Tag Archives: Jane Harman

Uncategorized

Harman-Giving Bush Benefit of Doubt When None’s Left to Give

Starting from when they let Bin Laden slip away in Afghanistan in December 2001, to the diversion of military resources from fighting al-Qaida to invade and occupy Iraq, to Bush saying he doesn’t think much about bin Laden, the administration’s consistent pattern is one of losing focus on getting al-Qaida.  It’s never been anywhere near the top of their priority list.

So what the heck is Jane Harman doing acting all surprised at yet another instance when the administration fails to go after al-Qaida?

Rove also faced questions from the audience on Sunday, from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News and from Rep. Jane Harman, a Democrat from California who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Both Mitchell and Harman asked Rove about a report in Sunday’s New York Times that the CIA was prepared in 2005 to go into Pakistan to capture or kill top al-Qaida members, but that the administration called off the mission so as not to upset the government of Pakistan.

“If the New York Times story today is true, it is enormously disturbing,” Harman said. “Is this administration seriously focused on getting the top al-Qaida people or is it not?”

After all this time, and she still can’t make a judgment on that.  Pretty sad.  Apparently, until she gets a handwritten letter from Bush that says he isn’t serious about catching al-Qaida, she’ll still be unsure what to think.

Uncategorized

Iraq: Why Harman’s Words Matter

9 Comments

(I know y’all are probably tired of the Harman postings – but this really concerns Dems because it’s about changing the Iraq frame in the media so we can get hell out of there. Harman is one of those Dem’s reinforcing the current frame.)

As discussed previously at DailyKos as well as here at Calitics:

Jane Harman, unbeknownst to her constituents, was going to vote FOR the Iraq supplemental up until the last minute.  She’d voted Yes on a supplemental with timelines before.  This one was the blank-check version that Bush wanted.

She voted against it in the end and put out a press release that said the argument that this vote was about sending the troops the armor and equipment they need “rubbish”. 

But the truth is she was for it until practically the very last minute, and she herself equated not voting for the supplemental to not giving the troops the armor they need. 

And, to top it all off, even after having voted No, she said she hadn’t changed her thinking on that.
(more) 

Joe Klein’s subsequent post leaves no doubt that Harman said what he reported her to say, because he goes on the attack against bloggers by citing them for doubting him on that point.  Like his earlier posts, this post of his is disingenuous and deceitful in a lot of ways, but not on this point.  Harman did give Klein the quote he says she did.

Klein’s essentially saying: the fact that Jane Harman’s words sound so outrageous and untrue given the way she voted is not my fault, it’s hers. 

Remember, Jane Harman accuses people voting against the bill as so uncaring for troops that they would not give them the armor they need to protect themselves from frakking IED’s. And then she voted against the bill herself. 

But that’s not the worst of it.  The situation isn’t that she realized she was buying into pro-administration talking points and came to her senses at the last minute.  That would be bad enough to have to admit that what you believed a few minutes ago is wrong, because people would use it as ammunition to attack the position you now support.  That’s not what happened here – she didn’t “see the light” at the last minute.  Exactly the opposite, in fact.  She did what her anti-war constituents wanted; she didn’t change her mind. 

Even after her No vote and her press release that called such thinking “manipulation” and “rubbish”, she said she still stood behind what she said to Klein [that no vote = denying troops armor].  I surmise that she must reconcile herself to how her thinking clashes with her vote by looking to the fact that the bill was going to pass despite her voting no.  (There’s no way she thought that her vote would actually cause troops to go without armor – nobody could live with themselves if they held that belief and voted No.) 

Thus she has the luxury of having it both ways — letting her vote and press release say one thing, and having her statements to Klein assert the exact opposite.

But why does what she say matter, you may ask, when she voted the right way on the supplemental and even on the rules for debate that could have scuttled the bill.  The reason what she says matters is that it prolongs the war, despite her votes in this case 

The fact is that a supplemental putting real restrictions still would have been needed to be passed through the House and the Senate even if this blank-check was torpedoed by the rules of debate, and there simply weren’t the votes in the Senate to keep trying. 

