(It’s a bizarre story. Isn’t it about time that the 46th is represented by a leader focused on what’s important, like say Debbie Cook? – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I’m… speechless.  This latest piece from the OC Weekly reveals that Rohrabacher actually thinks the “Arabs” were responsible for assassinating Robert F. Kennedy, and decades later visited Sirhan Sirhan in prison… in drag???

According to a September 25, 2008, Pasadena Weekly article by Carl Kozlowski, Rohrabacher believes that the Los Angeles Police Department has for 40 years hidden the fact that Sirhan Sirhan, the lone man convicted of shooting Kennedy, worked as part of a “real conspiracy” of Arabs.

Why? Well, Rohrabacher–a rabid right-wing Republican who has bragged to me and other reporters about his, uh, longtime personal ties to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)–claims he was in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles for a party at the same time Kennedy was murdered in the kitchen.

Ponder that admission for a moment and then consider the congressman’s incredible tale.

More of the disturbing tale below the fold.

In early 2007–39 years after the killing and right around the time that he blamed global warming on dinosaur flatulence, Rohrabacher decided to solve his murder mystery for “the Kennedy family.”

Anyone familiar with Rohrabacher knows this story is now headed for unadulterated, wacky bliss.

At some point, Sirhan sent Summer Reese, one of his lawyers, a letter telling her that “a Diana was coming to see him.”

Reese told Kozlowski, “Sirhan didn’t know it was the congressman because his visitor was presented as a woman.”

Rohrabacher. Undercover. In drag. Using the name Diana?

Perhaps this sheds light on why ex-Congressman Bob Dornan (R-Garden Grove) liked to call Rohrabacher “a fruitcake.”

What were you doing at Corcoran State Prison in California, Diana/Dana?

“I went to see [Sirhan] specifically because I believe he didn’t act alone and that the full story of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination has not been known,” he said. “I would like Sirhan Sirhan to finally, at long last, level with the Kennedy family and the American people, whether to clear his soul as part of his Christian beliefs or try to set the record straight.”

I need to go pick my jaw up off the floor now.

Oh, and here is the Pasadena Weekly article that was referenced.

Reese also criticized Rohrabacher’s visit to Corcoran to see Sirhan in early 2007, saying “We got a letter from Sirhan, who was told a ‘Diana’ was coming to see him,” she recalled. “Sirhan didn’t know it was the congressman because the visitor was presented as a woman.”

Reese said Sirhan was told the person was coming to talk about the atrocious conditions he faces in solitary confinement. “So, of course, he said sure, send this person in.”

Reese said no one on Sirhan’s legal team was informed of the meeting, and when Rohrabacher arrived with two aides, she claimed he “repeatedly badgered him to admit he did the killing to clear his conscience. The two aides tape recorded the whole thing and Sirhan felt very used and abused by the process.”

The timing of the visit was highly suspicious, Reese said. “Why visit after all these years, unless they’re worried about whatever new legal proceedings will produce and trying to torpedo that by getting him to admit something he didn’t do?” she asked. “We never received an answer from Rohrabacher’s office about why he was there, or tapes of the conversation that were made while he was in there. They admitted they were there, but there’s no explanation from Rohrabacher or his aides. He was not there for justice.”

Now, that piece doesn’t say if Rohrabacher was actually in drag; it seems he was just pretending to be a woman to… well… I don’t know why.  Does Sirhan refuse to accept male visitors or something??

I’m officially creeped out now.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Swing State Project doesn’t think some of our races are going anywhere.  And it’s with two candidates that are beloved by the netroots.

CA-26 (Dreier): Likely Republican to Safe Republican

It’s time to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. We held out hope for quite a while that Democrat Russ Warner would be able to make a race in this R+4 district — one of the very few plausible targets for Democrats in California — but this contest has never really climbed that far up the heat index. Despite running his campaign for over a year and a half, Warner has only been able to cobble together $651K and ended the second quarter with just $150K in the bank.

Incumbent GOP Rep. David Dreier bucked the nationwide trend in 2006 by spending some serious cash ($2.5 million) and scoring a 57-38 win over his unknown opponent — a significant improvement over his 53-43 margin in 2004. Dreier had $1.9 million on hand at the end of July — well more than he’ll need in order to swamp out Warner’s message this fall. Based on the nationwide dynamics, it’s not hard to imagine Warner climbing to as high as the mid-40s on election day, but it’s pretty tough to imagine him hitting 50% on his budget, barring some fabulous divine intervention.

CA-46 (Rohrabacher): Likely Republican to Safe Republican

I’m sorry to say it, but here’s the Swing State Project’s new Mendoza Line of the Swing: If you aren’t even listed on the DCCC’s Races to Watch list alongside the likes of Rob Hubler (IA-05) and Steve O’Donnell (PA-18), what chance do you really have? Many Dems started the cycle with high hopes for Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook. Like they used to say in Brooklyn, wait ’till next year!

