CA-02: Herger channels Bush, Giuliani, et al. in local debate

Democrat Jeff Morris and incumbent Republican Wally Herger met again this week to debate the future of California’s 2nd Congressional District.

The video is available here. Wally looks slick as can be, comfortable with the camera, clearly well-practiced, as well he should after 22 interminable years in office. If you like professional politicians with fancy suits and enormous war chests, Wally’s your guy. Me, I like my candidates with some substance and ideas. If they don’t shop at Neiman Marcus, so much the better.

I originally listened to the radio broadcast streaming online, so if either candidate was sweating profusely or wandering aimlessly around the stage, I wouldn’t have known about it. What I did notice was the way in which Wally Herger appeared to have no original thoughts of his own. Was I listening to Herger? Bush? McCain? The ghost of James Watt? Often, it was impossible to tell.  

Of course, the debate started out with the economy. The candidates re-hashed the positions that they had taken in their first debate, with no real surprises.

This was followed by a question about water, the ever-present California mega-topic, framed as “food or fish, which would you choose?”


MORRIS: I don’t think it’s necessarily a question of “food or fish” … it’s a question of maintaining our political power here in Northern California north of Sacramento … We consistently have seen local interests battle each other over water when really we don’t understand that the larger political forces actually exist south of Sacramento … I know the cost to local communities of the water export economy. My family’s ranch in Trinity County exists under Trinity Lake, which was covered as part of the Central Valley Project … We need to understand that water is the new oil … there is a lot of money involved … We need to be focusing on what we can do together as communities in Northern California, rather than fighting each other.

HERGER: Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over … as Jeff mentioned, it is the oil of our future, it certainly is any place agriculture is concerned … We have to be able to do both … protect our environment … we have to continue doing whatever it takes to ensure that agriculture has water, our people have water … I believe we can do both.

Okay, so we all agree that water = oil. Jeff then reminds us that playing well with others is an important social skill:

MORRIS: We need a representative at the federal level who is going to be able to talk to everyone and represent everyone’s interests. If we want to bring people together, the history of throwing rocks at the environmental community, the history of throwing rocks at the agricultural community has got to stop. We need somebody who is going to be out front and leading the charge on this issue … If we don’t have someone who understands the issues, is able to communicate with all interest groups, not just the preferential ones … we are going to be on the losing end politically.

Yep, Wally is a long-time rock-thrower when it comes to the environmental community. This becomes abundantly clear later in the debate.

There was a question about farm subsidies, which is a topic where Wally, from a ranching family, should shine. Instead, he went off on a long rambling answer, leaving Jeff to cite the relevant data for a win on rebuttal.

The debate then moved on to health care:


MORRIS: We need to be talking about health care nationally and what kind of priority it’s going to be for us. In the last 8 years, even some of our government-run health care programs have been prone to tinkering, such as Medicare — Medicare Plus and Medicare Part D, which have both started to dismantle that vital system and I think that we need to make sure that that gets turned around.

I also think we need to be understanding that health care is a component of healthy communities, not just from a health standpoint but from a holistic standpoint, a comprehensive standpoint, as far as the economic health of the community, the ability of the community to create [and] attract jobs and attract young families. I believe, at some point, that we are going to have some kind of nationalized health care, and it may not be the same everywhere. “One size fits all” certainly doesn’t work for rural America.

Jeff Morris knows what he’s talking about with regard to rural health care. Just ask the folks in Trinity County how important it was that Jeff and many others worked to save the county’s only hospital and emergency room.

Wally, on the other hand, completely lost his way on this question:

HERGER: Here’s an area where I completely disagree with my opposition, my Democrat opponent. He mentioned that he’d basically like a nationalized system. That means that the government’s gonna run it even more than it does now. I think that is the big problem we have. I don’t know of anything that the government runs well — it certainly is not running the health care system well now, of which it primarily is in control of. I think instead of having the government in charge, where we see prices and costs skyrocketing at almost double inflation rates every year, we need to change it from where the government controls and we have long lines, to have it where physicians and patients control.

Um, Wally? Just a few little debate hints here — first, you are part of the government, so if it’s not running something well, you’ve got some ability to influence that. And, except for Medicare, the government doesn’t currently run health care. At least not in the country where I live.

MORRIS: It’s my belief that the big insurance companies and the big pharmaceutical companies are in control of the health care system … These happen to be large campaign contributors to my opponent … If we are looking for somebody who wants to take the lead in Northern California on designing a new health care system, are we going to choose someone who has been involved for the last 22 years in the broken system or are we going to choose someone who has actually had success in the last few years in innovative thinking in health care?