To change that, the terms of the debate themselves needed (and still need) to change.  There never will be the votes to end this occupation so long as putting restrictions on funding = cutting funds for the troops. 

And Harman isn’t just not speaking out to counter that argument, she’s legitimizing these talking pointsto this very day to “concerned liberals” like Joe Klein who make the most of them to beat down Democrats.  The “facts” Klein makes up to support his view – like saying Obama and Clinton changed their vote on the supplemental for example – are not going to be damaging (other than to Klein’s reputation as a journalist) over the long run.  But when he’s got a real Democrat – especially a high profile Democrat on military matters – endorsing his “Dems are irresponsible” narrative with her actual (not made up) words, then Klein gets the “proof” that this narrative is truthful.  And that’s a lot harder to overcome. 

And because Harman can’t bring herself to renounce this thinking even after voting No on the supplemental, then she’s delaying the end of our occupation of Iraq instead of helping it to happen – no matter her No votes in this case.

Los Angeles Area

Jane Harman and Iraq — Against the Supplemental (But Not Really)

9 Comments

(So did Joe Klein actually get it right (kinda sorta)? Did Jane Harman plan to vote “Yea” before doing a “Nay”? I really don’t know, but Pete has an interesting theory. – promoted by atdleft)

crossposted at Daily Kos

OK, more than a week has passed since the Iraq supplemental vote, and I’m pretty dumbstruck that the incongruity of Jane Harman’s vote against the bill and her statements to Joe Klein of Time magazine about the vote hasn’t gotten more attention. 

Here’s the deal —

According to Harman, as told to Klein*:

1. Voting against the supplemental bill was voting against providing troops the equipment and the armor they need.

2. Voting No was not something she could bring herself to do because of her view noted above.

3. She voted against the bill in the end not because she changed her view noted above in 1., but because she says she felt it was her responsibility to vote how her anti-war constituents wanted her to vote.

Well, so what does all this mean?

1.  Harman was aware that the bill would pass at the time she switched from a Yes vote to a No vote. 

There’s a second source on this one: Politico says she changed her mind “shortly before it came to the floor”.  As far as Klein and Harman, I’m guessing she authorized Klein to say she’d already voted, which suggests the vote was very imminent.

2.  Her press statement criticizes an argument as false that she believes to be true. 

Namely, the “you’re endangering our troops if you vote no” argument.  The same day her press release was put out calling such an argument “manipulation” and “rubbish, she  made that exact argument to defend a “Yes” vote and she still stands behind that argument today(despite voting No on the bill).

3.  Based on 1. and 2. above, it’s reasonable to assume she reconciled herself to voting No on the bill and switched because by that time she knew it was going to pass and her vote wasn’t needed. 

Surely the fact that it would also help protect her from the wrath of constituents reeling from multiple military deaths was a motivating factor too. 

Sadly, this evening, the front page of the local South Bay newspaper website had four main stories on its front page – every single one of them about a local soldier’s death.

Friends, fellow Americans line Torrance streets to mourn a passing warrior
Wilmington soldier killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb
Death of Spc. Alexandre Alexeev is third from South Bay in two weeks.
Everyone came to pay their respects to a South Bay son
Services Sunday for Pfc. Daniel Cagle of Del Aire

The whole screen has no other articles in view.  They are all about local soldiers dying. 

Digby is right when he suggests that this dynamic must have played a part with Harman switching, but he gives credit to Harman where I think it very well could be a Lieberman-esque effort at “window dressing”.  Harman knew by that time what the outcome would be, and this dynamic isn’t getting her to change her thinking, only how she’s voting when it doesn’t make a difference. 

4.  If her vote would have actually made a difference in the outcome, there’s no way in hell that she would have voted against the supplemental because she  believed (and believes) to do so would lead to soldiers’ deaths. 

She  contrasts herself with all the anti-war folks who wanted a No vote on this blank-check bill: She is concerned in soldiers’ welfare; they are not.

I had those kids on the C-130 [deploying to Iraq] in my mind, but I also had to consider the overwhelming opposition to this war in my district–and, in the end, my responsibility was to the people I represent.