Sigh.  🙁  As Rachel Maddow says, someone needs to talk me down on this.

WTF?  Is this for real?

So today I drove back down to my old stomping grounds of Palos Verdes to see Debbie Cook’s “ice cream social” at the lovely Hesse Park.  Admittedly, the crowd was mostly older folks, and I felt a bit out of place.  The head of the Palos Verdes Democratic Club opened with a joke about how Democrats do exist in Palos Verdes, which people chuckled at.  I mean, surface appearances would make you think P.V. was 100% Republican.

Anyway, not only was Debbie Cook there, but the people running for the state assembly and senate were there also.  (The Democratic incumbents in those seats are term-limited out.)  Rod Wright, who worked for Maxine Waters, is running for the State Senate, and Beth Loewenthal, a member of the Long Beach City Council, is running for the State Assembly.  Both should be elected when all is said and done; the districts seem to be more or less safe for Democrats.

Some rambling thoughts from me after the fold.

And in a surprise to me, someone who was recently on TV was there too.  Watch this clip from the Colbert Report last month about Donald Trump’s huge flagpole.  (No, really.)

Well, I had no idea, but Rancho Palos Verdes mayor Doug Stern is actually a Democrat!  And he was there to introduce Debbie, and made mention of appearing on the show, where they took a 2-hour interview with him and cut it down to about 2 minutes.  In fact, three members of the RPV City Council are Democrats.  You could have knocked me over with a feather.  Growing up there, finding a Democrat in P.V. was like going on a snipe hunt.

From what I gathered talking to several folks, the biggest chance is on social stances.  Even just a decade ago, it was simply unheard of for a high school kid in P.V. to come out of the closet.  And now, it’s no longer a big deal in P.V.  If you haven’t lived there, you won’t realize how big of a sea change just that actually is.

Anyway, the candidates all spoke about themselves briefly, before the audience asked some questions.  From what I can remember….

Rod Wright is a very engaging speaker, and delivered some great lines.  One of them that he picked up in church was, “Everyone wants to get into Heaven, but nobody wants to die.”  Cook said she may use that line to talk about getting ourselves off of fossil fuels.  🙂

Debbie Cook was very pragmatic and wasn’t sugar-coating anything for the crowd.  She said that to truly wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, we were going to have to make sacrifices.  I can’t remember the exact words (sorry, short term memory here), but she was the opposite of one of those “elect me and everything will be better” politicians.  She’s a tough realist when it comes to our energy problems.  Wright also chimed in, saying that if you think you’re helping the environment by driving a car with ethanol, you’re only fooling yourself.  Ethanol is simply not the answer.  Even as a short-term solution, it’s not a good thing.

One of the speakers mentioned that Props. 6 & 8 are designed to drive up the Republican vote in November, and that it was no coincidence both of those are on the ballot, that this is a strategy by the GOP to get the social conservatives out to the polls.  Now while they said “California is not a slam dunk” for Democrats, well……  But where it could have devastating effects is on downticket races.  Will the presence of those two propositions be enough to get enough Republicans to the polls that Debbie Cook can’t win?  Or Charlie Brown?  Russ Warner?  What about that state assembly seat we want to pick up?  That’s where these initiatives could cause us problems, and we’ll have to counteract that with our own massive GOTV effort.

Cook said she spent most of Thursday filming TV commercials, and now just needs the money to get them on the air.  The bottom line to getting her message out is still $$$.  That’s just how it is.

One fellow asked how we could tell the national Democratic Party to wake up when it comes to offshore drilling.  Debbie had a great answer: “Send me to Congress!”  But everyone agreed there that from now until November, for those currently in Congress, it’s basically a lost cause.  The head of the San Pedro Democratic Club said that we simply have to make our voices heard, from calling our representatives to writing letters to the editor.

A great analogy Debbie Cook used when talking about offshore drilling was comparing it to finding loose change on the ground to help pay for your mortgage.  I suggested to her afterwards that instead of loose change on the ground, how about loose change underneath the couch cushions, and ripping up the upholstery to get to it?  She said her husband had suggested the same analogy.  Great minds, ya know.  😎

One thing that pleasantly surprised me was finding out that in 2004, when the high school kids in P.V. held a mock election, Kerry did beat Bush.  Coming from Palos Verdes, again, let me stress, that is a sea change.  Although in 2006, when asked about party affiliation, the numbers I heard were that 60% of P.V. high school kids still considered themselves Republican, with 40% Democrats.  So old habits die hard.

Anyway, seeing all those fine folks from P.V. made me more optimistic.  I’ve always maintained that P.V. would be the toughest nut to crack, given the long-standing Republican tilt of the district.  Remember, Rohrabacher himself went to high school here.  But events like today give me some hope.

