Although my Mexican beer of choice is either Pacifico or Tecate (the latter during sporting events), there's no doubt that the Dos Equis "Most Interesting Man In The World" ad campaign has gotten a lot of attention here in 2010.
So it was only fitting that the California Democratic Party put together their own version of that ad, focused on Jerry Brown: The Most Interesting Man In California:
Gerrymandering has been a part of American politics as long as there has been American politics. It has been a focus of some of the concern expressed by proponents of Prop 20 and opponents of Prop 27. We should look a bit closer at what gerrymandering is, how it effects California, and how it effects the nation.
The first efforts at gerrymandering came in Virginia, when Patrick Henry and the anti-Federalists attempted to draw the Congressional districts in Virginia in a manner to prevent the election of James Madison to the First Congress. The name came about for Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts after the 1810 redistricting, where one of the districts resembled a salamander.
In recent years, gerrymandering has taken on the meaning of redistricting to produce a specific electoral result, whether it is to ensure incumbency. While creating districts to ensure specific racial representation is not Constitutional, partisan redistricting to the same effect is allowed.
Yesterday Fiorina was hospitalized with an infection yesterday and still has not returned to the campaign trail but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has bought another $3 million of television ads supporting her.
With even Meg Whitman endorsing Jerry Brown for Governor, the Senate race is the most important race in the State we must focus on. Come out today to meet Boxer at 2pm at Plummer Park and make some calls to friends and family urging them to vote for Barbara Boxer today!
It's been a few days now since we began a conversation that addresses the issue of how frustrated some number of LBGT voters are with the Democratic Party this cycle; this because they find themselves either frustrated at the lack of progress on the civil rights issues that matter to them, or because they see both the Democratic and Republican Parties as unreliable partners in the struggle to assure equal rights for all.
In an effort to practice some actual journalism, I assembled a version of an online "focus group" at The Bilerico Project ("daily adventures in LBGTQ"), with the goal of gathering some opinions on this subject in the actual words of those frustrated voters.
Part One of this story focused on "stating the problem", and today we'll take on Part Two: in this environment, with Election Day staring us in the face, what is an LBGT voter to do?
As before, there are a variety of opinions, including a very informative comment I was able to obtain from a genuine Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania's 8th District, and that means until the very end you won't hear much from me, except to help "set the stage" for the comments that follow.
While Jerry Brown is on the verge of defeating Meg Whitman, recent polling suggests the US Senate race is actually tightening. It is an extremely high priority that we defend Barbara Boxer against Carly Fiorina - control of the US Senate may depend on it, and we need to ensure that we support a progressive hero like Boxer.
A poll last week by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed Brown opening an eight-point lead over Whitman, up from a virtual tie in September. But Fiorina had edged to within five points of Boxer, with 13 percent of likely voters undecided. A Rasmussen poll Friday showed Fiorina closing to within three points, and leading by five among those who said they are certain to vote....
Public Policy Institute President and CEO Mark Baldassare said voters are deeply unhappy with both Sacramento and Washington, but draw a distinction between the two very different jobs of governor and senator.
"You've got a Boxer-Fiorina race that revolves around how people are feeling about Congress, and you don't have that same dynamic in the Whitman-Brown race," Baldassare said. Aside from partisans, he said, "Independents are really the interesting issue. What do they want in Sacramento? And what do they want in Washington?"
There's no doubt that the public is, quite rightly, upset with the failures of Congressional Democrats, and the Senate in particular. At the same time, it would be extremely self-destructive to take that out on Barbara Boxer, who has been an effective Senator and stood up for Californians and our values even in the face of intense pressure not to do so, such as her courageous and correct vote against the Iraq War eight years ago.
Independent voters are the most susceptible to Fiorina's argument, although the choice here is clear and easy: Fiorina believes in sending jobs overseas instead of creating them here at home, doesn't support expanded health care coverage, and supports the right-wing's extremist social agenda that most California independents reject.
