No, actually, we just signed on to a letter to Howard Dean taking a critical look at the state blogger credential selections for the Democratic National Convention.  As Matt Stoller notes, some of the selections were unusual, whether in Michigan or New Jersey or New York, and we’re just looking for some answers about the process.  I don’t envy the DNC’s job here; you’re talking about hundreds of blogs in 50 states and only enough room for one each (maybe that was the problem).  But it seems like some more care could have been taken. Marc Ambinder reports on it and prints some of the letter.  Here’s the whole thing (on the flip):

Governor Howard Dean

Democratic National Committee

430 S. Capitol St., SE

Washington, DC 20003

Monday, May 19, 2008

Governor Dean:

Let us begin by noting our respect for your position at the Democratic National Committee and the reforms you have made. Your efforts to rebuild the Democratic Party in all 50 states has reinvigorated the political debate across the country — and strengthened not just the party, but our country as well, in the process.

We write to you today out of concern that the same principles that have strengthened our party are today being ignored in the state blog credentialing process for the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

As long-time progressive state bloggers, we have now witnessed many of our well-respected colleagues from crucial states be passed over. In many states, it appears that parochial politics and hurt egos played a role in these decisions. These concerns run counter to our shared goals of using programs like the state blogger pool to “tear down the walls” in Denver — and better connect the American people with the events on the ground.

The Democratic Party endangers its own long-term viability when it makes fealty a criterion for inclusion. Instead, the Party should act to ensure that it includes its ideological media allies, even if those allies are occasional tactical or strategic critics.

We, the undersigned, have been included in the state credentials pool, despite our own history of criticism of local Democratic actors. This speaks well to the character of our own local parties. But while our peers in other states are being excluded, we’d be remiss in staying silent.

We encourage you to review the selection process undertaken and reasons given by state parties for excluding some of America’s most respected state level progressive blogs. We believe a fair and thorough review is necessary to ensure success for this promising experiment in shining a light on the Democratic Convention.

Sincerely,

Charley Blandy, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Robert Cruickshank, Calitics (CA)

Dave Dayen, Calitics (CA)

Lowell Feld, Raising Kaine (VA)

Jon Flack, Tondee’s Tavern (GA)

Matt Glazer, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Steve Hanson, Uppity Wisconsin (WI)

Matt Jerzyk, Rhode Island’s Future (RI)

David Kravitz, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Brian Leubitz, Calitics (CA)

Phillip Martin, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Ryan McLeod, Daily Kingfisher (LA)

Kyle Michaelis, New Nebraska Network (NE)

Karl-Thomas Musselman, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Bob Neer, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Chad Nodland, North Decoder (ND)

Lucas O’Connor, Calitics (CA)

John Odum, Green Mountain Daily (VT)

Kenneth Quinnell, Florida Progressive Coalition (FL)

Julia Rosen, Calitics (CA)

Matt Singer, Left in the West (MT)

Joe Sonka, BlueGrassRoots (KY)

Jay Stevens, Left in the West (MT)

Jeff Wegerson, Prairie State Blue (IL)

We at Calitics certainly don’t shy away from criticizing the state party or national Democrats from California, and the fact that we were included for selection speaks well of the process as it played out here.  But it’d be nice to know how that went sideways in some other states.  As part of the state blogging network we rise or fall together, and so there was no hesitation at asking for answers about why some of our finest colleagues were shut out from credentialing.

Henry Waxman has assembled a litany of evidence detailing the role of the White House in the EPA denial of a waiver to California to implement the landmark tailpipe emissions law under the Clean Air Act.  The most intriguing pieces of information are emails between EPA staffers and White House officials, which show how the staff found the waiver routine, and the White House stepped in to block it.  Also, EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett admitted in a deposition that the White House was the main player in the negotiations:

According to Mr. Burnett’s deposition testimony, Administrator Johnson’s preference for a full or partial grant of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White House. When asked by Committee staff “whether the Administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision” to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded: “I believe the answer is yes.”

California creates the same amount of greenhouse gases as the entire country of Mexico.  With the other 17 states that have signaled they would take the option of following the California emission plan added in, you have the emissions equivalent of maybe half a billion to 750,000,000 people on the planet that would be reduced if it weren’t for the White House stepping in to stop progress.  I believe in state-level innovation as steps to solving the crisis of climate change, but here we have a case where California did everything right, and the White House still held the trump card.  

There’s a hearing today in the House Oversight Committee, and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is planning to testify.