Swing State Project did the definitive cash-on-hand rankings for House races.  I’ve culled just the California ones from that list, and then used their massive fundraising round-up to add in the other California challengers, and then plowed through the FEC database to find the rest.  I wanted to add in how much money each person raised in Q2 to give you guys an idea of how their recent fundraising is going, but I had no idea how to find those numbers for the other candidates not in SSP’s database.  For example, check out Brian Bilbray.  There’s NOTHING about how much he raised from April 1 to May 14 this year.  Huh.  I have no idea how the SSP guys got their $210,000 figure, so I’m not even going to try and derive those numbers.  Oh well.  (I’ve put McClintock as the incumbent because he belongs to the same party as Doolittle.  Same for Duncan Hunter’s son.)

Cash figures are in the thousands of dollars.  Fundraising table after the fold.

Update: The races David listed have now been added, and I finally figured out how to find the Q2 fundraising numbers for everybody.  Well, almost everybody.

Then I decided to look at some of our own incumbents that are deemed “safe”, just for comparison’s sake.  There are some incumbents missing from this list because their Republican challengers have raised so little, they haven’t even filed FEC fundraising reports.  I believe I’ve gotten every single race where the challenger has an actual FEC report for Q2.  Unlike above, which is ranked by the Cash Power Index, these are arranged by congressional district.

* Hayes’ Q2 number is actually Q1 and Q2 combined.

Notes: That’s not a misprint, Marta Jorgensen has a total of $75 cash on hand.  And that’s not a misprint either, in CA-05, Paul Smith (R) officially raised a total of $0 in his challenge to Doris Matsui (D).

Christina Avalos doesn’t even seem to exist in the FEC’s electronic database.  When I went here and entered the necessary info for CA-40, the only two people listed in the database were Royce and some woman named Florice Hoffman, who seems to have stopped running in 2007.  This may sound harsh, but if you don’t exist in the FEC database, I’m not sure you can be called a serious candidate.  At the very least, get your shit together without making any excuses like Bill Sali did.

Update: Found her.  But it doesn’t help that the last listed contribution to her is from the year 2002, and that her page doesn’t list anything after her statement of candidacy… in 2001.  Trying to search by her candidate ID to get fundraising numbers yields an SQL error 100 for some reason.

I almost feel a little embarrassed by listing some of those races in the first list on there.  It may be one of those cases where we’re almost better off not knowing just how bad the disparity is.

I was a bit surprised at how little money McClintock has left after the primary.  But beware, he was a fundraising monster in Q2, bringing in over $1.26 million.  What happened with the spending limits here?  There’s people like the Bloom family that gave McClintock $6,900 each.  Looks like Doug Ose triggered the Millionaire’s Amendment when he gave himself a whopping $2.8 million loan for his failed campaign.  But that was for the primary.  Now that we’re in the general, is McClintock only allowed to get a maximum of $2,300 from those people?  If so, hopefully we’ll see those Q3 numbers for McClintock drop significantly.  Because raising $1.2 million in one quarter for a House race is sick.

Also, for those wondering about Cindy Sheehan’s independent bid against Pelosi, she never filed a final Q2 report, and whoever filled out that last report wrote that it goes through December 31, 2008.  It looks like they meant 2007, but their filings seem pretty disorganized.  They also got a stern letter from the FEC for not filing their Q1 report properly, and then another one for having several discrepancies in their filing.

As for Diane Watson, what’s going on with her fundraising?  Her Q2 report says that while she has a little under $18,000 in cash on hand, her campaign committee owes over $25,000 in debts and obligations.  WTF?

If you want to go by just the fundraising numbers, John Roberts (no, not the CNN anchor) would seem about as competitive against Joe Baca as Debbie Cook is against Dana Rohrabacher.  Of course, we’ve got the big advantage with the DCCC being able to spend much more than the NRCC.

(originally posted at Daily Kos)

In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms.  But so far, it’s been all over the map.  I’ve tried to corral all their statements into my diary on Daily Kos, so you can see who the “good guys” are.

First, let’s start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill.  They do deserve credit, as it’s their jobs on the line.

Below the fold, I’ve modified the original diary to list just the California Democratic challengers running who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.

Update: Found a relevant passage from Bill Hedrick’s website.

Update II: Bill Durston responds!  (see comments)

Now, not all of these statements were made this past week.  Some came from 2007, and others came around February when this issue was last up in the air.  But hey, they’re on record.  So here goes, alphabetically by district.  If you know of a candidate who HAS spoken out against retroactive immunity and the FISA bill, please let me know in the comments, and please include the link where we can read their statement, and I’ll update the diary accordingly.

House candidates

CA-04: Charlie Brown (seriously, read his entire diary, it’s excellent)

I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world-often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn.  Our standing order was “if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor.”  We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences-the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.

In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.

….

But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.

….

And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.

And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.

