Senior Senator worried about short-term cash flow issues
by Brian Leubitz
Senator Dianne Feinstein has about $5 million in her campaign accounts, according to her June reports. How much is really in those accounts remains a mystery. As her treasurer, Kinde Durkee, seems to have been in the habit of using her clients accounts as her personal piggy banks, your guess is as good as the Senator's.
But, you know, Sen. Feinstein can do something about that. After all, she is the spouse of one Richard C. Blum, who has $5 million checks just laying around the house. So, she put one of those towards her campaign, this time under a hopefully more reliable treasurer. But despite her sagging poll numbers, this is it:
"That is my intention at the present time to try to work it out so that it's possible," Feinstein said Tuesday. "The effort is simply to replace the money that is lost."
Feinstein will transfer the money to her campaign by the end of September. Candidates and incumbents can spend an unlimited amount of personal funds on their own campaigns, although Feinstein is not expected now to commit any more of her own money beyond the initial $5 million, according to sources close to the campaign.(Politico)
Though she hasn't actually drawn any competitors yet, somebody will show up. Apparently not Meg Whitman, and let's not kid ourselves about Schwarzenegger. But, it would be hard to point to any current Republican elected official that would be competitive with Feinstein, they are just too far to the right. And even Whitman was unable to buy the office. Whether the lack of a true primary is able to allow a Whitman-esque competitor stay away from the right-wing things you have to say remains to be seen.
But there will be some sort of challenge, and Sen. Feinstein will have some cash to deal with it. I suppose it is time to give up on that whole debate on who should replace her for the time being.
Former campaign treasurer may have stolen millions of dollars from SoCal Democratic campaigns
by Brian Leubitz
The Kinde Durkee debacle is widening in scope and depth. If you are on many Democratic email lists, you may have noticed a slew of emails in your inbox either telling you that their bank account was wiped out or asking for money. Yesterday, we learned that Sen. Feinstein, who is looking at reelection for next year, might have lost millions of dollars:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said her campaign is among those that may have been "wiped out" by a Burbank-based Democratic campaign treasurer who was arrested on federal fraud charges earlier this month.
Kinde Durkee is accused of taking thousands of dollars from the campaigns of several elected officials, including Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove), Rep. Susan A. Davis (D-San Diego) and Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana). The Los Angeles County Democratic Party reported that more than $200,000 had been taken from its fund. (LA Times)
First, to clarify, Sen. Feinstein doesn't know if she was really "wiped out," but some money was stolen. Part of the problem is that the bank that Durkee used is being rather unhelpful. She kept millions of dollars at the bank, and they are concerned for their own liability. I have heard that they are now attempting to get campaigns to sign a waiver of legal liability to access their accounts.
I'm not giving the bank, or any of the campaigns, any legal advice, but let me explain a legal concept right quick: promises given in exchange for no consideration are called "illusory" and are thus unenforceable. The campaigns should legally have the right to access their accounts. The money in those accounts belongs to them. Giving them the access they are legally empowered to have is not consideration. Heck, even giving them the money to transfer out of the account is not consideration. It is their money, and they should be able to access it.
That being said, the scope of the mess is growing ever wider. It appears that Durkee played fast and loose with campaign funds for years. Much of that time after a San Francisco Chronicle report about a "Californians for Obama" scam that Durkee was a part of.
Of, course, there is one more issue here: California campaigns have given far too much power to external campaign treasurers. They are given sole access to bank accounts, sole authority to write checks, and typically get very little oversight from the campaigns. If we are to learn anything from this mess, we should be sure that campaigns are better managed, we have better oversight systems, and campaigns don't allow individuals too much access. Campaign treasurers are 99.99 honest, but at the same time we need to ensure that campaigns see actual bank statements once in a while, know how much money is in their account, and can handle their business in case of emergency.
As many of you already know, a recent Field Poll survey was released showing Senator Dianne Feinstein slipping in her approval rating. 43% of California voters surveyed approve of Sen. Feinstein, while 39% disapprove-- the highest disapproval rating she's had since first being elected to office in 1992. While these numbers don't necessarily spell trouble for California's senior senator, they do indicate that people are starting to think of a changing of the guards in the Golden State. It most certainly has crossed her mind as well.
There are always politicians and prominent Californians waiting in the wings for political jockeying. With Feinstein reaching 80 years of age soon, more and more elected officials are prepping their resumes and spending extra time coddling donors in preparation for the inevitable.
