All posts by David Dayen

Health Care

S-CHIP Battle Escalates

Another thing the Governor is missing while jetting to China is the major showdown over S-CHIP, with California signed on to an 8-state lawsuit against the federal government.

Several states said Monday they would challenge the Bush administration in federal court over its new rules that block the expansion of a health insurance program for children from low-income families.

Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Washington are joining in the litigation, either as plaintiffs or by filing supporting briefs.

The states object to rules issued by the Bush administration in August that make it harder for them to provide coverage to children in middle-income families by limiting the total income of families who participate.

The states accuse the administration of overstepping the federal government’s authority to set income limits for participants in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

It’s amazing that, in this day and age, states have to sue the government so they can provide health insurance to needy children.  But this case puts extra pressure on the Bush Administration to pass the bipartisan bill expanding S-CHIP, which is politically popular.  It also puts pressure on Republican House members, who are all that’s standing in the way from this bill becoming law through a veto override.  Smart Democratic challengers are already making this a defining issue in next year’s elections.  The DCCC is targeting House members with radio ads, and today CA-26’s Russ Warner will hold a rally at David Dreier’s San Dimas office, to protest his vote against S-CHIP.  850,000 children in California alone will be negatively impacted by this vote, so it’s a huge issue here.  Details for the rally on the flip.

“WE CAN NOT REMAIN SILENT WHILE DAVID DREIER TURNS HIS BACK ON OUR KIDS, LEAVING THEM UNPROTECTED WITHOUT EVEN BASIC HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.”  -Russ Warner

WHAT

Join Democrat and 26th District Congressional Candidate Russ Warner, parents and child health advocates for a rally in front of
David Dreier’s San Dimas office on Tuesday, Oct. 2 at 11 am.

Tell David Dreier you object to his vote against the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Tell him to stand for children and not with President George Bush and Big Tobacco.

WHY

As a result of this vote, hundreds of thousands of California families will likely lose health insurance for their children in the coming months.  Currently 850,000 children in California receive health care coverage through the SCHIP program in California, called Healthy Families.

Taxpayers in the 26th Congressional District will have paid $1.3 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007.  For the same amount of money, health care could have been supplied to 149,373 children, according to the National Priorities Project.

WHEN/WHERE

Tuesday, Oct. 2, 11:00 a.m.
Congressman David Dreier’s Office
510 East Foothill Blvd.
San Dimas, CA 91733

Bring A Home Made Rally Sign And Your Voice. Stand Up and Be Heard!

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Health Care

You Guys Have Fun, I’m On Vacation!!!

2 Comments

Government by magazine cover continues this week, as Arnie calls a special session and then doesn’t show up for it himself:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger jetted to China on Monday to help promote an event dear to his wife’s family, taking a four-day break from the special legislative session that he called to address California’s healthcare and water problems and leaving more than 600 bills awaiting action on his desk.

The governor, who is scheduled to return Thursday night, has two weeks to sign or veto the measures and is prohibited by the state Constitution from acting on them while he is out of the state.

Schwarzenegger announced his trip a day before flying to Shanghai for the summer games of the Special Olympics, a nonprofit that benefits the disabled.

Why should the Governor have to play by the same rules as the Legislature?  After all, he only CALLED for the special session, that doesn’t mean he has to show up for it!  Even if he’s the only one holding up the healthcare bill, and arguably the water bill as well.

The sick part of this is that Arnold had cancelled trips to Britain and India because he was so concerned with engaging in a special session.  Now, trip to China comes up, he’s out.  I don’t even think he’s the Governor anymore.  He’s like some figurehead king like Olaf of Sweden who exists strictly in ceremonial terms.  I also believe that Arnold can only spend about 6 months or so in Sacramento before having to get out and go on a press junket.

And he lied about it, too:

On Sunday, he told the (British) Conservatives: “I’m very sorry that I could not join you in person, but as you probably know by now, I’m in the middle of a special session of the Legislature that I called. . . . Because of that, I had to cancel all travel, except a long-term promise to attend the Special Olympics World Summer Games in China, which is this coming week. Now this is an organization that my mother-in-law started.”

But in fact, Schwarzenegger traveled to New York last week to speak at the United Nations about global warming, then went to Sonora, Mexico, on Thursday and Friday for a conference of the Border Governors Assn., a group he will lead as chairman for the next year. He flew to his Los Angeles home Thursday night to celebrate his son’s 10th birthday.

