In another setback for troubled bank, Attorneys look into possibly false claims
by Brian Leubitz
It's not easy being Bank of America these days. Oh sure, you get to have the pride of advertising on Hulu and well, everywhere, but are there people out there that don't hate you? You have those Occupy Wall Street folks, the people who hate you over the ridiculously greedy $5 debit card charge, and, oh right, their sketchy dealings in the foreclosure crisis.
Add a different (but related) worry onto the pile:
Investigators with the state attorney general's office have subpoenaed Bank of America Corp. in connection with the sale and marketing of troubled mortgage-backed securities to California investors, according to a person familiar with the probe.
The state is trying to determine whether the bank and its Countrywide Financial subsidiary sold investments backed by risky mortgages to institutional and private investors in California under false pretenses...
Harris has created a mortgage fraud strike force with a mandate of looking into all aspects of mortgage fraud, including securitization. Many of these investments plunged in value as the housing market collapsed. Under California's False Claims Act, which makes it a crime to defraud the state, damages of up to three times the amount of the claim can be awarded if the victim was an institutional investor, such as one of the state's pension funds.(LA Times)
It is possible this is part of the 3-dimensional chess being played with the foreclosure mess, but if the AG's office can prove that BofA made the false claims, we are talking about a lot of money for a bank that already has capitilization issues.
Yesterday, Ami Bera wrote about Karl Rove protecting Dan Lungren. Today he went statewide. A shadowy Virginia-based group funded by the oil industry, tobacco companies, and health insurance industry -- and run by Karl Rove -- is trying to sway the outcome of the race for California Attorney General. This is an unprecedented move in a down-ballot race, and the money is being used to create cynical commercials for political gain.
Rove's group, the "The Republican State Leadership Committee," has purchased $1.1 million of TV airtime to run vicious ads attacking our campaign. And who exactly is funding this group's attacks? The very polluters, cigarette manufacturers, and insurance industry giants who I will stand up to as Attorney General.
Of course we are going to stand up to this outside money. You can contribute online to help us fight back.
To be clear, these are many of the usual Republican suspects. Organizations that fight against environmental and consumer protections are lining up to come to the aid of Steve Cooley, because they know that Cooley will fall into line with their agenda. (There is more in the extended diary.)
Oh, the old phrase IOKIYAR. So useful, especially back in the old Jack Abramoff days. In case you are just joining the show already in progress, it stands for It's OK if you're a Republican. Get it? Good.
In 2003, District Attorney Steve Cooley had a billionaire in his sights. Alan Casden was a real estate developer with a history of generosity toward political campaigns, especially those of local Democrats.
After a grand jury investigation, Cooley brought felony charges against a Casden executive, John Archibald, and 13 other defendants for reimbursing friends and associates for donations to city politicians, thereby violating contribution limits. ...
At the time of the investigation, however, Cooley was accepting the same kinds of contributions for his own campaign. While he pursued Casden and others who engaged in similar finance schemes, he did not go after his own contributor, Gladwin Gill. (LA Weekly, emphasis added)
To be clear what was going on here, Gill was giving money to other people to contribute to Republican candidates. He plead guilty to these charges on contributing money for George W. Bush through this scheme. But, importantly, the same people that he used for the Bush scheme? Yeah, they show up on Cooley's donor lists.
Gill was prosecuted by the federal prosecutors for his federal crimes. Archibald and Casden were thoroughly investigated by Cooley's office. Pierce O'Donnell, another Democratic contributor was dealt with by Cooley's office. As for Gill's local involvement, well, there has been no word from Cooley's office on that. IOKIYAR, I guess.
Note: As you may know, I do some work for Cooley's Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris.
UPDATE: Cooley's campaign consultant, Kevin Spillane, has responded by noting that the statute of limitations has expired, and that the money has been spent anyway. Now folks, that's how you play IOKIYAR.
I believe I used a Prodigy email address to sign an online petition calling on congress to "censure President Clinton and move on" back in 1998. As I'm sure you know, out of those efforts rose the organization MoveOn, which sent emails to my Yahoo account for years and to my gmail for the last six years or so. It has been one of my favorite organizations, through their ups and downs, for a decade.
