This weekend I attended a pre-convention meeting for Region 10 of the California Democratic Party, which stretches from Santa Monica all the way up to the Monterey/San Luis Obispo County line.  This is a big coastal region, parts of which have not been sufficiently Democratic over the years.  But there are some great people in the trenches doing the necessary work to change that.  Here are some disconnected thoughts:

• It is extremely important to spread the Democratic message into outlying counties, because we can’t expect to solely depend on LA and SF to carry us through.  In 1992, Democrats controlled 41 counties in California; by 2006, that number had dwindled to 22.

• One of the most vibrant areas of the state for Democrats is Ventura County.  Whether it’s because of demographic shifts (more people moving in from Santa Barbara) or a lot of hard work, the results are impressive.  While statewide, Democratic registration has faltered over the past 15 years, in Ventura County Democrats hold a scant 5,000 vote disadvantage currently, compared to 15,000 not but a few years ago. 

• One of the great pilot programs that Democrats in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties have rolled out is called Vote Blue.  This is a neighbor-to-neighbor program that uses targeted canvassing to spread the progressive message in communities.  They get new homeowner information and arrive at the new resident’s doorstep, saying “Hi, we’re your neighbors, here’s some voter registration information for this area, here’s some information on the Democratic agenda.”  I know we bloggers like to stay on the Internets and ensure never having to talk to anyone, but there’s no substitute for this kind of real-life neighbor-to-neighbor contact.  They also sweeten the pot by adding a 3-month free subscription to the local paper, which the papers are all too happy to give them.  This is the kind of thing Democrats all over the state should be doing on a weekly basis, not just around elections.  You can get more informaiton at the link.

• There is strong support at the grassroots for a 58-county strategy, and every single delegate reading this needs to add their endorsement to that issue and make sure the Resolutions Committee is flooded with people supporting it.

• The SD-19 race is not going to be a walkover for Republicans, even though it’s currently held by Tom McClintock.  I met Jim Dantona at the meeting, and hope to do a longer piece on his chances later.  He ran for County Supervisor in Simi Valley last time out, easily the most Republican city in the region, and garnered 48% of the vote in a district that is something like +30 Republican registration.  We may have parity in registration for this Senate district by the time this race comes around in 2008, and Dantona appears to be running.  Keep this one on the radar screen.

• Another great success story was relayed by Henry Vandemire, chair of the Computer and Internet Caucus and head of the Big Bear Lake Democratic Club.  Big Bear is also 2/1 Republican, and yet they managed to get 3 Democrats on the City Council for the first time in as long as anyone can remember.  And they did it entirely through civic action, visibility and hard work.

There are opportunities for the party to grow, and there would be even more if the Party leaders fully commit to a 58-county strategy and strengthen the efforts of these progressive leaders in red counties.  The Party must live up to its commitments of supporting Democrats everywhere.  That means providing the money they promise to candidates, like Ferial Masry in AD-37 and Jill Martinez in CA-24 (that’s very likely to be an open seat next time around).  These two are both running again, and can win if they get even a modicum of support from the state party.

That’s all I’ve got for now.  I invited many of the people at the meeting to start posting on Calitics, hopefully we’ll begin to see Ventura and Santa Barbara better represented here.

Elizabeth Edwards’ acknowledgement of the recurrence of her breast cancer (which I hope is not more serious than the Edwardses made it out to be, but which I fear is) was but one story of cancer attacking prominent political figures.  Tony Snow will have surgery for a small growth under his abdomen; he had colon cancer two years ago, so we hope that it’s nothing more serious.  And most tragically, conservative commentator and blogger Catherine Siepp succumbed to lung cancer.  Cancer is not a disease that picks between political affiliations for who it afflicts, that much is clear.  And so a problem affecting everyone must be solved with a universal solution.