But there are some that are trying to argue that Boxer also has a problem maintaining progressive voters as well. That's the argument in Christopher Cook's new article at In These Times, which includes a quote from me that appears to be taken out of context:
Boxer also suffers from a nationwide "enthusiasm gap" among Democrats, says writer Robert Cruickshank, Public Policy Director of the Courage Campaign. "Voters, especially the so-called 'Obama surge' voters from 2008, have seen the U.S. Senate in particular fail to implement an agenda of change," and are turned off. "All Senate Democrats are suffering as a result of the obstructionism employed by Democrats such as Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman," says Cruickshank, and some California Democrats "are indicating they won't vote in November."
I spent all night searching for that quote of mine - I never spoke to Cook, and though I recall writing those words, I certainly did not mean them to suggest that California Democrats won't have Boxer's back. They will. The point I was making there was that Boxer is hurting because of problems outside her control - like other Senate Dems, the self-destructive actions of people like Nelson, Lincoln and Lieberman made it impossible for Democrats to implement their agenda and therefore have made Boxer more vulnerable than she should be.
In fact, California Democrats aren't showing much of an enthusiasm gap. They are quite likely to vote, especially to protect Barbara Boxer. Here's what I had to say about Boxer in the Calitics statewide endorsements:
The choice here is stark and simple: a progressive champion who fought against the war in Iraq and led the effort to pass a strong climate bill (among MANY other accomplishments) or a right-wing extremist who praises the Tea Party and defends her record of shipping tens of thousands of jobs overseas. Barbara Boxer had our back in the Senate when few others did. She deserves our support now against Carly Fiorina's radicalism. Further, if Boxer wins, it is very difficult for the Republicans to retake the US Senate, another reason to vote for Boxer and maintain the firewall.
Every California progressive voter I talked to understands the importance of this race and of defending Barbara Boxer. It's time we spread that word over this final week before the election. We cannot afford to let Boxer lose.
By Jakada Imani
Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
The California Ballot Measure process has become a roulette game for big corporations to gamble with the health of our citizens. Perfect examples of how this plays out are Proposition 26 and Proposition 23, deceptive initiatives bankrolled by major polluters, both would result in more pollution in our state, hurting all of us, but especially endangering low-income communities that suffer disproportionate exposure to toxins. High rates of pollution are to blame for the high rates of asthma, lung disease and cancer in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino and African American communities.
It's the duty of all Californians to say "No!" to big oil companies and other mega-corporations that seek to distort the truth, and abuse the ballot initiative system with their paid signature gatherers and advertising campaigns as slick and dirty as the oil coating beaches of Louisiana and Florida. It's especially important to for voters from low-income communities to stand up for ourselves, for the lives we save may be our own children's.
A long list of Californians- from politicians to CEOs to actors have come out against Prop 23, brought to you by Texas oil companies Tesoro and Valero. The measure, properly derided as the Dirty Energy Proposition, would repeal California's landmark climate change law.
The quieter, but equally poisonous friend of the Dirty Energy Prop, is Prop 26 being driven forward by Chevron with help from Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol. Knowing that a team's biggest cheerleaders are oil, tobacco, and alcohol should give anyone pause in wondering whose best interests are at the heart of the matter. It's easy to see that profit, rather than people or our planet, would win should these propositions pass.
Proposition 26 is an-anti democratic measure that would protect polluters and purveyors of tobacco and alcohol from paying fees used to undo the harm caused by their products. These companies don't want to pay to clean up their own messes--they expect you and me, the California taxpayer to eat the costs while they pocket the profit. The independent nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office has warned us that Prop 26 would blow another ONE BILLION DOLLAR hole in the state budget.
Prop 26 would require a costly election in advance of any local government action to impose an appropriate fee. Two-thirds of local voters would have to agree to a fee on a company to pay, for example, air pollution mitigation near a chemical plant. The State Legislature would also be prohibited from imposing an appropriate fee, on say whiskey to help pay for alcohol checkpoints, unless 2/3rd of lawmakers in each house agree. Considering the influence of corporate lobbyists, Prop 26 would make a new fee on polluters, tobacco or booze, about as likely as my 5-foot tall grandmother joining the U.S. Olympic basketball team. The same 2/3rds threshold has already crippled the state budget process, leaving California's communities, schools and workforce to suffer.
If big oil and big tobacco doesn't pay--who does? We do, the regular taxpayers. The budget suffers another billions dollar hole in health, education and welfare services, just to protect the profits of the richest corporations in the world.