CA-26: Russ Warner

Going back to FISA, we need to protect our Constitutional rights while keeping the American people safe. These are not mutually exclusive.

Russ Warner: FISA expansion of power so Bush can spy on Americans without warrants (with acquiescence of Congress): Yay or nay?

Nay.

CA-44: Bill Hedrick

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  So do members of the Executive and Judiciary Branches. Unlike the Bush Administration, however, I will do all in my power to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly regarding the protections and inalienable rights of all humanity it guarantees to the American people.

We live in an unsafe world. We need to ensure we take all necessary and legal steps to safeguard our country and its citizens. Our Constitution provides for checks and balances against government intrusiveness infringing upon fundamental rights of speech, religion, privacy, unlawful search and seizure, etc. It is ironic that the most efficient way to ensure perfect safety is by discarding these fundamental rights. In fact, some of the most repressive governments today (North Korea, anyone?) rule over some of the safest countries – at least when it comes to walking the streets at night.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the Constitutions checks and balances. Instead it has created its own Rule of Law. The Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus, sanctioned torture and illegal spying on Americans and created an extralegal detention center in Guantanamo. This arrogance continues even though the American people and many of our leading jurists and representatives have stated they want our Constitution followed in the manner envisioned by our Founding Fathers and confirmed by all subsequent administrations except the current one.

In the past the United States has ensured that those persons on its soil or under its jurisdiction or power are treated with the same dignity and respect as American citizens. This is based on that marvelous statement in the Declaration of Independence, [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.  These inalienable rights are not limited to one gender, one party or one nationality. While we cannot always influence other governments to respect these rights we can guarantee them whenever they involve those on our soil or under our jurisdiction or power.

Therefore, it is ironic that the Bush Administration, which denounces the human rights record of the Cuban government, echoes that record by claiming the Guantanamo detainees are not subject to American due process in legal proceedings precisely because they are housed in Cuba even though they are under American jurisdiction and power. How long will it be before the current infringement of inalienable rights on our own soil, which now consists of illegal spying on Americans, escalates to suspension of Habeas Corpus or even torture against Americans?

No one not the President, not the Vice President, not members of the Cabinet is above the law, nor should any governmental branch be allowed to discard Constitutional guarantees. When I become your congressional representative I will do more than merely recite my constitutional oath of office as a rite of passage. I will act upon that oath and support and defend the Constitution. I will act to restore the constitutional balance between inalienable rights and safety. As Americans we will be free . . . we will be safe . . . and we will not participate in violations of those inalienable rights guaranteed to all by our Constitution.

CA-46: Debbie Cook

Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution’s most basic and essential protections against government abuse.

Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.

You don’t fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.

CA-48: Steve Young

We now know George Bush’s wiretapping program is not a narrow examination of calls made to and from suspected terrorist suspects —  unless you believe that you and I are terrorists.  I am worried and angry that the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly purchased from the three largest telecommunications companies in the country, telephone records on tens of millions of Americans.   On December 17, 2005, President Bush said he authorized the program, “to intercept the international communication of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.  Then on January 23, 2006, after concerns were expressed that the NSA tapped into telecommunications arteries, Gen. Michael Hayden, then NSA chief, now CIA nominee, asserted his organization engages in surveillance if there is a “reasonable” basis for eavesdropping.

George Bush asks us to believe the NSA is not listening to phone conversations.  Does that comfort you?  Anyone with experience in data management knows the government now has the information necessary to cross-reference phone numbers, with available databases that link names and numbers to compile a substantial dossier on every American.  Evidently, Bush now sees the enemy, and it is us.

I will insist on national security — we all must — but we must also insist that America is a land of laws.  No one is above the law.  If the law is a circumstantial inconvenience for President Bush, the law will soon be irrelevant to the ordinary American.   Bush repeatedly asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which established a special court to confidentially review and authorize sensitive surveillance requests — does not apply to his surveillance program, so George Bush bypasses the court.

When you elect me to Congress, I will sponsor and pass legislation to remove any doubt that warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal.  We must do what is right, let the consequences follow.

CA-50: Nick Leibham

What’s much MUCH more disconcerting to me is the entire FISA bill…As somebody who has been a prosecutor and dealt with the 4th Amendment, I can tell you that this happened to have been the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that all the Founding Fathers could agree upon; that in order for the government intrusion there had to be probable cause signed off on by an independent magistrate that says you may have committed a crime. I find the entire FISA process to be constitutionally dubious. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be made constitutionally valid but I think that anytime you have wiretaps involved…that deals with an American citizen, you’ve gotta have a court sign off on it.  The only question in my mind is whether or not that has to be done prior to there warrant being executed or whether or not there is some grace period.  There is no doubt in my mind that the executive branch itself cannot act as both overseer and executioner (of warrants or wiretaps). That, I think, is constitutionally impermissible; I think it’s a violation of the judiciary’s proper role of interpreting laws.

