(Some thoughts for Memorial Day from CA-10 Candidate Anthony Woods… – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The willingness to make the “ultimate sacrifice” in defense of our country stands as the enduring value which binds every active duty serviceman, servicewoman, and every veteran of the United States military.

Each Memorial Day we are reminded—and rightly so—of the courageous Americans who have given their lives in defense of our nation–between 1 million and 1.3 million since the American Revolution, depending on whose numbers you read.

Indeed the willingness to make that sacrifice is the pre-requisite-along with adherence to a strict code of conduct and respect for the chain of command—to joining an impenetrable fellowship as diverse as the nation every veteran has pledged their lives to defending.

As the son of a veteran, a West Point Graduate and Iraq War Veteran, Memorial Day will always be a day of gratitude, of solemn reflection, and remembrance for me.  

Gratitude for the courage and untiring loyalty of the 81 soldiers I was proud to command during my two combat tours in Iraq.  And a special appreciation for the fact that I was able to bring every one of them home alive.

Solemn reflection upon the near misses that are impossible to forget–like the roadside bomb attack 4 members of my unit narrowly survived during my first tour, the intensity of urban combat in Tal Afar, and the carnage of suicide bomb attacks on civilians in Baghdad.  

And remembrance of the friends I came to know at West Point, during officer training, or on the sands of Iraq—those who made the “ultimate sacrifice,” the families they left behind, and those who may have left Iraq, but are still a long way from really “coming home.”

At parades and ceremonies across our country this weekend, we will read names, recite stories of battlefield heroism, and recommit ourselves to the cause of keeping our nation’s promise to honor and care for all veterans, past, present and future.  And we must.

If we watch and listen closely this weekend, we’ll see that the capability to serve, and the willingness to make the “ultimate sacrifice” for America is not limited by era, branch, rank, age, gender, or the popularity of the mission they were called to serve.  The reading of the names of the fallen will make no mention of race, ethnicity, marital status, the number of children left behind, religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.

And why?

Because what matters in defending America has never been our differences, but the common cause, common values, common bonds and the shared sacrifices that unite all who serve.

That said, and in light of ongoing policy debates about who gets to serve in our military, it is important to remember, that among those who have given their lives for America, and among those who have stepped forward with a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in defending America today, are large numbers of every conceivable demographic group…

…including members of the LGBT community.

For example, the Urban Institute estimates that of the 27.5 million living American Veterans, about 3%, or 1 million, are gay or lesbian.  

If we apply this trend over history, that means that at least 35,000 of the 1-1.3 million Americans that have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country since the American Revolution were gay or lesbian.  That’s more than the total number of Americans Killed in Action during Iraq, Afghanistan, Desert Storm, Pearl Harbor, the War of 1812 and the American Revolution COMBINED.

Military leaders have reported that approximately 65,000 members of the LGBT community are currently serving in the Armed Forces —substantially more than the total number of U.S. troops currently fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.  

And every day, at great cost, two more servicemen and women who have volunteered to give their lives if necessary in defense of our country are forcibly discharged for reasons with no relation whatsoever to their capacity to fight for the freedom of others.

I would know.  I was one of them.

So as we honor our fallen heroes this weekend, and recommit ourselves to all who wear the proud uniform of our nation, I hope we can remember that for more than two centuries, protection of the land of the free has never been the responsibility of a narrow ideology, or a singular demographic—but by the willingness of brave Americans, from every walk of life, to step forward and if necessary, to make “the ultimate sacrifice.”

May God protect every single one of our troops.

Anthony Woods

Democrat for Congress, CA 10

Visit my Website

Contribute to our Campaign

Join our Facebook Page

Follow Us on Twitter

David Dayen mentioned this earlier today, but it is worth reproducing here.



Hooray! The outrageous propositions 1 A-E have been crushed by voters who just can’t take any more.

