All posts by David Dayen

Uncategorized

We Apparently Have Dianne Feinstein’s Attention

6 Comments

(UPDATE: Just let me add that you can sign here to endorse the censure of DiFi by the CDP at their executive board meeting this weekend.  As I said yesterday, and as quoted in the Goldmacher piece, the chances for success are remote.  But the more people on board, the more attention it gets, and it symbolizes the frustration from the rank and file.)

Shane Goldmacher got someone at Dianne Lieberman Feinstein’s office on the record about the anger in the Democratic grassroots over her continued efforts to undermine Democratic values in the Senate.  The leadership of the CA Democratic Party chimed in, as well.  See if you can spot the difference between the two statements.

Roger Salazar at the CDP:

“This party supports our Democratic senator and will continue to do so,” said party communications director Roger Salazar. “Period.”

Here’s Scott Gerber for the Senator:

Scott Gerber, a Feinstein aide, defended the senator, saying she “has been an independent voice for California.”

So one side says she’s a Democratic senator and the CDP supports Democrats (no matter the policy or the principle, they just support Democrats, so shut up, grassroots!), while the other says she’s an “independent voice for California.”

Somebody better talk to somebody.

Then there’s this howler:

“What people may not know is she was a strong leader in the fight against (now Supreme Court Justice Samuel) Alito and (Chief Justice John) Roberts,” Gerber said, noting she opposed “more than a dozen” circuit court nominees from the Bush administration.

Hmm, I didn’t know that!  I guess that’s why Alito and Roberts were never confirmed to the Supreme Court, in the face of all that “leadership.”  It must have been withering attacks like this that did the trick:

“Many of us are struggling with . . . what kind of a justice would you be, John Roberts,” implored Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

She voted against Roberts in committee, but made no loud effort to filibuster.  And on Alito, she had this expression of leadership when it counted:

A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.

“I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week’s hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.

Fight, Dianne, Fight!

She actually ended up voting against cloture, but only after it was apparent that the filibuster wouldn’t hold and after she undermined it with prior comments.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gerber, the Great Gazoogle is my friend, and your claim that she was a “strong leader” against Roberts and Alito rings hollow.

If anything positive comes out of this, it’s that DiFi recognizes that a whole lot of Californians are upset with her, and she can no longer run and hide from them.  It may not change a lot, but it’s a first step.

Uncategorized

CA-26: Superb Web Ad From Russ Warner

5 Comments

Russ Warner is hammering David Dreier over his SCHIP vote.  This is a great ad:

Warner is using the vote as a symbol for how out of touch Dreier has become over his 28 years serving conservative ideological masters instead of his constituents.  The other thing that strikes me is the quality of the ad, and that he’s releasing it on the Web.  At 44 seconds it takes its time to explain the issue in a bit more detail (though I’m sure it can be cut down into a :30 television spot), yet it plays very much as something that would be broadcast. 

I kind of wish there was some Democratic branding in the spot, but overall it’s very good.

Uncategorized

More Progressive Orgs. Push For Accountability On Feinstein

3 Comments

(UPDATE: The ACLU and CREDO, formerly Act For Change, are also pushing Sen. Feinstein.)

In addition to the buzz in the blogosphere about activist efforts to censure Dianne Feinstein for her votes with Bush Republicans on key issues, some of the top progressive organizations have DiFi in their sights.  MoveOn is asking their California members to call Feinstein about tomorrow’s vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee over the revised FISA bill, and tell her not to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies who violated the law by handing over information to the Bush Administration.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is facing tremendous pressure from the Bush administration. Tomorrow, she will likely vote on whether or not to let the phone companies off the hook for helping the president illegally spy on the phone calls and emails of innocent Americans.

President Bush wants immunity for these companies to cover-up his own illegal actions. The pending lawsuits against companies like AT&T may be the only way we ever find out how far the Bush administration went in breaking the law.

We have to make sure Sen. Feinstein hears from us right away. Can you call Sen. Feinstein and tell her to vote against immunity for big corporations who break the law? Tell her that voters want accountability and oversight-not immunity.

Here’s where to call:
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: 202-224-3841

DiFi has already signaled her intention to allow telecom immunity for lawbreakers, but clearly she needs to feel the pressure.  What is far more interesting is DFA’s effort to have Feinstein removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee altogether.  on the flip…

In California, we have a law — commonly called the three-strikes law. And, like all laws, I think it ought to apply to everybody — including my Senator, Diane Feinstein.