5.  Harman played absolutely no beneficial role in getting this blank-check supplemental defeated because she was for it until the very last minute, and even then personally disagrees with how she felt she had to vote.  For all we know, she was working behind the scenes to get people to vote for it.

‘* A note about relying on Harman’s statements as reported by Joe Klein on his Time magazine blog:  Klein gets things wrong.  A lot. And what Harman is reported as saying is pretty outlandish – I mean, Klein’s got her saying that she voted for a bill that she voted against, and implying that her very own vote is going to lead to the death of some American troops.  Couldn’t be possible, could it?

But consider: Klein posted a followup a day later and transcribed a voice mail he says he received from Harman in which she vouches for the accuracy of their conversation as Klein reported it. 

[…]
Your account of our conversation was accurate and I stand by what I said to you.
[…]

Also, consider how damaging these statements are to her credibility and the fact that her press office made no effort to clarify the record. (How many days has it been since the vote?)  And I personally talked to Harman’s press secretary and made sure he was aware of what Klein had quoted Harman as saying.  He was very aware and yet declined the opportunity to dispute any of it or point me to anywhere where they had previously disputed it.

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the only reason Harman is not doing anything to correct the record about what Klein reported her as saying – is because she actually said it?

I think I’m bending over a little backwards to be fair to Harman — it’s not like I’m pretending to read nefarious thoughts into her mind.  These are things she said on the record which got published by Time magazine.  The onus is really on her to correct the record if anything is wrong, and nothing suggests she’s done that.  But if there’s something out there that’s not available online that for some reason Harman’s office is not sharing on this, please share in the comments.

Frankly, I’d be happy to find out that Klein did in fact get it wrong but Harman is protecting his errors until and unless she starts paying a price for what he wrote.  But it’s got to be one or the other:  Either Klein is simply making up things Harman said or Harman is being super-disingenuous on her Iraq war vote.

Uncategorized

The Bizarre Relationship between Jane Harman & Joe Klein

If you check out the Quick Hits Section on the front page, you’ll see one QH about Joe Klein and Jane Harman, and another about Atrios declaring himself the wanker of the day.  All very good, but what does that mean? Well, it’s the case that truly illustrates that, well, dday was right:  Jane Harman has changed over the past year and a half or so. And for that, we owe a debt of gratitude to Marcy Winograd.

So, um, what is all this insider jibberish? Flip it!

Well, I think we should first posit that Joe Klein (aka Joke Line, author of Primary Colors and current columnist at Time Magazine) has absolutely no journalistic credibility. There, now that’s out of the way.  On 5/25, Joke Line reported this quote from Rep. Harman:

But I flew into Baghdad on a troop transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn’t do that. (Swamperiffic 5/25/07)

Now, the only trouble, as Booman pointed out is that Jane Harman actually voted against the funding resolution. So, on 5/26, Klein puts up this voicemail message from Harman:

I apologize for not calling to tell you that I changed my mind. Your account of our conversation was accurate and I stand by what I said to you. We were faced with two miserable choices. I had those kids on the C-130 [deploying to Iraq] in my mind, but I also had to consider the overwhelming opposition to this war in my district–and, in the end, my responsibility was to the people I represent.

So, somehow Harman had the responsibility to notify Klein of her decision to change her mind? How pathetic is this that a) Harman felt the need to apologize to Klein and b) that Klein didn’t bother to f’ing check the roll call. Yeah, that’s really hard. And oh, by the way, Harman also joined Jerry McNerney and Pete Stark in voting against the rule to bring the vote to the floor.

But, that being said, that quote is really interesting. It is essentially an admission that Harman was out of line with her constituency and is now working to get back in line. Now, I reject her premise that a vote against was a vote to deny the troops anything. A vote against was a call for Bush to bring the troops home. The Pentagon has plenty of money to withdraw our troops safely, and leaders like Rep. Woolsey have authored measures too grant additional funds to fully fund the withdrawal.  It’s long past time to get out and quit playing patriotic games with the lives of our troops. That the mission was flawed says nothing about the talents of our troops. They are still the best in the world. But even the best fighting force in the world is no match for poor planning and the rejection of facts.