Proposition 26 is opposed by health and justice organizations including the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and NAACP. We are standing with unions representing teachers, cops, firefighters and nurses, who rightfully worry about adding billion dollars to the state deficit, and the crippling effect on local government services, including health, education, drug treatment, police and fire.
Low-income communities of color, including immigrant communities, are hurt first and worst by pollution, global warming, booze, tobacco and gun selling. Voting No on Prop 23 ensures that California continues its leadership in clean air, climate action and green job creation while a No on 26 protects our right to make companies pay for poisoning our people or our planet.
In the state that puts most propositions before voters, in the country that puts most questions before the electorate, Liberty Hill asked: How do you decide how to vote? True confessions with cameo appearances by Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield and California Common Cause director Kathay Feng.
I have to believe these numbers, like Brown's 13-point lead, make this LAT/USC poll an outlier. Props 23 and 25 are almost certainly closer than this spread makes it appear. They have Prop 25 leading among every demographic group, including narrowly among Republicans and conservatives, and by huge margins among independents and moderates. Prop 23 similarly trails among most key demographic groups.
These results will only actually come true if we keep driving people to the polls. Courage Campaign (where I work as Public Policy Director) has a growing list of GOTV opportunities around the state. Take a look and see where you can contribute - and if you know of GOTV activities we don't have listed, let me know and we'll make sure it gets added.
The numbers in the latest LA Times/USC poll are stunning: Jerry Brown has opened a 13-point lead over Meg Whitman with just over a week to go until the November 2 election. While that lead is clearly an outlier at this point - PPIC and SurveyUSA last week put Brown's lead at around 7 points - it's a doubling of the lead the LA Times/USC poll found just last month. And even if you don't accept that his lead is quite that big, the trend is in Brown's favor, as Whitman is collapsing with the parts of the electorate that matter:
Defections from Meg Whitman's ranks on the part of women, Latinos and nonpartisan voters have fueled a surge by Jerry Brown in the race for governor, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll.
Here are the numbers:
Governor: October (September)
Brown: 52 (49)
Whitman: 39 (44)
The poll shows that Whitman is trailing among three key voter blocs: Latinos, women, and independent voters. As the Calbuzzers described it:
Among key constituencies who tilt the balance in statewide races in California, Brown leads 61-24% among independents, 59-30% among moderates and 61-27% among Latinos - not to mention his 55-34% advantage among women, who comprised 53% of the LAT/USC likely voter universe.
Ouch. And to make matters worse, Whitman has a -15 favorability rating, whereas Brown is +4. One poll respondent, a Republican schoolteacher from the Sacramento area, explained that it was the wealthy CEOs' lavish spending on their campaigns that drove her to back Brown and Boxer:
Paula Bennett, a schoolteacher in the Sacramento-area town of Acampo, said she was drawn to Brown in part by the blizzard of cash Whitman has thrown at the race.
"I like the little guy; he didn't have the money behind him like she did," she said in a follow-up interview, adding that she sided with Brown for the same reason that she favors a mom-and-pop establishment over a retail behemoth.
"We don't shop at Walmart. We shop at the local store. He just seemed like more of a down-home candidate."
Although she is Republican, Bennett is also siding with Boxer. She said she was offended by both Whitman's and Fiorina's infusions of personal cash into their races.
Speaking of the Senate race:
Senate: Oct (Sep)
Boxer: 50 (51)
Fiorina: 42 (43)
Boxer's lead is stable and Fiorina cannot crack the low-40s with the electorate. Like Brown, Boxer has significant leads among women, Latinos, and independent voters that virtually ensure Fiorina will lose and, assuming all goes well in Washington State, that Democrats will narrowly keep control of the US Senate.
So what explains this? California is clearly bucking the national trend against Democrats, even if that trend has moderated in recent weeks. Democrats are poised to pick up big victories of national importance here, even with the avalanche of money Whitman and Fiorina are spending on their own behalf.
Obviously, that spending has turned off more voters than it's gained, as we appear to be witnessing a repeat of the 2009 NYC mayoral election where voter disgust at Michael Bloomberg's wealth nearly lost him the race to a little-known challenger.
