Here's an excellent Q&A, really a must read, with UC Berkeley Law Professor Jonathan Simon, an expert on parole policy. Using the killing of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, who was on parole at the time, Simon sets aside the myths about parole and looks at the hard facts - that this is an unbelievably broken system, particularly in California, one that really cannot fulfill the mission set out for it 100 years ago. Parole was something of an employment agency upon its inception, supervising ex-convicts at their workplace and letting them go on with their lives. In today's environment of social Darwinism, ex-cons are sent back onto the streets with no money and no skills to get a job, and so they devolve into homelessness or drug abuse, making it nearly impossible for parole officers to even find parolees, let alone keep them out of trouble.
It really can't work - which you'll see if you look at the category of parolees who are simply of unknown whereabouts. These parolees are described as PAL, for "parolee at large," in official California statistics.
Statewide, 14.6 percent of all parolees were PAL in 2005; in large cities like Oakland and Los Angeles it's probably closer to 25 percent. This sounds alarming, although authorities have little basis for knowing the status of these people. Is the parolee-at-large wandering around homeless and has he forgotten to come in for an appointment, or to take his medications if he or she is on psychiatric treatment? Or, as with Lovelle Mixon, has the person gone back to doing some very serious crimes and is he evading detection? We're fooling ourselves if we think that this century-old method of surveilling people in the community, through periodic contacts, can work with a population as isolated and marginalized as the one upon which we now focus our penal attention.
Simon theorizes that California's parole system works even worse than most states because we eliminated early release through parole, but maintained the strict supervision requirements that invariably send parolees back to prison:
But unlike many other states that also eliminated early release through parole, California continued to require parole supervision in the community for all released prisoners. And that, I think, is a big part of what's broken. People are sent to California prisons for a determinate amount of time, based upon the seriousness of their crime. After they've served this sentence, it's neither justified nor effective to add up to three years of parole supervision for each and every ex-offender - without making any distinction between those whose criminal record or psychological profile suggest they'll commit a crime that will harm the community, and those who pose no such threat.
So the parole system has little real capacity to monitor and protect us from those who pose a danger of committing serious new crimes. And it exposes ex-offenders - many of whom pose little threat of committing such crimes - to the likelihood of being sent back to prison. (This is a really big problem, when you think of our prison overcrowding and our budget crisis).
Parolees are required to consent to searches of their person and property. If officers stop a car in Oakland, and somebody in that car is on parole, police have a lot of leeway to disregard normal constitutional limits on search-and-seizure authority. They can use any evidence collected in this situation against the parolee - and also, of course, can attempt to use the coercion of plea bargaining to get evidence against other people in the car.
In recent years, as many as 70 percent of those on parole in California have been sent back to prison - only a small percentage of whom have committed a new crime (14 percent in 2007); more than half were sent back for what are called "technical" parole violations. These parolees are "returned to custody" by the Board of Prison Terms, very often for conduct that would not earn them (or other California citizens) prison time in a court. Turning in a positive drug test is an example; even missing an appointment with parole staff can result in re-imprisonment.
By the way, no other state has the recidivism rate of California, and certainly no other state sends as many people back to prison for technical violations of their parole appointments. And due to the three-strikes law as well as increased sentences over 30 years, we have more Californians in prison on life sentences - about thirty thousand - as there were TOTAL PRISONERS in 1977. The parole board is theoretically supposed to monitor the "lifers" and let out those who served their mandatory minimums and can be reasonably seen as representing no risk to the community, but in reality we let out something like 5 per year. Meanwhile more life sentences are given to thousands of prisoners every year, and the problem simply grows.
Even Arnold Schwarzenegger's supposedly bold plan to release all undocumented immigrants from prison and deport them - something he hasn't bothered to run by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of the federal government - has so many strings on what type of prisoners should be allowed to go free (one felony conviction, nonviolent and nonsexual crime, etc.) that only 1,400 out of 18,000 would qualify.