As a former prosecutor [and] law clerk in the US Attorney’s office in the Major Frauds and Economic Crimes section…I’ve never heard of anybody being given immunity when you don’t know what they’ve done. It’s not how the immunity process works.  You don’t say to somebody ‘Whatever you’ve done, don’t worry about it.’…It’s unthinkable to me as a lawyer and as somebody who will have…sworn to uphold the Constitution that I could ever support that.

CA-52: Mike Lumpkin

FISA should never have been expanded. The government’s ability to spy was extensive enough already. The government is failing us in so many ways right now, this can just be added to the list. I want a safe, secure country. I have lived my life trying to secure exactly that. Frankly, the reason I joined the service was to defend my country’s beautiful liberties and secure them for future generations of Americans. Some attribute the following quote to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one can express the ideology of our democracy better than one of the founders.

As far as telecommunications immunity, my understanding is that legal culpability is determined in context. It is quite a thing to have the power of the executive branch of the government pointed in your direction making demands. Lack of courage to say “no” under such circumstances is no surprise. I think courts are well equipped to unravel this type of legal factual minutia and get to a just result. Immunity from the law is something to be dolled out sparingly.

Then there’s those whose names have been bandied about the blogosphere that we’d like to think they’d be opposed to Bush taking away the Fourth Amendment, but where I cannot find a single statement from them about this specific issue.  Much help would be appreciated in figuring out exactly where they stand on FISA.

CA-03: Bill Durston (see update)

CA-24: Marta Jorgensen

CA-41: Tim Prince

CA-42: Ed Chau

CA-45: Julie Borenstein

Did I forget anyone?

This diary won’t be popular, but it needs to be said.  This past weekend, UCLA finally finished up the school year.  Bill Clinton was supposed to have come spoken at Commencement for the College of Letters and Science.  However, because of a labor dispute between the UC and AFSCME, Clinton ended up not speaking.  Now, the replacement was Ariana Huffington.  But she too backed out at the last minute because of the labor dispute.

Note: There was NOT a strike going on.  It hadn’t gotten to that stage.  They’re still in negotiations for a new contract.  But the union requested that speakers cancel their commencement speeches.

Read below the fold to see how things went downhill.

So this past year, the mood on campus was one of excitement and anticipation at hearing Clinton speak at Commencement, even though most students here were supporting Obama.  The former President is still the former President.  Graduation tickets were incredibly hard to come by this year as a result.  So you can imagine the disappointment in many students and their parents when they found out that Clinton would not speak at UCLA.

There was a Facebook group placing the blame on the UC officials for messing up graduation that drew a couple hundred students.  So the support for the unions is real on campus.

Now, had that been it, it would have been simply disappointing that Clinton didn’t speak at graduation for the Class of 2008.  But… it got worse on graduation day.

Even with Clinton not coming, the union heads decided to tell their workers to picket the graduation ceremonies.  So as students are lining up to go into our basketball arena Pauley Pavilion for Commencement, taking photos with their friends and family, the workers are marching next to them chanting “No contract!  No peace!”  Here are two photos I took as I passed by.

It became quickly obvious that the protest put a damper on the mood of the students.  They already knew Clinton wasn’t coming.  They already understood the reasons why.  But this… it just felt like the union was rubbing it in their faces.  I know that wasn’t their intent, but hey, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  That’s how it came off.

Inside Pauley, when one of the speakers mentioned that Clinton and Huffington would not be speaking, a shower of boos rang out all over Pauley.  The students and their parents were obviously not booing Clinton or Huffington.  But the feeling you got at the ceremony was that they were now equally blaming the UC and the union for messing this up.  What should have been a lot of sympathy for the union was dramatically decreased as a result of their visible protest, IMO.

Note: I was not in Pauley to witness the booing.  I later confirmed this from talking to people who were in attendance, and got their moods and reactions.  And the people I talked to were hardly anti-union types.  But they tell me the mood inside Pauley had decidedly turned against the union.  And that much was already obvious to me just walking by outside and seeing the looks on the faces of the students as they looked on at the workers protesting next to them.  Looks of disgust.  Looks of “WTF?”

Now, call those students selfish, call them egotistical, whatever.  In a lot of their minds, the union helped ruin their graduation ceremony.

It was not a good day for the union or the UC.  When the anger should have been focused on the UC for not resolving the contract dispute for almost a full year, instead, both sides came off looking petty in a lot of people’s eyes.

And that’s my report from what happened at UCLA last week.

(Great analysis on the voter pool. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

So one of the arguments I’ve been seeing against gay marriage is that the 2000 ballot initiative Prop. 22 showed what the “will of the people” is.  Except… a closer look at what happened back then makes it more ambiguous as to what will actually happen this November.