Amen, brother.

A question about energy brought on this heated exchange:

HERGER: We have this special interest environmental group … who pump into the best lobbyists, the best lawyers, and the worst politicians to ensure that we’re not able to have a balanced energy program. We haven’t put a new refinery in, because they sue, since the 1970s. We’re not able to drill where we know we have oil … We cannot go out and develop in Colorado and Wyoming and Utah where we know we have twice as much petroleum [oil shale] as they have in Saudi Arabia, we can’t go off our California coast, we can’t go off our coast in the Pacific … and these special interest groups, because of what they’ve invested in the political people … don’t allow us to drill … We also need something that will hold back the trial lawyers who also support the Democrats so heavily on allowing us to go out there and begin developing …

Nasty lawyersssss. We hatesssss them. We neeeeeeds the oil, that lovely black sticky stuff, ooooil, lovely oil, my preciousssss.


MORRIS: Well, certainly there are no lawyers, lobbyists, or politicians for the oil and gas companies, so … Fair is fair when we’re talking about competing interests in Washington, D.C. It’s whether we actually listen to either of those sets of lobbyists that’s important …

I think it’s fascinating that gas prices have gone down in the last couple of weeks without drilling a new drop and with … refineries shut down in the Gulf as a result of the hurricanes down there … It wasn’t magic fairy dust that made this happen, it was market speculation [that made the prices go up], and I think that’s a big issue that needs to be addressed when it comes to energy prices …

We should be careful about what we are going to drill here in the United States and make sure that it stays in the United States … We need to make sure that natural resources — whether they’re timber, whether they’re water, whether they are petroleum products — if they are mined in the United States, let’s try and keep them here. Now that is true energy security and not just a headline. I also think we need to look at long-term energy security, especially in the rural areas of this country. We have opportunities in wind, solar, biomass utilization, switchgrass, biofuels, that are going to make a mosaic of solutions to this issue.

Wally went way out into the deep grass on rebuttal, alleging that “these same people” own Congress and the state legislatures and that it’s “these people’s” fault that Wally and his friends “can’t get anything passed.”

Jeff called baloney on this, wondering what level of ownership the oil lobbyists had of Herger. He then made an impassioned argument for honesty about how much lobbyists and market speculation are affecting the market for alternative energy solutions.

Wally closed by mentioning his poor put-upon friends at Shell Oil.

Wally’s tone was McCain on an angry day combined with Bush whining about people who disagree with him, but his bottom-line message was all Palin. Drill, baby, drill! The odd thing is, oil drilling is not a big issue for Northern California’s District 2. Affordable fuel solutions, sure. Timber, of course. Agriculture, definitely. The economy? Absolutely. But getting oil out of the ground? Not so much. The people of California’s 2nd District are not likely to feel very sorry for the fat cats at Shell Oil — they’re too busy struggling to feed their families.

On the topic of the war, Wally again channeled his masters:

HERGER: I don’t think we should be in Iraq … any longer than we absolutely have to … The fact is that we are having tremendous success in Iraq now … with the surge, casualties are down … We have to be safe. I don’t think it’s by accident that we haven’t had another terrorist attack here on our American soil for the last 7 years since 9/11. We live in a very dangerous world. We have people out there that want to kill us, who want to cut our heads off. That doesn’t sound very pleasant but that is the fact of life.

Ah, the “noun, verb, 9/11” school of political argument. Be afraid, be very afraid!

(Sigh.)

Wally’s voice doesn’t help. There’s something about it that has always reminded me of Bush. It’s that raspy whispery whine he uses when he gets his knickers in a bunch. And, do we really think Al Qaeda is targeting rural Northern California? Most Americans don’t even know the state extends much farther north than San Francisco, so I doubt Bin Laden pays it much mind.

Jeff brought us back to reality, pointing out that Wally was pulling a Giuliani, and that Herger could have made an effort to keep us from spending so much time in Iraq:

MORRIS: I’m continually surprised about the invocation of 9/11 [by] politicians. My sister worked … across the street from the twin towers and was on the street that day, so I don’t think it’s appropriate in a debate and I don’t think it’s appropriate in foreign policy discussion to continue to [invoke] 9/11 … When we went into Iraq, many of the generals were advocating exactly what General Patreus is doing now — go in with more troops, go in stronger, and make sure we get the job done. They were fired, and in large part due to Secretary Rumsfeld … at the time, most of the members of Congress, including my opponent, were not calling for the resignation of Secretary Rumseld — they were going along with the plan. So let’s talk about reality.