California voters have rejected the nonfunctional minority-rule government that has bankrupted the state, along with the governor who led the state into bankruptcy.

The voters want a functional democracy, and that means majority rule. No more blackmail by a 1/3 plus 1 Republican minority.

In short, the voters have given the Democrats a new freedom – if they will only take it.

The Democratic leadership should listen to its grassroots. They should immediately stop negotiating with the governor and other Republicans on how to destroy even more of what makes our state human. The Democrats, as a whole body, not just the leadership, should assert their majority, decide for themselves how they want to deal with the shortfall, and then invite the defeated Republicans publicly to join them and take their proposals to the public, first organizing serious grassroots support.

What is the point of doing this if the Democrats still don’t have the 2/3 votes to pass a budget bill? The point is drama! Most Californians are not aware of the minority rule situation. This could dramatize it and place the blame where it belongs. Drama matters. There might still be a later compromise. But the drama would set the stage for a 2010 ballot initiative.

The Democratic leadership should immediately take the initiative on a 2010 ballot measure, a supremely simple one-sentence measure. It would go something like this:

All budgetary and revenue issues shall be decided by a majority vote in both houses of the legislature.

One sentence. Simple. Straightforward. Understandable. And democratic. It should be called the California Democracy Act. From grade school on, we associate democracy with majority rule. It will make sense to voters – at last!

The term “revenue” would cover taxes without waving a red flag.

Up to now, Democrats have been acting like sheep being herded by the Republican minority. They need to show courage and stand up for what they believe. That’s what the voters are waiting for.

On the 2010 ballot initiative:

Get rid of the 55% proposals. People understand that majority rule means democracy. 55% means nothing.

Even if you don’t address taxes and just address the budget process, the Republicans will still say you’re going to raise taxes. You may as well go for real democracy.

And finally, get a unified message that can be supported by the grassroots. Do grassroots organizing for 2010, starting now. Organize spokespeople to get that message out. Organize bookers to book your spokespeople in the media. You Democrats are a majority. Act like it. The public will respect you for it.

For example, if the Republicans claim that this vote showed a tax rebellion, point out that only Prop 1a was about taxes. The other propositions failed. And the voters rejected a spending cap. What are you waiting for, you Democrats.  You have been set free.

If it is claimed that the vote was meaningless because so few people went to the polls, reply that the refusal to vote on these propositions was itself a vote against having such an election and such a lame way of running the state.

The voters have spoken. You Democratic office-holders have chance to come out on the side of the voters. Take it!

George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind, just out in paperback. He is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.

 

I threw the rest below the fold.  Here’s the latest update with 65% reporting in CA-32:

Though the lead continues to shrink, I don’t think Cedillo can make up 3,000 votes with what’s left out there.  Judy just declared victory, I’m told.

UPDATE More votes in, and Chu upped her lead to 3,300 votes with 75% in.  It’s over.  Congratulations to Judy Chu.

…In other races, Carmen Trutanich is going to win the City Attorney’s race.  He’s up 54-46, by over 13,000 votes with 55% of the vote in, and he’s been gaining with each update.  What a terrible race run by Weiss.

As for Council District 5, it’s Paul Koretz 53-47 over David Vahedi, though the spread is just 1,200 votes with 40% in.  That’s not quite over.

Update from CA-32, 15.77% reporting:

Those are slightly softer numbers for Chu, but she has quite a cushion.  If vote by mail is 50% of the vote, which is what it looks like, there’s no way Cediloo can catch her.

SD-26: Price is up to around 70% of the vote.

City Attorney, with 15.5% in:

Going to be tough for Weiss.

UPDATE Starting to come in over in CA-32 now. 32% reporting:

Doesn’t look like there will be enough votes left for Cedillo.  Judy Chu is likely headed into a runoff with Betty Chu.  Chu-Chu.  Um. Chu.

…City Attorney update, 22.3% in:

I think Trutanich is going to take this.  Simply an embarrassing loss for Villraigosa, if this holds.