So it begs the speculative question, who would be ready and able to run a statewide campaign for the United States Senate in the event of Senator Dianne Feinstein's retirement? Who would make a great Senator? Who should make for a great race? Who would be an abysmal choice? In this "fantasy draft" diary, I've narrowed it down to the 13 most probable potential candidates who are at least thinking about a potential run from the Democratic side. All the apparent pros and cons will be listed, and your suggestions/comments are always welcome. And by all means, if you know of any Republicans that would seem likely, include those as well!
When Sen. Feinstein came in under the 50% back in the spring Field poll, most figured it was something of a fluke. But today we find out that, no, those numbers appear to be pretty accurate. Today's Field poll show her again under 50%:
As Feinstein prepares to run for re-election next year, California voters are inclined to support her, 43 percent to 39 percent, according to the poll.
That four-point margin - the same as Feinstein posted in a Field Poll earlier this year - is her smallest ever in a pre-election year. First elected to the Senate in 1992, her margins of pre-election year support ranged from 19 percentage points to 29 percentage points before, the poll said.
Yet Feinstein's public approval rating remains favorable, with 46 percent of voters approving of the job she is doing, according to the poll. Thirty-one percent disapprove, and 23 percent have no opinion. ()
Now, before you read too much into this, there are still a lot of questions before thinking that she's actually vulnerable. First, no prominent Republican candidate has really emerged for the race. Second, a primary challenge under the Top-2 system is virtually impossible. Given that voters can vote for anybody, the chance that a Democrat could defeat Feinstein and not just win the right to a rematch seems pretty slim.
Perhaps it is worth to keep a bit of an eye out on this race, but until I hear of a credible candidate, this looks to be Sen. Feinstein's race to lose.
In a letter to participants in the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), California Senator Dianne Feinstein praised the work done on the plan to build a peripheral canal and new dams, drawing criticism from Mark Franco, Headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe.
"The work you collectively are undertaking on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is very important," said Feinstein. "This is the closest the state has been, in recent memory, to a meaningful resolution of its constant water supply issues, as well as providing for protection and restoration of our fisheries and the Bay-Delta ecosystems. I hope you will work together to achieve its promise."
She reported on her recent meeting with Jerry Meral, Deputy Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency in charge of the Bay Delta Conservation Planning program, saying she was "encouraged by the new state administration committment to new conveyance and storage opportunities."
"As you know, I am very concerned that California is headed towards becoming a desert state," she continued. "Sea level rise, lack of sufficient water storage, and increased forest fire all put our ecosystems and water supply at risk. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan has long seemed to me to be the best hope for 'peace on the river:' water supply reliability and restoration of the ecosystem."
Mark Franco challenged Feinstein's contention that the construction of the canal and new dams would lead to "peace on the river."
"Now if only the Senator would look at the entire effect of conveyance and storage on the tribe who has suffered because of the projects undertaken without compensation," said Franco. "The Winnemem wait for our 'Peace on the river.'"
"We understand that the desert she speaks of was a desert before and will be again: man can do nothing to stop that, but we can save the salmon and other fishes that indicate the future of us all!"
Until the day he left office, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger relentlessly campaigned for the construction of a peripheral canal and new dams to export more California Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California. Governor Jerry Brown and President Obama also support the construction of the highly unpopular canal/tunnel.
California Tribes, fishermen and environmentalists fear that the canal's construction will lead to the extinction of Sacramento River winter and spring run chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, the southern resident population of killer whales and other imperiled species.
Tribe continues effort to restore winter run chinook to McCloud
The Winnemem Wintu Tribe, along with opposing the peripheral canal and a plan to raise Shasta Dam, is trying to pressure the federal and state governments to support their plan to reintroduce McCloud winter run chinook salmon from New Zealand to the McCloud River above Shasta Lake. Thirty members of the Tribe went to New Zealand last spring to conduct joint ceremonies with the Maori people to bring salmon eggs from winter run chinook, now thriving in the Rakaira and other rivers, back to their native river.
"The salmon were introduced to the river from the fish hatchery on the McCloud in the 1870s and early 1900s," said Caleen Sisk-Franco, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu, at the annual Legislative Fisheries Forum in Sacramento on February 16. "The Ngai Tahu, the Maori Tribe with treaty rights over the salmon, are willing to work with us to return the fish back to the McCloud."
"These fish are of the same DNA as the original McCloud River chinook and they're disease-free," she said. "The New Zealand Fish and Game have given their support to the project. We need to establish a small conservation hatchery to raise the fish from eggs from New Zealand to be released back into the McCloud."
She said that the fish will be able to swim to the McCloud past Shasta Dam by connecting Dry Creek above the dam to Little Cow Creek, a tributary of the Sacramento below the dam, via a short channel. Water from the McCloud River would be channeled to these creeks and flow down to the Sacramento below the dam.