Too many times Senator Feinstein has failed to represent the people of California. Now she has announced that this Thursday she will support President Bush for the third time in two months. And it all comes down to Senator Feinstein’s role on the Judiciary Committee.

Strike One: A Bush nominee for the federal bench, Leslie Southwick has a long history of rulings in lower courts that violate equality laws. Feinstein cast a deciding vote to give him a lifetime seat.

Strike Two: Michael Mukasey, nominated for Attorney General, refused to say he would oppose torture. But Feinstein voted to send his confirmation to the Senate floor anyway.

Now she’s poised for her third bad vote in a row, on a rework of the FISA Act — the law that’s supposed to protect us all against illegal wiretapping […]

Please call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid right now and demand he remove Senator Feinstein from the committee and replace her with a Democrat who will stand up to President Bush’s abuse of power.

Senator Harry Reid
202-224-3542

As I’ve said, progressives in California are looking for ways to get DiFi’s attention, and inform her that she works for the people of this state, not elites in DC.  These are two national organizations working at the local level to do just that.

Uncategorized

Feinstein Faces Censure Resolution At CDP E-Board

4 Comments

(Visit the Courage Campaign censure page for more info or to support the resolution. – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)

Progressives are angry with Dianne Feinstein to a degree that I’ve never seen before.  She followed up the Leslie Southwick nomination with the Michael Mukasey nomination, and this week she may tip the balance on telecom immunity in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  This weekend, at the California Democratic Party executive board meeting, she may get a reprimand.

  One day after voting to elevate a divisive conservative judge to the federal appeals court in New Orleans, President Bush invited California Sen. Dianne Feinstein aboard Air Force One to survey the damage from the recent spate of Southern California wildfires.

The senator later remarked privately that she found her conversation with Bush aboard Air Force One “illuminating,” a source close to Feinstein told the Huffington Post […]

Now, a coalition of progressive Democrats upset with Feinstein’s controversial votes will ask the California Democratic Party to censure her at its executive board meeting this weekend, the Huffington Post has learned.

The move comes as Feinstein again finds herself under fire for saying Thursday that she now supports granting legal immunity to telecom companies that shared customer email and phone messages with the federal government as part of the warrantless surveillance program.

“Dianne Feinstein does not listen to the people of California,” said Rick Jacobs, president of the Courage Campaign, a progressive organization in California. “She supports George Bush’s agenda time after time.”

Knowing what I know about the e-board, this is not likely to pass.  And if it did, it’s not likely to mean anything or change any opinion.  But it’s a symbol of exactly how upset the grassroots is with Feinstein, and how they are grasping for something to express their disapproval.

The resolution text is on the flip.

Whereas Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to support the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as United States Attorney General, thereby elevating to the highest position in law enforcement a man who refused to renounce the right of the President to resort to torture and who refused to recognize waterboarding as a form of torture, and by this action Senator Feinstein failed to oppose President Bush and failed to stand for the ideals of the Democratic Party, which abhors torture and stands firmly against its use by the United States at all times and places; and

Whereas Senator Feinstein voted to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit despite his clear record of racism and gender discrimination, thus failing to stand firmly with the Democratic Party, which supports gender equality and opposes racism in any of its manifestations; and

Whereas these examples are far from the only instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has failed to support the policies and principles of our party

Therefore be it resolved that the California Democratic Party expresses its disappointment at, and censure of, Senator Feinstein for ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials.

Uncategorized

They’re Fighting For Your Right To Ban Them For Saying “Stop The Fighting.”

20 Comments

Turning free speech and the notion of a military defending American Constitutional rights completely on its head, a Veteran’s Day parade in Long Beach banned antiwar veteran’s groups from appearing on Saturday.

A participation application filed by Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out was turned down because organizers want Saturday’s parade free from politics.

“They do not fit the spirit of the parade, the spirit being one of gratitude for what the veterans have done,” said Martha Thuente, coordinator for the nonprofit Veterans Day Parade Committee.

“We do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops’ withdrawal from Iraq,” she added.

Now, you don’t have an inalienable right to march in a parade.  But Veterans For Peace WAS allowed to march in the same parade last year.  Not to mention the fact that plenty of the groups marching on Saturday have advocated an explicit political agenda in the past.  The VFW and the American Legion have made plenty of public pro-war statements over the years, that would seemingly conflict with this expressed belief that only “nonpartisan” groups be allowed to show their pride in wearing the uniform.