Also, it wasn’t a “long-time commitment,” he didn’t decide to go to China until the weekend.

The Special Olympics is a perfectly noble enterprise, but governing comes with a little thing called responsibility.  600-some bills are collecting dust on the Governor’s desk while he tries dim sum.

If the guy doesn’t want to run the state, other options can be put in motion.  From what I remember, that’s how he got the gig.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Health Care, Prisons

Sunday Night Week In Review

1 Comment

Here are some notes from a few stories I’d been meaning to get to all week.

• Frank Russo had a good recap of the initial hearing from the three-judge panel charged with finding a solution to California’s prison crisis.  This panel may result in the early release of thousands of prisoners to reduce overcrowding.  The panel does not appear to be able to be swayed by political expediency (unlike the Legislature for the past 30 years), saying  “This is a judicial and not a political process.”  It is clear that the torturous conditions in California jails and the inability to deliver even basic medical care violates the Constitution and will be dealt with swiftly.  Even the Correctional Officers union has come around to the point of view that reductions in the prison population are needed.  Only a cowardly, leadership-challenged political class refuses to face reality.

(more on the flip):

• Here’s a fun tale of health care at the Tribune Company, parent of the LA Times and local TV station KTLA:

The Tribune Company has come up with a new tactic to cut costs and annoy the hell out of its employees – again. It seems that everyone on the staff at the L.A. Times (and so I assume KTLA) has to prove that their spouses and children really are theirs, and thus eligible for medical benefits. Though wasteful and mildly insulting it sounds easy enough, but apparently it’s not. They call it a “Mercer Audit” and its demands have some staffers in an uproar.

They’re demanding documentation (a birth certificate or marriage license, I guess) with a deadline of days from actually giving employees notice.  I’m sure in the boardroom this is considered “sound business sense.”

• At our Calitics Quarterly event, I talked with Digby about her contention that the GOP is targeting California as the big blue state where Rudy Giuliani can break through and get the paradigm-shifting win they need.  It’s true that the big hitters in the state have all come out for him – although the Pete Wilson endorsement garnered all of three reporters to the announcement.

• Continuing on this theme, a new SUSA poll shows head-to-head general election matchups for all of the top three candidates on either side, and in California, it shakes out like this: against Romney or Thompson, all the Democrats win by between 15 and 33 points.  Against Giuliani, Clinton beats him by 20, but Obama wins by only for and Edwards by only 2.  Wow.  Of course, Giuliani is still riding the name ID coattails.  However, his clear penchant for wanting to be competitive in California is evidenced by the fact that the mystery fundraiser for the dirty tricks initiative was the chairman of Giuliani’s northeast fundraising operation.

• Rik Hertzberg had an interesting footnote to the possible demise of the dirty tricks initiative:

Why would Schwarzenegger want to shoot down a proposal that has the potential of delivering the White House to his party next year?

My guess is that he isn’t losing any sleep over the probability of a G.O.P. Presidential rout, which would make him the indisputably most important Republican in America. His current port tack, on issues like health care and climate change, suggests that he knows which way the wind is blowing.  Doubtless he would rather be swept along than swept away.

Then there’s this. Anybody remember the first Republican debate, on MSNBC back in May? I’ll bet Arnold does. He was in the front row at the Reagan Library when Chris Matthews asked the ten candidates if they would support changing the Constitution ever so slightly to make naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency. The vote onstage was eight to one against. (The one was Giuliani; McCain said he’d “seriously consider it,” which I count as an abstention.) Eight to one, in other words, in favor of crushing the ultimate and perfectly legitimate dream of the distinguished Governor of California.

If I were Schwarzenegger, I wouldn’t lift a finger to help these bozos.

• Finally, tonight at midnight, the UAW Local 2865 contract runs out.  While the United Auto Workers settled their contract dispute with GM, Local 2865, which covers over 12,000 academic student employees at UC campuses (TAs, for example) has made little headway with UC.  You can read all about it here.  The whole idea of student employee unions gets lost in the shuffle, but they are being royally screwed, and are planning to file lots of unfair labor practices charges, in addition to keeping negotiations going and reserving the right to strike.  We ought to support their efforts.