UPDATE: Tightening up a bit in CA-32. 45.95% in:

Still a 3,300 vote lead for Chu, but it is tightening.

…City Attorney, 31% in:

And the 5th Council District, 14% in:

That one was getting long.  So here’s the deal.  1A-1E are going down.

17.4% precincts reporting

1A: 36.6% Yes, 63.4% No

1B: 40.1% Yes, 59.9% No

1C: 38.6% Yes, 61.4% No

1D: 38.0% Yes, 62.0% No

1E: 37.5% Yes, 62.5% No

1F: 76.4% Yes, 24.6% No

Just to make a point, in the city of Palmdale, a mildly conservative city in LA County, they have Measure B, a transient occupancy tax (hotels), on the ballot.  Right now it’s passing with 67% of the vote.

Don’t tell me this is a repudiation of taxes.  It’s a repudiation of bad governance.

…Update: 21.9% precincts reporting

1A: 36.7% Yes, 63.3% No

1B: 40.2% Yes, 59.8% No

1C: 38.6% Yes, 61.4% No

1D: 38.0% Yes, 62.0% No

1E: 37.6% Yes, 62.4% No

1F: 76.4% Yes, 24.6% No

Interesting that the measure giving money owed to schools is doing best, ay?

… Brian checks in from the war room with the news that the AP called 1F for the Yes side.  Yay!  Now the legislators will be REALLY motivated!

Just a matter of time before 1A-1E get called.

…I’m done updating the ballot measures, as it’s obvious what’s going to happen there. So far LA County has yet to update any totals for the local and federal elections, so we wait.

…Arnold concedes: “We have heard from the voters and I respect the will of the people.”  Whew, for a second there I thought he was going to institute the spending cap anyway!

You know what he’s intimating here, of course.  He’ll pull out his budget #2 and try to implement it.  The May 20th strategy is upon us.

UPDATE by Brian: Check the flip for the No on 1A Press release about the results. Arnold is flying back tonight to have a Big 5 meeting tomorrow. Would love to be a fly on the wall for that one.

…just to update, there have been, um, no updates from the LA Registrar of voters on these local races.  Here, pulled up from the bottom, are the results for the top six finishers, I assume among absentees, in CA-32 thus far.

JUDY CHU                          DEM    6,388   41.98

GIL CEDILLO                       DEM    2,628   17.27

BETTY CHU                         REP    1,938   12.74

EMANUEL PLEITEZ          DEM    1,233   8.1

TERESA HERNANDEZ     REP    1,202   7.9

DAVID A TRUAX                 REP    1,036   6.81

…Todd Beeton tweets in from Judy Chu HQ to say that people there feel good.  

…Finally starting to get some more numbers from LA County.

City Attorney: Trutanich 52%, Weiss 48%.  The spread is about 3,200 votes with 12% in.

5th District City Council: Koretz 53%, Vahedi 47%.  The spread is about 700 votes with 10% in.

Nothing new from CA-32 or SD-26.

SacBee has a post-mortem up.  Pretty much just CW.

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY REJECT FLAWED AND UNWORKABLE PROP. 1A

Low Voter Turnout Rebukes Costly Special Election, Says to Governor, Legislators: Get Back to Work

SACRAMENTO, CA — California voters overwhelmingly rejected the flawed and unworkable Prop. 1A and sent a clear message to Governor Schwarzenegger and legislators that they are tired of gimmicks and costly special elections and instead want real leadership and solutions to California’s budget crisis.

“Tonight’s results sent a message from the people of California that the Governor and the legislature must stop passing the buck and do the job they were elected to do.  It’s time for the governor and legislative leadership to put the same level of enthusiasm and effort into finding real solutions for California’s budget problems as they did trying to convince voters to vote for a flawed and confusing Prop. 1A,” said Willie L. Pelote, Sr., Assistant Director, Political Action Department, AFSCME International.

