By Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

Are you following the election coverage?  Here are some recent stories:  The media pounds candidate Hillary Clinton to release her tax forms, because the public has a right to know.  And she does release her and her husband’s returns, going back a decade.  The media trumpets how much income they have been receiving, how rich they are, and drills down into details.  If you follow the news, it is inescapable.  At the same time candidate John McCain releases only partial forms that show all assets are now in his wife’s name, and he won’t release his wife’s tax returns.  The media is mostly silent on this; most of the public has little opportunity to learn of this.

Another story:  Candidate McCain won’t release his medical records.  Again from the media there is mostly silence; most of the public has little opportunity to learn of this.

And here is the big story:  Unless you have been in a coma you know that for several weeks video clips of statements by Barack Obama’s former minister have been aired nearly 24 hours a day on the news shows, especially on FOX News.  These clips are considered scary by certain demographic groups who are not familiar with the speaking patterns of black ministers

Interestingly, at the same time as this “Obama’s minister” story is saturating the news there is another Presidential candidate with a “scary minister” problem of his own.  But the news media is not providing the public with any information at all about the things this minister has said. In this case the Presidential candidate is John McCain and the minister is John Hagee.  This minister has issued statements condemning Jews, is described as “virulently anti-Catholic,” and says that 9/11 and Katrina are examples of God punishing America.  Yet John McCain sought out this minister’s endorsement and insists that he is “proud” to have received it.

While saturating the airwaves with scary video clips of Obama’s scary minister the corporate media is providing the public with almost no information about McCain’s.  In the article, The McCain-Hagee Connection, the Columbia Journalism Review asks, “Why is the press ignoring this hate-monger?”

Why, indeed?

A well-functioning democracy depends on an informed public.  There is no question that the public deserves to know these things about Senators Clinton and Obama.  The information in the examples cited here could and should have an effect on the election, because the public will weigh these factors into their voting decisions.  But the public also needs the information about Senator McCain, presented with equal emphasis.  And clearly this isn’t happening.  

So with nearly identical stories — a relationship with a minister who makes scary and hateful statements — the corporate media chooses to present the information about only one to the public, and does so in a way that is guaranteed to scare the … excuse me … bejeesus out of everyone.  The other is given a pass and a free ride, and the public is left without the information it needs to make an informed choice.

Why is this happening?  Here is some background on our media:

In the United States the broadcast media used to be required by law to serve “the public interest” ahead of profits.  Use of OUR airwaves was licensed out to private interests that were allowed to use them to profit to a limited extent in exchange for  providing the public with information and news.  We did this because it served our interests and those of our democracy.    

The rules allowed very limited commercialization of this public resource.  For example, in exchange for the license to make a profit from the use of the public airwaves the companies were required to provide educational content for children, news coverage, documentaries, arts and other public interest content.  And by law the information had to be objective and balanced.

At certain times of the day the companies could then present commercialized content.  But even then the commercialization was to be limited.  They were limited in how much time during a show could be used for commercial advertisements — and the shows themselves were not allowed to be commercialized.  There were even restrictions on what the commercial advertisements could say.  Public benefit was the priority, commercial profits were limited.

It was an exchange – they get to make some money using our resource, and we get news and information that educates us and strengthens our democracy.  Why else would we have allowed private companies access to our airwaves, but to serve the public?

This changed.  In the early 1980s the Reagan administration unilaterally dropped the requirements that broadcast media serve the public interest and these companies promptly stopped serving the public interest and started serving their own corporate interests. As happens with any for-profit corporate interest commercialization became the only use of our public airwaves.

Shocked by this seizure of a public resource for corporate commercial interests the Congress immediately voted to restore the public benefit requirements, but Reagan vetoed this.  Then, under President George H.W. Bush the Congress again voted to restore the public benefit requirements, and this was again vetoed.  Under President Clinton the requirement was against brought before the Congress and again a majority voted to restore placing the priority on public benefit but Senate Republicans filibustered and blocked the bill.  

So today there is no requirement that our mass media serve the public interest.  Instead the only interests that are served are private, corporate interests and the only information the public receives through these outlets is information that benefits the corporations that control them.  

Is this why we are seeing such dramatic disparities in the way information about the candidates is presented to the public?  Should we be surprised?