Contact information for the Long Beach Veteran’s Day Parade is here.  It is impossible and even dangerous to sanitize democracy of any political thought because some arbitrary official deems it “inappropriate.”

Environment

SD-23: “Carbon-Free Voting”

16 Comments

I got this mailer today:

Apparently, voting by mail is “carbon-free”!  And to prove that point, the carbon-free voting people have sent me a four-page glossy mailer to tell me so.  But it’s printed on soy ink!  And if you vote permanent absentee, you don’t have to get in your car to get to your polling place!  And anyway, they puchased carbon offsets to mitigate these campaign activities!

So what the hell is going on here?  Why is an environmental group sending a mailer touting “carbon-free voting,” which, um, pretty much doesn’t exist?  Well, that would be explained by the picture of Fran Pavley on the back.

Now, Fran’s great.  As Assemblywoman she authored the landmark global warming law that will hopefully become a model for the nation, AB32.  But she’s also running for State Senate to replace the termed-out Sheila Kuehl, and obviously she’s interested in raising her profile.  So everyone in the Senate district, my district, got this mailer.  The LA Times ran a story on it.

The mailer is being derided by some, while others are questioning whether it is improperly trying to influence a state Senate election in the West L.A. area by prominently featuring one of the candidates, former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley.

“It looks dubious,” said Tracy Westen, chief executive of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based non-partisan group that promotes political reform in Los Angeles. “It’s coordinated with her, it has her picture on it and it is going into that Senate district.”

Her main foe in the race, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, wouldn’t comment for the story.

There are about 500 good reasons for vote-by-mail, and since Republicans kind of have a head start on permanent absentee organization I’m happy to see someone on the left promoting it.  But calling it “carbon-free” is a stretch.  And using it as a cover to tout a Senate candidate is pretty suspect.

Orange County

CA-42: Caught In The Wildfires

3 Comments

My column at Capitol Weekly about Ron Shepston’s experiences during the Southern California wildfires is up here.  It’s really a pretty amazing story.

As the flames closed in, and evacuation was recommended, Ron and his family packed up. One of his neighbors, a 37-year retired battalion chief with the Orange County Fire Authority named Mike, had plenty of experience with fighting fires, and with the limited official resources, he thought he could help protect the community if the fire engulfed the canyon. The problem was that his body was beaten from years of service. After escorting his family to safer ground, Ron told Mike he was willing to help. “I’ll be your legs,” he said.

Ignoring a mandatory evacuation, Ron and Mike went to work, setting up hoses, hooking into hydrants, watering down wood structures, and clearing fuel away from danger. They also provided assistance to federal, state and local firefighters about prime lookout spots to view the progress of the fire, and the local terrain. This lasted for 10 days, a non-stop firefighting effort in an attempt to protect the community. “I could hear the roar of the flames on the ridge,” Ron said, “There were flames rising 100 feet.”

Go throw me a bone and read the whole thing.  There’s some discussion of Orange County’s failure to protect its residents by gutting firefighting operations, as well as the stark contrast between a leader like Shepston and Gary Miller, who has yet to make even one public statement about the fires.  This will be an issue in the campaign.

Health Care

Bonuses For Cancelling Insurance

2 Comments

This is the benign face of the industry that will undeniably get richer in a forced-market “universal” health care approach:

One of the state’s largest health insurers set goals and paid bonuses based in part on how many individual policyholders were dropped and how much money was saved.

Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed.

The revelation that the health plan had cancellation goals and bonuses comes amid a storm of controversy over the industry-wide but long-hidden practice of rescinding coverage after expensive medical treatments have been authorized.

Cancellation GOALS.  That’s right.  One man’s catastrophic medical and financial situation is another man’s new boat.

This is of course nothing new.  It’s standard practice for most insurers.  When you get sick and put in a claim to actually use your health insurance, your file is immediately sent to the cancellation department and people review it for the slightest rationale to dump your coverage.

Now, market reforms like guaranteed issue, which would mandate that insurance companies cover anyone who wants health insurance regardless of pre-existing condition, would stop this practice.  California’s latest iteration of a health reform bill includes this policy.  But let’s not be so naive that insurers will not find other ways to stop paying their claims, and use the spectre of “affordability” to do so:

Insurers maintain that cancellations are necessary to root out fraud and keep premiums affordable. Individual coverage is issued to only the healthiest applicants, who must disclose preexisting conditions […]

The documents show that in 2002, the company’s goal for Barbara Fowler, Health Net’s senior analyst in charge of rescission reviews, was 15 cancellations a month. She exceeded that, rescinding 275 policies that year — a monthly average of 22.9.