Los Angeles Area

“Jane Harman Hasn’t Changed”

5 Comments

That’s what her campaign manager told me just a month ago, after I gave him numerous chances to concede that she’s a more progressive Congresswoman now than she was before she was subject to a primary from Marcy Winograd.  But after today’s events, where she not only voted against the supplemental bill, but was one of only seven Democrats, along with McNerney and Stark, to vote against accepting the rules for debate, a vote which came tantalizingly close to failing (216-201).

This is clearly a long way from the person who called herself “the best Republican in the Democratic Party.”  But it’s been a year-long evolution for Harman.  It’s not only Iraq; she’s introduced legislation to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, has called to put the Iraq war on budget, and done several other good works of which progressives can be proud.

This was also personal.  Harman’s constituent, Pfc. Joseph Anzack, was found floating in the Euphrates River yesterday, one of the three soldiers taken prisoner by insurgents that sadly turned up dead.  Her statement on that tragedy is here.

Today is a shitty day.  The war is now essentially funded until the end of Bush’s tenure (the supplemental covers to September, but the defense appropriation for FY2008 then kicks in to carry well into next year).  The Democratic leadership gave Bush the ability to use critical funding money as leverage to force the Iraqis to pass an oil law that privatizes the entire industry for the benefit of multinationals (that benchmark, I can assure you, won’t be waived).  The leadership played a good hand in the worst way possible, dissipating the goodwill of the American people and showing through their actions the lack of any capacity to lead.  We can only take solace in the efforts of the rank and file to deliver a strong “no” message.  And Jane Harman, given the fact that she most certainly has changed in myriad ways, is the best embodiment of that we have in Congress.  (By the way, PRIMARIES MATTER!!!)

HARMAN VOTES “NO” ON IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL

Calls vote a referendum on this President’s failure to listen; says claims that troops will be under-funded are “rubbish”

Today, Representative Jane Harman (D-Venice) issued the following statement after her vote against the Iraq Supplemental Appropriations bill:

“Last weekend, I made my fourth visit to Iraq.  Each time, despite the extraordinary dedication and effort of US and Iraqi soldiers, the country has seemed less secure.  I stayed overnight inside Baghdad’s Green Zone in one of the trailer pods used by most Americans there.  A day later I learned that a nearby pod had been totally destroyed by an RPG launched into the Zone in broad daylight.

“In Ramadi in Anbar Province commanders on the ground described real security improvements, but our group still needed full body armor to walk down the main shopping street, and I remain unpersuaded that our combat mission can succeed.  The time has come for it to end.  We must redeploy out of Iraq.

“Today’s vote offers two unsatisfactory choices. 

“A `yes’ vote affirms funding for the troops and benchmarks, but fails to impose a responsible end to the combat mission.

“A `no’ vote will be manipulated to tell the troops I flew with on a C-130 just days ago that we are not sending the new anti-IED vehicles (MRAPs) and other support they so desperately need.  Rubbish.  Today’s vote is not about that.  General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will make certain that essential equipment arrives.

“Today’s vote must be seen as a referendum on this President’s refusal to listen to a majority of Americans and a majority of Congress, who want him to end the combat mission and implement the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations on training, counter-insurgency, and enhanced diplomatic and economic efforts in the region.

“I support our troops and I refuse to be manipulated.  My `no’ vote on the Iraq Supplemental is a vote to move past the fractured politics on Iraq and restore some sanity and bipartisanship as Congress confronts the serious threats of the 21st century.”

Uncategorized

Jane Harman – For Occupying Iraq Over Long-Term

5 Comments

(Oh gawd, not again! When will Jane Harman learn? – promoted by atdleft)

(cross posted at From the Fever Swamp)

Just to preface this: It’s time to call a spade a spade — any legislator who says we ought to have an “on-going mission in Iraq”, and change our mission from combat to training and counter-insurgency is advocating a long-term occupation of Iraq.

The Center for American Progress just released their interview with Jane Harman. 