Tough on crime policies have very simply destroyed California, leaving every lawmaker looking over his or her shoulder trying to be crueler toward criminals than their opponents. In the end, we all suffer, as scarce resources get taken up by a prison-industrial complex that is the fastest-growing sector of the state budget. These policies have been discredited, and other states have proven that you can maintain the peace and provide for public safety while not stuffing prisons with a seemingly endless amount of criminals. We can bring the idea of corrections, and rehabilitation, back to the corrections process, if we only shake off the fear that practically every politician exudes when promoting these terrible policies.
But Arnold is cool with the flip-flop. He's even said so on national teevee, something you have to give him credit for. It's not every politician who would do that. (By the way, I was an electrical engineer in undergrad...hope you enjoy the flip-flop circuit as much as I do.) While you might not want to count on his consistency on the issues, at least this time he's flip-flopping in the right way.
"Yes, it is something that ought to be dealt with, but the fact of the matter is, I think it's an easy scapegoat for people to point the finger and say, 'Our budget is out of whack because of illegal immigrants.' "
"It's not. ... Our budget is out of whack because we have self-inflicted wounds that the Legislature and this state has never really sat down and had the will to go and make the necessary changes that have to be made. ... You know something, as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy that they can get the services," he said Friday. "Because I would like to have the services if I'm somewhere in another country ... if I have an accident with a motorcycle and I go to an emergency room, I don't want someone to say, is he here legally?"
Schwarzenegger also highlighted the economic contributions of illegal immigrants.(SacBee 6/6/09)
It is hard to imagine a functioning California without immigrants. I truly could not imagine how many of our industries would function at all.
You can catch a lot more from the SacBee's interview from the governor, including video at the SacBee. Of course in the rest of the interview he goes after a whole slew of progressive causes, state workers, the safety net, and you know, a functioning California.
At the 4 Minute mark of the second of three videos, he gets the question of what the special election means. His answer: anecdotes (excuse the paraphrasing, but it's generally pretty accurate to his words):
The number of people who came up to me and that's what they say. And obviously I would have loved if the special election measures would have passed. But before the election and after the election, people came up to me when I go shopping at the supermarket. I go to the beach and I ride my bike, and I go on walks with my wife down in Santa Monica. I mean I'm all over the place, to the coffee shops, Starbucks. I know when people come up to me and try to be nice. Compliment me on all the hard work, but the only thing is that they say they are taxed enough. I don't know why you are coming back to me. Or someone else said, I like the reform package of having a rainy day fund, but I don't like that I'm voting to increase my taxes for two years. Forget it, I just can't go there. ... The amount of people who came up to me about the tax thing. I think that's why they lost. There was an anti-tax revolt.= like in the 1970s with Prop 13. Normally these things are a lot closer. People just didn't like the taxes.
My wife said she wouldn't normally vote, but she vote because she is my wife. You guys have to do it, I don't understand it. Proposition 1A has hundreds of pages of background, it is too much.
This is it folks. The scientific evidence that the special election lost because of taxes was from the people that came up to Arnold. Or as I like to call them, the voices that Arnold heard in his head.
We are basing our policy around a few voices that Arnold heard? This is absolutely insane.
Nobody likes the road that the budget appears to be going down, but one side benefit, perhaps the only one, is that we might yet have a conversation about the unjust and costly prison crisis that has deeply impacted the current situation. Here's Asm. Jim Beall (D-Campbell) yesterday:
We've got to reduce spending on our highest cost-drivers, prisons and health care. The prison budget has doubled in the past decade to $10 billion. The state has 173,000 inmates... Yet, California has a 70 percent recidivism rate. We aren't producing the results for the money we spend... For over half of the prisoners, drugs or alcohol played some role in their crimes. A 2006 UCLA study said 42 percent of our inmates needed alcohol treatment and 56 percent needed drug treatment. It's clear: The state should emphasize alcohol and drug treatment programs and prevention education.
Absolutely. Now, the way that the Governor is going about this, by just trying to dump undocumented immigrants in prison on the ICE and mass release without restructuring and treatment and rehab, is of course dicey. He will be helped by the Administration's effort to identify every undocumented immigrant and ready them for deportation, but that's a years-long process.