Which is why I simply can't fathom the blunder they made yesterday, thrusting themselves into the California Attorney General's race to fluff former Facebook Chief Privacy Officer (best oxymoron ever) Chris Kelly. In the final days of the campaign, no less.
MoveOn's fluffing of Kelly began yesterday morning when staffer Marika Shaub posted a link on MoveOn's FB Group, "Facebook, respect my privacy!" Shaub urged the 180,000 members to share a note from Chris Kelly with all of their Facebook friends and later MoveOn sent an email to an unknown number of members of MoveOn's giant list with Chris Kelly's message (I received it twice).
As I long-time Moveon member and devoted supporter, I was shocked that MoveOn's current leadership seems to have so little understanding of the dynamics and history of the battle for privacy. It was only back in 2007 that MoveOn went to war with Facebook, scoring a major victory for privacy by leading the organizing to shut down the infamous "Beacon" program. MoveOn was attacked repeatedly in the press by...Chris Kelly -- who was not defending privacy, but defending Beacon. In fact, Kelly made so much money eroding privacy at Facebook that he's dumped over $12,000,000 into his attempt to buy the California Democratic Party nomination for Attorney General.
Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly has launched a Karl Rove-style attack against Kamala Harris, the San Francisco District Attorney who has raised conviction rates in SF to the highest level in 15 years.
The San Francisco Examiner takes a closer look at Chris Kelly's latest false claims in his new video, which Chris Kelly has surely expertly placed on your Facebook homepage, Google searches, email inbox, or all three in recent days.
According to the Examiner, Kelly's attacks are just plain wrong.
then Kelly's ad claims, "Under Harris SF Homicide is Up 32%" and "SF has the highest homicide rate in the state."
Whoa! That's news to this city crime reporter.
While homicides were the highest they'd been in more than a decade in 2008 - there were 98 - that's nowhere near the tally in Oakland, where there were 124 homicides in a smaller population.
And Kelly uses statistics from the state Department of Justice, which are only complete through 2008. If he considers 2009, then that 32 percent number goes way down. There were only 45 homicides last year, the lowest tally in five decades. (SF Examiner)
As of today, Kelly has contributed $4 million-and-counting of his own Facebook bucks in an attempt to become the first-ever candidate for Attorney General to successfully buy the office. While Kelly has thus far demonstrated an impressive ability to churn out platform papers that coincidentally read like a checklist of Kamala Harris's actual accomplishments, he has so far stuck to attacking Kamala rather than explaining why Democratic voters should make him our nominee.
Disclosure: I work for Kamala Harris, but all opinions are entirely my own.
It is not a headline we would expect to see, but that is exactly what is happening in our state as we speak.
In 2006, the California Legislature passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The Governor then signed this law to make our state the leader in fighting greenhouse gas pollution. I hope you will consider joining me in working to ensure that Big Oil does not get its way in California by eviscerating our landmark climate change legislation.
California's Attorney General is uniquely positioned to stand up for strong, effective enforcement of our state's environmental laws. That is why I am calling on each and every candidate for California Attorney General -- Democratic and Republican -- to denounce this effort by Big Oil to slash through our state's environmental protections for their own corporate gain.
(For identification purposes only, I'm the Executive Director at Netroots Nation)
Last week yet another poorly crafted Jerry Brown email went out to his email universe. That's not news, I've been cringing at their emails since they first started sending them. Most cringe worthy so far? Jerry Brown's ring tone.
The subject line was decent, "You wouldn't believe..." works for me. But the rest of the email violated about every best practice that's been written for emails. Here's some simple ones from Blue State Digital for starters.
There's this weird screen capture of a YouTube video that actually goes to YouTube instead of their donate page (you just lost anyone that intended to donate with that link). Instead of highlighting specific text 2-3 times in the email they opted to use these weird huge contribute images. The email is rambling and without focus. The type is small, nothing is bolded to catch your attention. There's all sorts of other links to distract you like facebook, etc.