They put up the wrong lead.  I think the headline should have been:

Senior House Democrat Supports Long-Term Iraqi Occupation

She says the conduct of the occupation is the problem, not the occupation itself.  And if you look at what she wants the mission to be changed to

Change the combat mission to a training mission and a counter-insurgency mission

you see there’s no recognition of the situation in the country and how unprepared we are to manage to bring stability to their “democratically elected government”.  A training and counter-insurgency mission would require tens of thousands of military troops in Iraq for many years to come.(A look over the Armed Services counterinsurgency manual makes that pretty obvious)
 

Harman ignores the situation in Iraq and holds out hope where none is warranted.  She clings to the pipedream of leaving Iraq better than we found it even after her self-pronounced criteria to be met within a Friedman Unit show Iraq has only gone backwards.

The sad reality is that there’s nothing that the United States can do to redeem the situation in Iraq that has been so incredibly fouled up by the Bush Administration.  Harman could have bit the bullet, accepted the failure of this occupation and her role in facilitating it and then moved on to try to mitigate the disaster by getting us out. 

Instead, she stubbornly continues to see our presence as part of the solution, not part of the problem, and throws a bunch of head-fakes to the anti-war folks to soften the impact of her pro-occupation positions. 

I should add that theoretically there’s an increased level of troops, specialized Arab speaking nation building forces, and financial commitment over the long-term (ie. at least several years) that could turn things around and make things better as Jane Harman wants to.  But there aren’t any more troops to add to the forces already there, and there certainly aren’t the specialized forces needed to build up the civil society and get reconstruction going. 

Not to mention that any effort commensurate to such a mission would require a sacrifice in lives, ability to confront real threats to our nation, and treasure that an overwhelming majority of Americans would not agree to it knowing those costs. 

Los Angeles Area

Jane Harman – Undecided on Supplemental. CALL HER

1 Comment

(Calling all LA people! CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS, and tell her what you think about ending this war. – promoted by atdleft)

Her office says she hasn’t decided.  It sounds like they are taking a count.  Perfect timing to call!

If you are a constituent of Harman’s, please make a quick call and tell them that – despite it being a lot weaker than it should be – you want her to support it.

The number is: 202-225-8220

For more on Harman’s position on the Iraq War supplemental, please check out my recent post at my blog.

Los Angeles Area

A Binding Way to Oppose the Surge

3 Comments

(Hmmm… I guess this really is Jane Harman’s chance to prove to us that she learned her lesson. I hope she takes advantage of it! : ) – promoted by atdleft)

I just posted the item that in the Extended Text at my blog From the Fever Swamp concerning my member of congress, Jane Harman.  She’s been very front and center opposing the surge, and it now appears she will have an opportunity to deny an additional request to fund it, so it would be a good test of whether she’ll put her money where her mouth is on opposing the surge. 

It occured to me that others in the California delegation have also been vocal in their opposition to the surge, and so this ‘test’ would equally apply to them.

Follow below for the post on Harman and the surge.

Here‘s the post:

From Kevin Drum’s Washington Monthly:

MORE SURGE….The surge is getting even surgier. This has barely even been reported in U.S. newspapers, but the Pentagon has apparently decided that 21,500 extra troops aren’t enough:

Gordon England, deputy secretary of defence, revealed [on Tuesday] that army commanders were requesting reinforcements beyond the 21,500 personnel already earmarked for the so-called “surge” into the capital.

“At this point, our expectation is the number of … troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000,” the official told the House of Representatives Budget committee in Washington.

An AP dispatch elaborates:

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told the Senate Budget Committee last week that about 6,000 additional support personnel — such as headquarters staff, military police, and medical personnel — would be needed to complement the 21,500 additional combat troops….The request probably will come to about $2 billion.

Are they seriously trying to pretend that they just forgot they’d need support troops as well as combat troops? Please.

In any case, this is the Democrats’ first chance to oppose the surge in a serious, non-symbolic way: they can refuse to approve the additional $2 billion. Even if the Pentagon goes ahead and reallocates money from some other account to fund the extra troops, this would still be a concrete way to oppose any further escalation. But do they have the spine to do it?

Just to recap Jane Harman’s stated opposition to the surge:

From her December HuffingtonPost piece,Harman to President Bush: Send More Troops to Iraq…NOT!:

That this administration could still think an escalated military option is a credible path to stability and democracy in Iraq is alarming, and indicative of how far removed from reality this president and his inner circle are.