Control of our information sources is now in the hands of corporations with no requirement that they serve the interests of democracy.  So shouldn’t we expect that corporate interests are placed ahead of the public interest?  If for-profit enterprises control the information the public receives then why wouldn’t they promote candidates who would be more favorable to their commercial interests?

Let me provide a clear example of how this affects all of us:  When was the last time you saw or heard on a corporate outlet information about the benefits of joining a union?  Of course you haven’t, and you wouldn’t expect to.  And, in the years since the requirement that the broadcasters serve the public interest by providing balanced information, we have seen a dramatic decline in the percent of the workforce that is unionized.  At the same time we have seen a dramatic increase in commercialization of everything, and in the power of corporations over the decision-making of our government.

What else should we expect?

Click through to Speak Out California

Given that George Skelton has written the opposing view in today’s L.A. Times, I thought readers would enjoy my opinion about California’s early primary.

Remember when California moved up its presidential primary from June to February – so that we’d have a “bigger impact”? We ended up sharing February 5th with 21 other states – and so had almost no effect on the nomination.  Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton because he didn’t have enough time to introduce himself to voters in such a large state, but made up for that loss by racking up huge victories elsewhere.  Now California has a state primary on June 3rd – where turnout is expected to be very low, so the right-wing Proposition 98 to end rent control could pass.  If we had kept the primary at a later date, we would have affected the nomination – and Prop 98 would have gone down in flames.  But the Democratic leaders in Sacramento pushed a February primary to extend their term limits – in a gambit that failed.

The case for moving up California’s primary had its valid points – such as why does Iowa get to hog so much attention from presidential candidates every four years, who then are forced to take a position on ethanol?  As the largest and most diverse state in the nation, California deserves its place in the spotlight.  Candidates must be held accountable on issues that matter greatly to us like immigration, suburban sprawl, education funding, affordable housing, public transportation and levee repairs.  But despite moving up our primary, these issues did not play a prominent role in the campaign.

That’s because California didn’t act within a vacuum.  The Democratic National Committee said that states could move up their primaries to February 5th without losing delegates, so a lot of states had the same idea.  We ended up sharing Super Duper Tuesday with Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Idaho and Alaska.  Presidential candidates didn’t spend much time in California – because they were too busy elsewhere.

California got some attention on Super Tuesday, but we were competing with 21 states just ten days after the candidates had duked it out in South Carolina.  With the cost of running a statewide campaign here, Clinton and Obama spared their resources – and devoted more attention to states on the East Coast, Midwest and in the South where a little money could go a long way.  Obama lost California, but his campaign also figured out the math on winning delegates – focus on the small states and rack up huge victories.

Could Obama have won California if he had spent more time here?  Maybe.  Clinton still won by a nine-point margin, but she was ahead by over 20 points a few weeks earlier.  Obama needed time to get acquainted with California voters – especially Latinos – and a more systematic effort in the Golden State could have been successful.  Bear in mind that he practically tied Clinton among voters who went to the polls on Election Day.  But with California’s early absentee balloting, Clinton blunted his momentum.

What would have happened to the nomination fight if California had not moved up its primary to February 5th?  Obama would have emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear winner – but Clinton still won enough states (New York, New Jersey, Arizona) to keep the race going.  Obama would have racked up a wider lead in the delegate count earlier, but Clinton would have refused to back out – insisting that the race must be decided in California.  By June, California would have been viewed as her “make-or-break” state.

It’s interesting to see how much attention Pennsylvania got in this race – because they weren’t greedy like the other states that moved up their primary.  California could have had that same privilege if we had just been patient – allowing each candidate to come here, address our issues and earn our support.  Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and it will be no thanks to California voters.  By trying to have a bigger impact, we ended up making ourselves practically irrelevant.

Some argue that a February primary was good – because it boasted a high turnout.  That’s good for democracy, but the unintended consequences may devastate our state’s future.  A subsequent statewide primary on June 3rd will see a very low turnout – where the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association is pushing Proposition 98 to abolish rent control.  Polls show Prop 98 trailing, but we still don’t know exactly who will vote.  If renters and Democrats don’t turn out, the right-wing agenda will prevail.