Returning adult chinook salmon would be able to enter these creeks and spill out into the reservoir near the mouth of the McCloud River. Once there, they would be cable to catch the scent of their birth waters and find their way home. There is currently about 1/4 mile of channel that would need to be created to make the connection between Cow Creek and Dry Creek and the lake.
To help the young fry to remember their home waters, Winnemem will rear the salmon in a small, open air hatchery until they're large enough to make the journey to the Pacific and fend off the myriad non-native predators that now inhabit the Sacramento River and the California Delta. The hatchery itself will be modeled on the hatchery on the Rakaira.
"The plan is simple, calls for a very small hatchery and would be far less expensive than the typical government plans to return salmon to traditional spawning grounds above the large dams," she said.
Sisk-Franco emphasized, "We have an obligation to restore the salmon - they are a gauge of how healthy the water is. What happens to the salmon, happens to us."
For more information and to find out how you can help the Winnemem bring their salmon home, visit http://www.winnememwintu.us, 530-275-2737, winnemem [at] gmail.com.
The results rolled out yesterday, finding to (hopefully) nobody's surprise that DiFi "stomps the field." The full pdf of results are here, where PPP doubled down on the dire, declaring "No hope for Whitman, Fiorina, Arnold, anyone."
Before abandoning us for the Emerald City, Robert had an excellent series breaking down the long-term realignment that's settling in in California, and these PPP numbers certainly reflect that. But it goes beyond simply an overwhelming lead for DiFi due to her perpetually superhuman support. PPP, through their own calculations and twitter suggestions, couldn't come up with a single potential Republican candidate that hasn't already run a statewide campaign.
And of all those tested- Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina, Darrell Issa, Steve Poizner, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman- only Campbell managed a net positive approval rating (+3). And he only pulled that off by being notably less known than the rest of the field.
Arnold's at negative 40. eMeg a solid minus-22 and Fiorina at minus-19. A bare majority have an opinion of Steve Poizner, putting him at 13 points to the negative. And of the 48% who have an opinion of Darrell Issa, it's an unfavorable one by a 2-1 margin.
In other words, it's impossible to run statewide as a Republican without alienating people faster than you win them over. It hasn't just left all recent GOP contenders in a deep hole, but it should scare off anyone thinking of using a doomed DiFi challenge as a boost to higher office- just running statewide from the right is a career-ender. The half-dozen California Republicans with leadership positions in the House have no reason to come back and end their careers, and the new House members ought to see these numbers as reason not to bother.
It's a cycle that'll feed on itself as long as the Republican party is set on a dead-ender agenda of hyper-conservative purity.
As you might have guessed, I tend to get a lot of press releases. Most of them are relevant to what I do. Some are not, but are occasionally interesting. Today, I got what must certainly rank in the top 5 of the most offensive emails I've received since starting Calitics over 5 years ago. A group is apparently planning on eliminating a Georgia ban on carrying weapons in a place of worship.
"We are literally one Jared Loughner away from a major massacre here in Georgia in one of our places of worship. Right now, you are in violation of the law, and a criminal, if you carry in your place of worship. Once H.B. 54 is passed, people like Jared Loughner will know that there is at least the potential for someone in a place of worship that would put him down before he could do any damage," said Mr. Parsons.
This is wrong on so many levels, but let's start with the biggest piece of faulty logic: more people with guns would prevent the situation. Of course, as we discovered in Tucson, that simply isn't true. In fact, one of the heroes who disarmed Loughner was almost shot by an armed passerby who thought he was the gunman.
But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out. (Slate)
Of course, the same debate is going down in Arizona, where legislators are going so far as to say "When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim."
The sheer lunacy of this is astounding, and fortunately, Senator Feinstein understands that the way to combat gun crimes isn't to arm the citizenry. In fact, she's been discussing the topic of bringing back a regulation that she originally passed in the 1994 assault weapons ban. It's a simple, and sensible regulation: limit the size of clips to ten bullets. Jared Loughner's clip had 30, and he didn't need to worry about reloading as he carried out his murderous spree.
Feinstein said in an interview Friday that she was exploring the idea of reviving a law to limit the size of ammunition clips. The assault weapons ban of 1994, of which Feinstein was the principal sponsor, limited clips to 10 bullets, a third of the size of the one Loughner used to kill six people and injure more than a dozen, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, his intended target. (LA Times)
In an open letter today, Sen. Feinstein called on California's congressional delegation to put aside the settled issues like Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal, and move on to focus on improving California's economy.
So imagine my disappointment today when California Congressman Duncan Hunter introduced legislation that would paralyze repeal efforts.
