As featured on p. 218 of "Bloggers on the Bus," under the name "a MyDD blogger."
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Other Stuff
I just can't get across all the beauteous links I have to share with the world with the space I am fortunate enough to be given at FDL as I await the dedicated site. So, um, here:
• Gavin Newsom has a new ad up doubling down on changing the Constitution and ending the 2/3 rule (he mentions it twice in a 1:00 ad). I think this is the beginning of more to come, as Newsom recognizes that moving into an aggressive reform pose is the only way for him to differentiate himself from Jerry Brown, who will find this too hot to handle.
• The unions are coming out hard against the Baucus bill, for two reasons: the public option and the tax on high-end insurance plans. On the former I'm glad to see them so aggressive; on the latter I just don't think it's good public policy to prop up an inefficient system of providing health care to people. Congress is debating this intensely, and my hope would be that the public option would be enough for the unions to back the bill even with a high-end tax, although I do think it should be indexed so we don't get a perpetual problem like the AMT.
• A deal in Honduras? But President DeMint said that the coup plotters were freedom fighters!
• Republicans are going to lose a House race in New York because of a third party from the far right getting all the attention and all the money. The Democrat in NY-23 (no great shakes himself) is outspending her 12-1 on TV. Nobody should trust Republicans to get their act together long enough even to make a dent in the Democratic majority.
• Why should the public be allowed to see Blackwater on trial for the Nissour Square murders? You'd think we have an open and transparent judicial system or something! I'm not talking about putting them on Court TV, the public would be banned from even ATTENDING the hearings.
American officials in Baghdad urged Iraqi lawmakers Tuesday to pass an election law crucial for organizing a January vote that the Obama administration considers key to withdrawing U.S. combat troops.
In a statement, U.S. Ambassador Christopher R. Hill and Gen. Ray Odierno, the American military commander here, said they were concerned that parliament hasn't yet reached an agreement on the law. They urged lawmakers "to act expeditiously on this important legislation that will set the terms for successful, transparent political participation in this milestone event." A day earlier, Ad Melkert, the U.N. representative in Iraq, voiced similar concerns.
The Iraqi Parliament doesn't exactly move swiftly, and we're talking about an election scheduled for just a few months from now. In addition to delaying withdrawal it could throw Iraq's political system into crisis. Yikes.
• The green jobs bill in New York could be a model for the nation. It creates jobs and reduces emissions. Win-win.
Gavin Newsom did what people commonly expect someone behind in the polls in a campaign to do - challenge the front-runner to a series of debates. From his press release:
“Our state is in need of real reform—we have a broken system that must be fixed,” said Newsom. “And now that there are two candidates for governor, we owe the Democratic voters of California an opportunity to compare our visions and platforms side-by-side.”
Mayor Newsom faxed a letter to the Brown campaign with a list of suggested ground rules. The memo suggests 11 debates in total—one in each media market in California. Ten debates would focus on one specific issue each, while the final debate would be open to all relevant issues. Newsom for California also made the following format suggestions:
• 90 minutes in length • Opening and closing statements • Moderated, town hall-style debates with direct audience participation • Segments with moderator questions, public questions, and candidate-to-candidate questions • An opportunity for candidates to respond directly to any assertions made about their record
I'm sure the hard-bitten cynics in the dwindling press corps will see this as a transparent ploy for attention from a trailing candidate. Nevertheless, my immediate reaction was: "A series of debates. Wouldn't that be nice?"
Phil Angelides and Steve Westly held a series of joint appearances and debates in the 2006 primary, and while that primary was in no way a model, it did help to clarify the positions of the candidates on various issues. The same for the nearly endless series of debates around the 2008 Presidential primary. I wouldn't call them all helpful, depending on the peccadilloes of the moderators and the laziness of the questioning. But in a large state predicated on TV ads and soundbites, 90-minute forums can at least offer a glimpse into the thinking of Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown.
By contrast, our recent statewide gubernatorial elections have been characterized by almost no debates between the major candidates. In 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Phil Angelides held only one debate. During the recall, Arnold deigned to attend one debate during the recall, despite the other candidates holding several, and he neglected to debate Gray Davis, who asked for debates in the final weeks. One could hardly sympathize with Davis, as he only held one debate with Bill Simon during their general election in 2002. As California's political media has shrunk, so have the opportunities for gubernatorial candidates to offer an unfiltered perspective on their plans for the state.