But the LAT/USC poll reveals a deeper problem: Californians do not want to elect a white man's party that caters to right-wing extremists. Whitman in particular has suffered from the Catch-22 she's always found herself in - she cannot win the general election without the votes of Latinos, but cannot maintain her right-wing base if she reaches out too strongly to Latinos, who her base hates with a virulent passion.
This isn't a surprise. Way back in April I explained how the LAT/USC poll's numbers on immigration made it clear that Californians do not support immigrant bashing and that any candidate who tried to use it to win the election would fail. Sure enough, the current LAT/USC poll shows clearly that Whitman's attack on immigrants has backfired badly:
Are immigrant a benefit or a burden to California?
Benefit: 48
Burden: 33
Do you support a path to legalization so undocumented immigrants can keep their jobs and stay, or should they be deported?
Keep jobs: 61
Deported: 28
How well do you think Whitman handled the housekeeper incident?
Very/somewhat well: 39
Not too/not well: 53
Whitman, of course, told a young and very successful undocumented student that she didn't belong in school and explained that she didn't back a path to legalization - leaving deportation or exploitation via guest worker status as the only option for perhaps millions of Californians.
Voters clearly do not respond favorably to immigrant bashing. Whitman may think this is 1994 (after all, she does have Pete Wilson on her campaign) but clearly the California electorate has changed. Both Whitman and Fiorina have wooed their right-wing, mostly white base, and by doing so have made themselves unelectable.
Unfortunately, not all statewide Dems have such big leads. Gavin Newsom narrowly leads Abel Maldonado in the Lt. Gov race, 41-37. And Kamala Harris is down 34-37 to Steve Cooley in the race for Attorney General. Hopefully Brown and Boxer will have enough coattails to help Newsom and Harris win - with Harris' campaign being of particular importance to California's future, especially to the rule of law and equal rights.
Stories begat other stories, or at least they do for me; this two-part conversation came from a comment that was made after I posted a story suggesting that voting matters this time, especially if you don't want environmental disasters like the recent Hungarian "toxic lake" that burst from its containment and polluted the Danube River happening in your neighborhood.
Long story short, we are going to be moving on to ask what, for some, is a more fundamental question: if you're an LBGT voter, and the Democratic Party hasn't, to put it charitably, "been all they could be" when it comes to issues like repealing "don't ask, don't tell" or the Federal Defense of Marriage Act...what should you do?
Now normally I would be the one trying to develop an answer to the question, but instead, we're going to be posing the question to a group of experts, and we'll be letting them give the answers.
And just because you, The Valued Reader, deserve the extra effort, for Part Two we've trying to get you a "Special Bonus Expert" to add some input to the conversation: a Democratic Member of Congress who represents a large LBGT community.
California voters, no strangers to complicated statewide ballots, face critical economic and environmental questions in the November 2 election. Absentee voting began during the first week of October, with nearly 40 percent of all votes expected to be cast before Election Day. That's one reason why this month has been solid of political advertising, making this election cycle the most expensive in the country, breaking all spending records already with another ten days to go, with high stakes for the future of California.
Will we continue California's proud tradition of cutting edge clean technology and environmental leadership or slip backward toward greater reliance on dirty energy? Will we stand as an example to the nation and the world by fully implementing California's landmark clean energy law or allow Texas oil companies to call the shots on our future?
Our votes will determine the economic security and environmental integrity of California. That's why the NRDC Action Fund has been working so hard to defeat Proposition 23, the Dirty Energy Proposition sponsored by Big Oil that would halt implementation of AB 32. Because California establishes economic and social trends for the nation, this election will tell the world whether the US is ready to lead the clean global economy of the 21st Century.
Most elections are characterized by heated sloganeering, but this time the high emotional pitch accurately reflects the stakes. There are nine statewide propositions on the November ballot and NRDC Action Fund has recommendations on four of them including Prop 23:
NO on Proposition 26: Proposition 26 is a dangerous initiative that eliminates the ability of state agencies and the legislature to hold polluters accountable for harm caused by their activities.
Prop 26 would redefine environmental and health fees as "taxes" and requiring them to pass by a two-thirds supermajority. The measure takes away essential tools used to clean up pollution and blows a $1 billion hole in the annual state budget. Prop 26 also negatively affects local funding for transportation, hazardous waste clean-up, traffic mitigation and public safety by requiring local governments to hold elections and gain 2/3 majority support every time they need to enact a fee. It is an ill-conceived and sweeping measure that would have disastrous consequences for California's environment, health and communities. Proposition 26 offers a chain saw when a scalpel is required - vote no.