And at the time it was originally sent the lowest contribution you could make without entering something in the "other" box was $100 even though they asked for $10, $25, whatever you can give in the email. And the highest donation was $51,800--now where's my credit card that's got that much spare room on it?
Epic FAIL, the conversion rates have to be terrible.
More on the flip about how Jerry Brown's email "best practices" are infecting the California Democratic Party and Alberto Torrico's campaign for Attorney General...
(Consistent with our policy of bumping elected officials, here is a post from SF DA Kamala Harris. Disclosure: I am doing some work for her campaign for Attorney General. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. By that measure, our current approach to criminal justice may need a shrink--and a new way of doing business.
The old approach to fighting crime is well-known. Police and prosecutors are deluged with low-level drug cases, and the public spends billions on prisons to house these offenders. And, every year, prisons release hundreds of thousands of these offenders back into our communities. They're sent back with a bus ticket and a little cash in hand--and that's about it. They have no plan, no skills, nowhere to go, and no other changed circumstances. They pick up right where they left off; within three years of release, seven out of ten California prisoners will re-offend and return to prison.
After decades of this sad cycle, our prisons are swollen beyond capacity and our budgets maxed. Across the country, leaders are acknowledging that we've been missing a crucial opportunity all along. Perhaps the most crucial step in the criminal justice process is the most often ignored--what happens after the conviction and prison sentence, when the prisoner comes home.
Education, public safety, and the economy: three vastly complex issue areas that time and again are proven to be inextricably linked.
By doing what it takes to keep kids in school in every corner of our state, we can save literally billions of dollars in public resources and greatly improve public safety.
Most of us in law enforcement have known this for many years. As San Francisco's District Attorney, I see the direct impact of what happens when kids don't stay in school; young lives are lost to street violence or prison at an appalling rate, our state loses more resources and our communities are less safe.
Just wanted to inform everyone here, if you're in the Los Angeles area this Sunday, September 13, there will be an Attorney General candidate forum at USC. Here's the details.
Join the California Young Democrats, the Los Angeles Region Young Democrats and the USC College Democrats and Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at USC for our forum of Democratic Candidates for Attorney General. The Attorney General Candidates who will be in attendance are: Assemblymember Ted Lieu, Assemblymember Pedro Nava, Assemblymember Alberto Torrico, Former Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and former Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly.
The event will be held in the basement of Leavey Library at the University of Southern California.
Parking is available for $8 at Parking Structure X right off Figueroa and USC McCarthy Way. Limited street parking can also be found in the surrounding neighborhood.
The Facebook event page says it will run from 1:45pm to 3:30pm. And no, it looks like Kamala Harris will not be there. Still, it's a chance to hear from the others.
In a decision that won't necessarily score her political points, SF District Attorney Kamala Harris's office yesterday declined to seek the death penalty for Edwin Ramos. Ramos is accused of murdering Tony Bologna and his two sons last year.
Friday in court, prosecutor Harry Dorfman made this surprise announcement.
The District Attorney has decided to seek the special circumstances penalty of life without parole; we will not seek the death penalty in this case," he said.
Since Ramos was charged with multiple murders and two other special circumstance offenses, Harris could have asked for the death penalty. But Harris is an opponent of capital punishment and she told reporters her decision fits the crime.
"We have thoroughly reviewed the facts and laws in this case and arrived at a decision based on that review," Harris said. (KGO 9/10/09)
Harris is opposed to the death penalty. She has said in the past that she would consider each case on its own merits, but certainly her own morality must come into play.
This is a position of personal integrity. She is sticking to what she said when she defeated Terrence Hallinan way back in 2003. While the death penalty may have support in California as a whole, that is not the case in San Francisco. Surely, there will be ads, or whisper campaigns, or whatever, made about this during a campaign for Attorney General.
But you can say one thing about Kamala Harris, she has a spine. And in this race, that gives her a leg up in my book.
CYD and the USC Young Dems are hosting a forum on the Attorney General's race this Sunday, to be held at the Leavey Library on the USC campus this Sunday at 1:45. All the candidates except Kamala Harris will be in attendance.