So while there are political reasons behind this, why not? I know I have some curiosity about how Brown and Newsom see their roles and what kind of leadership they can offer, and so should everyone. Fortunately, Brown has responded favorably if enigmatically to this request: "If Attorney General Brown decides to declare his candidacy for Governor, I'm sure he would support the notion of holding debates under terms to be mutually agreed upon by the candidates."
Obligatory Brown/Newsom Past/Future Race To The Governor's Mansion Post
I've been pretty up front in questioning whether or not the next Governor matters compared to the structural reforms needed to get California back on a sustainable course. Nevertheless, the off-year CDP convention in Sacramento does traditionally kick off the following year's gubernatorial race, and this year was no different. Given what we know right now, I think it's highly probable, actually, that the Democratic primary will feature only two candidates. Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom were the only two with any visibility whatsoever in Sacramento, and while Antonio Villaraigosa may still feel he can jump in late and capture a healthy share of the Latino vote in any primary, his awkward exit from the festivities does not lead me to believe that he will bother with the race.
If that is the case, we have a virtual mirror-image of the 2008 national Democratic primary, with a candidate positioning himself as looking to the future against a candidate firmly implanted in the past. That's the general belief, anyway, and there's quite a bit of truth to that. Clearly, Mayor Newsom's convention speech continually framed the choice for voters as "whether we’re going to move forward in a new direction or whether we’re going to look back." Clearly, each candidate has a profile that fits that general mold. And the general mood of each candidate's signature event, with Brown lolling at the old Governor's Mansion with his 1974 blue Plymouth in the driveway, literally an historical set piece, while Newsom closed off a street and held a block party featuring Wyclef Jean (and got what amounts to an endorsement from Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson when he introduced Newsom as "the next Governor of California"), could not have been more different.
And yet Jerry Brown has always been something of a political futurist, someone who was mocked in his time for being unrealistic and silly, on issues which are now firmly in the mainstream of the American political debate. And as CalBuzz points out, Brown's presentation to the convention may be closer to the zeitgeist than Newsom's right now:
While Newsom (a Hillary supporter, BTW) spent the weekend trying to position himself as Obama to Brown’s Clinton, General Jerry delivered a Jim Hightower-like jeremiad to the convention, filled with rips and roars at financial insiders and white collar criminals. In tone and substance it seemed closer to tapping the populist zeitgeist of these financially troubled times than did Newsom's effort to fight the last war.
Voters fed up with Governor Arnold's shattered promises to “blow up boxes” and sweep clean the mess in Sacramento may well be in the mood for less “change” and more common sense, which happens to be Brown’s political meme du jour.
Ultimately, I don't cotton much to these popularity-based views of major elections, preferring to judge on substance. The primary electorate is older, but that means there's more potential for increasing turnout among youth, so we'll see where that leads. But ultimately, I'm going to judge on the basis of substance, particularly with respect to structural reform. And while Brown gave a fairly nice speech, highlighting his high-profile work as Attorney General suing the likes of Wells Fargo, in essence he left unanswered the charges that he is an apostle for fantasyland in thinking he can just bring Democrats and Republicans in a room together and get them to work everything out. On the other hand, Newsom, in a meet and greet with bloggers, came out once again in favor of a Constitutional convention to put all of these contradictory and hobbling budget and governing ideas on the chopping block and work from scratch to figure out a way to organize the state that makes sense. You can ague with his somewhat rosy picture of his record - as I have - but you cannot argue that he has a forward-looking view of how to finally blow up this insanely dysfunctional structure.
On the near-term issue of the special election, Brown has appeared on stage with Arnold Schwarzenegger to tout the Yes side on all measures, while Newsom has not. In fact, he expressed his opposition to Props. 1C, 1D and 1E, saying "I can't get my arms around balancing the budget with lottery money" and that 1D and 1E would raid successful and cost-effective programs. Now, what I can't get MY arms around is Newsom's support for 1A, particularly because he explained that his first instinct was to oppose, but that he "had to be responsible" and look at the impact on city budgets. However, 1A would provide no budgetary relief for two years, while 1C, 1D and 1E, which he opposes, would. In clarifying this, Newsom spokesman Eric Jaye explained that the impact on city budgets could be made worse by the bond markets seeing the failure of 1A and raising their interest rates, but there's definitely a tension there. Perhaps Newsom thinks that he can fix whatever damage is done by a constitutional convention, but a voter-approved spending cap would be hard to cancel out within a the space of a year or two.
