For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.
Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no.
I’d like to see a poll on whether people think Democrats should save the Constitution or save their powder…
It seems the budget deal in the Assembly has been reached. Some cynics might say that the Assembly reached this deal out of a hope to help pass the term limits measure. At least that’s what some cynics might say. But, here’s what I have to say: Removing tax credits from teachers and redistributing them is some seriously f*d up VooDoo Supply-Side Economics. Go to the 3:50 mark in this video, although you’ll enjoy the whole thing if you are a Ferris Bueller fan. The words of the GOP in the Assembly are eerily reminiscint of days we should be wary of returning to:
“This package is designed to stimulate the economy in the state,” said Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico. “We have the data showing that it will actually increase revenues.” (SacBee 7/20/07)
Well, you know what, I have a different theory of economics. And it worked for us for over 50 Years, and it made John Maynard Keynes a pretty famous guy. And, oh yeah, it lifted us out of the Great Depression. So, the Republicans have asked for, and received from Democratic Legislators, about a Billion of tax credits for Hollywood studios and multinational corporations with secret data that will show that these will result in higher revenues. Everybody knows this is bull, but apparently nobody in the Assembly is willing to say it.
The Budget Battle is far from over, Flip it…
From the WaPo on W’s tax cuts:
Nobody serious believes that tax cuts pay for themselves, as I noted last week. But most senior Republicans flunk this test of seriousness. In January, George W. Bush declared that, “by cutting the taxes on the American people, this economy is strong, and the overall tax revenues have hit at record levels.” Regrettably, this endorsement of what his dad called voodoo economics was not a one-time oversight. The next month, Bush told a New Hampshire audience, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” (WaPo 5/15/06)
Listen, do we really need more “evidence” or “data” that supply-side economics works…for the top 1% of the economy. But, ask the rest of Americans how they feel they’ve done over the past 6-25 years of supply-side governance, and you’ll hear many stories of growing inequality. And this deal seems even worse in that it adds a double whammy, you’re not just robbing the middle class generally to give to the rich, you are robbing from teachers specifically. Teachers, who would spend that money to, you know, live, thereby increasing the impact of those funds on the economy. If you want tax cuts to have a real effect on the economy, let’s try starting with the bottom, who will spread that money up to the rich via, um, living a somewhat normal life and you know, eating more food.
But, Sen. President Pro Tem Perata seems to be pushing back on this swap of priorities:
“We cannot continue to fund education, higher education and crucial human services issues, such as the in-home supportive services program, childcare, or funding for the aged, blind and disabled by providing tax give-aways,” Perata wrote to Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez. (SacBee 7/20/07)
So, don’t think this budget is over and done for, well, at least until 9AM, when a vote is scheduled in the Senate. The Dems need only 2 Rep. votes for the 2/3 Requirement, but Sen. Minority Leader Dick Ackerman seems to be digging in his heals, wanting further voodoo economics. Well, folks, enough is enough. Perhaps if we could spend money on removing the 2/3 Requirement removed via the ballot, we wouldn’t be forced to make these kinds of false decisions. Some would say removing the 2/3 requirement would be a much better use of resources than a term limits change. But, you know, that’s just some people.
George Bush has spoken: no guaranteed healthcare, not for kids, not for nobody. Thank you Mr. Bush for putting your unpopularity behind the private insurance sector–just as their “individual mandate” laws in Massachusetts are running into trouble. Bush’s veto provides the single-payer movement with the greatest strategic opening in memory.
All this and more in today’s Guaranteed Healthcare Update, cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize to make 2007 the Year of GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.
It was on ideological grounds that George Bush vetoed the expansion of Medicaid to more kids: “My concern is that when you expand eligibility . . . you’re really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.”
We have the least popular President in a generation putting his moral weight behind the private insurance companies—and opposing the idea of society guaranteeing healthcare to all kids, and adults.
In the words of Pink, thank you, Mr. President. This is our opportunity to sharply frame the debate: throw patients to the insurance industry wolves or fight for guaranteed healthcare? Trust in George Bush and Blue Cross…or the medical systems working in every other industrialized nation in the world? The more nurses, patients, and other guaranteed healthcare advocates can point out the links between Bush and the private insurance industry, the better off our movement is. It’s a tragic veto, but a strategic gift we should all exploit.