Uncategorized

CA House Races Roundup – September 2007

13 Comments

OK, I’m getting this in just under the wire.  Time for the House roundup for September.  There are a little over 13 months until Election Day, and with the end of the 3rd quarter on Sunday (donate), this election is really not that far away.  In fact, CQ Politics has put out their initial assessment of the House landscape.  It’s favorable for Democrats, but predictably, there are only two California seats on that radar: CA-04 and CA-11.  But there have been a lot of developments in the other races throughout the state as well.

I’m going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup.  I’m also, as usual, including the “Boxer number.”  Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is.  If I put “57,” that means Boxer received 57% of the vote.  Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)

First, let’s look at the one threatened seat currently held by a Democrat.

1) CA-11 (McNerney).  CQ Politics has the seat “Leans Democratic,” and only two Democratic seats are less safe (Tim Mahoney in FL-16 and Nancy Boyda in KS-02).  Dean Andal has the funds to make a challenge here, and he’s become a born-again environmentalist, which is curious considering his prior anti-environmental history.  But McNerney has done himself no favors.  His bungled rhetoric during the Iraq debate in August was met with outcry, and this week’s vote to condemn MoveOn.org, an organization that gave him over $50,000 in 2006, didn’t exactly enthuse activists either.  He tried to respond by blasting Rush Limbaugh’s comments and asking that he be taken off the air; I’m not sure how that jibes with the First Amendment.  McNerney will clearly have a lot of DCCC incumbency protection, but this is obviously a race that won’t be easy, and McNerney is making it difficult for activists to continue to support him.

Now, to the top 10 challengers.

1) CA-04 (Doolittle).  Last month: 1.  Boxer number: 40.  This is one of six Republican-held seats listed in CQ’s ratings as “No Clear Favorite,” and one of only two where the incumbent is running for re-election (the other is Robin Hayes against netroots hero Larry Kissell in NC-08).  Charlie Brown, who has a  great interview in CQ this week, actually announced his campaign just a few weeks ago as part of a barnstorming tour.  As for John Doolittle, his legal woes continue.  Eleven years’ worth of documents have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department, as part of the Abramoff case.  Doolittle is refusing to comply with the subpoena, setting up what could be a Constitutional showdown.  Meanwhile, he has at least three high-profile primary challengers, and a lot of pressure within the district to resign.  The more candidates in the primary actually helps Doolittle, as it spreads out the vote.  If it’s a two-person primary, he could easily lose.  And Brown would be in excellent position to beat Doolittle if there’s a rematch.

2) CA-26 (Dreier).  Last month: 2.  Boxer number: 48.  Russ Warner, last seen at the Calitics Q3 event, has been busily raising money for the end of the quarter.  I’m told that the numbers will be better than Q2.  Warner has also gone on the offensive against David Dreier’s shameful voting record, being one of the first Congressional challengers to use the SCHIP vote as a campaign issue.  That’s going to be a big vote to highlight next year.  Meanwhile Dreier nearly caused an international incident in Colombia by sitting on a lectern, continued to whine about supposedly shoody treatment on the House Rules Committee (yeah, that never happened under Republicans), and had some shady connections with those who were trying to steal the Presidential election with the Dirty Tricks Initiative in California.

Of course, there’s a primary, but Hoyt Hilsman’s campaign website hasn’t been updated since July.  Russ Warner is running a professional campaign, and a good one thus far.

3) CA-50 (Bilbray).  Last month: 4.  Boxer number: 48.  Nick Leibham, who has two nice-looking dogs, is about to get the endorsement of Francine Busby for the Democratic primary, according to our man in San Diego. 

The field has been slowly clearing for a while now, with Michael Wray opting against a run and John Lee Evans running for School Board.  Steve Schechter has also filed FEC paperwork to run in the district, but this endorsement would line up the one major recognizable Democratic face in the district behind Leibham.  Putting to rest any remaining speculation that she might run again, much of the drama is likely over in the primary, leaving now more than a year of Bilbray-hunting.

Avoiding a primary would obviously be a plus for Leibham.  Meanwhile, Bilbray is being his usual brown-hating self, calling on the feds to pay local governments for the services spent on “illegal immigrants.”  This is immigrant bashing at its worst, but while it offends the conscience of the sane, his base is energized by these theatrics.  Leibham will have to do a better job of finding new voters than Busby did to have a shot at this district.