However, there are signals that the powerful prison guard's union knows exactly what could be coming - and they're trying to get out in front of it by voluntarily offering well over $6 billion in cuts. Most of it goes to capping prison health care, which has already been found to be Constitutionally inadequate, and halting prison expansion through AB900, which I think is spent through bond issues and not the General Fund. But there are other interesting recommendations in there:
2. Save up to $500 million by trimming CDCR administrative staff, which has ballooned by 400 new positions in recent months and more than doubled two of the department's administrative divisions [...]
7. Save potentially hundreds of millions of dollars ($20,000 per parolee) by embracing our past recommendation to expand Drug Court, Mental Health Court, Reentry Court and Revocation Court.
9. Save millions by no longer providing CDCR managers and headquarters staff with state vehicles and mileage allowances for commuting to work.
10. Conduct annual performance audits to determine which parole and rehabilitation programs are achieving their goals.
Remember, these are the prison guard's union's recommendations. They have an interest in keeping jails packed and ensuring overtime for their employees to manage the overcrowding. And even they understand both the need for cost-cutting and the need to expand the role of drug treatment and mental health rather than defaulting to incarceration. They're behind the curve and still modest in their goals, but significantly, the ball is moving in the direction of reducing prison costs for the first time in a long while. Obviously, jumping from this to reforming sentencing and keeping nonviolent offenders out of prison and into treatment won't be easy, and the residual "tough on crime" stance still predominates among the political class. But finally, we're having the conversation as a crisis forces the issue. Democrats ought to take this and run with it, and demand the kind of sane prison policies here that we see in Kansas and Texas.
...incidentally, buried within the Legislative Analyst's cost-cutting proposals was one recommending "altering California's three-strikes law." We're starting to get serious.
In her unending quest to ensure that she fits in with the Yacht Party Extremists, Meg Whitman goes for the red meat: immigration. Carla Marinucci was able to catch up with "eMeg" at the Moscone Center in, ahem, San Francisco.
Whitman was questioned on her comment this week on Neil Cavuto's Fox TV show, regarding sanctuary cities. She told the Fox host that in San Francisco, "there is an ordinance on the books that protects illegal aliens and criminal illegal aliens. We have to stop that.''
Asked how as governor she would do that, Whitman said: "Of course, immigration law is a federal law..we need to work with the federal government to actually change those laws in San Francisco.''
"We have to prosecute illegal aliens and criminal illegal aliens in all of our cities, in every part of California ..which is consistent with federal immigration law." (SF Gate Politics Blog 5/7/09)
Now, Whitman hasn't actually thought about the ramifications of "working with the federal government to change these laws in San Francisco." I assure you, as an active participant in San Francisco politics, that the Board of Supervisors will not be changing the sanctuary city policy. Not only does that violate a slew of federalism doctrines, but the political reality of San Francisco.
Whitman might also want to take a step back from her San Francisco bashing to notice that SF isn't the only city in the state with a sanctuary city policy. The list also includes cities that you'd expect like Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Jose, but also a slew that she might be a bit surprised by. San Diego, and Fresno, perhaps. The reason why all of these cities are sanctuary cities? Well, I'm sure much of it is about the basic human rights questions. But beyond that there is just the practical matter of having a whole underclass of people that will not report crimes. It's like an invitation to the every would-be criminal to perpetrate their crimes in those communities, as there would be no enforcement of our laws.
As if just to throw down another little symbol of her unfamiliarity with government, apparently there is $16 Billion in the state budget that can be cut through the use of technology alone. Huzzah for magic faeries!
Now more than ever a comprehensive U.S. immigration reform is key in helping rebuild our country and giving back American working families the prosperity and equality they deserve. When we allow a group of people to be exploited and discriminated against, it negatively impacts American workers by driving down wages, benefits and working conditions.
President Obama recently announced he will pursue immigration reform that would allow the millions of undocumented workers already living in the country now to "come out of the shadows." For that to happen, they need to be able to speak up and report abuses, organize and come to the bargaining table without fearing deportation. The reality is that most of these millions of workers have already established families in their communities and are part of our society as much as any U.S.-born American.
