indication that you do not believe you can give me the assurance I require in order to pledge my support to Charlie Brown?

Unfortunately, that email went without reply as well.

Over the winter I decided to post the entire email exchange on Daily Kos. I hoped placing this discussion in a public forum would bring a response, and even if it didn’t I wanted to raise these points publicly because I believe all voters should demand that anyone who is running for Congress answer these questions and answer them rightly.

But between the holidays, the primaries, the summer, and the conventions the timing never seemed right. I have, however, run out of time. Circumstances now dictate that I cast my ballot on Monday, October 6, the first day of early voting here in California.

On all these matters I feel as strongly now as I did a year ago. With this open letter I am giving you one last chance to assure me that you are a man of integrity who will uphold the oath of the office for which you are running.

And so I ask my questions once again.

1. Is the Congressional power of impeachment an oversight and investigative right which the House may exercise or not exercise at will, or is it an oversight and investigative duty which the House is obliged to fulfill for the sake of the Constitutional system itself?

2. Do you believe Nancy Pelosi had the right to “take impeachment off the table”?

These questions ask the same thing in two different ways. You do not have to answer both of them, but if you want my vote you will have to give the right answer to one of them. If I do not receive a reply, or if I receive a reply with the wrong answer, then my vote will remain off the table.

Sincerely,

CA04 Voter

Voter Outreach as Therapy

(Cross-posted at Living in the O.)

These past few days have driven me crazy with anticipation. The organization I work for introduced our first California bill this year and managed to pass it through the Assembly and Senate, but now we’re waiting to hear if Governor Schwarzenegger will sign or veto it. He only has until midnight tonight so I keep reloading his web page, checking the news – I even called up my friend who works in Perata’s office to see if he had any inside information (he didn’t).

So I had to do something last night to get my mind off of this. I went down to the United Democratic Campaign headquarters in Oakland, which is also housing Rebecca Kaplan’s campaign and the California Democratic Party.

I hadn’t done any phoning for Rebecca since June so it took a few calls to get back into my groove, but once I did, I was so happy I had gone down there. If you’ve never phoned for a candidate or issue before, it might seem strange, but electoral phoning is extremely therapeutic. You have to focus, pay attention, take cues from voters, so there’s no energy left to think about anything else. It really is a great form of meditation.

The energy in the office also helped lift my mood. The space is huge, and there were several volunteers downstairs and upstairs calling for various campaigns – Kaplan, Obama, Yes on 2, No on 4, No on 8. And because of the office’s excellent location at Broadway and 19th, people were literally walking in off the street to help out. One couple walked in to grab some Kaplan signs, and Rebecca’s campaign manager talked them into doing some phoning. It was so great to phone with such a mix of longtime supporters and people who had just met Rebecca last week. I’ve phoned in several offices before, but none as diverse as this one.

Whether you’re supporting Kaplan or not, there’s probably a campaign down at the UDC office that you can get behind. So if you need some free therapy and want to help out with a good cause, head down to the office at 1915 Broadway anytime. It’s right above the 19th Street BART station and near about a dozen AC Transit lines.

And if you want to meet some of the great staff and volunteers who are involved with Kaplan’s campaign, please join us this Thursday night at Geoffrey’s for a Kaplan fundraiser and VP debate watching party.

Here are the details:

When:  Thursday, October 2, 2008 from 5:30pm – 8:00pm
Where: Geoffrey’s Inner Circle, 410 14th Street in downtown Oakland
How Much: $30 – $300 sliding scale
More Info: [email protected]
Geoffrey’s is easily accessible by public transit. Use the 12 Street BART Station (exit at the 14th Street side) or take AC Transit lines 1/1R, 51, 72, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, or 40.

The Growing Coalition Against Prop. 8

It seems like every day, there’s a list of new opponents to Prop. 8, which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.  One day it’s Google.  The next day it’s Steven Spielberg.  Then Mary Cheney.  And The New York Times editorial board.  And Levi-Strauss.  And Brad Pitt.  And Republicans Against 8, who managed to come up with the most singularly odd revisionist ad announcing their opposition (“Democrats are the only hope for freedom!”).  And, appropriate to mention on Rosh Hashanah morning, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California.

The board – a collection of leaders from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements – this week declared its opposition to the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Leaders of the board said they wanted protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

“For many rabbis, it speaks on a personal level in terms of people they deal with whose lives have been impacted over the issue,” said Rabbi Stewart Vogel of Temple Aliyah in Woodland Hills and the board’s president.

The board has more than 290 members. Roughly 120 took part in Wednesday’s vote, the largest number of rabbis to weigh in on such an issue in recent memory. Vogel said Friday that 93% of those who cast votes supported the resolution.

Good Yom Tov!

Calitics is a part of this coalition through our Counter-Fast For Equality.  We’re giving thousands of supporters the opportunity to sign on to stop the elimination of marriage equality, and donate through the Fast4Equality ActBlue page.  We also have a Twitter feed set up.  If you send a tweet with the #fast4equality hashtag, it’ll appear on our site.  So sign up today!

