From the SF Examiner:

SAN FRANCISCO — Saying “shame on him for this,” Mayor Gavin Newsom blasted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday, calling him hypocritical and discriminatory for announcing he would veto a historic bill that would have allowed gay couples to marry in California.

Newsom, who usually prefers a joke to a critical word, made unusually fiery and stinging comments about Schwarzenegger, who announced he would veto the bill less than 24 hours after the Legislature approved it Tuesday night. At one point, Newsom even challenged Schwarzenegger to “come on out,” and publicly explain why he could not sign the legislation.

“I hope he stops hiding behind his press secretary,” Newsom said. “This is the worst type of politician. [Schwarzenegger’s] said [he supports gay marriage] publicly, but couldn’t adhere to those comments publicly.”

You tell him Gav!  I guess it scores political points in SF, so you see why he does it.  I’m somewhat suprised that he hasn’t actually started moving more towards the center publicly.  In actuality, he’s pretty moderate on economic issues.  I’m curious if he will sing a more moderate tune when he runs for statewide office .

(I think it’s abundantly clear that the California GOP does not like unions (and nurses, teachers, gays, etc….) – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Despite the assertions of it’s backers, Prop. 75 is designed only to weaken the political power of public employees and increase the political power of big business special interests.  Time, and time again the author of Prop. 75, Lew Uhler, has shown shocking frankness in discussing his intentions and made clear that they have nothing to do with protecting worker’s rights.

San Francisco Chronicle, 6/8/05:

“This time we’re focusing exclusively on public employee unions.”

San Francisco Chronicle, 1/12/05:

Uhler said the anti-union theme this year is in part a response to what he characterized as the increased political activity of unions such as the one representing state prison guards, which is annually one of the biggest givers to California politicians.

Sacramento Bee, 3/20/05

“To the extent that the political activities of unions might be diminished, then their demands for the kinds of working conditions, pensions, et cetera, that they are now getting will be mollified,” Uhler said. “And I think that will be a boon to our control over governmental activities in our state.” [emphasis mine]

Uhler belives that slicing off the private-sector unions turns the matter into a more purely focused taxpayer issue.

“After all, you and I pay their salaries, and you and I are accomplices in the withholding of funds for political purposes,” he said.

Proposition 75 is not about the rights of workers, it is not about protecting our cities, or healing our citizens. It is about consolidating power to futher a right-wing fiscal policy.  Uhler’s constiuents are not our firefighters and nurses but right-wing ideologues like Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Bork.  Prop 75 is about curbing the power of advocate groups to prevent cuts to vital services, and enable more tax breaks for the wealthy.  If teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police are unfairly restricted by Prop. 75, and their voices are silenced, who will fight for the issues that matter to California?

In addition to pushing the deceptive Prop. 75, Uhler runs the National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC), and organizattion whose primary agenda is the repeal of the federal estate tax.

Andy Furillo of the Sacramento Bee paints a vivid picture of his ideology:

He is an unapologetic McCarthyite and a former member of the John Birch Society whose hard-right ideology has taken him to the fringes of American conservatism.

[snip]

At Yale in the early 1950s, one of Uhler’s closest associates was author and journalist M. Stanton Evans. According to Uhler, Evans is now finishing up a book that “I think has confirmed that Joe McCarthy was on target” in exposing the alleged Communist infiltration of American government and society.

Not only does he think that McCarthy was a swell guy, but he also has a history of adulterating the truth as Reagan’s lackey.  In the late 70’s he was Reagan’s hatchet man in their “fight to shut down California Rural Legal Assistance, the program best known for helping farmworkers and other poor people seek legal redress.”

From the same article:

A panel of retired judges appointed by the Nixon administration investigated the charges and found that the Uhler report “in many instances … misrepresented the facts” and that the allegations against CRLA were “totally irresponsible.”
Cruz Reynoso, the former state Supreme Court justice and a law school classmate of Uhler’s at Boalt Hall, was in charge of CRLA at the time of the controversy.
“I used to tell people, if half of what they said in the report was true, we should all be in prison for the rest of our lives,” said Reynoso, who is now a law professor at the University of California, Davis. “So I have to conclude that these were folks, including Lew at that time, for whom the ends justified the means.”