The San Gabriel Valley is a unique area. Within 5 minutes of Gil Cedillo's campaign kickoff for Congress yesterday in El Monte, I visited a 200 year-old Spanish mission, and a Pho shop in Alhambra where I was the only guy in there who didn't speak Cantonese. This is a series of highly homogeneous communities, which doesn't have the same media, doesn't have the same leadership, and doesn't even speak the same language.
However, it's a demographic reality that the district is over 60% Latino while being about 18% Asian. This is an urban, middle-class Hispanic district. And while Gil Cedillo doesn't represent it in the State Senate, he drew a lot of support to his initial campaign event yesterday. Close to 400 people packed a storefront in El Monte to get started on the campaign. Before there's even a date set for the primary election (though everyone assumes it will be folded into the May 19 special election), yesterday Cedillo supporters were out canvassing the district.
But first, there were a series of speeches and endorsements. Cedillo will have the backing of the Latino political establishment in the area. The big news yesterday was that Rep. Xavier Becerra, of the neighboring district of CA-31, was out to endorse. He joins the local county supervisor Gloria Molina, the local city councilman Ed Reyes (a small part of the district includes LA City), former Rep. Esteban Torres, and several other councilmembers and local politicos in giving their endorsement to Cedillo. Molina even intimated that Congressional Hispanic Caucus support would be coming. There was some not-all-that-subtle rhetoric about "our community" and "our people." It's clear that this is a replay of the CA-37 special election, where Laura Richardson pushed an African-American/Hispanic divide. With Cedillo's main competition being Judy Chu, there's definitely going to be some of that Hispanic/Asian divide in this race, though I imagine it will be more respectful that Richardson's toxicity.
What complicates this is that Chu received the Cal Labor Fed endorsement and actually has support from a few Latino lawmakers of her own. Cedillo was sure to tout his 100% labor scorecard in his short address. In the rest, he talked about a campaign of faith and hope, strength and leadership. He called the San Gabriel Valley "a slice of America," where families come to buy a home, raise children, and get an education. And he talked about the need to make the economy work for those families, with a particular emphasis on health care (he mentioned how great it would be to build a hospital with the stimulus money - even though I'm pretty sure that won't be something the stimulus can do). Cedillo is at his best when talking about immigration. His tireless support for the California version of the DREAM Act, to allow undocumented students to attend college and be eligible for financial aid, has earned him a sterling reputation among young people, many of whom were there volunteering yesterday.
I don't know how many of those young people are eligible to vote, however, and in particular, eligible in that district. Cedillo will have no shortage of volunteers, but he doesn't completely have a voting base inside the district, having never represented it. Outside of Molina, the endorsees are not by and large from the population centers of the district, either. The other factor in this race is Emanuel Pleitez, who liveblogged at FDL yesterday. He is a local, with a small but strong group of former Obama organizers working with him. If you look at this strictly on the level of identity politics, having Pleitez in the race probably helps Judy Chu a bit. The big question, of course, is who is going to turn out their voters.
Up in Bellingham, Washington, a town just a few miles from the Canadian border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted a "raid" on an engine plant, arresting 28 workers. The raid stirred outrage among many progressives who had hoped that the secret police tactics of the Bush-era ICE (and I'm sorry, but that's really the best way to describe it) would end with the new administration.
These "raids", several of which have hit California communities, making temporary orphans of children whose parents go to work and are thrown into prison camps with no warning or provision made for care of the children (or in cases in Texas, the children themselves are thrown into the camps), have been a prime target of immigrant rights and human rights groups.
These groups point out that immigration law can be enforced without destroying communities or violating basic rights. They also note that the raids rarely catch criminals. A New York Spanish-language paper, El Diario La Prensa, called the raids "a runaway program that has ruthlessly persecuted undocumented families" and demanded Obama and Napolitano stop them.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told lawmakers during a Wednesday hearing in Washington, D.C., that she did not know about the raid before it happened.
She has asked ICE for answers.
"In my view," she said, "we have to do workplace enforcement, and it needs to be focused on employers who intentionally and knowingly exploit the illegal labor market. I want to get to the bottom of this as well."