YES on Proposition 21: When it comes to state park protection, NRDC Action Fund supports Proposition 21, a measure that will help keep our state parks open and accessible to all. P parks have suffered from maintenance backlogs and reduced funding for several years; there have even been threats to close them all because of the state's dismal fiscal condition. But state parks are a vital resource for Californians seeking affordable respite and natural resource preservation. In addition, our 278 state parks are economic engines for their surrounding communities and the state as a whole.
YES on Proposition 25: We support Proposition 25, which would help end budget gridlock by removing the two-third vote requirement to pass the state budget, making it a simple majority vote. Budget gridlock and the supermajority budget vote requirement threaten the very foundation of state government. And in recent years, a handful of legislators have been able to hold the entire state budget hostage as they push to weaken or repeal critical environmental policies.
Again, the importance of this election cannot be overemphasized. Never has climate policy been in front of voters in the polling booth. NRDC Action Fund urges you to vote to support California's public health, environment and future.
Today the Sacramento Bee reported on Dan Lungren's latest conflict of interest. While Karl Rove's shadowy front group tries to bail out Lungren in a tough election, the Congressman advocates for unlimited corporate campaign spending. Even worse, if Lungren does win reelection and becomes Chairman of the House Administration Committee, he would have jurisdiction over campaign finance regulation -- Lungren would be responsible for regulating the same shadowy corporations that are funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to save him.
This news comes just one week after Karl Rove and Big Oil billionaires invaded our living rooms, laundering over $690,000 through Rove's shadowy slush fund, American Crossroads, hoping to hijack our election through false and misleading advertisements.
It's not surprising that Big Oil is protecting Lungren - he's taken $84,950 from oil and gas companies, then does their bidding in Congress - voting to give Big Oil $2.6 billion in tax breaks.
It's also not surprising that Karl Rove is working for Dan Lungren, since Lungren's opposition to transparency paved the way for American Crossroads. Lungren voted against the DISCLOSE Act to require transparency in corporate campaign spending, and applauded the Citizens United Supreme Court decision on the floor of the House. These actions set the stage for American Crossroads to launder billions from the mega corporations who are corrupting our government. Even more egregious, Lungren accepted $15,000 from Citizens United, and is even starring in an incendiary Citizens United film alongside Ann Coulter.
It's not surprising that Karl Rove and Big Oil want to keep Dan Lungren in Congress. But we have a surprise for them, because Rove and Lungren have forgotten the most important part of our democracy: you - and thousands of voters just like you. We don't support shadowy corporations polluting our democracy, and we won't stand by while Karl Rove tries to hijack our election.
You are the strongest weapon we have against American Crossroads, and we need you now. Please, support us in any way you can, and together, we will fight back against Karl Rove and his corporate billionaires, and we will bring the kind of change our country needs.
The latest PPIC poll is out and it shows Democratic candidates Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer still ahead of their Republican opponents. PPIC has Brown over Whitman 44-36 and Boxer over Fiorina 43-38. Those numbers are roughly similar to the SurveyUSA numbers from earlier this week, although Boxer's lead is larger according to PPIC.
Before we get to their polling on the ballot propositions, it's worth spending a moment to explain why Brown and Boxer have leads. As Calbuzz points out:
Despite her massive spending - which is expected to reach $180 million - Republican Whitman has been unable to break away from Democrat Brown except among Republicans, conservatives and Southern Californians outside of Los Angeles....
In the race for U.S. Senate, Boxer commands Democrats, Women, Latinos, liberals and - importantly - moderates. She also kills Republican Fiorina in Los Angeles and the Bay Area.
They also note that whereas Whitman and Brown are evenly tied among men and whites, Fiorina has a lead with both groups, keeping her in the game, if ever so slightly.