(More on the Newsom blogger meetup in a later post.)
I think there's room to be critical of both candidates, as well as room to be praiseworthy. But rather than framing this election along cultural or generational lines, I think it's necessary to frame it along the policies they would both bring to Sacramento and whether they make sense for progressives to get behind. So it's not past vs. future for me so much as success vs. FAIL.
Headed out the door for a nice, leisurely six-hour drive through the Central Valley to Sacramento for another California Democratic Party Convention. Calitics will have full coverage, of course - many of our writers will be on hand, both as delegates and as plain old media. There's a lot to cover, from party elections to endorsements on the May 19 election to the resolution to impeach Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit to the unofficial opening of the 2010 election.
The early pre-convention news is that Antonio Villaraigosa won't be making the trip with me (although there's still room in the car, so you never know). It's a confusing development, considering all the high-profile events other gubernatorial hopefuls Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown are holding (Jerry's got a kegger at the old Governor's Mansion, while Gavin is part of an outdoor block party featuring Wyclef Jean). But that may be the reason, as Villaraigosa wasn't able to compete.
Villaraigosa’s press office sent out a release announcing: “Mayor Villaraigosa today announced that he will convene emergency weekend meetings with union leaders to tackle the city's budget crisis.
“Talks will focus on ways to close a $530 million budget deficit through shared sacrifice and shared responsibility. The Mayor will begin meetings in City Hall with labor leaders on Friday evening and will continue through the weekend.” [...]
Calbuzz asked Tony V spokesman Sean Clegg if the emergency budget session was "just a lame, bullshit excuse" to skip the convention. “It’s exactly the opposite of that," Clegg said. "The city of Los Angeles and most cities across California are facing an unprecedented economic crisis and jobs come first.”
Clegg said Villaraigosa is putting the needs of his city before his personal political fortunes by trying to pull together an agreement that would require labor unions to give back some hard-earned gains in order to save jobs and services in Los Angeles.
“This is a leadership moment. Antonio Villaraigosa is not going to Twitter while Rome burns,” Clegg said -- a clear shot at the other mayor who would be governor: San Francisco's Gavin Newsom.
At the same time, a Tulchin Research/Acosta|Salazar pre-convention poll (which is three weeks out, but released on convention eve) shows Villaraigosa slipping. The poll had Garamendi in the race at the time.
Obviously, that top-line support is soft, with 1 in 5 undecided. But I'm frankly surprised how quickly this is turning into a two-horse race, which could actually open the door for a progressive movement candidate, if one existed. But alas...
Anyway, those are just a couple of the issues we'll see unfold. Stay with us throughout the weekend.
(I've teed up a few posts while I'm on the ride, but it'll be a light post day until late afternoon)
Several weeks back, during the deepest throes of the budget crisis, I wrote that the problems of the state are not a matter of personality but process, and you can reason that out to understand that a change in the personalities without a concurrent change in process will accomplish absolutely nothing on reforming the state and getting a functional government again in California. This thought occurred to me again last night, as I sat in the press section during Gavin Newsom's "conversation with California" as part of his tour of the southern part of the state. Newsom's description of the challenges the state faces - and his solutions - gear more to the idea that a different person, dedicated to solving the same problems in a new way, can overcome any obstacle, rather than the reality that no individual under the current system of rules could possibly thrive. And while the San Francisco Mayor shows a recognition of the structural impossibility of California, his relative nonchalance about how to reform it shows he believes for more in himself to overcome the rules than the demonstrable history of the rules overcoming everyone in their path.
First, let's be clear that Newsom is running with someone else's platform. The first policy mentioned last night as a reflection of his record is the Healthy San Francisco effort toward universal care for the uninsured in his city. That is not his plan to tout, and the simultaneous description of it as a savior for the state's residents while cutting $100 million dollars from the city's Department of Public Health and programs aimed at the needy is nothing short of troubling.
"It's not that Healthy San Francisco is wrong its the mayor's obvious ..." (Tom Ammiano) pauses. "Look, he's running for governor and taking full credit for it. It's not true. The labor community, my office, community activists, health people -- some of the same people who are unhappy with him now -- worked with him on this. When he goes out there and claims full credit, that pisses people off, especially people who are dealing with [health care in the city] every day. ... The reaction is really based on the mayor boasting and overselling Healthy San Francisco." [...]