A few months ago, observers were shocked when no Democrat filed to run in the 15th Senate District against Abel Maldonado, despite the fact that the district is plurality Democratic.  One such observer was Dennis Morris, a local resident who got his ballot in the mail and saw that he had no Democrat for which to vote.  Instead of shaking his head and moving on, Morris decided to do something about it.  And so today he is mounting a last-minute write-in campaign to get his name on the November Ballot.  From the SLO County Dems:

The San Luis Obispo County Democratic Party endorsed Dennis Morris on May 14th in his write-in bid to run against Republican Abel Maldonado for the 15th Senatorial District which includes all of San Luis Obispo County as well as parts of several neighboring counties. The Party is urging all Democrats in San Luis Obispo County and elsewhere in the 15th Senatorial District to WRITE-IN “Dennis Morris” for that office on their JUNE 3rd BALLOT.

There are TWO steps to the process. First, the bubble to the left of the write-in line MUST be darkened. Second, the name “Dennis Morris” without quotes, must be written in on the write-in line provided on the ballot.

If enough Democrats write-in on their June 3rd ballot, Dennis Morris will be able to appear on the November ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for the 15th District Senatorial Seat.

This is crucially important.  With the possible demise of the Denham recall and an unopposed Maldonado seat, Democrats were missing out on two of their best opportunities to achieve a 2/3 majority in the State Senate.  Morris’ bid at least provides the opportunity for a real race in one of them.  Don Perata allegedly prevented top local Dems from running in this race.  But this is a people-powered action that could actually be more impactful.

My spies tell me that Morris would make a good candidate.  He’s a non-politician, a former legal scholar who retired to grow grapes on his vineyard.  There are parallels to Jerry McNerney’s first candidacy, accomplished through a write-in ballot in 2004.  That ended well.  Maybe this will too.

I’m scrambling to get more information from Morris and hopefully set up an interview.

Yesterday’s historic ruling defending marriage from double standards and discrimination, has created wide reaction across the political spectrum, most of it predictable.  One reaction was fairly unpredictable, from Libertarian Presidential candidate (and former Republican) Bob Barr:

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).  The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which ournation was founded.

“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.  The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”

I think Barr is being a little disingenuous about the intent of DOMA, but it’s an interesting perspective nonetheless.

On the side of gay rights advocates, there is much celebration, and a determination to forge ahead for a tough fight in the fall.  Ellen DeGeneres announced her intention to get married, provoking a long standing ovation from her audience.  

On the side of the wingnuts and homophobes, heads exploded.  A lot of them focused on how “unelected judges” went over the heads of the will of the people.  First of all, the elected legislature, elected more recently than the 2000 marriage initiative, have passed this legislation twice, and frankly that’s how democracy works.  Second of all, Supreme Court judges in California are, you know, elected:

But, in making their rush to judgment about the CA decision, both Blunt and Feeney have the basic facts wrong about how California’s judicial system works. SmartVoter.org, a resource of the League of Women’s Voters, makes clear that California’s Supreme Court justices are “confirmed by the public at the next general election” after being appointed and “justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.”

In fact, each of the seven justices involved in yesterday’s decision were approved by California voters by overwhelming margins:

– Justice Joyce L. Kennard confirmed in 2006 with 74.5% of the vote.

– Justice Carol A. Corrigan confirmed in 2006 with 74.4% of the vote.

– Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar confirmed in 2002 with 74.1% of the vote.

– Justice Carlos R. Moreno confirmed in 2002 with 72.6% of the vote.

– Justice Marvin R. Baxter confirmed in 2002 with 71.5% of the vote.

– Justice Ronald M. George confirmed in 1998 with 75.5% of the vote.

– Justice Ming William Chin confirmed in 1998 with 69.3% of the vote.

And 6 of the 7 were appointed by Republican governors.

As for the initiative fight, Peter Hecht has a scene-setter today.

California voters eight years ago overwhelmingly approved a law against gay marriage, but as they prepare to go to the polls again in the wake of Thursday’s California Supreme Court decision, the outcome is less certain.

Unlike 2000, when 61 percent voted to put a gay marriage ban in state law, the “California Marriage Protection Act” would lock the ban in the constitution, negating the court’s action. The measure is expected to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

Pollsters say voters’ views on gay marriage are more complex than the last time they considered the question, as surveys show rising acceptance in California for same-sex unions.

“The vote itself on the constitutional amendment will be wide open,” said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. “It’s all age-related. One generation is replacing another. And the generation that is coming in now is much more supportive of gay marriage than the one that was here eight years ago.”

In a 2006 state Field Poll, voters opposed gay marriage 51 percent to 43 percent. But support was much stronger among newer voters.

Kevin Drum has crunched the numbers based on historical data between 2000 and now, and thinks it’ll be very close, within 4 points.  This is going to be a major battle in the fall.  And I have to say, one that can skyrocket turnout on the DEMOCRATIC side.  As a civil rights issue that will energize younger voters to turn out in solidarity and support, I think you could see a perfect storm that could help us downticket.  It’s going to take a major effort.