Perhaps in 1910 California that would have been enough - since white men made up the majority of the electorate (women couldn't vote and nonwhite men were a small portion of the electorate). But here in 2010, California is a far more diverse place. And you can't win an election by being what Allan Hoffenblum called "a white man's party":
Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican consultant who publishes the California Target Book, which handicaps legislative and congressional races, says the GOP "is still perceived as a white man's party. And the fastest-growing group of voters is people of color. Every time they hear angry rhetoric about immigration, it's coming out of Republicans."
As we've explained numerous times here at Calitics over these last 5 years, this is an accurate description of the California Republican Party. It is a party whose base hates Latinos, does not believe women deserve basic rights to control their own bodies, and wants to treat LGBT Californians like second-class citizens. That is not a party that is electable in this state, and the Democrats' dominance of statewide elections since 1996 merely reinforces the point.
This is something that Arnold Schwarzenegger well understood. He realized that a Republican could not get elected statewide if they espoused anti-Latino, anti-gay, anti-woman sentiments. And yet the only reason Arnold became governor was he did not have to run in a GOP primary on his way to becoming governor.
Meg Whitman did. And therein lay her downfall. She had to prove to her "white man's party" base that she too hated Latinos, and she tried to do so during her battle against Steve Poizner while not going so far toward racism that she alienated the Latino votes she would need to win the general election. As it turned out, Whitman's anti-Latino attitudes persisted into the general election, with her shocking attack on a Latino student being just one example of how Whitman shares the anti-Latino values of her base.
Carly Fiorina has been even more overt in her courting of the "white man's party" base, praising teabaggers and denying global warming. And while it's given her a small lead among those white men (thankfully not all of us are ignorant bigots) it's not enough to win in a state as diverse as California.
Prop 19
Prop 23
Prop 24
Prop 25
Yes:
44
37
31
49
No:
49
48
38
34
So that's the good news from PPIC. What's the bad news? Well, the ballot propositions aren't looking so great, as you can see at right. PPIC polled those four propositions (wish they'd also polled Prop 26) and found that voters aren't really fired up about any of them. Prop 19 is in worse shape here than in SurveyUSA, and Prop 25 is "stuck in neutral" according to KQED's John Myers. Prop 23 is failing, thankfully, but Prop 24 should be doing much better.
There's still a long way to go over the next dozen or so days before the election, and it's very important that progressives get engaged to make sure we win.
Brought to you by the good folks at PowerPAC, a good overview of Kamala Harris's efforts to stop Prop 8. Her opponent in the Attorney General's race, Steve Cooley, has pledged to defend Prop 8 in court.
There is a lot of discussion about gerrymandering and the redistricting commissions, but I think there is a fundamental flaw underlying all of these suggestions. I don't think California is gerrymandered to any great extent (and I will revisit this in a later diary, with some statistics) but I do think there are some issues with the legislature and Congress.
To put it simply, they are too small.
Ever since 1980, the state senator's district has been larger than that for a member of the House of Representatives. The state assemblyman represents 420,000 people. The census will probably put those numbers over 450,000 for an assemblyman and over 900,000 for a state senator. This is too large a district to represent effectively.
Crossposted from the Prop 8 trial tracker. I should note that I am the Public Policy Director at the Courage Campaign.
The Courage Campaign and HRC released a new video ad today asking Californians to call senate candidate Carly Fiorina and demand she reject the extremism of NOM - one of her campaign's biggest financial backers. The ad - running on the websites of the LA Times, Sacramento Bee and San Francisco Chronicle - features disturbing clips of NOM supporters from rallies, in which they can be seen and heard calling for the murder of gays and lesbians.
Fiorina recently refused to condemn a Spanish-language NOM-backed ad supporting her, despite PolitiFact.com labeling the ad's content as false. It's no surprise - NOM has poured more than $220,000 into expenditures supporting her campaign. But confronted with the hateful messages of NOM's supporters, will Fiorina do the right thing or continue bowing to special interest dollars from outside of the state?
You can help us expand the ad buy by making a $25 contribution to the Courage Campaign, so that more people can learn the truth about the extremism of Carly Fiorina's supporters.
Here are excerpts from the Courage Campaign/HRC press release:
"Californians deserve to know the truth about the out-of-state extremist group that's allied itself with Carly Fiorina," said Courage Campaign Chairman and Founder Rick Jacobs. "Time and again, the National Organization for Marriage has shown itself to be one of the most toxic elements in the political process, willing to use any means, -- including tolerance of hate speech and refusal to comply with federal tax and election laws -- to advance an agenda that advocates discrimination against millions of loving families and promotes an environment that leads LGBT teens to take their own lives."