Today’s dismally low voter turnout demonstrated that this was not an election driven by anti-tax fervor.  Instead, it shows voters are tired of gimmicks and costly special elections and instead want real leadership and solutions to this crisis.

“The Governor and the legislature must develop budget solutions that put California on a real path to fiscal stability and stop sending voters flawed proposals that won’t work,” said Lillian Taiz, President, California Faculty Association.

Marty Hittelman, President, California Federation of Teachers added, “Now that these flawed and unworkable reform proposals have been voted down, the governor and legislative leaders must put aside the campaign rhetoric and work to craft real budget solutions with adequate revenue to solve our problems and put California back on track.”

#             #             #

OK.  So we’ll start with a results thread here.  Just to recap, in addition to the statewide special election, here are the other key races today, at least in the LA area:

City Attorney: This is a runoff election between Jack Weiss and Carmen Trutanich.  This election got extremely nasty in the final weeks, although they pulled all their attack ads last night and went soft and cuddly for the stretch run.  The low turnout probably favors Trutanich.  If Antonio Villaraigosa cannot drag his pal Weiss across the finish line, then it speaks volumes about his ability to draw voters in what’s supposed to be his local base.

LA City Council 5th District: This is another runoff between former Assemblyman Paul Koretz and neighborhood council leader David Vahedi.  This happens to be a very engaged, well-off, activist district, so I would actually expect turnout to be decent, relatively speaking.  Progressives have mobilized for Koretz, and most of the competitors in the first round primary endorsed him.

SD-26: Curren Price will be a state Senator by the end of the night, replacing Mark Ridley-Thomas.  His Republican opponent is a rabbi, which rules, but I think he was outspent 300:1.

CA-32: This should be a very interesting race tonight, with Judy Chu, Gil Cedillo and Emanuel Pleitez the main competitors.  Will Cedillo’s nasty, negative strategy pay off?  Did the late endorsers to Chu’s campaign recognize a trend?  Can Pleitez use social media politics to a good showing?  We’ll see.

…CapWeekly has a pre-analysis of their own for you to all read while we wait out the results.  Anthony York thinks Schwarzenegger will tack hard right as a result of this defeat.  He has no guiding political principle, so any port in a storm, I guess.  I think York’s reading the right tea leaves, and success or failure will depend on where the Democrats elected to reflect the will of the people will go.

…18.6% turnout reported for LA County.  Remember, there were actual other elections on the ballot out here.  Wow, that’s just terrible.

…OK, the first results are in.

1A: 39% Yes, 61% No

1B: 42% Yes, 58% No

1C: 40% Yes, 60% No

1D: 39% Yes, 61% No

1E: 39% Yes, 61% No

1F: 77% Yes, 23% No

The totals are about 1 million votes, presumably absentees at this point.  If you are charitable and say that there will be 30% turnout, there are maybe 4-5 million votes left.  So I’d say that 20% of the totals or so are in at the very least.

…Another huge dump of absentees. And 13% of precincts reporting:

1A: 37% Yes, 63% No

1B: 40% Yes, 60% No

1C: 39% Yes, 61% No

1D: 38% Yes, 62% No

1E: 38% Yes, 62% No

1F: 75% Yes, 25% No

…First results from CA-32 are in over at LA County’s website.  Early, but it looks good for Judy Chu.  9% reporting:

JUDY CHU DEM    6,388   41.98

GIL CEDILLO DEM    2,628   17.27

BETTY CHU REP    1,938   12.74

EMANUEL PLEITEZ  DEM    1,233   8.1

TERESA HERNANDEZ REP    1,202   7.9

DAVID A TRUAX REP    1,036   6.81

Probably would be in better shape without Betty Chu in the race.

…17% now reporting, and the numbers are basically the same as before.

