Arnold’s executive order laying off 10,000 state employees – and slashing another 200,000 paychecks to the federal minimum wage – is not just insulting because he’s punishing people for the actions of others. It’s that the budget crisis we’re in is largely his fault, and the Governor refuses to take responsibility. Starting with Schwarzenegger’s first day in office when he repealed the Vehicle License Fee, Arnold has played one game of fiscal gymnastics after another – leaving us with today’s budget deficit of $17 billion. With right-wing Republicans in the state legislature still playing their usual game of obstructionism, Arnold has shown no leadership of reining them in – and now says that state workers have to suffer. When Newt Gingrich did this to federal employees in 1995, he paid a heavy political price for it. Will the press let Arnold off the hook again?
In 2005, when campaigning for Governor, Tim Kaine said:
"It would send a horrible message to cut and run from Iraq."
As far as I'm concerned, 'nuff said. Do we really want this guy to be Obama's running mate?? Can you imagine the McCain campaign using this against him again and again?? Check out more, from Arianna Huffington back in January 2006.
Other diarists have pointed out Kaine's support for coal energy and repealing the estate tax. But the real shocker for me, is who Kaine endorsed for President in 2004 ...
Chicago does not have rent control. In 1997, the Illinois legislature passed – and Republican Governor Jim Edgar signed – SB 531 (the Rent Control Preemption Act), which prohibited local jurisdictions from passing it. At the time, no city in Illinois had rent control – but the real estate lobby had a national effort to quietly stop it in places before it starts. SB 531 passed with little fanfare: the State House voted for it 96-18, and the State Senate approved it 46-6. One of the six senators who voted “no” was Barack Obama – although many liberal Democrats voted with landlords and the Senate’s Republican majority. Obama’s vote – when one considers how few people stood up with him – is an example of his core progressive principles. While it’s valid to say that he should have done more to defeat it, consider that Obama was a freshman in a very hostile climate – and as a community organizer had learned to pick his battles.
It’s no surprise that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got a tough reception at Netroots Nation – as bloggers asked about the Iraq War, impeachment and (of course) FISA. Pelosi passed the buck on all of these issues – saying that she’s let House Judiciary Chair John Conyers handle executive contempt, blamed Senate Democrats for selling out on FISA and said that only electing Barack Obama will get us out of Iraq. When Al Gore popped in to make a surprise appearance, the crowd gave a hero’s welcome to the ex-Vice President – posing a sharp contrast with Pelosi. Bloggers cheered Gore’s ambitious environmental agenda to make the United States 100% free of fossil fuel energy by 2019. But nobody bothered to ask Gore why he didn’t push for this 15 years ago when he could have done something about it. Meanwhile, Pelosi’s excuses frustrated the audience – but they each have an element of truth to them. On the other hand, if Pelosi says she “doesn’t have the votes” in Congress to get what we want, she should start being more supportive of primary challenges that bloggers wage against bad Democrats.
Yesterday’s Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio – the “Flag City” – where small-town voters still believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. What the Post didn’t report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in 2006 rejected Democrat Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.) It’s just the latest example of the media projecting the myth that the Presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.
But reality says otherwise. Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are “divided.” State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes. Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as “outliers,” along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates). The media won’t admit that the Presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.
From today's Beyond Chron. Today is the 30-year anniversary of Prop 13.
I majored in political science at Cal – and while I had an excellent education, the Political Science Department was always a bit out of touch. Today, UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies will host a one-day conference on the 30th Anniversary of Prop 13 – where a field of experts will evaluate its “political, economic and fiscal impacts.” Incredibly, none of them will talk about rent control (at least none of them are experts on it), although one of Prop 13’s most significant effects was the passage of rent control ordinances in cities throughout California. Tuesday’s crushing defeat of Proposition 98 – sponsored by the same Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association that pushed Prop 13 in 1978 – demonstrates a statewide mandate for laws that protect tenants. Any serious reflection on Prop 13’s thirty-year legacy must involve rent control.