The organizers have asked me to solicit questions for the candidates from the Calitics community. If you have a question you'd like to be considered for consideration, please send them to CYD Deputy Political Director Charlie Carnow at ccarnow at youngdems.org.
Trying to appease the cowards running for higher office in the Assembly rank and file, Karen Bass has dropped the sentencing commission out of the prison reform package.
The sentencing commission was among the most controversial provisions of the Senate prison plan. But on Monday, Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said "a real sentencing commission, with teeth, is my top priority" for corrections legislation.
Steinberg spokeswoman Alicia Dlugosh said Monday that the Senate leader would like to see any legislation passed by the Assembly "realize the same dollar figure in savings as the Senate bill."
The bill passed last week by the Senate, AB 14 XXX would save the state an estimated $600 million, according to an analysis of the bill. But the Assembly seemed poised to make key changes that would reduce those savings by about $220 million.
Among the other changes expected to be made by the Assembly would be the elimination of a provision that would change some crimes which can be either felonies or misdemeanors --known as "wobblers" - exclusively to misdemeanors. The Assembly bill expected to come up for a vote this week would leave the state's wobbler law unchanged.
Assembly Democrats also balked at a provision in the Senate bill that would allow some sick and elderly inmates to finish their sentences under house arrest.
Bass said she hoped to pass the sentencing commission as stand-alone legislation later in the year. First of all, the year ends on September 11, and second, adding the commission to a must-pass reform package was the whole point. If lawmakers objected to it as part of a package, they're not going to turn around and support it in isolation.
Punting on this issue will ensure that federal judges will be mandating reductions of the prison population 10 years down the road. The only reform worth doing in the package now clarifies parole policy, devoting resources to those who need to be monitored instead of the blanket supervision that has turned our parole system into a revolving door. But that will not be enough to turn around the prison crisis for the long-term, without finally doing something about our ever expanding sentencing law.
This also shows the complete dysfunction of the leadership. Darrell Steinberg may not go along with the limited version, and I don't blame him. His chamber has now stuck their neck out three times on tough votes - Tranquillon Ridge drilling, HUTA raids and now this - that the Assembly has quashed. I wasn't unhappy about the first two, but if I was in the Senate, I'd be pissed about all these controversial votes I was needlessly taking. You'd think Karen Bass would have a sense of her caucus and know that she couldn't pass whatever she and Steinberg and the Governor hammered out in private. Because she's on her way out the door in 2010 she has no leverage over the caucus, because everyone's termed out and running for something else they have no fealty to the Assembly, and because they all live perpetually in fear they won't take a vote they know would help future generations deal with a crisis.
As I've said, a broken process will almost always produce a broken result. But individual lawmakers need to be called out. Particularly the three Assemblymembers running for Attorney General who think they're showing off their toughness. When all of them lose, they'll probably attribute it to other factors. They should be reminded of this day.
While the Senate was successful in passing meaningful, albeit not the prettiest, prison reform , the Assembly has been stumbling over the task for a few days now. They were going to try it on Monday again. Needless to say, it hasn't succeeded. They've pushed back the vote again, indefinitely this time.
"Work is moving forward on a revised plan to increase public safety, improve the effectiveness of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and reduce state budget costs" Speaker Bass said Monday. "There were a number of calls and meetings throughout the weekend with various stakeholders, including law enforcement. Those conversations are continuing. When we arrive at a responsible plan that can earn the support of the majority of the Assembly and makes sense to the people of California, we will take that bill up on the Assembly floor. We will provide advance notice when a vote on the public safety package is to be scheduled."
If you want to take your time, and get this right, that's a great thing. Unfortunately, I think this delay is less about getting this right than getting it wrong. Weak-kneed Democrats are failing California when we most need them to stand up for sound policy. Like the lawmakers in Kansas were able to do a few years back:
"But you know the old 'trail em', nail 'em and jail 'em stuff doesn't work. We want people to come out and stay out and become responsible tax-paying citizens."