CA-02 – Another progressive in Red California!

While folks are focused on the most minute details of the presidential race, don’t forget that there are a bunch of great candidates toiling away to turn longtime red districts blue.  Candidates who are running under the national radar, candidates with modest finance but real energy and real support who are running on common sense progressive platforms in conservative rural areas.  Candidates who, in a year like this, have the opportunity to make a real difference in the complexion of Congress and our chances of passing important legislation in the term to come.

Let me tell you a little more about one such candidate.  Jeff Morris.  

I’ve written about Jeff before  here.  That diary will tell you more about the district, its current Bush-rubber-stamp-Republican and about Jeff.

I want to focus on one example of his leadership today, one that is particularly close to my heart.  I’m a registered nurse and activist for real universal healthcare.  Living in a rural area, I’m acutely aware of the struggles of many of America’s small rural hospitals.  In many small towns, mountain and farming communities, the resources of big city hospitals are far away.  The local people depend on the local small hospital – often a public county or district hospital – as an important link in the healthcare chain.  The emergency services those hospitals provide are especially vital.  When the farming accident, the logging accident, the car wreck on a mountain road happens, it’s the small rural hospital that saves your life.  But in the business logic of a healthcare system designed to maximize profit, those hospitals have no place.  They don’t have the volume, they don’t have the attractive building, they don’t have the profit center services.  They just save lives.  So, all over America, those small hospitals are struggling and often closing, leaving local folks with long and perilous ambulance rides to the nearest emergency care.

I know, and most of you know, that the real answer to the problem is a healthcare system with a different logic.  A healthcare system that puts people before profit.  A healthcare system that puts services where they are needed, not just where they are profitable.  But the people of those rural communities can’t wait for that, they need their hospital kept alive today.

Let me quote the text of a special award for innovation given by the California Association of Counties to Trinity County, where Jeff serves as a  county supervisor:

Trinity Hospital, a county-owned facility, transitioned into a district hospital through an innovative partnership formed by the county government and local electric utility. Trinity Hospital, like many rural county-owned hospitals, was facing a fiscal crisis. In response, the County approached the local utility district for assistance. The utility district advanced the County funds to keep the hospital afloat and a joint powers authority was developed between the two agencies to run the facility. Furthermore, a successful election was held that created a healthcare district and tax measure to fund the hospital. A citizens committee called “Trinity Cares” played an integral role in the formation of the healthcare district and passages of the tax measure. Trinity County now has a hospital as part of an independent healthcare district that will continue to save an average of one life per week through its emergency room, as well as providing much-needed daily care to its citizens. In a county that has never passed a countywide tax measure, it is remarkable that this measure was passed with 70 percent of the vote. This has also created a more positive relationship between Trinity County and the local utility district. Working together, the community was able to keep its hospital open and make a difference by saving lives.

Jeff played a key leading role in forming the partnerships and passing the bond measure – in a very tax adverse area – and today both the hospital and the county are on much firmer footing financially.

So please help us replace our ’empty suit’ Republican with a progressive candidate who understands the real needs or our rural area, who knows how to do the hard work to make things happen and will work toward healthcare that works for all of us – from the big cities to the small towns across America.

To learn more about Jeff and donate to support his campaign, visit

Jeff Morris for Congress  You’ll feel good about it and I’ll be so grateful to have a representative I can feel proud of.

Fast4Equality – Fight Prop. 8 With a Brief Fast!

Last week I wrote about the religious right’s takeover of the Yes on 8 campaign, and their efforts to rile up their base to eliminate marriage for same-sex couples.  In particular, I highlighted this statement:

Hundreds of pastors have called on their congregations to fast and pray for passage of a ballot measure in November that would put an end to gay marriage in California.

The collective act of piety, starting Wednesday and culminating three days before the election in a revival for as many as 100,000 people at the San Diego Chargers’ stadium, comes as church leaders across California put people, money and powerful words behind Proposition 8 […]

the gathering, called the call, will conclude a 40-day fasting period for california that begins sept. 24. christians are being asked to fast in some way, either the entire 40 days or perhaps by using team relays to cover the entire 40 days.

This “fast relay” thing just sounded more like eliminating between-meal snacking.  And just the notion of fasting to pass a ballot initiative is kee-razy to the extreme.  Well, if they can do it, so can we.

Calitics has decided to set up a Counter-Fast For Equality.  Participants can fast for 1 minute, 10 minutes, half an hour, whatever you can spare.  At the Counter-Fast For Equality website, you can sign up for the amount of time you’ll be fasting (hey Jews, don’t pick Yom Kippur, you’re fasting anyway!).  And much like a charity race, you can get sponsored for your time and trouble for fasting at the rate of a dollar a minute.  At the Fast4Equality ActBlue page, you can donate as little as $1 (or one minute’s worth of fasting) to the No on 8 campaign.

Just to get you in the swing of things, we put together this video detailing the ins and outs of a short-term fast.  Actually, our volunteer faster had a little trouble with it:

So get to it, America!  Join us at The Counter-Fast For Equality and sign up today!