Yesterday’s decision by the California Supreme Court was historic because it set a huge precedent. Not because the Court found the ban on same-sex marriage similar to earlier bans on interracial marriage, nor because it said domestic partnerships are inherently unequal. What really mattered is that the Court ruled sexual orientation a "suspect class," which means that all laws that discriminate on that basis must now pass strict scrutiny – a crucial step forward in the rights of LGBT people.
But same-sex couples in California still lack the federal benefits of marriage that straight people take for granted – like Social Security and immigration – because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) precludes them from doing so. Marriage equality supporters must defeat a constitutional amendment in November that would repeal the Court’s ruling, but they also need a President Obama. If DOMA gets repealed in 2009, gay couples in California will finally be equal in the eyes of the law.
mcjoan has done a great job rallying Kossacks for our Nebraska cowboy. Here's my contribution:
With the presidential primary fight now behind us, activists can focus their attention on Congressional races to expand the Democratic majority. On May 13th, Nebraska will hold a statewide primary for a U.S. Senate seat currently held by a Republican. And Democrat Scott Kleeb, a 32-year-old rancher, is running an Obama-like campaign for change. His opponent, Tony Raimondo, is a manufacturing executive who switched parties because the Republican establishment rallied behind another candidate. Like Obama, Kleeb’s campaign has been fueled by small online donations – and has grassroots appeal that has energized the Democratic Party. If 2008 is going to be the year of change like many are predicting, Kleeb should do better than expected.
On June 3, San Francisco voters will decide the future of the largest remaining undeveloped acreage remaining in the City. Although its location at the Hunters Point shipyard and alongside Bayview’s low-income minority community has long kept it out of sight and mind, this land is our last opportunity to remake the City’s waterfront a striking community that continues to meet our city’s needs.
Remarkably, almost all the information sent to voters has come from political consultants hired to sell this proposal. It comes in brochures with attractive drawings but very little else, with campaign costs already over $2 million and likely to set an all-time record for a San Francisco ballot measure.
San Francisco, the leader in so many areas, appears to be on the verge of giving birth to yet another first-of-a-kind: the stealth campaign to write public policy out of public view, through a ballot measure exclusively funded by the corporation anxious to seize a billion-dollar prize, and offered in language that wriggles, weasels, and walks away from all the promises it boasts.
Yesterday’s Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left – out of touch with mainstream American values. Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama’s “bitter” comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats. Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn’t help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the “land of fruits and nuts.” Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article – except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics. Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.
With 71 people running for 3 Obama delegate slots in San Francisco, I have teamed up with two other candidates to form the Unity Slate. We are 3 Democratic individuals who represent the diversity of CD-08, the diversity of Barack Obama's appeal, and are excited to bring San Francisco values to the Democratic National Convention. We are Paul Hogarth, Clem Clarke and Myrna Melgar!
When Geraldine Ferraro made racist comments about Barack Obama, she added that Obama “shouldn’t antagonize people like me” – because she’s a big fundraiser for Democrats. Like most rich Hillary Clinton donors, Ferraro knows the old game where a small group of millionaires exert power by raising big bucks. And right now, they feel threatened.
Yesterday, a group of 20 “Hill-Raisers” chastised Nancy Pelosi for telling super-delegates not to override the will of the voters. They said that they’ve raised a lot of money for Democrats – so the threat was “we own you, so you better let Clinton steal the nomination.” But these people are dinosaurs, and Pelosi shouldn't listen. Because the fundraising rules have changed.
I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron. Prop 98 is a June ballot measure in California to abolish rent control.
To learn about Proposition 98’s agenda, look no further than Dan Faller, President and Founder of the American Owner’s Association (AOA) – the largest landlord group in California. In a nine-page essay published in the association’s magazine, Faller complains heatedly about rent control, calls pro-tenant elected officials “terrorists” and “suicide bombers,” compares the effort to pass Prop 98 with World War II, says that renters “choose not to provide for themselves,” and – with rhetoric that channels George Bush – tells landlords: “you are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights.” We cannot dismiss Faller as just another right-wing kook, for his organization has already contributed $325,000 to the “Yes on 98” cause – and the AOA has plans to raise even more money in the coming weeks. And with voter turnout in June expected to be very low, Faller's fringe beliefs might actually become public policy in California – if we don't act now.