Yes, I remember the smells and sounds of that day, I knew people who died, I knew people who worked on the smoking pile, and I can name the names of those we lost. And like my brother, I take personal offense when people use that horrible time as a political tool. Folks like Rudy — I mean Wally — for instance. And Jeff is right; we didn’t hear Wally’s voice questioning anyone in Washington at any time during this war. So his words about staying no longer than we have to just don’t ring true. Nor does his last response:

HERGER: Those who forget history, or choose to forget it, are doomed to repeat it … There are many in [my opponent’s] party who would like to forget it … these same people are out there … this is incredibly dangerous for someone who would make that point.

Cut the crap, Wally. There’s a difference between forgetting history and using it as a political wedge every damn chance you get. (I note, by the way, that you didn’t dispute Jeff’s point about Rumsfeld.)

With that, the candidates gave their closing statements and the debate was over. I left with the same nasty “I’m going to go throw up now” feeling that I get after listening to pretty much anyone from the Bush administration speak.

It doesn’t take a lot of energy or creativity to spit out the party line for 22 years. But Wally apparently needs plenty of help formulating his own thoughts — at least according to one reporter:

I don’t recall Herger ever coming alone. He always had a handler (my term) with him; usually Herger’s field representative Dave Muerer … More than once it occurred to me that Muerer should be the one in the congressman’s seat, not Herger, but I could never picture Herger doing Muerer’s job, since it’s pretty demanding … meeting after meeting Muerer sat patiently, mostly quietly, at the ready to clarify something or fill in a blank for Herger, even to the point of supplying vocabulary.

Herger: “It’s not, it’s not … what’s that I like to say, Dave?”

Muerer (as if he’d answered this question a thousand times): “Mutually exclusive.”

Herger: “That’s right. It’s not mutually exclusive.”

Wow.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that he’s a bad guy just because he lines up behind the Bush administration and spouts their twisted rhetoric as if it were his native tongue. Perhaps “vapid” is a better word:

Herger’s a pleasant enough guy. He’s got a golly-gee-whiz earnestness and eyebrows that raise almost as high as his voice as he talks and talks and talks and talks in circles without ever giving a concrete solution or original idea that might benefit our north state and our people.

Herger reminds me of someone’s simple, kindly, retired uncle, a fellow you bump into at family reunions and hope you don’t get stuck sharing a picnic table with him.

I never left a Herger encounter that I didn’t wonder, sweet Jesus, how does this guy stay in office?

The conservative rags in District 2, on the other hand, seem to be in love with Herger, claiming that he “has the background and momentum to help Washington through this ordeal.” One wonders what they’re smoking. The only momentum Herger has is a direct result of his Republican handlers pushing him toward one vote or another. And momentum? Are you kidding me?! With two wars going on and economic chaos looming, the bills Herger introduced during the last session focused mostly on creating a permanent 0% capital gains rate for corporations and — I swear to God — suspending duties on skis, musical instruments, compasses, and Christmas tree lamps. If this is the kind of visionary we’re counting on to help Washington through the current crisis, then we’re all sunk.

Please, folks — Northern California can’t take much more of this guy. I certainly can’t. Talk to your friends and families. Help them understand how important this election will be for District 2. Send them to www.jeffmorrisforcongress.com for more information and more videos of Jeff speaking in the district. Let’s help Wally retire! And while we’re at it, let’s make sure the rest of his alter-egos never grace the political stage again.

(cross-posted at DailyKos)

No On 8 Using Obama In Web Advertising

If you tool around the Internets as much as I do, you may have noticed this.  The No on 8 campaign has been using Barack Obama’s logo and image in Web ads that say “Obama Calls Prop. 8 Divisive And Discriminatory”.  Clicking on the ad will take you to this page, at the No On Prop. 8 site, with a couple quotes from Sen. Obama about the measure.

The Obama campaign would not let this happen on its own.  God for them for allowing the No on 8 campaign to associate with his remarks.  Obama has shown a willingness to lend himself to the efforts of downticket races – he’s cut an ad for Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley – though I doubt we’ll see much more than this Web advertising from him on Prop. 8.