She says many ex-cons have learned their lesson and don't want to go back to prison but others have so little to lose that they lack motivation.
Now her job is to give people like Lorelei, who has spent most of her life struggling with crack addiction and drifting in and out of penal institutions, fresh incentives.
*** *** ***
The new strategy seems to be working: five years ago around 203 parolees returned to Kansas prisons each month but by 2007, the number reduced by 100 per month and the number of new crimes - felony convictions that people pick up while they are on parole supervision- also nearly halved. (BBC)
Our prison crisis cannot simply be resolved with more beds, or harsher sentences. These tactics have been tried for generations, and we are clearly losing the "War on Crime." The more we see ourselves as fighting a war on our own people, the more we fail. It's a quicksand that you don't get out of by just hitting the gas.
See, the thing about prison policy is that we have our whole system targeted at the wrong people. Instead of simply looking to sate ourselves, we need to look to how we preserve the goals and institutions of our soceity. What works best for us moving forward? That is what is sorely lacking in California that has been rediscovered in Kansas, even by the people who run the prisons:
Roger Werholtz, the secretary of corrections, was forced to examine how to spend criminal justice dollars more effectively. For decades, he says, policy in the US has been driven by the public's emotional response to criminals.
"We are mad at them, frightened by them, frustrated by them, and so our typical response has been very punitive," he says.
But Mr Werholtz argues locking people up is only a temporary solution since more than 95% of prisoners will eventually be released into the community.
"We have to think long-term and stop arguing about what criminals deserve. Instead we need to focus on what we deserve as citizens and that leads us to a very different set of interventions."
But as we sit in limbo, waiting for the California legislators to look beyond 6 or 8 years, or whenever their next election is, we must remember that legislators are also accountable to us. Take the current issue. In the assembly we have three legislators who fancy themselves as excellent attorneys general of the State of California. That's a gig that requires planning for a period beyond their own tenure. Yet, it is widely speculated that these three Assembly members have been very reluctant to vote for a sentencing reform commission for fear of looking "soft on crime."
The sentencing commission isn't soft on crime, it is a policy board that will allow policy makers, not politicians, to make decisions on what is best for the state. Instead of grandstanding on penalties for each infraction, we can allow policy research and good solid ideas to take hold of California's messed up sentencing laws.
Yet, the Democratic candidates for Attorney General must also pass through the Democratic primary, and there are alternatives for the job who have been quite up front about their position on ToughOnCrimeTM. This is about good policy, and good policy should be remembered by grassroots activists when the time comes around for donors and volunteers come primary time.
UPDATE: Whoops, I meant to include the target list for your comments. Over the flip I have now provided the list that Dave ID'd last week. If they represent you, call them early and often. If they don't well, it can't hurt can it? Tell them that you support a sentencing commission and the prison reform package as passed by the Senate. And if you really get going, tell them to restore rehabilitation funds.
Say what you will about her, but Harris has done more to create innovative programs and solution to both our crime problems and our prison crisis than all but a handful of DAs nationwide. In a state with a repeat offender rate of about 70%, substantially above the national recidivism rate, we should be looking for new ways to treat crime. Rather than simply packing more people in jail until they get out, and almost inevitably end up back in the criminal justice system, we should attempt to find ways to reintegrate people into the
Back on Track has lowered recidivism rates among the participating drug offenders to less than 10 percent as compared to statewide recidivism rates of more than 50 percent among the same population. All of the nearly 100 current participants are employed and/or in school, and 90 percent of participants with child support obligations are in good standing and making their required payments. Defendants are not eligible if they have histories of gang involvement, gun possession or violence.
Those are really good statistics, and we should be applauding this data. But, as with any program in this population, there are going to be people who go astray from the program. The LA Times found such a story yesterday (which was then dutifully rewritten by the Chronicle) about an unfortunate victim of a mugging in San Francisco.
A stranger, later identified as Alexander Izaguirre, snatched her purse and hopped into an SUV, police say. The driver sped forward to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing. The driver slammed on the brakes, propelling Kiefer to the pavement. Her skull fractured. Blood oozed from her ear.