Speaking of wolves, count Ron Wyden in: “’We’re right at the cusp of an ideological truce on health care,’ declares a beaming Ron Wyden.” His truce is a massive expansion of the role of private insurers through a legal mandate to become their customer. In other words… to the ideology of George Bush and Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Ironically, the original individual mandate bill, RomneyCare in Massachusetts, is having trouble and legislators are rushing to tinker. The big problem? “Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray recently warned: ‘If we do not constrain health-care costs, the system we worked so hard to create and implement will collapse.’” It is, of course, impossible to make the economics of healthcare work when you use 30% of care dollars to prop up an unnecessary private insurance sector middleman. That’s why health care providers in Mass. are leading the fight against the program, with a petition saying, “the state is offering plans with skimpy coverage and little real health security…”
Elsewhere, Larry Summers shares a dark vision of how we’ll get to guaranteed healthcare: “Incrementalism is not enough, we need full and fundamental reform. But I suspect that Congress will do incremental reform for a while until it fails, and crisis forces radical change.” Let’s work to skip the even-worse crisis part, because that’s a code word for patient suffering.
Finally, medical students are among the nation’s most committed healthcare reformers, and one drew up this great animation on single-payer.
To join the fight for guaranteed healthcare (with a “Medicare for All” or SinglePayer financing), visit with GuaranteedHealthcare.org, a project of the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association.
President Bush will be lobbying Senate Republicans in support of the immigration bill, hopeful of a revival. Hey, why not? He still thinks Iraq will turn around too.
The Belmont smoking ban back and rocking again. I have my own thoughts on outdoor smoking, but hey, it’s an open thread.
And just one more time. Charlie Brown has been added to the Blue Majority page on ActBlue. Congratulations to him and his entire campaign, and to Donna Edwards as well.
And as a dedication to your favorite and mine, here’s one for the tired-of-being-sexy Nicole. Because music is everyone’s hot sex. Cansei de Ser Sexy – Alala
“You’re so cool
Can i be your friend?
I’ll drive till the end”
It’s bizarro night. Lucas gets a vacation (see everybody Monday). Bush is concerned about greenhouse gases. Clinton and Carter join Bush Sr. and hundreds of others to honor Billy Graham. Apparently it’s Russia who needs to drop the Cold War mentality. One of 13 rare white rhinos died today at San Diego’s Wild Animal Park, and so did the first panda born in captivity to be released in the wild. Conversely, we have a new species of limbless lizard in India and it turns out that upright walking may have begun in trees. So on that note, we’re going to space. Moonbabies – War on Sound
“But I tried to tell you last night
The planet’s grown
Turned to stone
See you on the safe side?”
p.s., if you’re trying to place it, the guy sounds like Peter Gabriel. Even more so on other songs.
As noted by me first here and then here last night, I’m very disappointed in Susan Davis’ vote yesterday. She has a strong record of opposition to this war, which makes this vote all the more frustrating. I’d be much more willing to work on moving forward if it weren’t for her justification of her vote:
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Susan Davis released the following statement on her vote to continue funding current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the coming few months.
“As someone who voted against going to war and supported a timeline for bringing home the troops, there is no doubt in my mind that we must end this war. The reality is opposing this bill would not end the war.
“Cutting off war funding today will not only impact the troops in the field, many of whom are from San Diego, but will also impact military families at home as President Bush would take funding from other sources to fund his war.
“I look forward to supporting measures that will end the war and will not put our troops at risk.”
I’m sorry Rep. Davis, but I do not accept your premise. I do not accept the notion that this bill would leave troops undersupplied because 1. they already are, 2. there’s a lot of money in the Defense budget already and 3. this isn’t the last bill you can send to the President.
But most of all, I don’t accept the fundamental defeatism here. Susan Davis has just said, in so many words, that no matter what Congress does, Bush cannot be stopped. She has just conceded the complete impotence of Congress. Well you know what? Do your job. The President’s approval rating is reaching all-time lows, 76% of the country thinks the war is at least going “somewhat badly” and Americans keep dying faster and faster in Iraq. Do your job.