Here are a couple other things I think need to happen to help the Prop. 8 cause.  First, Google needs to stop running ads that violate their own policies.  Google has a very specific standard for those groups that use their architecture to advertise, which includes banning ads that advocate against a “protected class” like the LGBT community.  Yet they allow Yes on 8 to use Google ads.  I know Google as a company is on the right side of this debate, but they can either stand behind their stated policy or not.

The other thing that the no side might want to consider is putting an actual face on who would be discriminated against with this measure.  I know this has been a source of controversy that’s simmered under the surface, but today Jonathan Rauch brings it up in the LA Times.

The need to walk that tightrope helps explain why the actual subjects of next month’s initiative, gay couples, were “inned” by the “No on 8” campaign’s ads. (Full disclosure: I am a “No on 8” donor.) One ad, for example, features a gray-haired straight couple. “Our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry,” says mother Julia Thoron.

A subsequent ad, all text with voice-over narration, mentions marriage only once (“Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law”) and never uses the phrase “gay marriage” or even the word “gay.” Just as oblique was a spot, released Wednesday, in which state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell reassures viewers that “Prop. 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage.” A casual viewer could have come away from these ads puzzled as to exactly what right thousands of Californians might be about to lose.

Asked about the absence of gay couples, a senior “No on 8” official told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that “from all the knowledge that we have and research that we have, [those] are not the best images to move people.” Children, also, were missing; showing kids with same-sex parents could too easily backfire […]

Whatever the tactical considerations, the absence of gay couples and gay marriages from California’s gay-marriage debate makes for an oddly hollow discussion. It leaves voters of good conscience to conjure in their own minds the ads that are not being aired: Ads that show how gay marriage directly affects the couples and communities that need it most.

You can show me all the data you want; “hollow” is the best word for what’s happening.  Neither side is talking about the actual proposition in their messaging.  I expect that from the Yes side, to hide their serial homophobia and focus on made-up protections of imagined rights that would be encroached upon.  But when a self-described squish like Kevin Drum terms No on 8’s ads “bland and generic,” something is wrong.  Without a clear indication, as done in the Ellen DeGeneres PSA, of who would be harmed by this measure and why, there’s this subconscious message of shame about the rights that this campaign is trying to defend.

On a completely unrelated note, this is a great post from a minister discussing what the Bible actually says about marriage.

back alley abortions in CA

It’s 2008, and even in California the religious right is attempting to punish young women for having sex by bringing back illegal abortion. Progressives are starting to fight back, but the bad new is Yes on Prop 4 is still leading.

The last two times they put this anti-choice crap on the ballot, California voters wisely rejected it. This time, people aren’t paying enough attention with so many other races and issues grabbing the headlines.

Please help with your time or money

No On 8 needs election day volunteers

Just a quick note to say that the No On 8 campaign, opposing Proposition 8 and supporting same-sex marriage in California, is putting out a call for volunteers on November 4, election day. They need people both for full-day and partial-day shifts.

Persons in the South Bay area can email [email protected] to sign up, persons elsewhere in the state can use the form at http://www.noonprop8.com/action/gotv and it will be forwarded to the right person.

A copy of the full call to action they emailed out to their Santa Clara County list is below the fold.

NO ON 8 NEEDS ELECTION DAY VOLUNTEERS!

The No on 8 campaign needs your help on Election Day!  Because of our opposition’s lies, ten percent of our base supporters are confused about how to vote on Prop 8, and many of our supporters don’t understand the importance of this vote.

November 4th will be the most important day in LGBTQ history since Stonewall.  We will need to show up in huge numbers at strategic polling stations to clarify any misconceptions and remind our supporters to vote No on Prop 8.

We need you to make defending equality your highest priority and clear your schedule for our last chance to turn this vote around.

There are two ways to sign up.

First, you can sign up online, at http://www.noonprop8.com/action/gotv

Second, [if you are in the south bay area] you can sign up by e-mailing Chris Riley at [email protected] with the following information: your name, cell phone number, home phone number, email address, home address, zip code, whether you have a car, whether you are available the weekend before Election Day to receive a short training, and which of the following shifts on November 4 you will be able to attend:

First priority: 6:30AM to 8:30PM

Second priority: 4:30PM to 8:30PM

Third priority: 6:30AM to 10:00AM

Last priority: 11:00AM to 2:00PM

Thank you!  Your participation on Election Day may be the critical factor in winning this election!  

Other volunteer opportunities for No On 8 besides just election day itself can be found here.