Only after the July 2008 attack did Kiefer learn of the crime's political ramifications. Izaguirre, police told her, was an illegal immigrant who had pleaded guilty four months earlier to a drug felony for selling cocaine in the seedy Tenderloin area.
He had avoided prison when he was picked for a jobs program run by San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris, now a candidate for California's top law enforcement post. In effect, Harris' office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.(LAT 6/22/09)
Is this unfortunate? Yes, certainly. Is it a reason to shut down the Back on Track Program? Definitely not.
Izaguirre is an interesting case because he is an undocumented immigrant. So, there is a touch of nativism, and "ship them out of here" to this case. Now, it is an outstanding question as to whether he should have been deported. There is a real case for that. However, it should not be the duty of local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. In theory, that is what ICE should be doing.
You could make an argument that there be some reporting system of felonies to ICE,but that is a question of federal, not local law. And bringing up this seperate question in the context of Back On Track preys on the fears of the public without actually helping the problem.
Let's try this thought experiment: In Oakland, a parolee murdered two sisters in their hotel room. Is that a tragedy? Absolutely, but we cannot simply use that tragedy as an excuse to end all parole.
In our society, and pretty much every modern society, we have chosen to live with a low level of crime. I know, I know, we aren't supposed to say that, but it's the price of living in a society with civil rights. If we didn't mind police cameras in our living rooms, we could probably reduce crime substantially, but then we are living under the watchful eye of Big Brother. We've opted to keep Big Brother shackled in most areas of our lives, and so we must deal with the occasional crime.
Kamala Harris may not be perfect, after all she is a politician. However, this program is a valuable attempt to cut the ToughOnCrimeTM crap that Republicans like George Runner are peddling. In fact, Tom Harman, a Republican state Senator from the OC who is also running for AG, even got a link to his press release on the front page of the Chronicle's SFGate.com site. (A quick note to the Chronicle's web people and really everybody else: PR "Newswire" is just a stream of press releases. Linking to it as a "newswire" is rather deceptive.)
We need to address the really serious questions in our criminal justice system, and providing successful rehabilitation programs is a win-win-win. It's good for the offender, it's good for the state as it is cheaper, and it is good for the public safety. There will be failures in all of these programs, but they will always get outsized coverage. I guess the successful rehabilitation of a drug dealer doesn't make for as interesting of a story. But the success stories are extremely important for the future of our state.
For some reason, Attorney General has become the most coveted job in California. I'm counting EIGHT Democratic candidates either announcing or strongly hinting toward announcing for the primary. There's Kamala Harris and Ted Lieu and Alberto Torrico and Pedro Nava and Joe Canciamilla and Rocky Delgadillo among the announced. There's Chris Kelly, the chief privacy officer for Facebook (the website that keeps trying to invade your privacy), hinting at an announcement. And now my city councilman Bobby Shriver is talking about getting in.
Bobby Shriver, the nephew of President John F. Kennedy and the brother of California first lady Maria Shriver, is mulling a run for state attorney general next year, according to his political adviser [...]
"There's been a wide variety of people who have come to him and who he has used as a sounding board to talk about the job of attorney general and the role it takes, the profile it has in terms of moving California forward," said Harvey Englander, a Democratic political strategist who managed both of Shriver's successful runs for Santa Monica City Council.
Englander, who described himself as "very close" to Shriver, called the role of California's top cop "a very powerful position" and one that is "closest to fitting his profile."
I should say that Shriver is not seen as a progressive ally on the city council. The Santa Monica Democratic Club did not endorse him in his run for re-election, and nor did Santa Monica for Renter's Rights. I wouldn't say he's been terrible on the council, but he doesn't have a grassroots base. He has been quite good throughout his career on environmental issues, and his vote to reject the proposed Toll Road through the Trestles while on the state parks board earned him removal from his brother-in-law, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In such a crowded field, his name may help with low-information voters. It will not help, according to other campaigns in the race with winning the overall primary:
As for Shriver, with whom (Torrico campaign consultant Phil) Giarrizzo said he has worked on environmental issues, "he's a talented, bright, articulate person, but we've seen many times, in the sense that 'he's a Kennedy,' that people look to accomplishment, they look to a record," Giarrizzo said. Primary voters tend to be very discerning, he noted, and "it doesn't work that you can just pass along a family name; he will have to run on his own merits ... a level of experience he'll have to communicate. I don't think we look at him as 'a Kennedy' - I think we look at him as Bobby Shriver, an activist and city councilman."