Bush and his policies are not inevitable. He is not an irresistable force any more than you are an immovable object (and clearly, you aren’t). If he won’t sign this, then he’s abandoning HIS troops (in addition to being The Decider, he’s also the Commander in Chief, remember?). If he takes the money from somewhere else, stop him. If he tries to accuse Democrats of failing the troops, ask why his previous funding requests were too low to provide for the troops. Ask why he doesn’t want veterans to receive benefits. Ask why he doesn’t think troops should be fully combat-ready before being deployed. Ask him how patriotic THAT sounds. But DON’T GIVE IN.
Don’t presume that you can’t beat him. The entire country wants you to beat him. They’ll give you every opportunity to beat him. Every political wind that’s blowing in this country, from Left, Right and Center is desperately trying to run out the clock and escape the debacle of this administration. We did the best we could in 2006- majorities in the House and Senate and a clear mandate for change. We want you to get tough. We want you to be angry. We want you to be obstructionist. Why? Because when you cut this President the slightest bit of slack, he takes a mile and flat out kills people with it. Saying that Bush would just find some other way to beat you is pathetic.
You aren’t in office to throw up your hands and run out the clock. Your job is to stop the violent deaths of American soldiers. You say you want to support a measure that “will not put our troops at risk” but lemme go ahead and ask the obvious question: In what world does a fully-funded, open-ended deployment of our troops to occupy a hostile country with substandard equipment, preparation, support, civilian leadership and veteran’s services not “put our troops at risk?” And if you think that, of ALL PEOPLE, George W. Bush is too skilled a political tactician to be overcome when everyone and their mother wants him stopped, you need a new line of work.
I don’t doubt Susan Davis’ desire to end the war. Her record is strong on the issue, and has been from the beginning and I give full credit where it’s due. But if she, like apparently many other Democrats, is afraid to tangle with Bush, what more is there? To go way, WAY back to Olbermann’s ESPN days, we’ve got a Congress who’s looked at Bush and decided that you can’t stop him, you can only hope to contain him.
Well I call bullshit on that. Do your job. Stop him.
Two weeks may have passed between the Democratic Convention and today, but that hasn’t stopped us from speculating over what actually happened during that weekend. During these two weeks, everyone seems to have developed a theory on who knew what ahead of time, who was conspiring to silence the progressives, and who was really behind the mysterious quorum call. Two weeks have passed since then, and I’d like to do my part to end all the speculation NOW.
Last Thursday, I hopped on over to OC Drinking Liberally. John Hanna, Co-chair of the Resolutions Committee, also happened to be there. Pretty soon, hekebolos showed up, and we all went to the back room of Memphis to discuss what really happened at the convention. Later on, we also talked about what we can do better next time, but I’ll talk about that part of the discussion another time.
Right now, I’m inviting you to follow me after the flip to find out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO ALL THOSE RESOLUTIONS. I have been collecting information from a few brave individuals for quite some time now, and my meeting with John Hanna on Thursday put an end to my own speculation on all these rumors. So why not join me after the flip, so that you can also toss the speculation and just find out what happened?
OK, let’s start out by going through all those wild rumors. Here’s what true, and here’s what’s just wild.
– Rumor #1: There was a deal made between PDA and party leadership on impeachment- TRUE! Yes, PDA did meet with party leaders before and during the convention. A friend of mine involved in PDA told me that the party leaders knew about PDA’s plans for San Diego, and they did not want the convention to turn ugly. PDA agreed to soften the language on impeachment of Bush, the leaders agreed to tough language on Cheney, and everyone agreed to fold all the resolutions into one.
– Rumor #2: There was a grand conspiracy among the party leaders to “appoint” a delegate to make the quorum call- FALSE (well, kinda sorta)! Neither John Hanna NOR Art Torres had any advance knowledge of the quorum call. This makes sense, as Torres really did look bewildered and genuinely frustrated at the podium. However, other folks that I spoke with earlier did drop me a hint. They’ve called Bob Mulholland a “street fighter”, and they have suggested that he wouldn’t hesitate to pull a stunt like this. Hmmm, so does this mean we have a culprit?