4) CA-24 (Gallegly).  Last month: 3.  Boxer number: 47.  I’m still keeping this race fairly high, maybe higher than it should be, because of the possibility of retirement.  We’ve seen the mass exodus of Republicans from the House, as the prospects for them regaining those plum committee chairmanships grow dim.  Gallegly says he’s running, but he resigned last year before un-resigning, so he’s not that credible a source.  So far, the only challenger in this district is Mary Pallant, who officially declared her candidacy this week.  Pallant is a fellow AD delegate of mine, and a very progressive Democrat.

In announcing her intent to run, Pallant emphasized her stance as a “progressive Democrat,” and invoked Roosevelt in her campaign theme, a Newer and Fairer Deal for the 21st Century. Her platform is described as ending the occupation of Iraq, she said, as well as implementing a universal single-payer healthcare system, seeking energy independence while enforcing environmental protections and pursuing economic strength and security through economic self-sufficiency.

Other candidates seem to be waiting this one out until they see if Gallegly actually runs. Jill Martinez, the candidate in 2006, is rumored to be running again, but hasn’t declared officially.  Brett Wagner kind of says he’s running, but his website hasn’t been updated since February.  Education activist Chip Fraser may run; he once walked from Ventura to the state Capitol to promote education reform.  The district is smaller than that!

5) CA-42 (Miller).  Last month: 5.  Boxer number: 41.  Ron Shepston and his team have been spending September making appearances and raising money.  He did both in a Blue America chat on Firedoglake.  Blue America support has in the past been crucial to Congressional success around the country.  Meanwhile, Gary Miller has been voting for endless war in Iraq and against children’s health care and S-CHIP.  That puts him in line with every other California Republican, but Miller is also incredibly corrupt.  Although, he claims that he is not under FBI scrutiny, which is an inspiring political message.

Miller agreed to an on-the-record, unrecorded interview with The Hill days before the August recess, in which he rejected the
notion that the FBI is investigating him.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that Dick Singer, a spokesman for the city of Monrovia, Calif., said federal agents had interviewed city officials about a $10 million land deal in which Miller did not pay capital gains taxes.
Miller says no taxes were owed because he was forced to sell the land under threat of eminent domain.

Miller also pointed out that a “federal agent” could be any federal entity, such as the IRS. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS had questions after the liberal-leaning group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint to the federal agency against him in August 2006.

“I’m sure the IRS wanted to see the information. A federal agent could be anyone – anyone flashing a badge,” Miller said.

Though there’s not much new to report, these ethics concerns aren’t likely to go away, and a good candidate could capitalize on them, a la Charlie Brown with John Doolittle.

6) CA-44 (Calvert).  Last month: 7.  Boxer number: 45.  The Inland Empire was one of the areas where they were out gathering signatures for the Dirty Tricks initiative, before it cratered, and Ken Calvert was quoted in the article:

Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, also favors the system, saying it could help improve the state’s dismal voter-turnout rates. He said presidential candidates from both parties, who have written off California as a lock for the Democrats, would have to campaign in Inland Southern California and across the state.

“They’d have to be here, and that would create excitement,” he said. “People would think their vote matters.”

We’ll see if Bill Hedrick can make any hay out of that next November.  In addition to Calvert’s dismal voting record and serious corruption issues.  Calvert was one of 5 US Congressmen on a junket to the CNMI where rumors of sex tourism abound (Dana Rohrabacher and John Doolittle were on this trip as well).

7) CA-52 (open seat) Last month: 10.  Boxer number: 44.  There are new candidates on the Democratic side in this San Diego-area race.  Former Special Forces regular JIm Hester and ex-Navy SEAL Mike Lumpkin are running.  Lumpkin seems to be keeping a busy schedule and generating a little press, both offline and in the blogosphere; Markos wrote enthusiastically about him.  I still think it’s going to be hard to beat the son of Duncan Hunter, and hard to criticize him while he’s serving in Afghanistan or possibly Iraq.

8) CA-41 (Lewis).  Last month: 6.  Boxer number: 43.  Jerry Lewis has announced that he’s running for re-election again, so that puts the retirement rumors to rest. In addition, he’s managed to get the Justice Department drain the money swamp committed to investigating him:

The veteran prosecutor who’d been heading up the Lewis case has been forced into retirement, The Los Angeles Daily Journal reported yesterday (not available online). It knocks the investigation, already stalled, further off course.

Because of civil-service rules, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. attorney’s office who just recently took over the probe of Rep. Jerry Lewis must exit the office for good by the end of September, marking the third significant departure from the office’s corruption unit since Lewis first came under suspicion last year.

