Wow! Big news this morning on the CA redistricting front: California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez is now proposing that independent redistricting apply to Congressional as well as State Legislative districts. This puts Nuñez at odds with Speaker Pelosi, who has opposed independent redistricting for California House districts.

Is this good for Democrats?  Bad for Democrats?  Follow me behind the fold…

First… there’s no question that state legislators drawing their own districts presents a conflict of interest. Whether or not you believe that independent redistricting would create many more “competitive” districts (and I’m skeptical), it’s clear that our state’s lines were not drawn to represent communities, but to protect incumbents. Period.

Does the same apply to Congressional districts? Well, under our current system, Congressmembers do not draw their own lines; the State Legislature does that. But party collusion meant that protecting incumbents still took first priority in 2000. Take a look at our Congressional districts and you’ll see what I mean.

So from that standpoint, it makes sense to hand Congressional redistricting over to an independent body as well.

But now things get complicated.

The question Pelosi raises – and it’s a fair one – is whether enacting this reform solely in California gives Republicans too great a political advantage. Won’t we lose good Democrats while Texas keeps its Republicans in power?

Maybe, but I’m not so sure. At this point it’s important to clarify the difference between protecting incumbents and boosting majority seats. The latter is what Tom DeLay did in 2003 in Texas… that is, instead of drawing districts around all the incumbents to protect their seats, DeLay redrew the map to add Republican seats by consolidating (and therefore eliminating) Democratic seats. This was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States – in large part because it amounted to racially-based gerrymandering.

But that is not what happened in California in 2000. After the last redistricting, the number of California’s majority Republican and majority Democratic districts remained the same. All the seats were made safer but no new Democratic seats were created. The motive was to decrease competition, not to engineer partisan gain.

So… if Texas allowed an independent panel to redraw their Congressional district maps, it would mean an almost certain gain for Democrats. In California, however, an independent map could hypothetically benefit either side. Who stood to gain the most would come down to which party was best able to compete in any newly competitive districts.

In fact, if we’d had more competitive Congressional districts in California last November, Democrats could very well have picked up more seats in our state. Instead, our “safe” seats map shielded our Republicans from their party’s most disastrous election in recent history.

So Pelosi is correct that independent redistricting should be applied to all states – BUT I disagree with her assessment that applying it only to California would endanger our Congressional majority. Competitive seats are only a threat if we are afraid to fight for them. If we fight and win, competition will strengthen our party – and give voters greater confidence in the process. I salute Nuñez’s stand and urge Speaker Pelosi to back down from her opposition.

By now, you’ve all probably received an e-mail from MoveOn asking us to call our Congressman to urge him or her to support the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act. I know PeteB2 has called. And earlier today I called my Congressman, Rep. Adam Schiff. This is what his office said:

Congressman Schiff voted for it in committee last week and intends to do the same on the floor this week.

Have you called? When you do, let MoveOn know the response HERE. And share it below in the comments.

I’ve also contacted Schiff’s press guy about posting here at Calitics. I’m particularly interested in his perspective on this issue, since he’s both a Blue Dog and on Appropriations. I suspect he may view us as too liberal for him but hopefully he’ll see that we don’t bite.

(Thank you, Congresswoman, for your leadership on this issue!! – promoted by Todd Beeton)

Friends,

A couple of weeks ago I wrote, regarding the House vote against the escalation, that to “oppose the escalation is an important first step, but it must be the beginning of our debate, not the end.”  Today, I wanted to take a moment to follow up on that post, and make my position clear – the only money I will support for Iraq is funding that is used for the withdrawal of every last US soldier and military contractor from Iraq.

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq because President Bush refuses to recognize that it’s time to bring our troops home, his is a position that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American public.  Democrats were elected in November in conservative districts across the country so that we could find an end to the war, and now the majority of the American public supports a time-bound withdrawal plan that ensures that our troops return home in a safe and orderly fashion [link to poll].  It’s time to end our military occupation of Iraq, and it’s time to fully fund our withdrawal.

Conservatives have tried to portray the progressive position as one of cutting off funding for our troops in the field, and many have questioned our patriotism.  Others have gone so far as to claim that we are working against our men and women in harm’s way.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and we must stand up and confront their lies.

A fully funded withdrawal would ensure that our military commanders have any and all resources available to them to bring our troops home, while providing for their security during the process.  This isn’t about cutting funding, this about providing the resources for an orderly withdrawal, allowing our troops to come home to their families, and for our military to regroup, and stand prepared to defend our country if, and when, we are truly faced with a threat to our national security.

-Lynn

(I hope so. – promoted by atdleft)

Friends,

Starting this morning the House will begin to debate the moral issue of our times – our continued military occupation of Iraq.  My colleagues and I will have the opportunity to vote on President Bush’s escalation – a failed policy from the start, which will only deepen our engagement in the Iraq, and increase the cost to our country in lives, limb and treasury.  The American public has already overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to the President’s plan, and now it is our turn, and our responsibility to have our voices heard.

I will support this week’s effort, and will cast my vote against the President’s proposed escalation, but you all know that I will not stop there, and neither should my colleagues. 