1A: 37% Yes, 63% No

1B: 40% Yes, 60% No

1C: 39% Yes, 61% No

1D: 38% Yes, 62% No

1E: 38% Yes, 62% No

1F: 75% Yes, 25% No

…briefly on the other elections: with 10% in, Curren Price has 69% of the vote.    Carmen Trutanich leads Jack Weiss 51-48 with about 10% of the vote in.  And Paul Koretz leads 53-47 with 10% in.  These last two will probably go all night.

…Debra Bowen tweets that these are all vote-by-mail ballots reporting right now.  If, as expected, they are 40-50% of the final total, everyone can go to bed.  Except for Jack Weiss, Carmen Trutanich, Paul Koretz and David Vahedi.

I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.

On Sunday, Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to find religion. No, not by opening his eyes to the reality surrounding him, but by “pleading” and “urging” for voters to pass his spending cap “rainy day fund”

The governor’s visits to three African American churches in Los Angeles came as proponents and opponents of the ballot measures marshaled the last of the millions of dollars they have collected for the special election. Schwarzenegger said Sunday he had been told that about 25% of voters are expected to show up, a paltry percentage that underscores the difficulty of the quest for reliable voters.

***

But even among the church crowds who listened to the official pitch there was skepticism about the proposals. Jo Evelyn Payne, 62, a retired loan servicing assistant who lives in Inglewood, said she was wavering over the package. She said she had little faith in California ballot measures and also mistrusts Schwarzenegger. (LAT 5/18/09)

“Governor” Schwarzenegger has been a disastrous leader, and people are now seeing right through his charade, even when he shows up in their churches. The Governor is spinning wildly to get his spending cap passed, but nobody is buying it.

Meanwhile, money has been flowing into the Yes on 1C lottery securitization, perhaps as some Yes campaign folks heed Robert’s advice to focus on Prop 1C. It has been getting terrible polling numbers, but as it is the one source of big money for this year’s budget it is finally getting some attention. The CDP has put some money into Prop 1C, as has SEIU Local 99. This is late money, but for the yes team, it’s better than no money I suppose.

The thing is, as OC Progressive pointed out, that it’s quite likely that a rather substantial percentage of the electorate for this election has already voted by mail. Estimates have vote by mail percentage at anywhere from 55-75%, and those votes have already been filled out. So, we’ll see the campaigning for the next 36 hours, but the bulk of the work should be done by now.

Finally, from the more humorous side, Steve Maviglio has planned a “tweet heard round the world” for Yes on 1A-F. The big plan is for all those enthusiastic Yes on 1A-F supporters on Twitter to simultaneously tweet something at 9:30 this morning. Normally these things are supposed to be something of a surprise, so people go “whoa, look at that.”  That didn’t happen here, so as long as we know about it, how about a tweet at 9:30 opposing the measures. Here’s a suggestion, but you can feel free to edit it:

Vote No on Prop 1A Tomorrow: It’s Already Raining. Courage Campaign Voter

Guide: http://tr.im/jXBC Poll locations: http://tr.im/lflA

I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.

I must admit that I was a bit surprised when I saw this editorial at the Tracy Press. It clearly lays out what can only be described as the progressive case against Proposition 1A:

This hastily drafted measure won’t work.

Why? Proposition 1A has such rigid provisions, it would lock in a reduced level of public services without taking into account California’s changing demographics, population growth and future policies. It would also give the future governors new power without legislative oversight.

1A isn’t even a short-term patch on a long-term problem. Most of this measure’s provisions wouldn’t take effect for two years. In that time, we could repeal the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for budgets and tax increases – and we could work on real budget reform, without the permanent changes that 1A would make to the state’s Constitution. (Tracy Press)

It’s like reading something straight out of the virtual pages of Calitics.

In ad featuring the California PTA, foes of Prop 1D’s efforts have attacked the attempts to grab the First 5 reserve fund. It’s not a particularly innovative ad, but it goes right to the heart of the issue, funding for children. You can watch all of the No on 1D ads here.