More recently, her goals were expressed in financial terms. Her supervisor described 2003 as a “banner year” for Fowler because the company avoided about “$6 million in unnecessary health care expenses” through her rescission of 301 policies — one more than her performance goal.

In 2005, her goal was to save Health Net at least $6.5 million. Through nearly 300 rescissions, Fowler ended up saving an estimated $7 million, prompting her supervisor to write: “Barbara’s successful execution of her job responsibilities have been vital to the profitability” of individual and family policies.

Let’s not claim that “but in the future, this will be illegal” and clap our hands in self-congratulation.  This is ALREADY illegal in the state of California.  You can’t tie bonuses to claims reviews.  But they did it nontheless.

So when you make deals with a for-profit health insurance industry, don’t be surprised if they ever so slightly go back on them.

San Diego

You Don’t Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows

6 Comments

When I wrote the earlier piece today about California suing the EPA over granting a waiver on tailpipe emissions, I noticed a lot of comments in the linked article from denialists, touting that “The head of the Weather Channel thinks global warming is a scam… how could it be true if the founder of the Weather Channel doesn’t believe in it?”  This appears to be a new denialist talking point.  John Coleman, the founder in question, wrote a piece for a global warming skeptic site calling it a scam.  It got the full Drudge treatment, and wingnuts are engaging in a link-fest.

John Coleman may be the “founder of the Weather Channel,” but he’s actually just a hack weatherman in San Diego:

John Coleman has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953 and TV was brand new. He still loves predicting the weather and relating to the television viewers. “I also love working at KUSI NEWS”, he adds. “It is a rare thing; a locally owned and managed TV station. And, there are dozens of wonderful people who work here.”

John has predicted and shoveled his share of snow. He has been a TV weatherman in Champaign, Peoria and Chicago, Illinois; Omaha, Nebraska, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and New York City. For seven years he was the weatherman on “Good Morning, America” on the ABC Network.

It’s basically like turning all scientific thought on climate patterns over to Willard Scott, or someone else who’s been reading a TelePrompTer all their life.

In fact, Coleman likes to call being a TV weatherman in San Diego “outrageous scam,” meaning that, in his mind, he has something in common with global warming.

Coleman ran the Weather Channel for a year.  He’s no longer involved in any way.  And they’ve embraced science at this point, making the fight against global warming part of their mandate.

What’s hilarious is that the right-wing, constantly trumpeting the death of the MSM and questioning every word out of the mouths of the “librul media,” is now embracing a LOCAL TV NEWS WEATHERMAN as the last word on global warming.  As long as he is saying what fits, I guess…

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown

Schwarzenegger, Brown Finally Sue EPA Over Tailpipe Emissions Waiver

It was scheduled to happen the week of the SoCal wildfires, but events intervened.  Now, California is poised to sue the federal government over the EPA’s failure to grant a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Schwarzenegger and Brown plan to file a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Bush administration to decide whether to approve California’s landmark law requiring automakers to gradually reduce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.

“California has a long and proud history of leadership in reducing pollution and fighting for clean air for our residents,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement yesterday. “And we are upholding that tradition by filing a lawsuit against the federal government that takes a big step forward in the battle against global warming.”

Under federal law, California must receive an EPA waiver to implement emissions standards tougher than federal levels.

But even if they prevail in court, California leaders are pessimistic that they will secure the waiver from the Bush administration, which has been slow to acknowledge warnings that human-caused global warming is a serious threat to the planet.

“Realistically, we think the chances are slim,” said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board. “We’ve made the case on the merits. We’re right on the law. Somehow or the other politics will intervene. We just don’t know where or how.”

The strategy here has been to slow-walk the decision to avoid the negative consequences of disallowing broadly popular legislation.  It should be noted that the EPA has NEVER in its history failed to grant a waiver of this kind for tighter air pollution control laws.  There’s not even any standing for denying the waiver under the Clean Air Act, which only should occur if the regulations are not “technologically feasible.”  Considering that people are making 150mpg conversions in their garages, that’s just patently absurd.  Automakers in this country are killing themselves slowly by refusing to adapt to the needs and desires of consumers.  If they persist, states should be allowed to recognize the impact on their own air quality and demand a shift.

This is going to be a long fight, but eventually, we will get this law.