In fact, the President of the Jarvis Association has admitted that a very low (and conservative) turnout will help them on the June ballot.  They started planning over a year ago to gather signatures for Prop 98.  When it looked like they were going to qualify for the February ballot, they actually stopped gathering signatures – and then resumed after it was too late.  Make no mistake about it: they put it on the June ballot for a reason.

Of course, having more of an impact in the nomination process was not the real agenda for a February primary – it was just the “official” reason to get Californians to support it.  Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Perata – who were about to step down because of term limits – wanted to pass Proposition 93 to allow them to stay in power for another term.  They could have planned ahead and put it on an earlier statewide ballot, but instead wasted our money with a February initiative.  The voters ended up rejecting Prop 93 – so Perata and Nunez will have to step down anyway.

In order to prove that the February primary was not a waste of time and resources, Perata and Nunez must now make the defeat of Prop 98 a top priority.  Defeating Prop 98 won’t take back the money that the state spent on another election (which could go towards education, housing and transportation), won’t bring back California’s relevance in the presidential nomination process – but at least it will help save rent control.  And right now, it’s the only thing that Perata and Nunez can do about it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Reading quickly through the book Mayor of Castro Street, I saw an exchange between then-San Francisco supervisors Harvey Milk and Dianne Feinstein that eerily resembles the debate now going on between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Milk:

“A true function of politics is not just to pass laws, but to give hope. There have been too many disappointments lately. The real abyss that lies not too far ahead is that day when a disappointed people lose their hope forever, everything we cherish will be lost.”

Feinstein:

“Hope is fine, but you can’t live on hope. The name of the game is six votes”

This time hope has to win. The stakes Milk talked about are that high.

All reports indicate that when the ABC News Democratic Party Debate airs in the Pacific Time zone at 8 PM that you are better off doing pretty much anything other than watching it. There are reviews are already in and there seems to be a clear consensus on Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos and ABC News and the parent company Disney.

“Looking around other sites, I guess I’m not the only one that thought this debate was unmitigated travesty,” Josh Marshall noted. “Maybe the embargo on debate rebroadcast was a pro-human rights stand.”

“The debate is over, and I feel like I need a shower. […] The crowd here is starting to boo Gibson. Like, a lot. Hilarious and well-deserved.”

–Chris Bowers

“No Charlie. It hasn’t been a “fascinating debate.” It’s been genuinely awful.”

–Josh Marshall

“What matters to this network is money, and that is where we need to go.  Starting tomorrow, my spare time, meager as it is, will be dedicated to revealing the advertisers of this network, for the purpose of organized boycotts.”

–Dartagnan (top Recommended Diary on Dailykos)

“Light’Em Up

Complain about this atrocity.

Main ABC switchboard: 212-456-7777

…complain here.”

–Atrios

“My friend Dan McQuade calls this the lowest moment in American history — I think he’s giving it too much credit, frankly.”

–Will Bunch

“George and Charlie were just rumor-mongering right wingers. Charlie thought it was “fascinating.” Wrong. It was just very pathetic and disturbing. If you ever question the sad state of affairs in the American political dialogue, tonight’s debate was Exhibit A.”

–Joe Sudbay

“This debate was just horrible. Too much time wasted on useless nonsense. From a media perspective, I am not sure why Stephanopoulos was in the mix at all. He didn’t add much, and if anything, his history with the Clintons had the potential to take something away. I thought Gibson was especially rough on Obama, and I think ABC did not do themselves any good with this debate. If I weren’t liveblogging, I would have switched to AI.”

–Jacki Schechner

“This is the most disgraceful and dispiriting debate of all time.”

–BooMan

“In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate this year, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.”

–Editor and Publisher

“Reflecting what seemed to be the main consensus of the night – that ABC botched this debate, big time – Charlie Gibson tells the crowd there will be one more, superfluous commercial break of the night and is subsequently jeered. “OH…” he declares, hands raised in defense. “The crowd is turning on me, the crowd is turning on me.””

–Huffington Post

I feel sorry for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Yesterday’s Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left – out of touch with mainstream American values.  Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama’s “bitter” comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats.  Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn’t help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the “land of fruits and nuts.”  Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article – except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics.  Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.