The original Know Nothings were a nativist party in the 1800's. Call me cynical, pero I have a hard time buying that the new Secretary of of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, didn't know anything about the ICE raid yesterday that arrested 28 undocumented workers....
As ICE raids continue while the Obama administration keeps telling us via Spanish language media that they care about immigration, is this administration going to be the new Know Nothings?
It's good for immigrant rights activists to keep up the pressure on the Obama Administration. Whether the problem is Bush-era holdovers or an administration not yet willing to break with a policy that violated the human rights of thousands on a massive scale, these raids must stop.
Also, AG Eric Holder is promising to end the raids on medical marijuana clubs. This is a big victory for California and might signal a shift in Obama's approach to the failed war on drugs, although it's worth noting this is a small step forward. Let's hope that Napolitano and Holder are both serious about ending these raids.
Just over a week ago, I told you about the latest affront to human dignity carried out by the 21st century's answer to Bull Connor. At the beginning of February, a month in which we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio decided to bring back a staple of the Jim Crow South - the chain gang - to the Southwestern desert. He marched 200 undocumented prisoners from the County Jail to a tent city a couple of miles away. He put them in chains and paraded them through the city streets of Phoenix to the open air jail, surrounded by an electric fence.
Well, that little stunt earned him, besides the full-throated outrage of human rights activists, immigrant rights groups, and organizations that care about the rights of communities of color, working families, and effective policing, the scrutiny of powerful members of the United States Congress. And we want you to help add your voice to this scrutiny.
According to Darrell Steinberg there'll be a budget vote next week. Thanks for leaving the cone of silence to let us know, pal! In the meantime:
• The judge who allowed furloughs for state workers to go through is saying that the order does not necessarily apply to employees of Constitutional officers. Jon Ortiz discusses the ramifications at The State Worker. The first furlough day, by the way, is set for tomorrow.
• The editorial board revolt in the Central Valley, hard-hit by the economic crisis, continues. The Merced Sun-Star is unusually blunt: "Why should Democrats negotiate if Republicans refuse to budge?" And the Stockton Record is actually calling on its readers to take action in a way I've rarely seen from a local newspaper. Something is different.
• The UC Board of Regents approved an overhaul of the admissions process. President Yudof hopes that the changes will increase socioeconomic diversity, thus increasing other sorts of diversity.
• This is an incredible story about ACORN saving a couple's home from foreclosure in Oakland. While the Feds do little to stop foreclosures, community organizing is making things happen. But they're destroying the fabric of our electoral system!!! /peak wingnut
• The May Day lawsuits, stemming from police brutality and tear gassing after a pro-immigration rally, have finally been settled, to the tune of $13 million dollars.
Your last word in what's happenin' (apologies to Raj and Rerun):
• Here's George Skelton having some fun and making up statistics to scapegoat immigrants, failing to mention the economic activity they produce and the Social Security payroll taxes they pay but never collect. It's simply wrong to pander to xenophobes the way Skelton does in this piece, under the guise of "being honest." If you want to be honest, explain that, as baby boomers age, the fiscal impact of younger workers in the country is positive, at least so says that left-wing rag the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and countless other studies.
• Debbie Cook has resufaced at the new site OC Progressive, and she writes a strong post about to need to collectively focus on energy as crucial to our future as a sustainable planet. It's really good.
• The Museum of Contemporary Art in L.A. reduced its staff by 20%. Not only construction and manufacturing jobs are affected by the meltdown. The arts and non-profits are among the hardest-hit.
• Just why did the NFL and the Los Angeles NBC affiliate ban an ad on marriage equality, and then lie that they weren't airing "advocacy-based" ads during on Super Bowl Sunday to boot? Someone ought to find out.
• California now has less wind power capacity than Iowa. I don't totally agree with the conclusions for why, but it's worth studying.
• CA-Sen: ZOMG, Chuck DeVore Twitters! And Facebooks! He raised $1,600 on Twitter! He's TOTALLY like Obama! (Is that 140 characters yet?)
By the way, that picture in the WSJ of DeVore checking his Blackberry like a strung-out meth addict should be atop all of Barbara Boxer's campaign literature for the next couple years.