I would look to leadership in assessing these candidates. You have Ted Lieu traveling to Washington to meet with Administration officials and get them to raise the threshold on homeowners underwater in their homes eligible for help from the Obama housing plan. You have Alberto Torrico trying to get oil companies to actually pay for the natural resources they take out of our ground. And of course, there are the key issues that will face the next Attorney General, particularly in ending the prison crisis through responsible leadership instead of insane "tough on crime" policies that fail our state. I don't much care for names and profiles as much as I do leadership.
Kamala Harris will officially announce her campaign for attorney general, based on the assumption that Jerry Brown is not planning on running for re-election. It is kind of amazing that we have 2 year campaigns for even the AG position. She's always been focused on what she calls "Smart On Crime", from her website:
I've spent my entire professional life in the trenches as a courtroom prosecutor. I started my career out of law school as a prosecutor in the Alameda DA's Office and I can tell you from the frontlines, we need tough new ideas for strengthening our criminal justice system in California. I will fight for all Californians - from distressed homeowners to families whose neighborhoods are under siege. In the coming months, I will detail new ideas on how we can fight street gangs, go after subprime lenders and others responsible for the current financial crisis, and fundamentally reform our prison system. We have to shut the revolving door that simply recycles criminals in and out of our neighborhoods.
It will be nice to stop the cycle of your typical AG campaigns of how one candidate is going to throw somebody in jail longer than the other. We need somebody with courage and a bully pulpit to speak out on reforming our criminal justice system. It remains to be seen if Kamala Harris is that person, but at least her rhetoric is a breath of fresh air.
She will officially launch the campaign at San Francisco City Hall this morning at 11.
So, Halloween in the Castro was pretty crazy, huh? I went home around 9 after eating at a local establishment. Aparently, 10 people were shot shortly thereafter. That puts a damper on your party.
Teasers: Arnold Schwarzenegger, polls, sexual harassment, Prop 90, a power struggle in the Assembly Minority, Richard Pombo attacks small businesses, Pg&e in Davis, and more!
The video can be viewed here. Jerry holds up well, but not great. All in all, I would have to give this one a toss up. I'm going to bet that the Chronicle endorses Brown, simply because Pooch really is far to the right of the general population of California, doubly so than the population of SF.
Two "debates" are scheduled today. I guess calling them debates is a bit of a stretch as the candidates won't have much interaction with each other, but well, what can you do. First, in CA-AG Jerry Brown will face off with Chuck Poochigian. Pooch has been running a very negative campaign, hoping that enough people will simply vote against Jerry Brown to carry him to victory. It's a very risky straegy. The debate is really a forum for the editorial board of the SF Chronicle, but will be webcast live on CBS5's website.
As for CA-11, Jerry McNerney faces down Evil Incarnate. Ok, Ok, maybe that's too far. Let's just call Richard Pombo corrupt and anti-environment and leave it at that. They will be participating at a Candidate Forum hosted by the Tracy Press at 7 p.m. at Poet Christian School, 1701 S. Central Ave., in Tracy. If you want to attend, try to get there early as seating will be limited.
Ok, if you live in CA-11 or in Tracy or Stockton, or something like that, this "debate" is going to be broadcast on Public Access TV. I would really love it if somebody knew any additional information. Better yet, record it and post it on YouTube or EyeSpot. I'm thinking of heading out there, so if you want to carpool from SF, let me know.
We need to get this "debate" out to as many people as possible. Pombo is in trouble people, let's make sure we are doing everything possible to make sure that happens.