Without even waiting to hear what working-class voters in Pennsylvania thought about Obama’s infamous statement, the media pronounced that it changed the dynamic of the presidential race – with some comparing it to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.  Because Clinton and John McCain both attacked Obama for being “elitist” and “condescending,” the press allowed the story to run far longer than it should.  And because Obama said it at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Clinton made sure to remind voters about that fact.

So what does the San Francisco Chronicle – our hometown newspaper of record – do when the City gets smeared by politicians of both parties?  Write a puff analysis which reinforces the notion that we make Democrats look bad – a place where national politicians come to campaign at their peril.  Marinucci could have mentioned that the fundraiser was in Presidio Heights – one of our most exclusive (and conservative) neighborhoods – rather than tar the whole City with an “elitist” smear.  Instead, she quotes Pat Buchanan as proof that Obama really screwed up with that statement.

It’s not the first time that the right has attacked “San Francisco Values” as a means of marginalizing Democrats.  But San Francisco values are mainstream American values.  We were one of the first cities to pass a domestic partnership law – “civil unions” that even George Bush and Dick Cheney now find acceptable.  In 2006, we were the first place that required employers to provide paid sick leave – and now other cities have since followed our lead.  We’re a city of creative entrepreneurs who have started cutting-edge businesses that are household names.  We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

But Marinucci didn’t bother to interview any San Franciscans for her piece – let alone ask working-class folks in Pennsylvania if they were offended by Obama’s remarks – except for one local politico: Peter Ragone, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s former press secretary, who (according to an earlier Chronicle story) helped the Clinton campaign’s media team in Texas.  Marinucci did not disclose Ragone’s conflict-of-interest when she quoted his take on the situation.

Obama’s statement, said Ragone in the Chronicle, “sounded like someone running for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, not President.  The Democratic Party should have learned you have to respect people’s cultural experiences in order to get their votes.  If Democrats want to win in California, they have to win in the Central Valley, the Inland Empire and the I-80 corridor. If you truly feel that way about people in those places, you’re just not going to get their votes.”

It’s precisely such divisive talk that prevents Democrats from truly standing up for what we believe in – and depresses San Franciscans into believing that our values are not the values of mainstream America.  It is why liberals then allow Democrats to get away with taking offensive policy positions – all in the name of being electable to the average swing voter.  The Left has been so haunted by the ghost of George McGovern for the past 35 years that we’ve lost all will to believe that real change can happen at the ballot box.

Was Obama’s statement culturally insensitive?  Let’s take a closer look at his exact words, and see why it was not disrespectful to the swing-state working-class voter:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

To suggest that working-class Pennsylvanians who’ve had their jobs shipped overseas are “bitter” is not condescending – it’s simply stating the truth.  As Randy Shaw wrote this week, if Clinton believes that they are not bitter, she is almost as delusional as George W. Bush.  And when Fox News actually interviewed such voters, they pretty much confirmed that it’s true.

The tricky part, of course, was for Obama to suggest that they “cling to guns or religion.”  But he never suggested that guns or religion are therefore bad.  What he meant to say is that during hard times, people stick with what they are familiar with and where they take comfort.  Conversely, they also mistrust the unfamiliar – people who don’t look like them, people who come from other countries, and coastal elitists.  It’s the politics of fear – and when voters are anxious, they become vulnerable to such appeals.

Could such an honest assessment hurt Obama?  Maybe a little, but anyone who believes that it rises to the level of the Jeremiah Wright controversy – where Obama’s pastor was caught on YouTube saying “God damn America” – is completely delusional.  And Obama did a stellar job handling that situation, with the most eloquent speech he has given in his entire career – where he effectively said that we must have an honest dialogue about race in this country.  But after the “bitter” comment, the media said Obama was in trouble.

Five days later, we now have fresh polls out of Pennsylvania that show that the brouhaha had practically no effect.  A friend of mine who’s there said that it’s a bigger deal nationally than locally (even though it has been widely disseminated.)  The issue will boil over, although we can expect that Republicans will try to make hay out of it in the general election.  By then, people won’t care – and the voters who will care would not vote Democratic anyway.