"Will Carly Fiorina continue to associate herself with a radical fringe group like the National Organization for Marriage, or will she reject the anti-gay animus NOM stands for?" asked Joe Solmonese, HRC president.
The ad also highlights NOM's ongoing legal problems, which include refusing to comply with the election and disclosure laws of nearly a half dozen states, including California, as well as funneling charitable resources into political campaigns. The latter was the subject of a September 20th story in the Washington Independent, as well as an IRS complaint that the Human Rights Campaign and Courage Campaign filed against NOM's San Diego based tax-exempt arm, called the Ruth Institute, last week.
In a truly shocking and stunning development, Garry South has made a self-serving statement cluelessly attacking California Democrats:
After we fought through the line of folks there to kiss Willie's ring afterwards, we asked the Da Mayor about something one of the morning's speakers, former Gov. Gray Davis campaign czar Garry South, said about the lack of a Democratic ground operation.
South, who also ran Brown's erstwhile primary opponent Gavin Newsom's gov campaign, also praised Republican Meg Whitman for setting up an "operation unlike anything we've ever seen in California."
Willie agreed -- about the Dems.
"I do not believe that Jerry Brown has a ground operation," Willie said. He also wonders if it is a good idea for the Dems to rely so heavily on labor for their ground operation.
Now it IS true that Whitman has a strong ground game. I saw it here in SD-15 over the summer when it was used to help elect Sam Blakeslee in the special election. But South and Willie Brown are dead wrong when they say there's nothing to counter it. Here's John Burton's response:
Dem Party chair John Burton told us in plain Burtonese: "Willie Brown is full of (poo-poo). And Garry South never liked any politician who wasn't paying him. So you've got two full of (poo-poo) guys who aren't relevant to anything in this campaign talking about it."
In defending the Dems ground operation, Burton said "We've already made 1 million calls and have about 80 headquarters and thousands of volunteers. But Willie Brown wouldn't know that because he's too busy patting himself on the back."
CDP Executive Director (and all-around awesome person) Shawnda Westly hit back hard as well:
"In eight years he's done nothing of note and it's no surprise that Garry's on the sidelines in one of the most competitive races in history," she said. "He simply doesn't know what's happening in the current Democratic Party."
Beyond the quotes, there is plenty of evidence that South is full of it and Willie Brown clueless. Brown has a major financial disparity with Whitman, and so he had to concentrate his spending on messaging, including TV ads. At the same time, the Democratic National Committee in the form of OFA, the CDP itself, and the labor movement do indeed have a significant ground operation. It doesn't have to be housed within the Brown campaign - the division of labor (Brown does message, the others do field) is a sensible way to share the burden with the resources we've got.
In addition to those efforts, other progressive groups in California, like Courage Campaign (where I work as Public Policy Director) and CREDO Action, Planned Parenthood, and the huge coalition of groups organized to fight Prop 23 are doing work to turn out the progressive base. These groups are not engaged in any coordination with a campaign for elected office, and haven't made any endorsements in the governor's race. But that's another significant turnout operation that may well, if unintentionally, impact the governor's race.
So why would Garry South trash Jerry Brown's chances? Is it pure spite? Or might the fact that he worked with Whitman campaign flack Mike Murphy on the right-wing JOBSPAC effort in the 2004 generation election have something to do with it?
Garry South has a record unblemished by success. It's no wonder he's lashing out at the Brown campaign, which according to campaign manager Steve Glazer now has a 7 point lead in the latest SurveyUSA poll. This election isn't over, and Whitman is still a serious threat to California's future - but at least we know that Garry South is, once again, full of it.
Fasten your seatbelts: EMILY's List is going all out in these last two weeks before the election for Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of our strongest progressive advocates. Our WOMEN VOTE! project in California is hitting the airwaves and reaching out to women voters to spread the truth about Carly Fiorina: she'd be disastrous for women and for California.