First, yes, Prop. 22 passed, 61.4%-38.6%.  But it wasn’t on the ballot in November 2000, but rather in March 2000, in the primary election.  Now, here’s the thing.  By then, Al Gore had already clinched the nomination against Bill Bradley, so there wasn’t really an impetus for Democrats to go vote (much like you’re seeing the GOP say now for McCain).  Meanwhile, the race between Bush and McCain was still going on, though winding down.

And so, you had this situation where, in a blue state like California, Republican turnout well exceeding Democratic turnout.  3.2 million people voted for Democratic candidates (almost all for Al Gore), while over 4.1 million voted in the Republican primary, which Bush won by less than 400,000 votes over McCain.  (And WTF, Lyndon LaRouche listed as a Democrat??  Ewwwwww.)

Now, as to how each party voted, the best we have is the exit poll (.pdf) from the L.A. Times.  And the results may surprise you.

Blacks were actually MORE in favor of banning gay marriage than whites were.  58% of whites voted in favor of Prop. 22, while 62% of blacks did so, and 65% of Latinos did so.

Among Republicans, as you would expect, 80% voted in favor of it.  But among Democrats, it wasn’t anywhere near 80% voting against it.  In fact, only 57% of Democrats voted against it, with 43% voting in favor of it.  And Independents went for the proposition too, 58%-42%.  While 74% of liberal Democrats voted against it, among moderate Democrats, it was a blowout in the other direction, with 61% of them voting in favor of banning gay marriage.  Moderate Republicans were actually less inclined to support it, with Prop. 22 only getting 56% of them.

And since people are bringing up religion, it was the Protestants, and not the Catholics, that broke heavily in favor of banning gay marriage.  75% of Protestants voted for the ban, while only 59% of Catholics voted for it.  Conversely, 76% of Jews voted against the ban.

Regionally, the Bay Area was the only part of California where there was more opposition to the ban than support, if only barely.  51% voted against it in the Bay Area.  Even in Los Angeles County, it easily passed with 58% voting for it.  And the rest of California voted for it at an even higher clip.

So there’s your baselines from 2000.  Had it been a “normal” primary that March, where both parties still had actual primaries to compete in, the numbers would’ve been closer, but Prop. 22 still likely would’ve passed, given how many moderate Democrats were voting in favor of it, and given how it also easily won among Independents.

So, what does that portend for 2008?  We’ll see.  Certainly young people now are much more open to gay marriage than older folk, so if they turn out in record numbers for the general election too, that’ll be a big swing in shooting down the proposed constitutional amendment.  Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger coming out against the ban now is going to play a role, though it remains to be seen just how big of an impact his voice will have in this.

The recent SurveyUSA polling shows promise, with it tied as to whether they supported the court’s decision.  But something’s odd… while young people agreed with the court’s ruling 50%-38%, you have 51% supporting amending the state constitution to keep marriage between a man and a woman.  Those numbers seem to be flipped.  Perhaps the wording of the question was confusing, and people thought you had to amend the constitution to allow gays to get married?

Anyway, these numbers show in what areas the pro-gay marriage groups are going to need to work on to stop the amendment this November.

(Originally posted at DailyKos.)

Pro-lifers hate Planned Parenthood.  We know that.  But now they’ve taken their attacks to a whole new level, with viral videos and such.  Now, there’s an ongoing campaign right here at UCLA in 2008 to discredit PP as being associated with racists.  This latest onslaught highlights PP founder Margaret Sanger of being in favor of eugenics, which was true, but then tries to equate her views with that of the present-day Planned Parenthood.  Logical fallacy, anyone?  And then there’s been “undercover” work done to try and prove that Planned Parenthood in its present state is still secretly racist against black people.

This is their latest attack video they’ve released.

From this new pro-life magazine, The Advocate (run by a UCLA student, no less), we have this “article” that claims Margaret Sanger’s legacy is one of “abortion as eugenics”.

But Planned Parenthood has not really left eugenics behind. They deny it, but consider their deeds. In a 1921 article Sanger called eugenics “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” As if marching to her tune, PP is solving those unfitting racial and social problems daily: 79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are placed in minority neighborhoods (black and Hispanic). According to the Center for Disease Control’s report, “Abortion Surveillance”, blacks in particular receive 35% of all abortions in the United States, though they comprise less than 13% of the population. Perhaps most damning is that almost half of all black pregnancies are aborted, and PP has cornered their market.

PP has so far avoided comparison of their sales figures with Sanger’s messianic hope for genetic cleansing. It is interesting that they have escaped condemnation in a world so sensitive to racism. After all, words kill in politics-take ’08 presidential candidate Joseph Biden, whose campaign sank after he uttered “macaca.” The puritans of PC stoned Biden for the slightest hint of racism, but not a one has looked into the progeny of Margaret Sanger, who was the real deal, bona fide racism with a brick and a noose. While Biden was martyred, Sanger is praised for PP’s hands-on work curtailing the unwanted.