– Rumor #3: John Hanna conspired to silence the true antiwar voices who wanted to “stengthen” Don Perata’s Out of Iraq Resolution- FALSE! He wanted the Perata Resolution clean, but he didn’t block the amendments by Karen Bernall (deauthorize the war) and the Hull-Richters (defund the war). John Hanna wanted to ensure that the Perata’s Out of Iraq Resolution ended up looking like what Perata wants to put on the ballot next February. However Garry Shay, of the Rules Committee, urged him to come up with a way to allow Bernall and the others (even the Hull-Richters) to be heard. So they worked out a deal. The rules would be temporarily suspended, so that the amendments could be split off from the Perata measure, and they could become their own resolutions. All the delegates can then vote on each proposal separately, and all sides can get a fair shake. John seemed sincere when he said that he thought the perfect deal had been struck, and everyone could get what he/she wanted… Until Karen Wingard stepped in.
– Rumor #4: John Hanna conspired with AT&T and CWA to kill the net neutrality resolution- ABSOLUTELY FALSE! Unfortunately, John Hanna and the party leaders weren’t as familiar with net neutrality then as they are now. So out of good faith that Jim Gordon would work out a fair agreement with CWA and AT&T on net neutrality, the Resolutions Committee agreed to refer it to the Labor Caucus. But now, John Hanna regrets taking Jim Gordon’s word when he promised John that he’d come up with a resolution in the Labor Caucus that “the net neutrality folks will like”. John told us that he didn’t know about the CWA/AT&T deep hostility toward net neutrality. And yes, he wants our forgiveness, and he wants to make it up to us. That’s why he’s willing to give us another chance to get net neutrality passed. (And I’ll talk more about this in a future story.)
Basically, John Hanna regrets what happened with many of the resolutions. He now says that he should have just allowed Karen Bernall to do a petition drive for her own “Out of Iraq” resolution, even though her resolution had been “gutted and amended” to make way for Perata. He says that he might change the rules to allow for this next time. He has also said that we weren’t given a fair chance to clarify what was about to happen to net neutrality. And yes, this might inspire some changes in the rules as well. I know that we were all let down by what happened two weeks ago, but let’s not allow these disappointments to stop us from doing better next time.
Now we know how the internal politics are played. And now, we have a better grasp of the rules that we need to follow. So let’s follow the rules (including whatever new ones that might actually make our jobs easier), and let’s get our agenda accomplished. And now that we have made amends with the past, let’s get back to making a better future. : )
Syndicated columnist and member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board Ruben Navarrette Jr. has been fluffing up Alberto Gonzales a lot recently (March 7, March 21), so it should come as no suprise that he’s continuing to shovel muck today in a special CNN commentary. What’s shocking is the entirely new level to which he takes the insanity.
To be up front, there’s a halfway legitimate point in all of Navarrette’s mess, which is that accepting Gonzales as a scapegoat when it’s the White House and Karl Rove behind this whole mess, is not a victory. I’m all for Rove paying for what he did as well. But he frames his whole argument in disgusting racist terms and tries to marginalize anyone who would have a gripe against “an honorable public servant … [and] … a straight shooter” by assuming that there’s no way that criticism could be fair or justified.
He’s good enough to give us a rundown of the people who object to Gonzales’ performance as Attorney General and makes it pretty clear that the list at this point includes virtually everyone except President Bush. But apparently that’s just because everyone is wrong, and most of them just hate a successful Hispanic.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can’t claim the credit for his life’s accomplishments and because they can’t get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn’t owe them a damn thing.
Yes, that’s right. It’s all those racist white liberals who insist on keeping minorities down and can’t stand it when one of them gets power, It’s because he doesn’t genuflect at the altar of white people that he’s hated. It can’t possibly have anything to do with his actual job performance. Or his systematic evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. Which is, ultimately, where the racial argument breaks down horribly. Navarrette would have us believe that Gonzales can’t possibly be getting criticism that’s not infused with racist bitterness. But the flipside of this argument is that, because of his race, he gets a free pass. Well I’m sorry, but that isn’t how it works. You do the job and you answer for your performance.