I’ll have another House roundup probably by Monday, but I wanted to toss out a few items of note:

• CA-26: I have to applaud Russ Warner’s rapid response team for jumping on David Dreier’s voting record immediately and choosing the issues where he can reveal that Dreier is not the moderate he portrays as being to his district.  On the heels of yesterday’s House vote on the GI Bill, Warner released this:

David Dreier voted against a bill to increase educational opportunities for veterans today.  The legislation expands the education benefits veterans receive under the GI bill to restore the promise of a full, four-year college education.  It passed the House with broad bi-partisan support, 256 to 166.

“I would have voted differently on this bill,” said Russ Warner, a successful small businessman and the Democratic candidate for Congress from California’s 26th district.  “It’s important to make the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan part of an American economic recovery, just like the veterans of World War II were.  They put their lives on the line for us, and deserve to be able to come home and go to school if they so choose.  We need new leaders with new priorities in Washington, and that’s why I’m running for Congress.”

Russ Warner’s eldest son, Greg, is in the U.S. Army and served in Iraq for 17 months.  Upon his return, he challenged his father to make a difference by running for Congress.

Down With Tyranny has more, including a great pic of Warner and his son Greg.

• CA-41: Please take some time to read IndieinSF’s piece introducing the community to Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean, a progressive candidate running for slimebucket Jerry Lewis’ seat in the San Bernardino area.  It’s also linked at DWT.  The post talks about the picture on the ground and the changing demographics in the district.  Our growth potential in California is dependent on winning seats like this.  I’ve met Dr. Dean and found her to be someone of character.  She has also endorsed the Repsonsible Plan To End The War in Iraq, elements of which passed through the House yesterday (Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington even mentioned it on the House floor).

• CA-42: Next week, Ron Shepston has two fundraisers with Amb. Joseph Wilson.  One is in Oak Canyon Park near Irvine on Wednesday, May 21, (purchase tickets here), and one is in Santa Monica on Thursday, May 22 (info here).  Ron also snagged the endorsement of DFA Orange County.

• CA-24: Mary Pallant’s interview at Blog Talk Radio is worth a listen.

• CA-04: Try to get the logic of this: by taking welfare payments in per diem checks from the state, Tom McClintock was denying benefits to soldiers.  That’s the premise of Doug Ose’s new ad.  Quite a logical leap, but potentially effective.

UPDATE by Brian: Video from current over the flip.

I know that we’re going to have a historic new Speaker today, and tomorrow the Governor is going to prevent a revised budget that will set the course for the next few months in the Legislature.  But for the moment I want to talk about taco trucks.

Los Angeles County has enacted rules basically banning the taco truck, the rumbling restaurants on wheels serving Mexican food to lunchtime office workers, day laborers and others throughout the city, particularly in East LA.  The previous order by the County Board of Supervisors was to force taco trucks to move every hour or face a $60 fine.  Most trucks paid it as the cost of doing business.  Now the supervisors have upped that fine to as much as $1000 and possibly jail time.

Make no mistake – the taco trucks are being harassed because restaurants don’t like the competition.  As one truck owner said, “We are hard workers and we pay taxes… we are poor people feeding other poor people.”  In a rare moment of perceptiveness, Dan Walters noted that this is a “new chapter in an old and dreary story of political interference with the economic aspirations of low-income and/or immigrant Californians.”  The restaurant lobby is maybe not as powerful in LA as in San Francisco, but it obviously had enough juice to eliminate their competition in this case.  Walters folds this into a stupid argument about how all business should be unregulated, but in this case he’s right – if you want to offer the opportunity for the new and struggling in our society to experience upward mobility, barriers like this are really restrictive and unnecessary.

Taco trucks are about more than a meal in Los Angeles – they truly are a culture, and one that has migrated onto the internet.  The Great Taco Hunt, a blog dedicated to the LA taco scene, has a loyal following.  People will drive many miles for a decent taco here, and given the traffic that’s a real commitment.  So some residents are fighting back.  Save Our Taco Trucks has also 6,000 signatories to a petition to rescind the law, which goes into effect on Thursday.  Tomorrow, they’re holding a final event at Tacos El Galuzo to raise awareness about the ordinance and share one last legal taco.

You can see the stirrings of how politics will be waged in the save-the-taco-trucks movement.  There has been a wave of local organizing this year, around the Presidential race, around the budget, around proposed education cuts and park closures, and even around hyper-local issues like the taco truck.  This is a new era for California, where technology reduced barriers to communication and allows those with like interests and concerns to find one another.  When the Board of Supes takes down this silly ordinance – and they will – they will have seen the power of modern organizing.