[…]

Well, I have a message for this President, and it’s not a joke: Mr. Bush, send more troops to Iraq…NOT!

And from from her January piece Making a Big Mistake Even Worse:

A surge in troops may have been a great idea three and a half years ago but it makes no sense now. There is no way to achieve success in Iraq using military force.

[…]

We’ve attempted surges in Iraq four times in the last two years. None of them worked.

[…]

We need to start redeploying our troops out of Iraq now, something I’ve been saying for over six months. Last summer was the last chance for the military mission to succeed. It didn’t. So I am supporting H. Res. 41, introduced by my Massachusetts colleague Marty Meehan, expressing disapproval of the President’s policy. And I am reviewing proposals to limit or end funding for additional military personnel in Iraq.

If the surge “makes no sense now”, if our last chance for the military mission has already passed us by, if similar surges have “not worked”, and if Harman’s own six-months-hence criteria for success in Iraq are just as unmet in month 9 as on day 1, then surely she can bring herself to deny the backend request that Bush purposefully held back.

This would be a baby-step in the right direction.  If she can get past this, then she can put her focus on where she says it needs to be: redeployment (aka withdrawal).  It’s essential that our troop withdrawal start now and be fully funded.  Instead of spending funds escalating a military mission that Harman says has no chance of success, we could be devoting those precious resources to getting our troops out safely. 

A dollar spent on the surge is a dollar less for safe withdrawal.

Uncategorized

Harman’s Had Her Friedman Unit – Now What?

1 Comment

( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Jane Harman, eight months ago speaking on the floor of the House (all emphasis mine):

“Since I returned from my third trip to Iraq last September, I have been calling on the Administration to develop an exit strategy.  And I believe it is now time to begin the phased, strategic redeployment of U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq on a schedule designed by military commanders, not designed by the US Congress.

“The U.S. is part of the solution in Iraq, but our large military presence is part of the problem.  Beginning to reduce the “footprint,” while maintaining an over-the-horizon strike force, will improve our chances for success.

“I think we have 3-6 months to advance three objectives:

Notice the 6 month timeframe given?  That explains my use of the Friedman Unit in the post title.  The term is named after the “serious” foreign policy writer at the NYT, Thomas Friedman.  Check the link and you will learn why.

Back to Harman’s objectives:.

“First, helping the new Iraqi government provide electrical power, particularly in Baghdad, and deliver other critical economic and social services to the Iraqi people.

When Jane Harman made this speech (June 2006), Baghdad had 8.0 hours of electricity a day. Six months later (Dec 2006), the city had just 6.7 hours a day, and it has even less now (6.1).  Nationwide, the number of hours of electricity/day has also declined significantly – from 11.9 to 9.2 six months later.  (Source: Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, p. 28)

Other critical economic and social indicators:
Unemployment stands at an astronomical 25-40%, unchanged since June (Iraq Index, p. 29)

Inflation that’s well north of 50%, due to fuel prices jumping 800% between end of 2005 and early 2007, and still at 35% when excluding energy costs. ((Iraq Index, p. 33)

And when you can’t provide security — as the daily bombings in Baghdad attest — you can’t exactly provide social services.

“Second, supporting the Iraqi government in its effort to disarm Shiite militias and integrate them into a trained Iraqi national security force.

After Harman’s six month window, the number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias actually increased from 100 to 185((Iraq Index, p. 20), and this clearly involves Shiite militias in addition to Sunnis, otherwise you wouldn’t have the Iraqi prime minister calling on Shiite militias to disarm.

“Third, continuing the process, begun by our able Ambassador Khalilzad, of obtaining buy-in from Sunni political leaders.

That doesn’t appear to have advanced any from June until now. 

“Achieving these objectives will enable us to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it.

OK, then the inverse of this should also hold true: Failure to achieve these objectives will prevent us from leaving Iraq in better shape than we found it.