Before she died, Catherine Siepp wrote about her experiences with Blue Cross of California.  It was a bit shocking to hear a committed conservative talking about the failures of our health care system in such a frank and direct manner, but when a health insurance conglomerate acts so dishonestly, anyone in that position would be offended regardless of their politics.

over…

By law, insurance companies aren’t allowed to adjust your monthly premiums just because you get sick. But they can raise the out-of-pocket cap for all of their members anytime they like, which amounts to the same thing because it affects only the unvalued sick members. (And, of course, getting sick means that even while one’s medical costs go up, the ability to pay goes down — earnings potential is curbed when life becomes a series of treatment appointments.)

Lucky you, if you don’t know what your out-of-pocket cap is. And if you’re like every single healthy person I’ve queried, you probably don’t. But you should know, because the out-of-pocket cap is the most important part of your policy, meant to stave off financial disaster in case of catastrophic medical expenses […]

Another thing working in insurance companies’ favor is that cancer patients rarely have the energy to argue about such nickel-and-diming. I recently managed to spend a morning forcing my way through multiple disconnects and transfers on the Blue Cross 800 number, but I was eventually told that the company would probably reimburse me for the extra $90 a month I was paying for that weekly anti-nausea drug if I filled out the right forms. My far bigger worry is that out-of-pocket cap, which is essentially what insurance is for. To drastically raise it seems the definition of bad faith.

Or so I thought — until I began getting letters from Blue Cross in February announcing that it was retroactively disallowing the anti-cancer drug Avastin treatments it had been paying for since October, at $5,000 a pop every other week. It seems Blue Cross decided this new and expensive targeted therapy is experimental. (It looks as if Blue Cross is not asking to be repaid for my relatively unexperimental chemo, which had been costing about $2,500 every single week, but who knows?)

To decide after a therapy has proved beneficial that it’s merely “investigational” and therefore should not be covered — that, actually, seems the definition of bad faith.

Today, the LA Times reported that Blue Cross of CA is being fined a million dollars for illegally dropping the policies of sick clients for trumped-up reasons.  Recission is harsher, but generally of a piece with what Siepp had to put up with near the end of her life.  That fine is embarrassingly low (they made three billion last year) and won’t make a dent in Blue Cross’ policies.  But at least the state of California has publicly stated that this health insurer is motivated solely by greed and will gladly let their customers suffer rather than carry out their responsibilities.  As an individual policyholder with Blue Cross, exactly the profile that they dishonestly drop as a matter of routine, this scares the heck out of me.

I am truly sorry for Catherine Siepp and her family, along with any other family out there who has had to deal with the scourge of cancer.  We need to ensure that these families get the best medical attention and all the support they need; it ought to be an inalienable right of this country not to have to suffer due to some corporate balance sheet.  The current insurance system will never get us to such a goal.

He subscribes to the real 11th Commandment of the GOP: Do as I say, not as I do.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger demanded Thursday that the 2008 presidential candidates stake out clear positions on domestic issues Californians care about — such as immigration, climate change and health care — instead of focusing solely on the Iraq war […]

It was Schwarzenegger who ran in the 2003 recall race on a campaign of largely broad-stroke ideas, saying he would repair the state budget, ensure that “everyone in California has a fantastic job” and sweep out special interests from the Capitol.

And last year, as he ran for re-election, he pledged to tackle health care reform but offered few specific ideas on what he would propose.

over…

It’s very refreshing to see Mark Martin at the Chronicle notice this.  Schwarzenegger pretty much INVENTED content-free campaigning.  For him to make this kind of speech, petulantly asking Presidential candidates for specifics, is nothing short of deranged.  Arnold doesn’t even have the courage to get his own health care proposal introduced in the Legislature.  Most of the “big ideas” that he’s actually managed to pass weren’t his, he merely acquiesced to them.

This is as stupid as Newt Gingrich decrying negative campaigning and attack-dog politics.  Arnold Schwarzenegger’s entire short political career has been devoted to sloganeering and hiding the hidden truth.  Now he wants everyone else to be detailed… everyone but himself.

It was kind of interesting that Arnold Schwarzenegger would publicly distance himself from Rush Limbaugh one day and bridge that distance by going on his show the next.  And something even more interesting happened on that appearance.