First… Joe Biden?!?!?!?!?  Yes, in these people’s minds, Joe Biden was Mr. Macaca, instead of the actual bigot who uttered those words, Republican George Allen.

But the bigger problem is their conclusion.  First, you can read the latest Abortion Surveillance report for yourselves.  It’s from 2004.  And yes, as they say, 35% of women who get abortions in the U.S. are black, even though blacks only make up about 13% of the population.  But look at that next sentence.

Perhaps most damning is that almost half of all black pregnancies are aborted, and PP has cornered their market.

OK, I’m calling bullshit on this one.  How can this person say “almost half”?  It’s similar to what former Colorado gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez said, that “70 percent” of black babies were aborted, which drew sharp and fast rebukes from African-American legislators.  Beauprez quickly apologized for that incredibly wrong number.

So where are they getting this “almost half” number?  Well, it’s a combination of the CDC report and not understanding basic math.  The report says this:

In the 38 reporting areas for which race was provided, classified according to the same categories used in previous years, approximately 53% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were white; 35%, black; and 8%, other; race was not known for 4% (Table 9). The abortion ratio for black women (472 per 1,000 live births) was 2.9 times the ratio for white women (161 per 1,000), and the ratio for women of the nonhomogeneous “other” race category (330 per 1,000) was 2.0 times the ratio for white women.

That’s what the person saw.  The numbers 472 and 1,000, and so it must mean 47.2%, which is “almost half”!  Except… it’s a RATIO, not a percentage.  Those “1,000 live births” are just that; babies that are actually born, i.e., not aborted.  If you want the percentage, it’s 472 / (472 + 1000) = 32%.  (FYI, the percentage for whites is 13.9%.)  Now, I don’t want to get into a debate on whether 32% is too high of a number.  But we simply don’t refer to a percentage that less than one-third as being “almost half”!  Well, unless you’re a pro-lifer, I guess.

Now, I am not a historian well-versed in what Margaret Sanger’s personal beliefs actually were.  I’ll just cite her Wikipedia entry about what pro-lifers are trying to do.

Sanger remains a controversial figure. While she is widely credited as a leader of the modern birth control movement, and remains an iconic figure for the American reproductive rights movements, she also is reviled by some who condemn her as “an abortion advocate.” Pro-life groups have frequently condemned Sanger’s views, attributing her efforts to promote birth control to a desire to “purify” the human race through eugenics, and even to eliminate minority races by placing birth control clinics in minority neighborhoods. For this reason, Sanger is often quoted selectively or out of context, and her history and involvement with socialism and eugenics have often been rationalized or even ignored by her defenders and biographers. Despite allegations of racism, Sanger’s work with minorities earned the respect of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. In their biographical article about Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood notes:

In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city’s health and social services. Staffed by a black physician and black social worker, the clinic was endorsed by The Amsterdam News (the powerful local newspaper), the Abyssinian Baptist Church, the Urban League, and the black community’s elder statesman, W.E.B. DuBois.

Now, the Advocate, along with Live Action Films (the pro-life counterpart to Brave New Films, it seems), is putting forth viral videos of their own undercover investigations.  The latest is calling Planned Parenthood personnel in Ohio and Idaho pretending to be a potential donor, where they “catch” the workers there being OK to taking money from a racist donor.  Um, that’s it?  While that may be bad, these people then want to paint the entire organization as being racist and in favor of eugenics.  Live Action Films did their part in putting out a video of those phone calls to Ohio and Idaho.

And already, WorldNetDaily is on the case reporting this story too.  Except to see it on Drudge in a few days, and Bill O’Reilly to bloviate about it next week.  The reporter who broke this story has already been interviewed by Brad Mattes for his show I’ve never heard of, Facing Life Head-On.

And just who is this crack reporter who broke the story?  UCLA student Lila Rose.  You may remember her from last year, when she did a similar undercover thing with Planned Parenthood, pretending to be a 15-year-old girl seeking an abortion, and getting the PP person she talked with to tell her to lie about her age.  She had brought a hidden camera and recorded the entire conversation, and put it up on YouTube.  It became a hit among pro-life groups, netting her interviews with Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.  Oh, and Live Action Films?  She co-founded it.  She does seem to have an up-and-coming career; look for her as an investigative reporter on Fox News in a few years.

(There’s no way I’m embedding Fox News or pro-life videos on this site, which is why I’ve only linked to the YouTube videos here.  Too much nausea involved.)

(cross-posted on DailyKos)

So one refrain I’ve seen bandied about in the last couple months has been that Edwards is a weak candidate because he couldn’t even win his home state of North Carolina in 2004.  Now, the primary rebuttal is that it was John Kerry’s campaign, not Edwards’.  But in looking at the numbers, I discovered something quite interesting.