I have to admit that this is kind of unexpected. Not only did State Sen. Gil Cedillo announce his intention to run for Congress in the seat soon to be vacated by incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, but Gloria Romero, who was widely expected to run for the seat, abruptly decided to bow out, endorsing Cedillo and announcing her intention to run for State Superintendent of Public Instruction instead.
Here's a bit from Romero's statement:
I have evaluated the wonderful opportunities before me and have chosen to listen to my heart.
My passion is education. I understand that education is the civil rights issue of our time -- the great equalizer in America . My commitment -- particularly now as the Chair of both the powerful Senate Education Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee on Education -- is to lead the Senate's effort to transform and hold accountable our state's public education system.
It is for this reason that I have chosen to decline to run for Congress and to pursue my dream of becoming California 's next Superintendent of Public Instruction [...]
I endorse Senator Cedillo and look forward to working with him to continue the "change we can believe in" both in California and Washington in these troubling times.
And here's a bit from Cedillo's:
State senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) today confirmed his intention to run for the 32nd congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Hilda Solis, the Obama administration choice for Secretary of Labor.
"This is a tremendous opportunity for Latinos and the working people of East Los Angeles and San Gabriel Valley. Hilda Solis has been a strong leader on labor and economic issues for the 32nd District. As a candidate I seek to continue that focus, creating a competitive workforce, securing access to affordable healthcare and investment into public safety and transportation," shared Cedillo.
This changes the calculus of this race a bit. Gloria Romero represented most of this district in the State Senate. Gil Cedillo actually does not. In fact, Judy Chu has represented maybe more of this area than Cedillo has. Chu has already grabbed the endorsements of local Assemblymen Kevin DeLeon and Ed Hernandez. And if more Hispanics join the field, that could certainly chip away at Cedillo's support among low-information voters. One of the Calderon brothers may still jump in. And Dante noted last week that Emanuel Pleitez may run.
This kind of makes this astroturf piece by Paul Hefner, playing down expectations that Chu could win in a divided race and playing up Romero's chances while disclosing midway through that he WORKS for Romero, look ridiculous in retrospect. (What's even funnier is the dueling astroturf comment in that piece from Judy Chu's former chief of staff.)
I would be careful with assuming that ethnic support is monolithic. The last special election we saw with an ethnic divide, in CA-37, was decided more because of strong labor support for Laura Richardson than identity politics, though it never stopped Richardson from trying to frame the entire race that way. Chu absolutely can garner support in Latino areas, as much as Cedillo can in Monterey Park. Labor's endorsement is going to mean a lot.
On the merits, I would say that Cedillo would certainly be a strong progressive with a particular interest in immigration policy, and Chu has a good background through the Board of Equalization on taxes and economics. Hopefully we'll have both of them on Calitics in the near future to discuss their candidacies.
(P.S. This HuffPo article about the new Progressive Change Campaign Committee suggests that they might play in CA-32. That ship has pretty much sailed, though if they got on board with Sen. Cedillo it may make some sense.
The Bush Administration has released midnight regulation changes that make it easier for growers to slash the pay of domestic farm workers and hire imported foreign laborers instead of U.S. field workers. They will weaken government protections in an industry known for violating the minimum wage, housing requirements and other rules. We must do everything we can to avoid having these regulations implemented. Please help!
Los Angeles Times, 12/16/08: Not content to leave office as the most unpopular president in recent history, Bush is cementing his legacy of hardheaded autocracy by pushing through a record number of last-minute and particularly noxious changes in federal regulations. Bypassing congressional debate and often receiving public comments through government websites, the administration has in recent months issued dozens of "midnight regulations" that in some cases could take years to reverse. This isn't just leaving a stamp on the country, it's more like inking a tattoo.
Perennial candidate Tom McClintock is a beloved figure on the far right. We just didn't know how far.
It turns out that in 2003, when McClintock was running for his eleventy-teenth political office in the California governor recall election, he was endorsed by none other than the KKK.