Michael Emmick, who first joined Los Angeles’s U.S. attorney’s office in 1982, has been serving under one-year appointments since 2004, after he triggered a contractual clause that will allow him to collect retirement benefits immediately upon leaving the office.

It’s highly unlikely that the Lewis investigation is going anywhere.  Furthermore, since Lewis will run again, it’s likely that Tim Prince, the likely challenger, won’t.  Worse, Louie Contreras, the candidate in 2006 who didn’t campaign at all past the primary, and may have been hand-picked by Lewis himself as a sock-puppet challenger, appears to be running again.

9) CA-03 (Lungren).  Last month: unranked.  Boxer number: 42.  In my preference to highlight races where there’s actually an announced candidate, I’m highlighting this one.  Dan Lungren is fairly entrenched as an incumbent, but 2006 challenger Bill Durston is running again.  Who knows?  Maybe the Charlie Brown magic will wear off on Durston and propel him to make a race out of it in this Republican district.  Here’s his website.

10) CA-45 (Bono).  Last month: 8.  Boxer number: 49.  I’m breaking my “no candidate” rule because I want to see this potentially competitive district be challenged, and I do believe someone will eventually step up.  But more important than that, I wanted to mention that someone in Congress is named Miss Mary Mack.  Notably, Bono was the only California Republican to vote for SCHIP, which suggests that she knows she has to moderate her views in the district.

Special mention: Because it ought to be mentioned that Dana Rohrabacher thinks the premier of China wants to poison the President.  This guy is in Congress, by the way.

Uncategorized

Jerry McNerney v. Comedian Rush Limbaugh

2 Comments

Rush doesn’t consider anyone who disagrees with him a real person, that’s been obvious for a while.  But I guess the fact that this comes so SOON after the whole MoveOn/BetrayUs thing strikes me as odd.  You’d think that whole deification of the military thing would kick in and prevent him from smearing men and women in uniform so soon.

Jon Soltz of VoteVets has a righteous post.  And Jerry McNerney really has his back up (this is from an email):

Where does Rush Limbaugh get the moral standing to pass judgment on our heroes who wore this nation’s uniform and returned to exercise their First Amendment rights? Even for Rush, that’s too far!

Will you join me in calling the following radio stations to demand they take Rush’s show off the air?

KWSX in Stockton – (209) 551-1280
KSFO in San Francisco – (415) 954-7449
KFBK in Sacramento – (916) 929-5325

Hey, he’s consistent, right?  He voted to condemn the MoveOn ad.

I don’t want Rush’s show off the air.  I think free speech means accepting the speech you don’t like.  And this idea that anyone who’s ever served in the military is immune from the slightest criticism kind of makes me squirm.  None of this is to defend Rush, who obviously thinks that anyone who doesn’t serve the country in EXACTLY the way he sees fit is simply not genuine, and worthy of derision.  There’s a difference between MoveOn’s substantive, fact-based argument, and Limbaugh’s hatred of anyone who doesn’t think like him.  But you don’t ban it, and you don’t ignore it.  You HIGHLIGHT it.  And you make sure everyone knows about the vast emptiness within his soul.

UPDATE: Full context of Limbaugh’s remarks on the flip.

LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?

LIMBAUGH: I’m fine sir, thank you.

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don’t want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can’t think of — who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?

CALLER 1: I’m just — I’m not talking about the senators. I’m talking about the general public — like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but —

LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can’t handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I’m not also hitting Republicans? I don’t know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I’ve listened to you for a long time, and you’re right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don’t think it’s winnable. And I’m not a Democrat, but I just — sometimes you’ve got to cut the losses.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you — you —

CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you’re wrong.

LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I’m not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have —

CALLER 1: Oh, I’m not saying that. I’m not saying anything like that, but, you know —

LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are.

CALLER 1: No, I’m not.

LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is — the truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country —

LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord.

[…]

CALLER 1: How long is it gonna — how long do you think we’re going to have to be there for them to take care of that?

LIMBAUGH: Mike —

CALLER 1: How long — you know — what is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike —

CALLER 1: What is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are — you are —

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can’t be a Republican. You are —

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, ’cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but —

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question —

CALLER 1: — seriously, how long do we have to stay there —

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: — to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long — just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever —

LIMBAUGH: I — it won’t —

CALLER 1: — because that’s what it’ll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike — I’m sorry. I’m confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I — I’ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but —

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: — you know, really — I want you to be saying how long it’s gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

LIMBAUGH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question. That’s not what you want to hear, so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up.