"Healthy San Francisco -- I think people should be very proud of it. I think it's going to meet its full potential. The rollout is going to be incremental and there's going to be little tweaks that it needs. But, you know, that's not the target [...] Unfortunately, it's getting tainted because of the mayor's boasting and overselling of it."
The neighborhood clinics at the heart of the Healthy San Francisco plan are at full capacity while funding is being slashed, and additional "woodworking" - residents coming out of the woodwork to seek services. The revenues aren't meeting the expenses, and the General Fund of the city, now facing a $590 million dollar shortfall (less per capita than Los Angeles'), has to make up the difference. As the economy continues to slow and the ranks of the unemployed swell, those at the bottom of the income ladder are already seeing service cuts. I would simply call it bad politics to put so much emphasis on a program you can barely claim ownership to and are cutting funding for at the same time as more services are desired. And this is sadly part of a pattern of the whole story being left out.
But let's set aside the issues for a moment. As focused as I am on process, I awaited Newsom's response to the inevitable questions about budget reform. He asserted support for a 50% + 1 threshold for the budget process, using the line "You need two-thirds of the vote to pass a budget, but only a simple majority to deny civil rights," referring to marriage equality. It's a good line, but he leaves out that he was shamed into changing his position after the initial proposal for a 55% threshold was slammed by just about everyone. The first instinct was to half-ass reform. There was also no explanation that there are two thresholds requiring two-thirds, the budget and tax increases, leaving his answer fairly vague, as it has been in the past.
But far worse than this was his flippant approval of Prop. 1A, the draconian spending cap that would effectively eliminate what amounts to half of the state school budget within a few years, and his dishonest rendering of the initiative as "a rainy day fund," without explaining how the rainy day fund is created. On the other ballot measures like 1C, 1D and 1E, which would privatize the lottery and raid voter-approved funds for children's programs and mental health, he gave a Solomonic "on the one hand, on the other hand" soliloquy and ended saying that he would be a bad spokesman for them.
This, then, is what needs to be kept in mind when Newsom urges a call for a constitutional convention. We see by his stances on the May special election what he would reasonably be expected to get out of that convention - a constitution that includes a "rainy day fund" created by a spending cap, coming at it from a right-wing perspective and ultimately resulting in a fake reform. This is essentially the position of Arnold Schwarzenegger, clueless media elites, bipartisan fetishists who assume without evidence the midpoint of any argument is automatically the best option, and most tellingly, the Bay Area Council, which makes perfect sense.
Meantime, the Schwarzenegger-sponsored political campaign in support of the six measures announced today an endorsement from the Bay Area Council, the business-centric public policy organization that is the impetus behind calls for a constitutional convention. Last week, Schwarzenegger made it quite clear that he supports the first convening of a state constitutional convention in some 150 years... a way to focus on multiple ideas for government reform at one time.
These two announcements certainly play to the idea of another "business vs. labor" narrative in California politics. Another possible fuel for that storyline comes in a $250,000 donation to the pro-budget measure committee on Friday by wealthy Orange County developer Henry Segerstrom. The donation from one of his companies is easily his largest campaign contribution in recent years, which saw smaller checks written to both the guv's 2006 reelection efforts and to the California Republican Party.
I support a Constitutional convention because I know what my principles are. I don't support mealy-mouthed calls for "reform" that are essentially corporate-friendly back doors to advance the interests of the powerful over the people.
Ultimately, Randy Shaw has this right - the people of California could elect Noam Chomsky, Warren Buffett or Howard Jarvis, and nothing would fundamentally change until the structures that restrict anyone in Sacramento from doing their jobs are released. And our assessment of who would be best to lead that reform should be based on deeds and not words.
If California’s future is measured by our education system, we are in deep trouble. And we are in this difficulty because the state’s Democratic Party and progressive activists have allowed right-wing Republicans to exert major control over the state’s budget.
I say “allowed” because there is no other explanation for elected officials and activists failing to put a measure on the November 2008 ballot removing the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget. Although state Republicans made their opposition to new taxes clear, progressives passed up a large turnout ballot whose voters would have approved such a reform. Passage of such an initiative would have avoided the billions of dollars in cuts we went on to face, with more cuts slated for future years [...]
If we have learned anything from the past months, it should be that putting money into state candidates will accomplish less than passing the budgetary reforms and tax hikes needed to return California to its leadership in education and other areas [...]
It’s time for the people to say “Yes We Can” to a new progressive future for California. Once the people lead, the politicians -- particularly those seeking their votes -- will follow.