Rep. Hunter knows his legislation has no chance of success. Should it pass the House, it will never be approved by the Senate or signed by the President.
Worse, this effort is a distraction from the real work at hand. California is faced with an unemployment rate of 12.4%, a crushing budget shortfall, alarming health insurance rate hikes, dangerous water shortages and a broken immigration system. Now is not the time for distractions that have no chance of becoming law.
The new House leadership has shown that they aren't going to let any sleeping dogs lie. But the fact is that even General Casey has said that he doesn't need that specific power to certify:
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in December, some service chiefs - including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey - testified that they didn't feel the need to have the responsibility of issuing certification for repeal because Defense Secretary Robert Gates would adequately represent their voice going forward.
"I am very comfortable with my ability to provide input to Secretary Gates and to the Chairman that will be listened to and considered," Casey said. "So you could put it in there, but I don't think it's necessary." (Washington Blade)
Sen. Feinstein isn't always our favorite around here, but she hardly resembles Carly Fiorina. Yet, in comments today, Fiorina tried to snuggle up to Feinstein:
And she also continued a tradition of past Boxer opponents - she talked about how great senior Sen. Dianne Feinstein is and attempted to drive a wedge between the two. By the way, Feinstein is Boxer's campaign chairman.
"I think Dianne Feinstein has accomplished a great deal on behalf of the people of California and I admire and respect her for that,'' Fiorina said. She called Feinstein "a pragmatic voice on issues that matter to the people of California.''
In comparing California's two senators, Fiorina said "if you look at her voting record verses Barbara Boxer's you'll see that they disagree on virtually everything.''
When it was suggested to Fiorina that the two actually voted the same most of the time - Boxer says it's 90 percent - Fiorina backed down a bit.
"Well virtually everything is an overstatement,'' she said. (OC Register)
Well, facts are annoying, aren't they? At any rate, Sen Feinstein put out a statement in full support of Sen. Boxer today after the comments:
Senator Boxer and I have worked together for 18 years, as partners, in Washington -- and there is no daylight between us on the issues that matter most to Californians. We have worked together to create jobs and keep them in California. We have strongly defended a woman's right to choose. We believe that urgent action is necessary to halt climate change and create clean energy jobs, and we support permanently protecting California's coast from offshore oil drilling. In a time of serious terrorist threats to the homeland, we believe it is important to keep guns out of the hands of people whose names are on the terrorist watch list. And we both worked to get more water transfers in the Central Valley so that farmers could plant, hire and harvest this year. Let there be no doubt that I believe California needs Barbara Boxer in the Senate, now more than ever.
"We applaud those members of the California delegation who fought in 2009 to bring clean energy jobs to the state and reduce our national dependence on foreign oil, particularly Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and the 23 members of the House of Representatives who received a perfect score for their environmental votes," said Warner Chabot, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV).
League of Conservation Voters Greenwashes Feinstein's Environmental Record
by Dan Bacher
The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) on Monday greenwashed the environmental record of Dianne Feinstein by praising her for earning a 100 percent score in the national League of Conservation Voters' 2009 National Environmental Scorecard, even though Feinstein has collaborated with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in campaigning for the construction of a peripheral canal and new dams that would seal the doom of California's imperiled Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
Feinstein is now sponsoring an amendment in the Senate, at the behest of Westlands Water District, to strip protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, Central Valley steelhead and the southern resident population of killer whales. She has persistently lobbied to increase water exports to subsidized agribusiness interests that irrigate toxic soil on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
After receiving a letter from agribusiness giant Stewart Resnick of Paramount Farms, Feinstein also pressured the Obama administration to convene an "independent" panel of the National Academy of Sciences to review the biological opinions for Delta smelt and Central Valley salmon in January.
Yet CLCV CEO Warner Chabot gushes over what a great "environmental leader" that Feinstein is. "We applaud those members of the California delegation who fought in 2009 to bring clean energy jobs to the state and reduce our national dependence on foreign oil, particularly Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and the 23 members of the House of Representatives who received a perfect score for their environmental votes," said Chabot. "The 2009 Scorecard clearly exposes numerous other legislators for their terrible voting record and willingness to put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of a cleaner, more secure energy future for California."
The salmon collapse, spurred by increased water exports to Feinstein's corporate agribusiness buddies, has resulted in the loss of 23,000 jobs to coastal and inland communities in California and Oregon. The Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon run reached a new record low of 39,530 fish in 2009.
Rather than praising her, the CLCV could have used the release of this so-called "scorecard" as a chance to ask Feinstein to do the right thing and abandon her campaign to destroy the California Delta and West Coast salmon fisheries. But instead, they portray Feinstein and Boxer as "environmental heroes." If the CLCV and the LCV are so wrong on Feinstein's environmental record, doesn't that cast into doubt their ratings of other Senators and Representatives?