[…]

LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER 2: And, you know, I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull — what these people don’t understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it’d take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so. And —

LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even — if — the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t — I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what —

LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined —

CALLER 2: A lot of them — the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

Uncategorized

LA Quarterly Wrap-Up: Party By The Beach

2 Comments

We had another stellar turnout for our Q3 Quarterly in Santa Monica, with close to 100 people coming out to meet and greet.  Thanks to everyone that made it down; and all props have to go to Jesse Rubin and Lucas O’Connor for coming up from San Diego for the event; that’s some dedication right there, and now I’ll have to return the favor.  And they had plenty of friends to hang out with.  Let me see if I can name them all…

We had LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl out, and he thundered forth with a big speech about his work getting an Out of Iraq Resolution through the LA City Council (after being bottled up in committee, it should finally happen in October).  Congressional candidates Russ Warner and Ron Shepston met and mingled, talking to each other about where they’re going to room in Washington when they both get elected next year.  Of course, the SoCal Calitics team was there (Hekebolos, Shayera, even Andrew from the Liberal OC), along with national bloggers Todd Beeton from MyDD, Kossacks thereisnospoon and BruinKid and vernonlee and Major Danby, and the inimitable Digby.  The LA for Edwards people told me that they’re starting to see more interest in their meetups.  The West LA Democratic Club was out in force, as were our Drinking Liberally regulars.  And Marcy Winograd showed up with some PDA members and told us about a public hearing on yet another proposed LNG terminal off the SoCal coast (there weren’t a lot of people at the meeting, apparently; time to raise public awareness on this one). 

But I was happiest to see Tim Goodrich and two other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War in atendance, handing out bumper stickers and relating their experiences to the crowd.  Tim, by the way, told me that he’s running for Torrance City Council, which is fantastic.  These are just the kind of nonpartisan seats that the progressive movement needs to start paying attention to, building from the ground up.

No pics because I was busy drinking.

Health Care

Russ Warner on David Dreier and SCHIP

Right before heading off to our Calitics Q3 Quarterly tonight, Russ Warner sent off this press release about David Dreier’s vote against children’s health:

David Dreier stood with George Bush and Big Tobacco and voted against reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  As a result of this vote, hundreds of thousands of California families will likely lose health insurance for their children in the coming months. 

  “At a time when we are spending $450 billion on the war in Iraq, David Dreier’s unwillingness to invest in California’s kids shows how out of touch he is with the priorities and concerns of people in the 26th district,” said Russ Warner, Democratic candidate for Congress in the 26th district.

Currently 850,000 children in California receive health care coverage through the SCHIP program in California, called Healthy Families.  Dreier voted along party lines against the reauthorization of the program and a proposed expansion that could have extended health care coverage to another 650,000 children in California currently without health insurance.

David Dreier said this legislation, which is supported by groups such as AARP, the American Medical Association, and Easter Seals – is an “expansion of the welfare state.”

“After 27 years in Congress, all David Dreier has to offer are outrageous comments and unwavering support for George Bush’s failed policies,” said Warner.

“The money invested in covering children’s health today will save California money tomorrow, in identifying and catching illnesses earlier and in eliminating unnecessary emergency room visits.”

  “The people of the 26th district are ready for a representative who will fight for their interests – not the interests of George Bush and Big Tobacco,” continued Warner.

Me likey the rapid response.  This will be a defining issue in a lot of campaigns next year.

Uncategorized

Shorter John Doolittle

2 Comments

WAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

The list by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington names 18 Republicans and four Democrats.

Doolittle, whose connections to lobbyist Jack Abramoff are the subject on a Justice Department investigation, said the listing was an underhanded attempt to attack him from a liberal Democrat organization funded by billionaire activist George Soros.

“I just really think it’s unfair and wrong for an underhanded and vile organization like CREW, who disagrees with me because I’m a conservative Republican, to attack me on that,” he said. “Because of the atmosphere right now, it’s a very impactful thing.”

Doolittle has said he has done nothing wrong and wants the Justice Department investigation to come to a conclusion to clear his name. With a new congressional election coming in November 2008, Doolittle is already facing a Democrat challenger who ran a surprisingly strong campaign against him in 2006.