It is senseless to discuss candidates for a race into a straitjacket, which is the current dress code for Sacramento. Anything less than fundamental reform will not solve the enormous set of problems the state faces - and it will take more than charisma, but an actual commitment, to make it happen.
Two polls were actually released today on the 2010 California Governor's race. The Field Poll did an extensive poll of the race, including favorability ratings, and Lake Research, a Democratic firm, did their own poll which included some head-to-head matchups.
Field's poll included Dianne Feinstein and I don't think the results were all that great for her. In the primary she polls well under 50%, compared to earlier polls which had her closer to that number.
Dianne Feinstein: 38% Jerry Brown: 16% Antonio Villaraigosa: 16% Gavin Newsom: 10% John Garamendi: 4% Steve Westly: 2% Bill Lockyer: 1% Jack O’Connell: 1% Undecided: 12%
Considering she's the most well-known figure in California politics, and that there won't be that many competitors in the final field, that's not a runaway at all. Plus, her net favorables with the electorate (+23) are less than Jerry Brown's (+25), despite her being more well-known (Among just Democrats, her unfavs are slightly higher than Brown's but so are her faves). If anything, this shows that she would have a tough race, maybe too tough for her to want to try it rather than luxuriate in her position whitewashing Bush's war crimes on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Without DiFi in the race, it's a packed field. Here's Field's poll:
Jerry Brown: 26% Antonio Villaraigosa: 22% Gavin Newsom: 16% John Garamendi: 8% Steve Westly: 2% Bill Lockyer: 2% Jack O’Connell: 2% Undecided: 22%
DiFi's votes are, then, basically evenly distributed. Lake's primary poll (they didn't poll with DiFi) was similar:
Jerry Brown: 27% Antonio Villaraigosa: 20% Gavin Newsom: 14% John Garamendi: 8% Steve Westly: 3% Jack O’Connell: 1% Undecided: 27%
Big undecideds there, and obviously Villaraigosa is benefiting from being the only SoCal candidate in the field, although given his re-election performance he may have some work to do with his southern base. As for everyone else, there's time, but they're all pretty far back.
The Republican primary? Nobody's heard of any of the candidates, and the undecideds are off the charts, but it's early.
Meg Whitman: 21% Tom Campbell: 18% Steve Poizner: 7% Undecided: 54%
Surprised to see Campbell that close, but it's probably just name ID; he's run statewide before. At least 63% of all voters, and at least 67% of Republicans, have no impression whatsoever of any of these candidates. Their favorables are miniscule. Given that, Poizner and Whitman will have to spend a lot of their millions just to introduce themselves to the public.
Finally, Lake Research did some (selected) head-to-heads.
Brown: 41% Poizner: 30% Undecided: 29%
Brown: 43% Whitman: 27% Undecided: 30%
Newsom: 38% Poizner: 29% Undecided: 33%
Newsom: 40% Whitman: 25% Undecided: 35%
Long story short, DiFi wouldn't have a cakewalk, Villaraigosa appears to have strength based on geographic isolation, Brown looks well-positioned, nobody knows the Republicans, and any Democrat can win.
2) Charlie Brown (CA-04) - Charlie has been to all three Netroots Nation events, including the first two when it was known as Yearly Kos. He is a hero among this community, and he has a lot of support here. In fact, he proved it with a very well-received appearance at the Lurker's Caucus.
One of the people attending the caucus was Charlie Brown. He was there to do what a great many political candidates came to the convention to do -- speak to people, press the flesh, make them aware of his campaign and expand awareness. I was taking a seemingly arbitrary route around the room in calling on people to talk about themselves, and Charlie was one of the first people I called on.
Obviously there was a great interest in him, and there was a lively give and take between the attendants and The Colonel for about 15 minutes. He cheerfully answered questions and gave us all a good measure of him.
Now, there are a couple of things here that make this moment extraordinary to me. First of all, the odds were very slight that there were any people in this caucus who were from his home district. And this was the Lurkers Caucus, a group whose only unifying distinction is that they don't blog!! But here was Charlie, in a convention filled with bloggers, talking to the very people least likely to blog his appearance. (Yes, I'm blogging it now, but he didn't know I was going to be there...)