He also argues that Democrats just pose “with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo” while the real uplifting of the Hispanic community, entirely and solely in the form of Alberto Gonzales, has been done by George W. Bush. While absurdly simplistic and not particularly based in any reality that I’m familiar with, it doesn’t have anything to do with the firings of U.S. Attorneys.
It’s telling that a Gonzales apologist wants to talk about anything except the issue at hand. Navarrette dispenses quickly and easily with the actual substance of the US Attorney issue by laying it all on Karl Rove, then whips up an emotional frenzy over non-issues, because he knows discussing the real complaints would be a losing proposition. Gonzales is responsible for the Justice Department, and has a long history of doing a poor job in that position. Perhaps Navarette has a point if his argument is that this incident, if isolated, would not be grounds for Gonzales’ departure. But that dodges the crux of the problem. Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General in August of 2005, and in that time, the Justice Department has delivered less and less justice by the day. That is a failure of the job, and if this incident is the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so be it.
The commentary closes with an ominous, if absurdly condescending in every direction, prediction for Democrats in 2008:
Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won’t forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there’s not that much chips and salsa on the planet.
It sounds to me as though the lesson being pitched here is that the color of Gonzales’ skin is more important than the substance of his job performance whether you approve or disapprove of the job performance. Hispanics will quit the Democratic party en masse, Navarrette imagines, because Democrats aren’t defending the country, they’re attacking skin color.
If Gonzales wants a fair hearing, guess what? He can have one. In a revelatory change of course since January of this year (coincidence?), Congress will actually conduct legitimate investigations. All Gonzales has to do is show up and solemnly swear. Except, of course, that George Bush, the hero of racial equality in this story remember, doesn’t want the truth to come out. Doesn’t sound particularly helpful to the Gonzales cause to me. But then again, I see Gonzales as a man, not a color. Ruben Navarrette Jr. may want to try it sometime.
A couple of weeks ago, I wondered out loud whether we would get a chance to see where California legislators stand on the Bush’s Iraq escalation. The following press release just hit my inbox:
Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who authored the first anti-Iraq war resolution in the country as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in October of 2002, announced that he would author a resolution in the State Assembly that would support efforts at the Congressional level to hold the President accountable for the failed Iraq war policy and oppose his plan to send more troops into the war.
The release says a, “strong majority of Assembly Democrats” will be co-authoring the resolution. It will be good to see where Republicans stand, are they with Bush and Schwarzenegger or with the vast majority of Californians?
The rest of the release:
“Our Country, its citizens and our service men and women deserve better than an escalation of an already failed Iraq war policy,” said Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). “Americans know that now is not the time to send even more troops into a war that has cost more than 3,000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.”
While the President has claimed that his plan would add an additional 21,500 soldiers, a study by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the real troop increase associated with President Bush’s escalation policy could be double that amount or 48,000. This is because the combat units would need to be backed up by support troops.
“While Americans have been calling for a new direction for some time now, San Franciscans have been doing so since the war began many years ago. In 2002 I was proud to author the first anti-war resolution in the country when I served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It was the right thing to do then and it’s the right thing to do now,” added Leno.
Leno’s resolution, brought to him by MoveOn.org and The Progressive States Network, compliments similar efforts in the State Senate to take a stand against the failed Iraq War. “Passage of such a resolution in both houses of the legislature will send a powerful statement to Washington, DC on our state’s view of the war. A strong majority of Assembly Democrats will be joining me as co-authors and I look forward to working with colleagues of both houses to make sure our collective voices are heard against the escalation of this war,” he said.
(Cross-posted at The Courage Campaign)
Check out the live webcast of the governor’s energy experts contrasting their boss’s energy plan with the president’s as laid out in last night’s SOTU.
Message: Arnold’s plan = good; Bush’s plan = baaaaaad.
Choice quote:
“The president’s plan does not go far enough and in some cases if not done right would increase greenhouse gas emissions.”
UPDATE: It’s over. Some key differences between the two plans over the flip…
Governor's plan:
President's plan:
I look forward to hearing an objective perspective. But suffice to say, the governor wants to make it perfectly clear that he and the president couldn't be further apart on energy policy.