25 years later Ulher is up to the same old tricks: trying to dismantle organizations that represent ordinary working Californians in order to silence their political voice.  This time, we know him. This time we have the power to stop him.

(Schwarzenegger ’06 – Less information. Fewer rights. – promoted by Be_Devine)

At the same time that Girlie Man is trying to pose as some sort of defender of the people by vetoing the gay marriage bill and citing Prop 22 as the reason why, he has quitely vetoed another mesure that would empower voters by helping to improve their knowledge of who and what they are voting for.  

The measure he vetoed was even supported by his own, hand-picked Republican Secretary of State.

Here’s the press release from the bill’s author, Jenny Oropeza, who represents the 55th Assembly District (Carson, Wilmington, parts of Long Beach and Lakewood), and previously served as a Long Beach City Councilwoman, representing the racially-diverse downtown 1st District:

Jenny Oropeza
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Asm. Oropeza’s ‘fair campaign’ measure receives surprise gubernatorial veto

SACRAMENTO – Despite support from senior elections officials who are charged with conducting elections and working closely with candidates and voters, Gov. Schwarzenegger today announced his veto of a measure that would have made it easier for voters to hold candidates accountable for waging sleazy campaigns.

Schwarzenegger’s action on Assembly Bill 215 by Asm. Jenny Oropeza, D-Carson, came despite strong support from Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, whom Schwarzenegger appointed last March, and the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials.

“The governor’s veto is surprising because his own Secretary of State and election leaders statewide endorsed my bill,” Oropeza said. “Why would California’s top elected official want to limit voter access to key information about candidates for public office?”

AB 215 sought to raise public awareness of those candidates who comply with California Elections Code 20440, which outlines the “Code of Fair Campaign Practices.”

Specifically, the measure would have:

· Required the code language be published in the voter pamphlet.

· Directed the Secretary of State to list on its Web site those candidates who have pledged to wage fair and accurate campaigns.

· Encouraged local election officials to post a link the state’s Web site.

“The best elections are when voters are well informed about the issues and trust the candidates,” Oropeza said. “With this veto, the governor has limited voter access.”

AB 215 marks the first bill in Oropeza’s 2005 election-reform package to go to the governor.  She also introduced a measure to improve notification of closed polling places and another that would make it easier for new citizens to vote.

Oropeza in 2003 authored The Voter Bill of Rights, found at polls statewide.

For an analysis and Op-Ed on Oropeza’s election bills, visit her Web site.

Elected to the Assembly in 2000, Jenny Oropeza is among the highest-ranking Latinos in the Assembly and chairs the Assembly Transportation Committee.  More at www.assembly.ca.gov/oropeza

(It’d be great to build up a list of California agencies, institutions, etc that are helping Katrina victims. Post it here if you know of any. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

The Dream Center (formerly Queen of Angels Hospital, near Echo Park) is housing evacuees from Katrina.

They need donations… money and items.  

2301 Bellevue Avenue
213-273-7000 for info

more below fold

Please donate what you can to our new friends who have gone through a horrific tragedy.

SF Examiner:

Handing gay rights advocates a major victory, the California Senate approved legislation Thursday that would legalize same-sex marriages in the nation’s most populous state.

The 21-15 vote made the Senate the first legislative chamber in the country to approve a gay marriage bill. It sets the stage for a showdown in the state Assembly, which narrowly rejected a gay marriage bill in June.

(Welcome to Calitics. Sign up and stay awhile! – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Gray Davis left Sacramento in shame.  And he made his share of mistakes, perhaps more than his share of mistakes.  But I am less subtle than Marc Antony.  I come to praise Gray Davis, or, perhaps more accurately, to praise the legacy that he left for the Democratic Party in the State of California.  This is, after all, a progressive-leaning California blog.

But in order to begin, we must go back to what can only be described as a bad day for the Democratic Party.  The day when Gray was recalled.  Now, I will not pretend to hide my disdain for the recall process, or its ugly cousin, the initiative process.  I just think that they are a bad idea for the state.  They waste money and time.  For evidence just see the cost of the current special election, currently estimated by the Examiner at $45million.  Or $44million or so for the recall that the SFChronicle estimates.  But I digress.  Suffice it to say that Gray was not a popular man on that day (See the wealth of information at the Newshour’s Recall Site.)  But as Stuart Smalley has been known to say, you have to hit your bottom in order to want to recover.  And the recall can be considered a localized bottom, or more precisely, Ahnold was our rock bottom.