Even Steve Maviglio, the principal of Forza Communications, a Sacramento-based public affairs/campaign firm, admitted in his blog on the California Majority Report, "Despite her anti-solar and anti-water quality efforts, Sen. Dianne Feinstein scored 100 percent, along with long-time economic champion Sen. Barbara Boxer."
If Feinstein is so "anti-solar" and "anti-water quality," could there be an inherent flaw in the way that the scorecard is compiled? How can she possibly receive a 100 percent rating if she is so consistently against solar energy and clean water?
Greenwashing bad environmental policy is nothing new to the California League of Conservation Voters, an organization that styles itself as "the non-partisan political arm of the environmental movement in California." In November, CLCV joined the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Audubon, The Nature Conservancy and Defenders of Wildlife in support of the water policy package that creates a clear path to the construction of a peripheral canal and new dams. The majority of the state's environmental groups opposed both the water policy and water bond bills because they feared their passage will lead to the extinction of Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
"This historic package includes strong protections for the Delta as well as landmark Delta ecosystem protections, conservation and groundwater monitoring measures," claimed Warner Chabot. "While not perfect, this package provides a strong basis for critical reforms to California's complex water issues."
The CLCV "leadership" also adamantly supports Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast-track Marine Life Protection (MLPA) Initiative, a cynical attempt by Schwarzenegger to greenwash his deplorable environmental record. A coalition of North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Indian tribal members, seaweed harvesters, cities and counties has strongly criticized the privately-funded process for conflicts of interest, mission creep, the corruption of the democratic process and wholesale violation of traditional tribal seaweed harvesting and fishing rights.
If you are appalled as I am by CLCV and LCV praising Feinstein's environmental record at a time when a broad coalition of fishermen, environmentalists and Indian Tribes is protesting her war against salmon and salmon fishermen, I urge that you contact them now. Even more importantly, call Feinstein's office and demand that she withdraw her salmon killer amendment to the jobs bill.
Call Senator Feinstein's DC office before 2 pm Pacific time at (202) 224-3841! If you get a busy signal or would prefer to call one of her California offices you can reach her in San Francisco at (415) 393-0707 or Los Angeles at (310) 914-7300.
Below is the press release from CLCV and LCV:
CLCV and LCV Release Scores of Calif. Senators, Members of House
Today, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) joined the national League of Conservation Voters (LCV) in releasing the 2009 National Environmental Scorecard, revealing scores for the California delegation in the first session of the 111th Congress.
"We applaud those members of the California delegation who fought in 2009 to bring clean energy jobs to the state and reduce our national dependence on foreign oil, particularly Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and the 23 members of the House of Representatives who received a perfect score for their environmental votes," said CLCV CEO Warner Chabot. "The 2009 Scorecard clearly exposes numerous other legislators for their terrible voting record and willingness to put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of a cleaner, more secure energy future for California."
In order to find out how your member of Congress performed on the environment, visit the League of Conservation Voters' Scorecard online.
The 2009 Scorecard includes 11 Senate and 13 House votes dominated by clean energy and climate change but also encompassing other environmental issues such as public lands, water and wildlife conservation. In California, 23 House members and both Senators earned a perfect 100 percent score in 2009, while nine House members received an abysmal 0 percent. The average score in 2009 for California members of the House was 63 percent.
"The 2009 National Environmental Scorecard illustrates the extent to which the Obama administration and the 111th Congress began to move our nation towards a clean energy future that will create new jobs, make America more energy independent and curb global warming pollution," said LCV President Gene Karpinski. "However, it also makes clear that there is still much work to be done, first and foremost to finish the work started in the House by swiftly passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in the Senate."
For the California delegation's scores, read the CLCV press release.
For 30 years, the National Environmental Scorecard issued by LCV has been the nationally accepted yardstick used to rate members of Congress on environmental, public health and energy issues. CLCV releases an annual California Environmental Scorecard tallying the votes of the governor and the members of the California Senate and Assembly on priority environmental legislation.
Dianne Feinstein has always been quite cozy with the politically powerful agribusiness of the Westlands Water District. That's very popular with Sean Hannity's Gang, but amongst fisherman and others living in and around the Delta, not so much. Four members of the house, Reps. Garamendi, Lofgren, Miller and Woolsey, wrote a letter questioning her position.
The lawmakers' letter urges Feinstein to cancel her plan to introduce legislation to speed more water withdrawals out of the Sacramento River and San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem.