Hillary Clinton had reason to celebrate last night for winning the popular vote in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas – but only because Barack Obama did not deliver the final knock-out punch to end her campaign. In the fight for the presidential nomination, Obama maintains a 150+ delegate lead – and Clinton did not put a dent in his edge last night that she needed to wage a successful comeback. For all of the media obsession with the popular vote in Texas, it ignores two cold, hard facts: Obama won more delegates in Texas, and across all four primaries Clinton won a grand total of an estimated two more delegates. And after Saturday's Wyoming caucus and Tuesday's Mississippi primary, Clinton will be further behind than on March 3. Her campaign has just finished Act 2 of a Greek tragedy: after an arduous path full of setbacks and defeats, the heroine suddenly appears on the brink of recovery – only to suffer inevitable loss in Act 3. Clinton’s performance last night makes it even more mathematically difficult for her to win the nomination. But she can damage Obama’s prospects, and hurt the Democratic Party--- Will Party leaders allow this?
Hillary Clinton ran a new campaign commercial on Friday – asking who you want answering the White House phone at 3:00 a.m. when something happens in our “dangerous world.” The ad was indistinguishable from what John McCain did two months ago, and within 3 hours Barack Obama felt compelled to shoot a response. For years, Democrats have been paralyzed by fear – believing they must pick a candidate who is “tough” on national security. It’s a false dynamic that cedes to Republican talking points – and as we learned from John Kerry in 2004, doesn’t help Democrats win. Fear is an effective tactic because it causes people to behave irrationally, which is why the right has used it time and again. But at the same time, Democrats cannot just ignore it.
With the Hillary Clinton campaign in disarray, it’s obvious that her strategy of “kitchen-sink” attacks on Barack Obama is not helping. But there may be another agenda to explain it. Mark Penn, Clinton’s top political guru who has pushed her to “go negative” while other advisers have not, is the C.E.O. of a consulting firm whose D.C. subsidiary is run by Charlie Black (the top political adviser to John McCain.) Penn may have concluded that his client’s prospects are toast, and he knows that a President McCain would better serve his interests than a President Obama. He may be simply looking past the primaries, and that slinging mud at Obama now could hurt him in the general election. Democrats who support Clinton should be outraged, but it’s too simple to conclude that Mark Penn is just taking Hillary for a ride. The Clintons have been using Penn for 12 years, and know exactly what he’s about. After all, their former consultant – Dick Morris – acted the same way. Will Clinton end her campaign on a high note by firing Penn, or will she keep letting herself be a pawn in his game?
Barack Obama’s 17-point victory last night in Wisconsin was not just his ninth consecutive (and overwhelming) win since Super Tuesday. The big news was how far he cut into Hillary Clinton’s base – beating her among working-class voters, winning middle-age voters decisively, and almost tying her among white women. Clinton still holds an edge among seniors, but there’s evidence that she’s losing support from Latinos – which could prove fatal in the Texas primary on March 4th. Clinton’s decision to go negative backfired, raising serious questions about how she could stage a comeback at this point. And like last week before the Potomac Primary, the Democratic race had a last-minute “scandal” that was supposed to give Clinton a surge – only to not materialize. That’s because voters have already made up their minds.
Last night, Barack Obama accomplished what no insurgent presidential candidate has ever done: survive Super Tuesday. The Illinois Senator did so by amassing a broad coalition of blacks, liberals and red-state Democrats – paying off dividends across the country except in California. Hillary Clinton’s ten-point win here exceeded expectations, and such baffling returns will keep progressives guessing for days what went wrong in the Golden State. Clinton won in part because she got a large share of support from white women and Latinos – her traditional base – as well as from Asian-Americans. But Obama also got slaughtered in the Central Valley and other conservative parts of the state – defying the national trend, and confining his base to San Francisco and other liberal coastal counties. The state’s electorate was also very conservative when it came to Propositions: voters approved 4 anti-labor Indian gaming compacts, sinked a measure to fund community colleges, and (while it’s good news for progressives that Prop 93 failed) kept the status quo for term limits.