To oppose the escalation is an important first step, but it must be the beginning of our debate, not the end.  Even if we succeeded in preventing President Bush’s escalation we would be left with an unacceptable status quo – over one hundred thousand of our brave men and women still in harm’s way, and a continued military occupation that is fueling the insurgency.  Let me be clear, we must do more than oppose the President’s escalation, we must bring our troops home.

As many of you know I have proposed legislation that would do just that.  H.R. 508 would bring our troops home within six months, provide economic, humanitarian and diplomatic aid to help the Iraqis rebuild their country, and care for those who have sacrificed themselves for their country by funding the VA as an entitlement, not another program to be funded at the whim of this President.  Others in Congress have put forth their own legislation, and after we have debated and voted on the President’s plan, it’s time that the Congress debate and voted on a plan, and H.R. 508 is the comprehensive plan we need.

You have been with me since the beginning, and your phone calls and letters have helped to move this debate.  Your actions have held your representatives accountable, and you continue to hold President Bush accountable for his disaster in Iraq. 

Thank you – keep it up.

-Lynn

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Friends,

Over 2,650 lives, and more than $300 billion later, the occupation of Iraq remains one of the greatest leadership failures of our time. President Bush failed to find any WMD’s, failed to be honest about the invasion, failed to use a sound military strategy, failed the people of Iraq, and perhaps most importantly, failed us, the American public.

His vendetta in Iraq has cost our country our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, husbands and wives. While children struggle to learn in crumbling schools, and families are forced to find a way to put food on their tables, this occupation has cost our country the ability to address our real national priorities.

$300 billion could have fixed our schools, secured our ports and provided health care to millions in need. 2,650 people could have supported their families and enriched our great country.  Intelligence experts and other Pentagon officials could have concentrated on finding Osama bin Laden.

On Tuesday, September 26th, I will be holding a Congressional forum on the cost of the continuing occupation of Iraq. This is the third such forum that I have held on the subject of Iraq over the past year.  Each time bringing our troops home has been a focal point.

When I spoke up in January of 2005, I was the first member of Congress to call for withdrawal, but I was certainly not alone. While the politicians in Washington were too afraid, or too blind, to support a call for a withdrawal, I was joined by many of you throughout the country, who were leading the grassroots effort against this unjust war.

On Tuesday I will be joined by a number of my colleagues, and expert witnesses will speak to the different costs of this war, including Lt. General William Odom (who served as the Director of the NSA under President Reagan) and Dr. Paul Pillar (a 30 year veteran of the CIA).

So far the mainstream media has failed to seriously cover these forums, preventing the American public from participating in an honest debate on this crucial subject, that’s why I need you to help me reach out, and I urge all of you to join in this debate. Politicstv.com will be providing coverage of our hearing, starting later in the afternoon on Tuesday. We are hoping that C-Span will cover the event live. And you can read the full testimony of all of our experts on my website at www.woolsey.house.gov afterwards. While we will have limited space in the room for members of the public, I would like to extend an invitation to any bloggers in the DC area who would like to attend. You can contact my office at 202-225-6101 for information on getting there and getting in, and to reserve a space.

As the American public, and those here in Congress, realize just how costly a mistake the occupation has been, it is more important than ever that we keep up the pressure.  Please join me in this important debate.

-Lynn

This is going to be a series where we introduce the people who make up the campaign. Every staffer will explain a little about who they are, and why their involved in the campaign.

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Max Berger, and I’m currently working as Web Coordinator for Robert Rodriguez for Congress. I’m a 20 year-old college student dedicating my summer to helping a fantastic candidate (and a good friend) get elected to Congress. I’m what you could consider a “netroots Democrat.” I’ve been a daily blog reader since 2002, took time off school to work full-time for the Dean for America campaign in Burlington, and spent a summer at Media Matters. I want to share the story of how I came to be involved on this campaign, and why it matters so much to me.

I agreed to join the campaign because Robert was a colleague of mine on a previous campaign, and I was taken in by his thoughts on the need for real leadership in American politics. As young people (I’m 20, he is 28), we were frustrated the current political class almost pathologically inability to take the long view. Whether it’s the Democrats weakly voting for the war in Iraq for political reasons, or the Republicans greedily denying global warming because it didn’t fit their worldview, too few in DC today look past the current moment.

We see so little leadership on important issues facing America because that would require our leaders make personal sacrifices. Sacrifice is the antithetical to the current regime. As a young person, the inability of the “leadership” to use their position to invest in the future is a personal affront. Tax cuts in a time of war? Letting America fall behind Korea in broadband access? Continuing to under-fund No Child Left Behind? There was a time in American politics when people appreciated the sacrifices of previous generations and were willing to make similar sacrifices for future generations. Grand investments in the future of the nation from the GI Bill, to the Apollo program, to the interstate highway system form the basis of our present prosperity. And yet, no one in politics today even dreams of such things, because of the sacrifices of money and standing it might require. I wanted to work for a campaign that would provide leadership.