"Salmon may not have high paid lobbyists like the corporate agricultural interests in the Central Valley, but they are critical to our coastal economy," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who was among the letter's signatories. "The Feinstein plan will put thousands of families out of work from the fishing industry and local economies of the Pacific Coast."
The farmers are trying to argue that the question of water in the Delta is all about jobs there. And to an extent, that is true. But, at the same time, the agribusinesses there have failed to do anything substantial to change the way they grow in the Westlands. They're growing crops that frankly do not belong there, and then getting righteously indignant about the whole affair.
And on the other side there are the fish. Hannity wants to paint the fish as just the Delta smelt, and that is a serious matter. We really shouldn't be quite so cavalier about wiping another species off the globe. However, there are jobs on the other side of this issue. THis is a question of jobs vs. jobs. Fisherman, while not quite as politically connected as the agribusinesses, are hurting. They are fighting to maintain their way of life, and frankly, as the salmon runs putter out, crabbing season tightens up, further cuts from the Delta would further ravage the coastal economy.
I spend a lot of time up in Bodega Bay these days. It's a fishing town, the largest fishing fleet between San Francisco and the Oregon border to be more specific. And neither Sean Hannity nor Dianne Feinstein could ever convince me of the fact that these fisherman aren't hurting. Salmon is their cash crop, and the water diversions threaten to eliminate these runs completely.
Pretending there are jobs, and people, on only one side of this issue is misleading and dishonest. Perhaps Feinstein, and the Governor, should take a trip to talk to some of these fisherman, and see if they're all hunky dory with the proposed water changes.
I don't normally post vague, unsourced rumors, but I think this is a general sense of those around the Capitol. Specifically, the rumors of Dianne Feinstein entering the governor's race are heating up once again.
It's hard to keep genuine interest, especially from somebody as noticeable as DiFi quiet very long. However, as Robert noticed, DiFi does seem to want people to keep noticing her. I'm not sure all that much has changed since Robert wrote that post back in November, but it seems her attention to the governor gig has increased over the past few months.
So, how's that for some blind rumors on a Friday morning?
On Sept. 4, Resnick wrote to Feinstein, complaining that the latest federal plan to rescue the delta's endangered salmon and shad fisheries was "exacerbating the state's severe drought" because it cut back on water available to irrigate crops. "Sloppy science" by federal wildlife agencies had led to "regulatory-induced water shortages," he claimed.
"I really appreciate your involvement in this issue," he wrote to Feinstein.
One week later, Feinstein forwarded Resnick's letter to two U.S. Cabinet secretaries. In her own letter, she urged the administration to spend $750,000 for a sweeping re-examination of the science behind the entire delta environmental protection plan.
The Obama administration quickly agreed, authorizing another review of whether restrictions on pumping irrigation water were necessary to save the delta's fish. The results could delay or change the course of the protection effort.
To environmentalists concerned with protecting the delta, it was a dispiriting display of the political clout wielded by Resnick, who is among California's biggest growers and among its biggest political donors.
With Gavin Newsom dropping out of the governor's race and leaving Jerry Brown as the only Democratic candidate, speculation was sure to rise about Senator Dianne Feinstein and whether she would seek to avenge her narrow 1990 defeat and run for governor in 2010. Sure, most observers don't think she'd do it, but until she flatly denies it, the chatter will continue.
And it's going to continue after the AP caught up with her and asked her about the governor's race. She didn't rule it out, but made it obvious that she's primarily in it for the attention:
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday she will base a decision on whether to run for California governor next year largely on the solutions the announced candidates put forward to deal with the state's fiscal problems....
"What does affect it is watching to see what precise programs are put forward by various candidates to handle what is a very serious structural budget deficit in this state," Feinstein said. "It's of major consequence and California is in considerable distress, and there have to be reforms."
Feinstein said she would take a close look at candidates' dedication to enacting their proposals as well as their ability to develop enough support to enact the changes.
There's really only one way to read this: she's going to endorse Jerry Brown, say he meets her standards, and wait to do so until a moment when it will be of maximum benefit to Brown.
Feinstein and Brown are good friends. She officiated his wedding in 2005, and speaking as someone who's officiated a wedding himself, one of the last things I'd do is challenge the groom in a race for the state's top office.
Feinstein also will likely be loath to give up her Senate seniority, which is likely to become even more important in the coming years. Ironically, a loss of Democratic seats in the Senate would make DiFi even more powerful and important than she is now, as she's seen as a bipartisan dealmaker.
For those and other reasons, it seems unlikely that DiFi wants to run for governor. Instead she's teasing the media, enjoying the attention she gets. As the interview made clear:
When asked if she had the patience to deal with a state Legislature that has often been described as dysfunctional, she replied: "That's a very good question. It shall be unanswered for the moment."