Dateline: September 27, 2003
Ku Klux Klan Announces support for Tom McClintock
The Imperial Klans of America, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (IKA) have announced their full support for Tom
McClintock's bid for the governorship of California. Their support is announced in what they term "the
lesser of all evil candidates."
When interviewed, Mr. Chris Johnson (Grand Dragon or State Director of the IKA's California chapter) had this to say regarding the announcement, "While Mr. McClintock is not the perfect candidate for California Governor, we have more in common with his ideology than any of the other candidates. We are in congruence with his stand on illegal aliens infecting our land and his courage in standing up to the invasion." Mr. Johnson went on to say that, "Mr. McClintock echoes our anti-abortion stand, and our opposition to oppressive taxation."
I guess the McClintock campaign can spin this by saying that at least the KKK called him evil, even if he was the lesser of all the rest?
Here's the thing: organizations can choose to endorse anybody they want, and the candidates have no control over that. But McClintock never said a peep five years ago when he got this endorsement. And there's a Chris Johnson on McClintock's donor list from that 2003 gubernatorial race. Chris Johnson is obviously a common name, and the donation is $100, so take it with a grain of salt. But certainly, McClintock needs to answer the question of why he never rejected the endorsement and why they never sought out and returned money that would even have the appearance of coming from the Klan.
More to the point, McClintock is just the kind of guy to demonize an opponent's associations. In fact, when running for governor in 2003, McClintock compared then-Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante's association with the Hispanic student group MEChA to, you guessed it, the KKK.
State Sen. Tom McClintock, a conservative Republican rival, recently likened the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, also known as MEChA, to the Ku Klux Klan.
"It's like saying, 'Oh, I was a moderate member of the Klan,'" McClintock said last month on the San Diego radio station KOGO. "It's incumbent on Cruz Bustamante to clearly and completely renounce ...
The idea that the KKK finds ideological kinship with McClintock is pretty much a no-brainer. His demonization of illegal immigrants as the cause of so much of the nation's economic woes plays to the baser instincts of the racist right. He's running a campaign against Charlie Brown that has recently seized on Brown's appearance at an anti-war rally before the invasion of Iraq as somehow un-American. It's really not too much of a logical leap here.
As our economy continues to stagger and gasp along with record market failures-- and the failure of our paralytic government to do a single thing about it-- a lot of people are searching for explanations.
Take, for example, Michelle Malkin and Mark Krikorian. Yes, they're searching-- one might even say they are grasping at straws.
Malkin's subtle theory is that the whole thing is a natural consequence of letting too many Mexicans across the border:
The Mother of All Bailouts has many fathers...But there's one giant paternal elephant in the room that has slipped notice: how illegal immigration, crime-enabling banks, and open-borders Bush policies fueled the mortgage crisis.
Yes, I wish I was satirizing poor Michelle-- but her feeble little brain actually did come up with that statement in all apparent seriousness.
• So the budget has been finally signed. Apparently the Governor blue-penciled $510 million in projects. Here are some specifics on what those blue pencils are - apparently a lot of cuts to seniors, which is real classy. I'll have more on this tomorrow. (Dave)
• You may remember a lot of noise about a proposed toll road through the San Onofre State Beach. The California Coastal Commission rejected it, but supporters took the extraordinary step of calling on the Commerce Department to ram this through. There was a furious debate about this yesterday, with over 650 people packed into a public hearing in Del Mar, and over 150 speakers. Even if the Commerce Department rules in favor of the toll road, there would be more approvals needed, plus court cases, etc., so this would go on and on.
• Speaking of a pluralistic society, immigration is down. Apparently people don't want to come to deal with our crappy economy. (B)
• Also unsurprisingly, homeownership rates are down. Case in point, San Diego. (B)
• The official response to the first No on Prop. 8, Equality for All campaign's first ad is that the ad was "a blatant appeal to sympathy and emotion." aka this is really effective and we don't like it. Somewhere there is a little harp playing. (Julia)
• And finally, friend of the blog thereisnospoon appears in a new Microsoft ad where the company tries to recast their image as reflecting the spirit of the cutting edge. I'm assuming that spoon is a PC because he digs World of Warcraft and first-person shooters or something, because frankly I can't see another reason.