It’s bad enough that San Francisco – and everyone who lives here – got dragged into the mud with this story, just because the media won’t admit that the Clintons are history.  But for the Chronicle to pile on when it’s our hometown newspaper was embarrassing.  If the New York Times reported that voters in the Big Apple were out of touch with mainstream America, there would have been an outcry.  As residents of San Francisco, we deserve better from our local newspaper of record.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco.  He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Today is the day to choose the delegates for this year’s DNC Convention in Denver. Since the Clinton team refuses to acknowledge the math, it could be the first convention floor fight in a generation so choose well. Here’s what you need to know:

• Get there early, registration is from 2PM – 3PM followed by the caucuses. So get there early (I’m aiming for 1:45).
• Find out your caucus location. It is by congressional district. Obama sites – Clinton sites
• Check out the candidate list. There are a ton of candidates with many running like actual campaigns and such.
• Any other questions? Check out the FAQ

And let us know how things worked. I’m predicting record turnout with logistical problems because of record interest. Speaking of which, bring your friends!

P.S. You MUST be in line by 3PM to vote. Did I mention to get there early?

Cross Posted from Daily Kos

I realize that Calitics is an exception to this and there are many here focusing on local issues and politics.  I just thought I’d share my big orange rant which went virtually unnoticed of course.

Crazy isn’t it?  Local State and Congressional candidates are also running for office and they need your help.  Many of the States have already had their Primary and I’m sure some of you who are still on the fence can’t wait to start working for the eventual nominee, but have you thought, you could be working for local candidates?

I know, many of you do and I commend you for that.  As someone who is trying to run their first Statewide contest the tasks are formidable and the chances slim for us but we have to fight and the Primary battle between the potential Democratic Presidential nominees feels like static.

But please remember this, 2008 represents a year that could change the political landscape for local communities, especially those who have been red for a long time now and the help from local activists could make the difference between winning and losing.  I believe this to my very core.

Today, Gary Pritchard for State Senate released it’s first press release.  The Republican candidate in our district just doesn’t get and is running on the same failed policies of the National Republican policy, these policies have done damage from every town and city and every State in the Union.  Small change must come with our anticipated big change.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Gary Pritchard for State Senate

Today Gary Pritchard has announced that he has NOT been endorsed by the Orange County Young Republicans. (H/T to OC Blog)

http://www.redcounty.com/orang…

Citing the last seven years of the Bush administration’s dismal record for the country and record number of defections from the GOP ranks, Gary Pritchard celebrated his no endorsement by the GOP Young Republicans.  “I can’t believe Mimi Walters made such a blunder. Who in their right mind would want the Republican stamp of approval?” The economy is in the tank; Republicans have mismanaged the mortgage industry, The Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, The national debt, which is owned by China (What happened to “fiscal responsibility”?) and so many more things, why would Mimi Walters want to associate herself with so many disasters?  I have heard the Walters campaign is in crisis mode and are holding late night meetings to do damage control to figure out a way to distance themselves from the Republican taint.

At the state level the Republican Governor is laying off teachers left and right and closing State beaches because the budget doesn’t have room for lifeguards.  Locally they have Former Sheriff Corona on his way to the Clink, The Inmate Scandal at the Jails, Mike Schroeder and his endless number of frivolous lawsuits, Dina Nguyen’s suspect fundraising, and former Rohrabacher staffer convicted pedophile Jeffery Nielson in jail, who would want to be associated with that, how embarrassing.

I, Gary Pritchard, Democratic Candidate for the 33rd Senate District, am proud to say that I am endorsed by the Democratic Party of California and I encourage disaffected Republicans, Declined to State Voters, and Democrats to vote for me this November.

But get this, not only is Mimi Walters having her far right conservative endorsements endlessly paraded on the local blogs she’s embracing the hypocrisy that is hurting every working family in California.

Governor Schwarzenegger was scheduled visit and attend a “pep rally” for a South Orange County PRIVATE School yesterday afternoon.  Some of you are aware that California is facing a huge budget crisis and public schools are giving pink slips to many of their teachers, much to the detriment of their students and the public education system that so many working families rely upon.  I wrote about this at The Liberal OC…

The Governator visiting South County Tomorrow, Privately…

Yes, you read that right. The Governator is going to be making a public appearance at a private school in Orange County and to add insult to injury, thousands of parents of children in public school plan on protesting this appearance. Do you blame them?