The reason "it shall be unanswered for the moment" is because she doesn't want to give up the attention she gets out of being seen as a possible candidate. And the "for the moment" statement seems to reinforce the argument I laid out above, that she isn't going to run, and is going to endorse Brown at some moment in the spring of 2010.
California Democrats who think a contested primary is good for the party and good for the ultimate nominee are going to have to keep looking for another candidate - it ain't gonna be DiFi. And thank god for it. As uncertain I am about whether Jerry Brown would be the right person to lead California out of our present crisis, I am completely certain Dianne Feinstein would be the wrong person. Let's hope she decides to retire in 2012 and trouble us no more.
Reaction to the water deal that was approved over the last few days, first by the Senate and then by the Assembly, has been trickling in. If you care to listen to an hour-long program, I recommend the KQED Forum program embedded here.
There was some question as to what the federal response to the measure would be. And, well, apparently Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar is on board:
Thanks to the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger, Californians now have the opportunity to choose a more secure and sustainable water future. This landmark package is a critical step toward bringing California's water infrastructure into the 21st century while restoring California's Bay Delta, on which millions of Californians depend for clean drinking water and their livelihoods. I applaud the leadership, courage, and vision of everyone who helped bring this desperately-needed legislation across the finish line. We will continue to need all hands on deck - at the federal, state, and local levels - in the coming months as we face the possibility of a fourth year of drought and sobering water realities.
And as for DiFi, who has long been close to the Westlands Water District, well, her reaction wasn't such a mystery.
It should be clear to all of us that the current water infrastructure is inadequate to support California's growing population and businesses that depend on clean water. This includes people in our cities, the high-tech sector, fisheries, tourism, and of course, our State's multibillion-dollar agricultural sector. So, this package is really critical to all Californians.
I urge all Californians to support the bond issue. It must be said once more that California has a water infrastructure built for a population of 16 million people. Today, our population is rapidly approaching the 40 million mark. So, the modernization and improvement of our State's water infrastructure is long overdue.
Meanwhile, on the other side of this, you have a growing crowd of organized labor, including the United Farmworkers Union, the California Teachers Association, and the SEIU State Council. They all have slightly different concerns, but at the heart of it is the financing. They are concerned that the debt service will start devouring the budget, and at an estimated 10% of the budget, that is a reasonable concern.
Sometimes Sen. Feinstein gets a hard time around these parts, but on the public option, it seems she and Senator Boxer are paddling in the same direction. Both Senators pushed Sen. Reid to include the public option in the bill that will be brought to the Senate floor.
As the Senate prepares to debate a massive health care overhaul, California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are pushing hard for a public option, which would allow the federal government to compete with private insurers.
The two senators are included in a group of 30 who wrote a letter earlier this month to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, asking that a public option be included in the Senate bill. (CapAlert)
The public option, with a state opt-out, was in the bill. It is disappointing that the opt-out provision was included, especially considering how easy it is for health insurance companies to leverage campaign contributions in many state legislatures, it seems that this is the way momentum is running for the time being.
Others who pay more attention to this stuff can probably explain this better, but the logic seems to be that even a less than national public option will have some cost benefits as well as pressure for states to eventually sign on to the public option.
Sen. Feinstein appeared on FoxNews Sunday. And why not? They're fair AND balanced! (h/t Andrew Malcolm)
Anyway, the topic of Guantanamo came up, and DiFi reacts in, well a sane and rational way. When asked by Chris Wallace whether she would be willing to have Gitmo detainees in federal prisons in California, she says yes. Noting that the prisons are virtually un-escapable at their super-max level of security. They cannot escape to wreak havoc on the general population. And frankly, would a Gitmo detainee really have much interest in launching a solo attack on some random rural general store?
Sen. Bond's reaction is one of simple fear. "We don't want them in Missouri," he says. "They will recruit from the general prison population."
Two responses: go to a super-max prison and check it out and then ask how terrorists are viewed in prisons. Not particularly popular.
But, there's fear to be sold here, no point checking the facts when he can simply play to the basest emotions. Kudos to Sen. Feinstein for answering succinctly and honestly while presenting a snapshot of the situation as it exists in the real world.
For a few weeks, we've been highlighting some of the efforts of various lawmakers to highlight some of the out and out stupid with Arnold's furloughs. See, the thing is not the actual furlough policy: he's already pretty much wrapped up mostly winning that fight in the courts. The problem is that Arnold's blanket furlough process doesn't take the actual circumstances on the ground. Sen Ducheny pointed out that when you furlough the tax collectors, we take in less money and there is no net cost savings to the furloughs. Asm. Skinner points out that when you furlough workers that are entirely paid by the federal government, you get no cost savings and end up costing the state federal dollars.