Secondly, after he spoke, we still had about 50 minutes of the caucus and we had resumed moving around the room, giving people opportunities to express themselves. Now, I know that Charlie was not there to share his lurking experiences. He was there to campaign. I fully expected him, and would not have blamed him in the least, to quietly slip out of the room in search of more campaigning opportunities at the convention. In fact, that's part of the reason I kind of steered the circuit of speakers to allow him to speak early. But Charlie stayed for the entire session, listening to people explain why they don't blog!
It was indicative of the respect Brown has shown for this entire community, from top to bottom, and it's what's going to make him a great Congressman from the 4th District. This is one of the top races in the country from the perspective of the netroots.
3) Debbie Cook (CA-46) - I think Debbie Cook, Annette Taddeo and Alan Grayson were among the most well-received newcomers at the event. Cook's passion for environmental and energy issues matched up perfectly with the overriding concerns of the entire conference, which helped a lot. At the Energy Panel she sat on, along with Alaska Senate candidate Mark Begich and Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley, people in the room told me she was the most impressive. And Talking Points Memo was similarly taken with Mayor Cook, as can be seen in this interview for the popular site.
Cook switched her flight so she could make the Netroots candidate event on Friday night. I think she served her candidacy a great deal through this appearance, and considering that in-district donations to her campaign passed 70% in Q2, she has a lot of potential to raise her national profile online.
4) Rocky Delgadillo, LA City Attorney - Delgadillo, who lost to Jerry Brown in a primary for the Attorney General in 2006, appeared on a health care panel that I thought was the most interesting of the entire conference. I'm going to do a larger story on it, but Delgadillo's work in this area, rooting out corruption and illegal acitivity among health insurers, was justly recognized. I didn't see him walking around the conference. Here's a great diary from nyceve at Daily Kos about his efforts.
5) Mike Lumpkin (CA-52) - Calitics actually held an extended breakfast conversation with Lumpkin, running in the open seat created by Duncan Hunter's retirement. Here's a pic:
That's me, my subpar breakfast, Brian, Mike Lumpkin, and Lucas.
I thought Lumpkin was pretty good. He's a former Navy SEAL with 20 years of experience in counterinsurgency and command techniques, serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Notably, his plan for Iraq includes a total withdrawal of all forces, leaving no residual troops. He tends to frame most of the issues in terms of national security, which I guess is to be expected, and he talked about securing the border as well as energy security as two of his major issues on the campaign trail. Duncan Hunter's son, also named Duncan Hunter, is his opponent, and in the primary polls revealed that a substantial portion of voters thought they were casting a ballot for the incumbent, so this is not really an open seat in the traditional sense. Still, this is a race to watch, and I appreciated Lumpkin taking the time to talk with us.
6) Gavin Newsom, San Francisco Mayor - Mayor Newsom walked around the hall on Saturday, showed up at our Calitics/Alternet Books party, and introduced Van Jones on Sunday morning. Joe Garifoli has a little interview on why he attended:
Newsom is no stranger to online communication. He's been regularly courting Bay Area bloggers for stories that the uh, ahem, other news poohbahs in town aren't into. Just this week, he chatted up the city's wind power project with a handful of local and statewide bloggers. He's a Daily Kos and Huffington Post regular reader and occasional poster, and he copped to following threads around Facebook. "I really don't have time to be on there," he said of the social networking time suck.
"I'm not a convert, I'm one who recognizes the power and extraordinary influence the netroots have. Not just with politics, but it's about a different interactions with people." He went to Austin because "I wanted to understand more fully the intensity behind those names. We actually met 'Bill in Portland Maine.'"
Clearly Newsom was there to build a profile for a statewide run for governor, and I thought that was generally successful. There seemed to be a buzz around his visit as he walked the halls, and the crowd was receptive to his Sunday morning message, which focused on the environment. Some were skeptical of the message, and I hope he clarifies his position, but when I spoke with him, I found him very willing to engage on the issues. I asked about prison policy, one of my hobby horses, and while he wasn't fully informed on the topic, he expressed a need to drill down and asked me personally to provide him with whatever information I could muster. You bet I'll do so, and I respect anyone in politics willing to have a two-way conversation.
7) Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House - You may recall she had a little discussion with some dude on Saturday morning. That's been well-covered elsewhere. Speaking to Pelosi's staffers, I can tell you that she enjoyed the back and forth and expected MORE of a grilling, which may have been a fault of the organization or the perhaps too-respectful commenters themselves.