See the extended…

Arnold Schwarzenegger was hailed as GOP savior (or as one essayist put it, the messiah).  And he was, at least for a while.  He dominated the recall election, even forcing Darrel Issa, who funded the recall movement, out of the race.  

Some interesting exit poll data from CNN’s recall site:

Ideology  Total CB  Ahnold
Liberal  32% 63%  20%
Moderate  36% 31%  50%
Conservative  33%  11%  67%

He managed to get 20% of self-styled liberals.  That is extremely impressive for a GOP governor.  He also got 18% of Democrats, and 50% of “moderates” (as opposed to 32% for Bustamente).  So for a time, Arnold was a savior.

But in the world of politics, you must beware false gods.  And thus was Arnold.  The California GOP invested everything they had in Arnold.  He was to balance the budget, kick some special interest butt and then still have time to hype his next movie.  Suffice it to say that it didn’t work out that way.  Cruising now below the dreaded 40% in job approval polls, he is despised by most in the state.  Those “liberals” who crossed over to vote for him now see the folly in what they did.  The special interests he was going to kick?  Oh they were teachers and nurses,

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lauded teachers union leaders and educators last year for their “generosity and great vision” when they agreed to give up $2 billion in education funding to help balance the state budget.
This year, when the same coalition demanded that Schwarzenegger follow through with that deal and give more money to schools as he promised, he called them “special interests.”

But Arnold is the gift that keeps on giving for the Democratic Party.  And oddly enough, it’s punctuated by the Rolling Stones:

Here’s the ticket: a private evening rockin’ the night away with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during the kickoff of the Rolling Stones’ “A Bigger Bang” U.S. tour on Aug. 21 at Boston’s Fenway Park.
Here’s the bottom line: $10,000 a pop to get in on a private preconcert reception and front-and-center seats to watch the show — or $100,000 to sit with the governor in his luxury box.
The eyebrow-raising event is one of a cluster of glitzy fundraisers the star-power governor will headline in the next few weeks as he seeks to arm his campaign fund with $50 million in preparation for the Nov. 8 special election — which will determine the fate of his political agenda and, observers say, his chances for re-election in 2006.

Thus, the special election on November 6, 2005 will probably determine the fate of the Arnold.  And, for at least the time being, the fate of the California GOP turns on the fate of Arnold.  It’s a delightful irony that the fact that they have Arnold made me want to throw things at the wall a year ago, but it now makes me smile.

And who do we have to thank for all this? I say it’s Gray Davis.  The man who was underappreciated.  The man who had the job that nobody should have wanted.  California was hit by the sledge hammer of the bubble burst.  And so was Gray Davis.  He was not the most charismatic and perhaps he spent a bit too much time raising money.  And for those sins he has paid dearly.  But now the voters of California can see through the GOP, and transparency does not work well with them.

So we end where we started.  The recall.  So how are the voters feeling about that now?

Two years after Californians booted Gray Davis for being politically spineless –not to mention dull — the oft-ridiculed ex-Governor is suddenly aglow with vindication.
Amid the plummeting popularity ratings of his successor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, both a legal settlement and a documentary this summer attribute the state’s energy crisis four years ago less to Davis’ dithering and more to Enron’s market manipulation.
Of the 1,100 respondents in a recent online poll, 67% said they wouldn’t recall Davis now if given the chance.
This most cautious of Democrats these days seems candid and downright personable. “I do feel liberated,” Davis told TIME.

And now? Well, let’s get to work on ending the Governator’s political career on November 6.

Calitics (hereinafter The Blog) is a blog dedicated to the dissemination of progressive political views of the issues facing the State of California.  The views expressed at The Blog represent only the views of the respective authors.  The moderators, editors, and owner of The Blog are not responsible for opinions or other statements made by other users of The Blog.

The Blog includes links to other sites operated by third parties. These links are provided as a convenience to you and as an additional avenue of access to the information contained therein. We have not reviewed all of the information on other sites and are not responsible for the content of any other sites or any products or services that may be offered through other sites. The inclusion of these links in no way indicates their endorsement, support or approval of the contents of the third party sites by anybody associated with The Blog.