And both of these are all kinds of stupid. Sen. Feinstein, seeing the problem that Asm. Skinner pointed out, passed along a letter from Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue raising concerns that the furlough policy was delaying payments.
Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue says disability claims are rapidly increasing and furloughs could postpone another $15 million in federal payments - worsening California's economic problems. ...
The governor will review the concerns in the letter, but furloughs need to be applied universally to generate savings, regardless of departments' funding sources, {Schwarzenegger spokesman} Cameron said. (AP 8/25/09)
Well, today we get the Governor's response (PDF) to Sen. Feinstein. It spouts some data showing that the delays are minimal and that California is right around average processing time. But what it doesn't address is how exactly furloughing workers.
I get that the workers can schedule their furloughs, and I suppose that is a step in the right direction, but that doesn't really address the issue that this a) saves us NO money and b) hurts California.
Arnold's only real defense for the general policy is that we need some kind of consistency across departments. That somehow if some departments avoid the axe we will be worse off, despite all evidence to the contrary. In other words, he is spending money to shove the heel of his boot into the face of state workers. There will be discipline, and he will make sure of that. To prevent an unproven and probably unrealistic problem that one department would revolt if other departments get their furloughs reduced or eliminated.
See, but that is what governing is all about. Making policy decisions. As an elected official you must make decisions on what areas of government will get priority, and what won't. His blanket furlough system is just lazy governance. Instead of doing the work that would provide the best possible governance for California during the crisis, Arnold thinks it isn't really worth his time, so, on to the other issues.
It's great that Sen. Feinstein has chosen to address this issue, but it would also be great if she would keep up the pressure on stupid as we move forward. And California has a few other figures who could speak a little more loudly on the issue as well.
Joe at Senator Feinstein's local office answered my call this afternoon and let me know that he would pass along my conditional offer of continued support and activism on behalf of many Democratic Party candidates and issues here in San Francisco.
That condition being the Senator's support for a public option in the health insurance reform legislation, Joe then responded to my followup question - "what is the Senator's position?" - with pleasant news.
Feinstein it was said is supportive of the public option and has plans issue a statement to that effect tomorrow.
Looking forward to that--if this is true, at least we know that Senator Feinstein won't object, even if we can't get her to actually help push a public option through.
Of course, if you want to keep up the pressure on DiFi, the Courage Campaign is leading the way.
Ye ole curmudgeon decided to level his sights on Sen. Barbara Boxer today and discuss her re-election chances. He starts out with this lede:
California's U.S. senators tend to fall into two categories - headline-grabbers and dependable workhorses for the state's interests.
Headline grabbers...hmm that would have to be Sen. Feinstein, who relishes her self-designated role of wise moderate woman, that determines what is or is not a deal.
Somehow, I think that Walters meant it the other way around. He references "quixotic political frays" that have "nothing to do with California". Then of course he never gives any examples, leaving the reader to either scratch their head, or trust the wise man of the column.
Walters then brings up the Rasmussen poll from a few weeks ago, which was unsurprising. Like most years Boxer looks vulnerable, tempting the Republicans to throw the kitchen sink to unseat her.
This year the national Republican hierarchy are excited about Carly Fiorina, who gets 41 to Boxer's 45 in the matchup. Of course she has to get past movement conservative Chuck DeVore in the primary. Fiorina's primary is not a shoe-in. It would not be all that surprising to see DeVore win the wingnut vote that dominates Republican primaries. Fiorina will have to dump a ton of cash into the primary to hold DeVore off.
Walters then does his best to weaken Boxer by providing only half of her favorability numbers.
The latest poll, true to form, found Boxer's overall job approval rating among California voters to be fairly low, with just 21 percent holding a "very favorable" view, down six points from March.
When one normally writes about favorability numbers you add up the very favorable and somewhat favorable results to come up with an overall favorability number. In this case, according to this Rasmussen poll, she has a 21% very favorable and a 36% somewhat favorable, for an overall 57% favorabilty rating, which while not great isn't nearly as bad as Walters tries to make it seem.
If Fiorina wins the primary then Boxer will likely have a tougher race in 2010, certainly compared to 2004. We need to be prepared to defend her with all guns blazing. Fiorina certainly comes with a lot of baggage that would be great fodder for blog posts and attack ads.
There are no huge alarm bells ringing right now, no matter what Walters has written, but we need to be on alert and watch closely as we move into election season. Early cash is better than late cash. Give via ActBlue.