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO – Hundreds of parents, students and teachers from across South County are expected to surround a private school where the governor is rumored to be making an appearance Thursday to protest his proposed $4 billion cut to K-12 education.Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is widely believed to be making an unannounced stop at St. Margaret’s Episcopal School in San Juan Capistrano for an afternoon pep rally.

St. Margaret’s spokeswoman Anne Mack referred all questions about the appearance to the governor’s office, which would not confirm his attendance.

“We respect the right of people to express their concerns through peaceful demonstration … and we want the very best for all students in Orange County and California,” Mack said in a prepared statement.

OC Register

The OC Register fails to point out the irony regarding the planned visit to a private school while the Governor puts forth that the best way to deal with the budget shortfall is to cut public education. South County schools are expected to lose a total of 46 million in funding to Capistrano and Saddleback School Districts which educate 85,000 children. What would this private school need a “pep rally” for? Are they laying off teachers and scaling back on their educational standards because of the Governor’s badly managed fiscal plan? Probably not.

So why bother Arnold? Why do you need to be shoring up support with private schools when the bulk of your constituents have children in public schools? Maybe Arnold will be urging this and other schools to hire the laid off teachers since they will probably have a complete landslide of applicants for private education. Can’t have their classroom sizes affected, now can we?

As Robert in Monterey has pointed out, Arnold could easily reinstate the Vehicle License Fee which would cost the average two car household an extra $300 a year and raise over an estimated six billion in revenue and short circuit these cuts (although the pink slips have already been handed out and the students have already been affected by the threat of cuts). For most families with multiple children, three hundred a year is much cheaper than having to send your child to a private school. I personally believe that public education is one of those things that warrants such action, but then you would probably just call me a liberal.

So, we know that Republicans don’t get the double standard but the level of cluelessness is astounding.  Arnold was going to attend this pep rally at the request of the Republican Candidate for SD-33 Mimi Walters because her children attend this school.  Yes, you read that right, the Republican who is currently serving in the State Assembly and promising not to raise taxes at any cost has her children in private school

Look, they think we aren’t paying attention, that’s the only way I can describe this hubris, blatant and insulting to all of those people who work hard every day and who depend on the public school system.  Parents of children in this private school were actually upset that the visit was canceled because of the planned protests.  Yes, it’s absolutely true.

Apparently Arnold’s planned visit to St. Margaret’s was organized at the request of Mimi Walters, whose kids go to the school. (She’s responsible for what’s probably the largest education budget in the world but she can’t be bothered to send her kids to south OC’s public schools, which have some of the highest test scores in California.)

According to the Capistrano Dispatch, which is unequivocally the BEST local newspaper on the PLANET: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s motorcade pulled into downtown San Juan Capistrano Thursday evening amid hundreds of protesters criticizing his support of the Foothill-South toll road and deep cuts to education. Schwarzenegger entered the back room of El Adobe through the side gate and did not acknowledge about 300 people lining both sides of Camino Capistrano. There was no way he missed the sign-waiving, whistle-blowing crowd, that broke into chants of “Shame on You” and “Save Our Schools” when the CHP-escorted black SUVs arrived.

The demonstrations started at St. Margaret’s Episcopal School earlier in the afternoon: Schwarzenegger was supposed to attend a rally there in honor of the CIF-champion football team, but canceled because of the protests. A St. Margaret’s spokeswoman, who had declined to even confirm the governor was set to appear, said the school supported the right to protest. Not everyone did, though: Some motorists slowed, rolled down their windows and yelled at the protesters because of the cancellation.

H/t to Gila Jones

Please, prove Republicans wrong and start paying attention to local races and write your local papers and call them on this, it has to be done, just as McCain is getting a free ride from the media, so are all Republicans as long as the Democratic Primary keeps chugging along.  We have a chance to change things not just nationally but locally.

And to add, both Gary and I support Obama, not only has he run a far superior campaign, he’s going to have coattails and he’s going to bring a lot of good Democrats with him, as well as moderates and disappointed Republicans.  But no matter who the nominee is, I will work for either, we won’t see anything change with four more years of BushMcCain.