Did you know that Bush got a higher percentage of the vote in 2004, when compared to 2000, in EVERY southern state… EXCEPT for North Carolina?  In fact, Bush improved his percentage of the vote in 47 of our 50 states, and even in D.C.  Yes, even in states that Bush lost by wide margins, he improved on his vote percentage in those states.  He barely got 35% of the vote in New York in 2000, but got over 40% of the vote there in 2004.  Think about that.  Hell, Bush even improved in Massachusetts, John Kerry’s home state.  Think about that.

The full numbers after the fold….

Here are my sources for the 2000 and 2004 data.  I’ve listed the percent of the vote Bush got in every single state (and D.C.) in 2000 and 2004, and the percent change going from 2000 to 2004 it represented.

                   2000 %   2004 %  %Change

Alabama             56.5     62.5     +6.0

Alaska              58.6     61.1     +2.5

Arizona             51.0     54.9     +3.9

Arkansas            51.3     54.3     +3.0

California          41.7     44.4     +2.7

Colorado            50.8     51.7     +0.9

Connecticut         38.4     43.9     +5.5

Delaware            41.9     45.8     +3.9

D.C.                 9.0      9.3     +0.3

Florida             48.8     52.1     +3.3

Georgia             54.7     58.0     +3.3

Hawaii              37.5     45.3     +7.8

Idaho               67.2     68.4     +1.2

Illinois            42.6     44.5     +1.9

Indiana             56.6     59.9     +3.3

Iowa                48.2     49.9     +1.7

Kansas              58.0     62.0     +4.0

Kentucky            56.5     59.6     +3.1

Louisiana           52.6     56.7     +4.1

Maine               44.0     44.6     +0.6

Maryland            40.2     42.9     +2.7

Massachusetts       32.5     36.8     +4.3

Michigan            46.1     47.8     +1.7

Minnesota           45.5     47.6     +2.1

Mississippi         57.6     59.4     +1.8

Missouri            50.4     53.3     +2.9

Montana             58.4     59.1     +0.7

Nebraska            62.2     65.9     +3.7

Nevada              49.5     50.5     +1.0

New Hampshire       48.1     48.9     +0.8

New Jersey          40.3     46.2     +5.9

New Mexico          47.8     49.8     +2.0

New York            35.2     40.1     +4.9

North Carolina      56.0     56.0     +0.0

North Dakota        60.7     62.9     +2.2

Ohio                50.0     50.8     +0.8

Oklahoma            60.3     65.6     +5.3

Oregon              46.5     47.2     +0.7

Pennsylvania        46.4     48.4     +2.0

Rhode Island        31.9     38.7     +6.8

South Carolina      56.8     58.0     +1.2

South Dakota        60.3     59.9     -0.4

Tennessee           51.1     56.8     +5.7

Texas               59.3     61.1     +1.8

Utah                66.8     71.5     +4.7

Vermont             40.7     38.8     -1.9

Virginia            52.5     53.7     +1.2

Washington          44.6     45.6     +1.0

West Virginia       51.9     56.1     +4.2

Wisconsin           47.6     49.3     +1.7

Wyoming             67.8     68.9     +1.1

Huzzah to Vermont and South Dakota for breaking the national trend.

While Gore received 43.2% of the vote in 2000 in North Carolina, Kerry got 43.6%.  Yeah, it’s not much of an increase, but considering that Bush improved in almost every other state in the country, it speaks volumes that North Carolina didn’t go the same way.

Think about this, folks.  In 48 states and D.C., Bush did better in 2004 than he did in 2000.  Think about that.  The ONLY states where that did not occur were South Dakota, Vermont, and North Carolina.  I’d have to say that that was because of John Edwards.  Notice that in Tennessee, without native Al Gore, their percent of the Bush vote jumped up from 51.1% to 56.8%.

And even with native John Kerry, Massachusetts gave Bush 36.8% of the vote in 2004, when they only gave him 32.5% in 2000.  How the hell could Bush improve by 4.3% in Kerry’s home state??  Given that, did you seriously expect John Edwards, as the Vice Presidential nominee, to FLIP North Carolina for the Democrats??  And look here in California: we gave Bush 41.7% of the vote in 2000, but gave him 44.4% of the vote in 2004, even as we re-elected Barbara Boxer in record numbers.  How did this happen?

When you see the chart like this, it’s amazing to think we picked off ANY state that went for Bush in 2000.  And the only one was New Hampshire.  Gore only got 46.8% of the vote there to Bush’s 48.1%, but Ralph Nader pulled in 3.9% of the vote.  In 2004, Kerry squeaked by with 50.2% of the vote.  But still, Bush got 48.9% of the vote that time around.  In Iowa, both parties did better in 2004 than they did in 2000 percentage-wise, but Bush still flipped that state red.

If you were wondering, I was over at MyDD, and read this comment, which spurred me to pull up the figures and crunch the numbers for this diary.