Now, I don’t think a whole lot of Rush Limbaugh, but he adequately reflected the core argument that conservatives have with the Governor; that Arnold has basically “agreed with liberals” rather than brought about any kind of grand compromise.  I agree with that to the extent that Schwarzenegger is out of step with the nuttiest elements of his party, but he’s still a good corporate con, make no mistake.  The “post-partisan” thing is a fig leaf to try to get everyone to like him.

But is it me, or does Arnold act like he’s never heard this kind of resistance to his post-partisan godness before?  Judge for yourself; you can read the transcript at Salladay’s.

My favorite part:

RUSH:  Wait a second.  You — you — you — you want to extend health care coverage to every child, even the child — the children of illegal aliens, immigrants in the country, and you — want to raise taxes to do, this and you call them loans.

SCHWARZENEGGER:  Well, Rush, I just said that you’re reducing the hidden tax of $14.7 billion.  We want to get rid of the hidden tax that is being paid right now —

RUSH:  Well, the tax —

SCHWARZENEGGER:  Every single —

RUSH:  Replace the hidden tax with a visible tax, it’s still a tax.

It’s fun to watch Arnold try to bullshit Limbaugh, and vice-versa, with their companion dishonest agendas that just aren’t similarly dishonest.  Fascinating as a car wreck on the side of the road.
What do you think?

The President’s remarks on the US Attorney scandal were the same kind of out-of-touch obstructionism and intimidation we’ve come to expect (he’s essentially daring Congress to initiate a Constitutional showdown), so no need to replay it here.  But Sen. Feinstein is pulling at another thread of the scandal, one little remarked-upon but potentially significant.  It’s about a legislator essentially bribing a prosecutor to get her off the trail.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she wants answers about the departure of the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, who resigned last October before the Justice Department’s dismissal of eight other U.S. attorneys sparked controversy.

“I have questions about Debra Yang’s departure and I can’t answer those questions right at this time,” Feinstein, D-Calif. and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters in response to a question. “Was she asked to resign, and if so, why? We have to ferret that out.”

Here’s the real scoop: In May 2006, Debra Wong Yang was beginning work on the investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis, the former chair of the House Appropriations Committee who was being scrutinized over handing out defense earmarks to political friends.  Within a few months, Yang resigned… to work for the law firm representing Lewis.

About five months before Yang’s departure her office had opened an investigation into ties between Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and a lobbyist. When Yang left her U.S. attorney’s job she went to work for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the firm where Lewis’ legal team works, but government rules required that she recuse herself from that case or any other she was involved with while a government prosecutor.

The Lewis case is connected to the ongoing corruption investigation in San Diego that began with the 2005 conviction of former GOP Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who is serving jail time for bribery. Former U.S. attorney Carol Lam in San Diego, who was among those dismissed last year, was prosecuting that case. Feinstein contends that Lam’s dismissal had something to do with the her role in the Cunningham investigation, though the Justice Department denies it.

Not only that, Yang got $1.5 million dollars to go to work for Gibson Dunn.  Ted Olson, the former US Solicitor General, works there too.  And the Assistant US Attorney for LA, Douglas Fuchs, joined her.

So here we have the top two federal prosecutors looking into a public corruption case hired away from the government by the law firm representing that same corrupt official.

This is where government cronyism meets corporate cronyism…

Remember that golden oldie from the Governor?  Well, he and the regents are fixing that, so never let it be said that Arnold isn’t doing the people’s business:

Trustees of the California State University system this afternoon agreed to raise annual fees for undergraduate and graduate students by 10%.

The move means Cal State students will see basic fees rise $252 to $3,421. This does not include the cost of textbooks, housing or other expenses.

Meanwhile, the regents of the University of California, meeting today at UCLA, were considering a proposed 7% fee hike in that university system.

Under the UC proposal, student fees for state residents would rise about $495 to $7,347, including some individual campus costs but not including housing, books and other expenses.

In a time when billions more dollars are desperately needed to get our children proficient in seconday school, we’re making it more burdensome for them to obtain higher education.  If education is a jobs program, we’re sabotaging our economic future with these exorbitent university costs.