8) Russ Warner (CA-26) - This was Russ' second Netroots Nation, and he did his best to focus on meeting as many people as possible. I did tend to see him and his campaign staff just about everywhere. He delivered his passionate message about his son, who was in attendance, at the Netroots candidate event as well.
9) Steve Young (CA-48) - Steve is running for Congress but he's also a member of the community, and during the California caucus he was as active as anyone in participating in the discussion. The numbers he's been showing around on his race suggest there is a real chance here, and I hope he got a lot out of the event.
• It's two days until the kickoff of Netroots Nation, and among the many luminaries attending will be Gavin Newsom, who is introducing green jobs expert Van Jones at the Sunday morning keynote. The fact that he's running for Governor has nothing to do with this, I'm sure.
• The final numbers on the June election were miserable, with a record low (for a regular election) 28.2% turnout. A ridiculous amount of voters cast ballots by mail - 58.7%, also a record. VBM is far stronger in Northern California than in the Los Angeles area, and not surprisingly turnout is higher up there as well. This is really changing how elections ought to be conducted, as we move to a VBM state. Campaign operatives need to understand this quickly.
• Hey, we had a bank run at IndyMac yesterday. Fun! The FDIC insures up to $100,000, so consumers should be fine for the most part, but what you're going to see is eroding confidence in regional banks as the financial crisis widens.
• Another leader at the LA Times is out, this time publisher David Hiller. I'm sure Sam Zell and his team can make loads of money on the paper if they just fire everybody and go to robot reporters.
• AB 97 cleared the legislature yesterday, which would ban trans fats at California restaurants and bakeries. It now goes to the governor. He did sign a ban on trans fats in school cafeterias last year.
Today marks the launch of Health Care For America Now, a national coalition which plans to organize millions of Americans at the grassroots level to advocate for quality, affordable health care for everyone.
We're bringing together community organizers, nurses, doctors, small business owners, faith-based groups, organizations of people of color, and seniors who believe it's time we had an American solution that provides quality, affordable health care for everyone.
We're offering a bold new solution that gives you real choice and a guarantee of quality coverage you can afford: keep your current private insurance plan, pick a new private insurance plan, or join a public health insurance plan.
We're also calling for regulation on health insurance companies. We need to set and enforce rules that quash health insurance companies' greed once and for all.There is a huge divide between our plan and the insurance companies' plan for healthcare reform. We want to make sure you have the quality coverage you need at the price you can afford. They want to leave you alone to fend for yourself in the unregulated, bureaucratic health insurance market.
Our plan is affordable for people and business. Their plan is profitable for them. With no regulation, health insurance companies can and will charge whatever they want, set high deductibles, and continue to drop coverage when you get sick. Now is the time to pick a side. Which side are you on?
Elizabeth Edwards is one of the high-profile faces of this coalition, but it's fairly broad, including AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, MoveOn.org, the NEA, National Women’s Law Center, Planned Parenthood, the SEIU, the UFCW, and USAction. Today they are running live launch events all over the country, including two in California. One is happening at this hour in Los Angeles, featuring Lt. Governor John Garamendi. There's another event in San Francisco on the steps of City Hall at 11:30 featuring Mayor Gavin Newsom. The names shouldn't surprise you - they're both two of the most high-profile advocates for universal health care in the state, and they'll both use the issue as a springboard for their 2010 gubernatorial campaigns.
What I'm more interested in is HCAN's strategy to work inside Bush Dog districts to hold them accountable should they prostrate themselves for the insurance industry.
The work of Health Care For America Now was first made public late last week. But the group, with Elizabeth Edwards as a figurehead, offered expanded insight into the details of its campaign during a meeting on Monday. In addition to spending $40 million -- $1.5 million of which will be put behind an initial ad buy (national TV, print, and online) -- the group will be sending organizers to 52 cities, blasting out emails to 5 million households, airing spots on MSNBC and CNN and submitting op-eds to major papers (officials hinted at the New York Times piece to come).
In addition, the campaign is going to take advantage of Moveon.org's massive data files to reach out to like-minded supporters and officials promised to work in Democratic and Republican districts alike.
"We'll have an organizer in the district of every Blue Dog Democrat," said HCAN campaign manager Richard Kirsch of the conservative Democrats.
"The focus of the campaign," he added, "is on national legislation. "This year, however, it is also a referendum: do you support quality, affordable, health care for all, or an alliance with the private insurance industry?"
Right on. These Bush Dogs need constant pressure and the threat of job loss in order to do right by their constituents. I don't know how successful HCAN will be, but they certainly have the right strategy.