There’s the obligatory Soros reference, the dismissal of any criticism as partisan, but also the admission that CREW’s list, which includes 4 Democrats along with 18 Republicans, is “impactful.”  That’s because he can’t argue with any of the findings so he attacks the source.

By the way, Auburn Journal, it’s a DEMOCRATIC challenger.  And his name is Charlie Brown.  You can donate to him through the Calitics ActBlue page and then come down to one of our Q3 Quarterly events tonight.

Health Care

California Democratic Challengers Will Not Soon Forget This Vote

5 Comments

I’ve been late on my Congressional roundup for September; I’ll probably get it up by the end of the week.  But I did want to wait and see which way House Republicans would vote on expanding SCHIP, a priority for the state and for the Governor.  Voting to leave sick children out in the cold is almost impossibly cruel, and will get the great big spotlight it deserves in 2008.  So how did they vote?

Mary Bono voted yes.  That’s it.  Every single other California House Republican voted to deny poor children health insurance.  John Doolittle, no.  Jerry Lewis, no.  Ken Calvert, no.  Gary Miller, no.  Brian Bilbray, no.  And David Dreier, not only no, but here’s a quote:

“It dramatically expands the welfare state,” said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif.

I think Russ Warner just got the ammo he needed.  Somehow Republicans think this vote won’t boomerang back on them.

Because a veto is expected, much of the attention Tuesday was on the political fallout. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., chairman of the Republican congressional campaign committee, said Republicans will support a less costly compromise. “I don’t think it will be a decisive bill in the 2008 elections,” he said.

They’re wrong.  And even though I believe that the Democratic majority is committed enough to this program that they will keep voting on it until they get a veto-proof majority (they’re 24 votes away as it is), this vote will not be forgotten.  The ads will be written.  And the price will be paid.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Environment

Lobbying For Global Warming

1 Comment

Yesterday, the UN held a major conference on climate change (Bush was a no-show) and the Secretary-General called for immediate action to preserve the future of the planet.  In a separate event, the President will call for a consensus about the world’s highest-emitting nations that would allow each to set their own voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions instead of it being ordered by an international treaty.

Not a good idea, I know.  But let’s accept Bush’s logic for a moment (and only a moment, before you slip into dementia).  He believes that governing entities should be given latitude to make the climate change policies that they see fit, rather than having them signaled from on high.  Unless, of course, that refers to states in this country and the one on high is him:

The Bush administration has conducted a concerted, behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to try to generate opposition to California’s request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, according to documents obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform […]

A flurry of e-mails among Transportation Department (DOT) officials and between its staffers and the White House, released yesterday, highlights efforts that administration officials have made to stir up public opposition to the waiver. Rather than attacking California’s request outright, Bush officials quietly reached out to two dozen congressional offices and a handful of governors to try to undermine it.

One May 22 e-mail written by Jeff Shane, undersecretary of transportation for policy, outlined how Transportation Secretary Mary Peters orchestrated the campaign. Peters “asked that we develop some ideas asap about facilitating a pushback from governors (esp. D’s) and others opposed to piecemeal regulation of emissions, as per CA’s waiver petition,” Shane wrote. “She has heard that such objections could have an important effect on the way Congress looks at the issue.”

over…

Waxman has been investigating this issue for some time.  In fact, back in June, he even released a voice mail from a DOT staffer to a member of Congress asking them to oppose the EPA waiver for California.  But this new data is just more evidence of the total politicization of federal agencies, and the ideologically driven desire to stop all efforts to curb the production of greenhuse gas emissions.  It also happens to be completely illegal to use our tax dollars to mount such a behind-the-scenes campaign.

In a letter yesterday to James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) asked him to “repudiate these efforts.”

“If Secretary Peters has concerns about whether California’s application meets the legal standards set forth in the Clean Air Act, she should submit comments to EPA making her case,” wrote Waxman, chairman of the oversight panel, which negotiated for three months to have the documents released. “Instead of taking this action, however, she apparently sought and received White House approval to use taxpayer funds to mount a lobbying campaign designed to inject political considerations into the decision.”

The Governor is on a barnstorming tour, selling his own action on climate change to the UN (while conveniently forgetting to mention firing the head of the Air Resources Board because he was pushing too hard for emission reductions, or the three important environmental bills on his desk he has yet to sign).  He may want to speak up about this effort to undermine all anti-global warming efforts, which incidentally is coming from the standard-bearer of his own party.  Or he could keep giving speeches and savor applause.