We have the right to edit, remove or deny access to content that is determined to be, in our sole discretion, unacceptable. Links to 3rd party commercial websites in your profile, signature, or comments that are unrelated to the topic at hand are not allowed. Please respect the rights of others to be heard and to be respected.  We welcome all viewpoints, but we do not welcome personal attacks on our users, in any form. The moderators of The Blog retain the right to ban any user from posting at The Blog for behavior deemed inappropriate.  

You grant us the right to display any information or material you send to The Blog.  You also agree by posting at The Blog that any material you have posted at The Blog is part of the public domain and does not violate any intellectual property rights.  All material posted on the Blog is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

By acccesing The Blog, you agree to respect the privacy of every user and the moderators.  

Leave a comment, and we can talk.

You’ve been transfered, enjoy!

The California Supreme Court once again took the side of the gay litigants and their allies, deciding that “Lesbian and gay couples who plan for a family and raise a child together can be considered legal parents after a breakup”.  However, this case really should be no surpise after the CaliSupes decided that a golf club must accept a lesbian’s domestic partner in the same manner it would accept a spouse.

The news here, I believe, isn’t in these actual decisions particularly.  Rather, it is the growing body of law that the Supreme Court is building.

Let’s move to the flip…

The San Francisco Chronicle always has taken a pro-gay standing (well, you kinda have to here if you want to sell any papers).  They wrote another positive article for the role of gay parents on August 23.

Kim M. knows the California Supreme Court ruling Monday that she is a parent to her 9-year-old twin daughters is a historic victory for gay and lesbian rights, but it means even more than that to her.

“Next to the day my daughters were born, it is the happiest day of my life,” said Kim M., 43, a Marin County resident who hasn’t seen or talked to her daughters in nearly a year.
* * *
The three cases decided Monday define parenthood for gay and lesbian couples by extending to them the same rights to custody and child support that unmarried heterosexuals have.

“We are enormously relieved and elated about the three decisions today where the California Supreme Court applied settled California law equally to children born to same-sex couples,” said Joslin, the lesbian rights center lawyer.

Children will benefit most from the decisions ensuring the rights of second parents, said Beth Teper, executive director of Children of Lesbian and Gays Everywhere, a national organization based in San Francisco.

“What this decision does is allow for a child’s relationship to each of his or her parents to be protected,” Teper said.

While certainly San Francisco is not the place where it should be hard to convinve the public of the importance of equal rights, it is a starting point.

The San-Jose Mercury News voices their approval in an editorial on Wednesday.

Of course, a child’s right to be supported by two parents is also a parent’s right to financial support from an estranged partner. And a child’s right to maintain a relationship with both parents is a parent’s right to maintain a relationship with her child, regardless of the wishes of her estranged partner.

And so the rulings represent another important move toward wearing down the distinctions that unfairly discriminate against same-sex couples. It comes less than three weeks after another important ruling by the same court reaffirmed the state’s domestic-partners law. They are hopeful steps along the road to the day when all committed loving couples, gay or straight, will be afforded the full protection of the law.

But the fact that these kinds of opinions can come from some of the day’s great newspapers is a hopeful sign.  Of course, it is not limited to marraige and parenting issues or to the Bay Area newspapers.

The LA Times on these cases: “AS THE POLITICS OF GAY MARRIAGE become increasingly contentious, the legalities of it are becoming increasingly mundane. “

The Sac Bee (Dan Walters) on the gay marriage bill:

Logically, it would be difficult to deny same-sex couples the right to have their relationships officially recognized through marriage. Homosexuality has been part of the human experience for countless centuries, even though only rarely acknowledged, and contemporary science has amassed considerable evidence that a substantial number of people are simply wired by genetics to prefer those of the same gender.

The SF Chron on Gays in the military:

That pride in our military institutions fades as they continue to discriminate against gay men and women. The Army should mirror the society from which it draws its members. Our Founding Fathers had just that in mind when they referred to the “citizen-soldier.” Current policy, one that excludes anyone from military service solely on the basis of sexual orientation, violates the very principles and values on which our nation is based. It needs to end. Today, on this issue, one might ask, “What would Harry Truman do?”

The California media is leading the way towards equal rights.  This is an important and valuable fact as we look towards the marriage initiative in 2006.