The phalanx of security around this Olympic torch relay in San Francisco is ridiculous. You probably can't even see the runners unless you're in a helicopter. Mayor Newsom truncated the relay from 8 miles to 3 just a few hours before the parade started. And they keep changing the route with each passing corner, as if they're making it up on the fly. Not sure why Newsom should have bothered at all. Hundreds of security forces forming a human chain - must be proud, eh, San Francisco?
There are some live photos of the protest here, including a bus driver coming perilously close to running over protesters.
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has vowed to skip the opening ceremonies in Beijing. The will of the people is being democratically expressed.
...There's also a liveblog at Daily Kos. Apparently the protesters got fairly close to the relay a couple minutes ago, halting it for a stretch.
A friend emails:
i just stood out on embarcadero for over an hour while the cops told us "it's coming, it's coming right along here." meanwhile the torch was already headed at its ponderous pace down van ness. fucking pissed.
Yes, the route apparently keeps changing. Apparently the protesters got fairly close to the relay a couple minutes ago, halting it for a short while. It's kind of a cat-and-mouse game right now. The torch isn't going anywhere near the scheduled finish line at Justin Herman Plaza, that's pretty clear. It's around Crissy Field right now, headed west toward the GG Bridge. And I guess there's an amphibious vehicle out in front of the relay runners. That torch may be getting wet.
UPDATE: AP: "Closing ceremony for torch relay will take place at an undisclosed location." Will Dick Cheney be lighting the torch with his eyes, then?
It's a good thing that the people of San Francisco were honored with the ability to have this ceremony hidden from them.
The arrest numbers of activists yearning for a free Tibet continue to rise. Just between the publication of this New York Times piece and this Washington Post piece a few hundred were detained. Of course they've also opened fire on protesters as well. The way this is playing out is eerily similar to the way the military junta in Burma re-established order, by arresting everyone in sight and blacking out the global media. Now they're sending journalists in for a dog and pony show.
A small group of hand-picked journalists touched down in Lhasa on the first government-led tour since China closed the tightly restricted region to foreigners last week, but it was unclear how much freedom they would have to report.
Meanwhile, experts from the government-established China Tibetology Research Center echoed leaders in blaming the Dalai Lama for deliberately sparking the protests in order to separate Tibet from China and sabotage the Aug. 8-24 Beijing Olympics.
China has been treating the broad unrest and, as of Tuesday, still-spreading protests as a law-and-order issue that has mostly been contained. But rights groups and foreign leaders continue to pressure China to exercise restraint, open Tibetan areas to foreign observers and sit down for frank talks with the Dalai Lama, with some even raising the possibility of a boycott of the opening ceremony of the Olympics.
Repressive societies don't deviate much from the plan. Meanwhile the global community is finally coming around to recognize the scale of the problem. In addition to the expected outspoken human rights defenders, like Bishop Tutu and Avaaz (one million people have signed their petition), the world powers are stepping up as well.
European leaders sharpened their tone over Tibet on Wednesday, as President Bush telephoned President Hu Jintao of China and urged a resumption of negotiations with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader.
Even as Chinese diplomats sought to defend the crackdown on protesters in Tibet, officials said they were considering sending a fact-finding mission to Beijing, signaling an intensification of international concern over the violent repression in the region.
In London, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France told a joint session of the House of Commons and the House of Lords during a state visit that Britain and France shared a responsibility to urge the Chinese leadership to respect human rights and cultural identity.
That goal could only be achieved if there was “true dialogue” between China and the Dalai Lama, he said, a day after hinting that France might boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing this summer.
Obviously, the Olympics are a bit of leverage for the world, though it's silly that it should be (Bush, of course, isn't going that far). But China is very concerned about its image, and beating and jailing Tibetans isn't helping.
Speaking of image, if Gavin Newsom wants to become the Governor of California in 2010, he would do well not to hide the Olympic torch route and set up free speech zones to try and curtail expected protests. That's not going to put a smile on any liberal's face.
China is truly sacrificing their emerging status as a world power with this maneuver. I know they're an economic juggernaut, but this sends a message to the world that is being received poorly. The Tibetans can and will be free, and China's remaining in denial will only harm them more in the end.
I am a film and video editor, stand-up comedian, and blogger. My editor resume is here. A sample of my stand-up is here. The blog is what you're reading right now. Wasn't that easy?
View blog reactions