“The next three months are critical.  We have a moral obligation to assist Iraq on its path to democracy, but if clearly-defined minimum objectives cannot be achieved within that time frame, the prospects for success in Iraq could all but disappear.  So … a change of course is urgently needed.

That critical three month window closed on September 15, and the six-month window closed on December 15. 

And based on the objectives that Jane Harman herself laid out in June, Iraq is messed up beyond repair.  Not only have none of her three objectives been achieved yet, but there’s been little, if any, progress on reaching any of them.

But all we hear from Harman is more of the same.

If we can’t leave until Iraq is fixed, we’ll be there forever.  It’s time Jane got real on this.

[crossposted at From the Fever Swamp]

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Blog Roundup, Health Care

Blog Roundup 1/26/07

2 Comments

So, I’m doing this one from the Phoenix airport, where I’m delayed due to the fact that U.S. Airways/AmericaWest/whatever they want to call themselves today really sucks.  But on the bright side, they have free WiFi here.  Also, we had a little down time this afternoon.  Sorry about that.

This is a pretty long roundup, so let’s get straight to the teasers: Presidential primary chatter, Health care…um, we need it., George Runner is a tool (but we already knew that), Two speakers who kick ass: Nancy, and Fabian the blogger, Doolittle’s a changed man…kinda…sorta…well, not so much, Is Chuck DeVore on a witch terrorist hunt?, Maxine Waters wants us out of Iraq, Spocko’s on the rise, CalPERS is investing in urban sprawl, Frank Luntz is a liar, and Irvine has a budget surplus!

That, and a whole lot more over the flip.

Popularity Presidential Race

  • Chris Dodd answered some questions at FireDogLake.  I know, not strictly California, but with the Feb 5 primary looking more and more likely to occur, it’s best to start reviewing our choices. http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/01/blue-america-chat-with-chris-dodd-part.html
  • Oh looky, Mary Bono endorsed Rudy Giuliani. Does that mean he will pay for her lease on her luxury vehicles.  You know, it’s hard out there for a Congresswoman! http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/UPDATE02/70124022
  • Some don’t like the Feb. 5 primary, like The Citizens. http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/2007/01/june-is-just-fine.html
  • The veepstakes is over for Hillary.  According to Nite Swimming and the Weekly World News, the former first lady has selected Bigfoot. A fine selection…maybe she’ll carry Alaska. http://niteswimming.blogspot.com/2007/01/sorry-bayh-and-clark-its-hillary.html
  • Tom Gangale has a love/hate relationship with the Feb. 5 primary. http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/01/moving_the_cali.html
  • Frank Russo doesn’t like the idea so much. http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/01/california_pres.html
  • Kos likes it. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/23/13228/0622

The Great Health Care Debate

  • A new PPIC poll is out, and as usual, Frank Russo at CPR is all over it. The citizens of this state seem to be speaking with a pretty clear voice on health care: we need it.  And we ALL need it.  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/01/californians_su.html
  • Randy at California Notes noticed the new poll as well.  Think about this one, where oh where, could we get a system that uses, um, about 97% of its funds on medical care and insures everybody.  Oh, yeah, Medicare. You know, single payer health care for everybody over the age of 65. http://bayneofblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/education-about-single-payer-may-be-key.html
  • And Bush’s health care plan? Todd Beeton (of Blog Roundup fame) notes that Pete Stark (D-Fremont, CA-13) says the plan is DOA and doesn’t plan hearings on the proposal. http://couragecampaign.org/entries/rep-peter-stark-ca-13th-on-bushs-healthcare-proposal/
  • Doolittle thinks that we just need some more invisible hand. http://solongjohn.blogspot.com/2007/01/doolittle-weighs-in-on-schwarzeneggers.html
  • Is John Garamendi, Jr, going to run in SD-05? http://surfputah.blogspot.com/2007/01/possible-wolk-garamendi-jr-race-in-5th.html