This race is a dead heat for one reason and one reason alone: women voters don't have the information they need about Carly Fiorina. From her courtship of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin to her catastrophic tenure at HP - and her unwillingness to make job creation a priority - Carly Fiorina's real agenda would be devastating to women and their families in California and throughout the country.
Team EMILY, our new volunteer program, will have over 400 women making calls to potential drop-off women voters throughout California. Why? Our research makes it clear: these women voters need trusted information and explanation of why their votes matter. They need to know about Carly's extreme agenda: repealing health care reform and taking away women's rights to make their own health care choices.
Our effort, talking to voters and getting on TV, highlights Carly's long record of failure: axing 33,000 jobs while at HP; shipping nearly 10,000 jobs overseas; and floating away with a $42 million golden parachute after getting fired and leaving her company in tatters. "Opera," our hard-hitting ad that shows voters Carly's true colors, will be airing largely in LA, including shows like Good Morning America, Access Hollywood, Judge Judy, Dancing With the Stars, Dr. Phil, Letterman, and evening news programs. Watch our spot for yourself:
Governor: Jerry Brown There are two reasons to vote for Brown. The first is that Meg Whitman is a right-wing extremist who will destroy what is left of our public services and our prosperity. Her goal is to massively cut taxes on the wealthy, paid for by privatizing core public services such as schools. Whitman's California is a place without any green jobs, without mass transportation, and without meaningful economic recovery - a state where everyone is poorer so that the rich can get richer. She wants to exploit workers, especially Latinos, and does not believe undocumented students deserve to be educated. We guess they can just sit around all day doing god knows what.
The second is that Jerry Brown has shown some important signs of progressive leadership. He strongly supports AB 32, the creation of green jobs, and high speed rail. He also strongly opposes, using powerful moral language, the efforts of Meg Whitman and her right-wing allies to scapegoat and attack Latinos and immigrants. He has stood up for labor unions as being relevant and valued parts of the political process, even as he pledges to cut their pensions - we don't agree with those cuts, but at least Brown treats it as a policy issue and not as a "unions are villains" issue.
Calitics is well aware of Brown's shortcomings. He is not progressive enough on law-and-order issues and tends to reinforce anti-tax frames. We can expect to have some pitched battles with him as governor, just as progressives did in the 1970s and 1980s. Still, we're better off with our opportunities for offense under Brown rather than constant defense under Whitman.
The choice is clear: with Jerry Brown, California can stop the bleeding and have a chance at fixing this state. With Meg Whitman, things will go from very bad to much worse. Give Jerry Brown a third term.
US Senator: Barbara Boxer The choice here is stark and simple: a progressive champion who fought against the war in Iraq and led the effort to pass a strong climate bill (among MANY other accomplishments) or a right-wing extremist who praises the Tea Party and defends her record of shipping tens of thousands of jobs overseas. Barbara Boxer had our back in the Senate when few others did. She deserves our support now against Carly Fiorina's radicalism. Further, if Boxer wins, it is very difficult for the Republicans to retake the US Senate, another reason to vote for Boxer and maintain the firewall.
More over the flip, including all statewide races, ballot propositions, and even the State Supreme Court retention votes.
Miami, Florida, September 13, 2018 (FNS)-Facing pressure from voters to "do something" following the disaster caused by the privatization of Social Security, the White House today announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is awarding a $2 billion contract to the Halliburton Company for the purchase of 22,000 "cardboard condos" that will be installed in public parks around the Miami area in an effort to alleviate the problem of homelessness among the impoverished elderly.
"Having homeless senior citizens drag their appliance boxes all over the city reduces the community's aesthetic appeal and leads to complaints", said Halliburton spokesman Tendei Furlough. "The new modular design, combined with our ability to print attractive images on the outside of the boxes, guarantees both increased protection from winter weather and fewer complaints from affected neighborhoods."
FEMA's Director of Emergency Housing Resources Spike Fromula agreed: "We thought we had a real problem with homelessness in a number of our major cities after the Social Security safety net collapsed...but now, we think...well, we think we have a way to wrap the problem up in a neat little package."
Gerrymandering has been a part of American politics as long as there has been American politics. It has been a focus of some of the concern expressed by proponents of Prop 20 and opponents of Prop 27. We should look a bit closer at what gerrymandering is, how it effects California, and how it effects the nation.