My involvement with the campaign started in early June when I drove down to Palmdale from Portland, Oregon. I got in at 8 pm after a full two days of driving and was excited to check out to my new digs and meet my new colleagues. I arrived to find a combination house/office that I have come to call “the compound.” We work upstairs and live downstairs. My colleagues were running around getting everything together for a big rally and press event the next day, making final touches, and rallying supporters to show up. I was thrown straight into the fray, making calls without even a moment to unload my car, or take a shower. I worked straight through until 2 am.

When I was done, I wondered to myself, “what the heck am I doing here?” I gave up my summer of chilling out with my friends and working a mindless job to slave away doing busy work in the middle of the desert? I had almost forgotten why I was involved before I even got started. Before I headed to bed I went to the kitchen to get a glass of water. What I found changed my entire outlook on the campaign, and reminded me of why I was here. Robert, who had just finished a 15-hour workday, was mopping the kitchen floor. It hadn’t even occurred to him to ask someone else to do it. There was nothing he could have done that would have been more inspiring.

(I’ve written before about my qualms with the HRC and over at DownWithTyranny, they have as well. An HRC endorsement alone should not be enough to warrant support, a little research can go a long way. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

those of you who already know me might also know about my blog Turn Tahoe Blue which aims of doing just that and covers news and campaigns in the Lake Tahoe area.

Today, I started a new one-issue information blog called Pink Campaigns. This blog intends to inform you on what Democratic candidates for Congress and Governor state on their campaign websites on GLBT issues. If you would like to know more on the “What? Why? Who? How?” please read on below the fold.

What? Why? Who? How?

I’ve become very disenheartened with candidates running for office who will gladly accept the pink buck but who will not campaign on pink issues.

Or, if you’re not that enthused about the color reference: Why is it so hard for many candidates to publish their positions on GLBT issues on their campaign website? Because many don’t. Even those candidates by whom you’d expect it.

So, you can probably understand why I was positively surprised, even a little stunned, when I saw a clear statement by a Democratic candidate for Congress:

I believe that my marriage to my one-and-only wife of 18 years, Polly, will not lose its sanctity if we treat all Americans equally.

That candidate also clearly states his views on GLBT issues. Now, you might assume that I’m writing about a candidate from California or New York, someone running in a large city with a large GLBT community.

Well, you’d be wrong. The candidate’s name is David Gill and he’s running in one of the reddest districts in rural Illinois. Maybe now you can understand why I was stunned that such a candidate would even talk, positively talk, about GLBT issues.

Now, some of you may remember the outcry on some blogs on the Human Rights Campaign’s decision to endorse Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island over his Democratic challenger. Because I’m a curious guy I figured I’d just take a look at the HRC’s list of endorsed candidates and was quite surprised by what I saw. Some candidates were obviously chosen because they are vulnerable incumbents, some because they’re strong advocates of GLBT issues and others because they might oust a Republican incumbent who is a foe of GLBT issues. That’s all mighty fine and it’s the HRC’s decision who they decide to endorse but something really got me wondering.

Of the 13 endorsed candidates only two find GLBT issues important enough to put them on their issues page of their campaign website and actually campaign on them. It seems quite clear to me that accepting the pink buck is not equivalent to campaigning on pink issues.

So, I’ve decided to look at the campaign websites of all Democratic candidates, whether they’re incumbents or not, running for Congress or Governor and find out whether or not they will clearly state their views on at least one GLBT issue.

I will portray the candidates who do so on this blog. I will quote what they have to say, will link to their campaign website and their contributions page and will give you some information on the district and the results of the last election.

Any candidate can make it on this list. There are a few conditions, though. The candidate has to have a campaign website (quite a few incumbents don’t have one (yet?)) and the candidate clearly has to state what s/he is for, specifically. Just saying you’re against the Federal Marriage Amendment won’t do the trick, neither will some statement that you support “equality for all”. At least the words GLBT, homosexual, or sexual orientation (even if I don’t like that term) have to appear. If a candidate is campaigning on his past achievements and clearly states on the campaign websites what s/he has done for GLBT issues in the past that will make her/him also eligable for this page.

This will be a work in progress. I will publish these candidate profiles regularly. If there is a primary somewhere and there are several candidates running for the same office I will publish the profiles before the primary. I am aware that many candidates, especially incumbents, haven’t started campaigning in earnest, yet. So, I will take a look at their campaign websites on a regular basis. If you will find that a candidate has changed the wording on her/his website after I publish her/his profile, please let me know.

And, finally, a disclaimer. The profiles are not an endorsement of any candidate. If a candidate you like will not be featured in the end, it’s because s/he hasn’t met the criteria I mentioned above. A lot of your favourite candidates may not make this site, and a few candidates you dislike might get profiled. That’s the way it goes and one thing you can be certain of: I feel the same way as you do. While researching for this blog I was very disappointed to see that many of my favourite candidates do not include GLBT issues on their website. So, if your favourite candidate is such a case you might just wanna write to her or him and complain to them and not to me.

I’ve entered 7 profiles today including one from California. Click here to enter Pink Campaigns.