California Politicos

  • George Runner is a tool. In addition to being the world’s foremost criminologist, he’s also a climate scientist.  He’s determined through his own patented Runner’s Anecdotal Scientific Method that the weak 2006 Hurricane Season means that Global Warming is a hoax. http://gleic.blogspot.com/2007/01/george-runner-is-tool.html
  • Hey Look! Doolittle is going to pay attention to his constituents! Sweet! http://solongjohn.blogspot.com/2007/01/kinder-gentler-doolittle-well-see.html
  • More Doolittle. He voted for 9/11 recs, but voted against the rest of the 100 hours agenda.  I’m not entirely sure why he voted against the minimum wage increase.  It’s not like it affects California at all now that we raised the state minimum wage. http://solongjohn.blogspot.com/2007/01/doolittles-votes-on-first-100-hours.html
  • D-day points out an Arnold interview saying, once again, how “important” his 2005 special election reforms were.  The only problem was the method.  Apparently, we all really support these deforms, but we just didn’t like voting on them.  Or something. http://d-day.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-times.html
  • Our Nancy kicks ass! http://arielpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/01/doing-it-democrat-style.html
  • From Robert at Left in SF, The Leno/Migden fight may bring up some old scores that haven’t been settled. http://leftinsf.com/blog/index.php/archives/1538
  • Some Umberg mailers from TheLiberalOC.com. http://www.theliberaloc.com/2007/01/23/new-dpoc-piece-for-umberg/
  • There’s a lot of BS going around about Sally Lieber’s spanking bill. CA Majority Report says “Enough”! http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=9&aid=1421
  • Maxine Waters knows what to do in Iraq.  Not be there! http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/25/102359/399
  • Is Chuck DeVore a terrorist? Terroristssaywhat! http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/01/are_you_now_or.html
  • Arnold:PostPartisan::BrianLeubitz:PostPartisan. http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=9&aid=1425
  • At least one GOP Rep still Hearts W.  Yup, that’s you Dan Lungren. http://bayneofblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/dan-lungren-didnt-learn-thing.html
  • Speaker Nunez is blogging from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.  It’s cold there. http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=9&aid=1426
  • Jerry McNerney has an op-ed in the Stockton Record about the Democratic agenda in the 110th Congress. http://weblog.jerrymcnerney.com/2007/01/my_oped_in_the_.html

Miscellany

  • Spocko makes the USA Today! http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/24/spocko-makes-it-to-the-pages-of-usa-today/
  • Are you sick of Republicans saying “Democrat Party.” Me too, check out this handy thought experiment. http://democratparty.blogspot.com/
  • People’s Vanguard of Davis says there’s something fishy on the Davis Housing Committee. http://davisvanguard.blogspot.com/2007/01/briefs.html
  • In Ojai, some community leaders are coming together to oppose a new increase in mining. http://www.ojaipost.com/2007/01/coalition_opposes_hundreds_of.shtml
  • Frank Luntz is a liar. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4059
  • Wu Ming at Surf Putah, says livable neighborhoods are important, and should be given more respect in Davis. http://surfputah.blogspot.com/2007/01/importance-of-neighborhoods.html
  • Are we going to havecap and trade on our emissions? Statewide? Nationally? Who knows? http://blogs.laweekly.com/judith_lewis/the-state-of-our-cap-n-trade-union-if-only-it-were-true/
  • The Blue Dogs, including Tauscher and Harman, aren’t so interested in the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqis, but they do care about the money we’ve put into the quagmire. Money over lives…how very Blue Dog. http://fromthefeverswamp.blogspot.com/2007/01/harman-blue-dogs-plan-and-murtha.html
  • What’s up with the free municipal WiFi in SF? Who the hell knows?  Certainly not the Chronicle. You know what would be a great idea? An expansion of government services that didn’t include selling out to corporations, even if it’s “Don’t Be Evil” Google.  http://leftinsf.com/blog/index.php/archives/1541
  • Why is CalPERS investing in urban sprawl? http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/01/state_pension_s.html
  • Hey Look, a city in the OC has a budget surplus. Good for the GOP! Oh, wait, Irvine’s mayor is a Democrat? Oh now OC Register! What do you have to say to that?
  • At CSU: Tuitions rise…as do executive salaries. http://www.speakoutca.org/archives/2007/01/post_16.php
  • We have too many women in prisons. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/01/26/under-the-guise-of-choice-denying-justice-to-women-in-california-prisons