UPDATE: One more item, a statement from DiFi on the terrible decision by the House Commerce committee to lift the offshore oil moratorium:
"I think it's awful. This battle is not over. We will come back and fight another day - that's for sure. I regret the House appropriations committee didn't see fit to go with a better, more widely accepted alternative, which would have kept in place a moratorium 50 miles or more off shore. In my view, there were better options than this."
So he came all the way back to San Diego and didn't go to his district. Why? So that he could burnish his fake-environmentalist credentials by...celebrating the destruction of local wetlands. Now this might be a bit confusing if you've been receiving any of Bilbray's official franking mail recently, because they claim he's "keeping our beaches and water clean." Except of course that he's not. It's convenient though- he can send these barely-legal and completely dishonest mail pieces from DC so he never has to go to the district and face the voters, then he can come to San Diego and claim he's been to town even though his event isn't in the district and directly contradicts his mailers, and then he can go back to DC hoping that everyone noticed a little bit but not too much. Because it probably wouldn't be too good for him if people looked very closely at him or his voting record.
In an unanticipated flip flop (this one in particular, not the flipping in general) this past weekend while in San Diego addressing the National Council of La Raza, John McCain signaled his unequivocal support for the DREAM Act:
Q: "Will you support humanity all across the world and support The DREAM Act that we are trying to pass?"
A: "Yes. Yes, but I will also enforce the existing laws. That's why we must secure the border..."
McCain was a sponsor of the DREAM Act in 2003, 2005 and 2007, but NOW in 2007:
McCain Skipped Vote On DREAM Act But Said He Would Have Voted Against Bill That He Co-Sponsored. "Last week, McCain skipped a Senate vote on immigration legislation called the DREAM Act - Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors. He then said he would have voted against the bill, even though he was a co-sponsor." [Myrtle Beach Sun-News, 11/2/07 ]
This is remarkable on its face and is a clear attempt to pull Latino voters to McCain and make California competitive, but it doesn't exactly jive with the spin that was being pushed around yesterday after Obama's luncheon speech.
The real absurdity of McCain's strategy, at least with regard to reaching Latino voters in California, was on full display Sunday following Obama's La Raza speech, and it basically boiled down to telling Latinos that the elected Latinos throughout the state are failures. Hector Barajas, Director of Communications for the California GOP ticked off the list of Democratic boogeymen: Antonio Villaraigosa, Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo. Not just three of the most visible Latino politicians in the state, but ones that are noteworthy for championing Latino causes. Heck, Cedillo sponsored the DREAM Act that McCain now supports.
The other day I brought up immigration, asking the practical question of how we would identify people who are here without documentation.
Suppose -- just suppose -- the people who advocate harsh treatment of non-citizens are successful in their efforts, and our government starts an effort to locate and deport them. How do we identify who is here without authorization? This is a practical question.
Americans are not required to "carry papers." We do not have checkpoints, and inside of the country we do not have to prove that we are traveling with proper authorization. We certainly do not have to prove that we are citizens. Many of us could never even locate the documentation necessary to prove citizenship if we were, in fact, required to prove it.
I want to ask some questions about how to handle our issue of undocumented immigrants. There is very little disagreement that our borders have become unacceptably porous and that we've got to change the way we secure them. That being said, how we approach solving the problem of the large number of people who are here already? The debate needs to be a practical and rational one rather than emotional and reactive so we can achieve sound and effective solutions.
I consider Antonio Villaraigosa's term as mayor to be generally a disappointment. Brought into office with a lot of hope and even more hype, Villaraigosa has certainly made his way around the city, the nation and the world, appearing at every event from the biggest gala to random neighborhood picnics, but he hasn't gotten a whole lot done other than commandeering the school board. It's as hard to govern Los Angeles as it has California, but the energy and enthusiasm Villaraigosa has for the job seems to be an end in itself, and it certainly isn't channeled into an agenda that can be at all considered progressive.
However, this has been a pretty good week for him. He started by presiding over his first same-sex marriage, which may have been a political calculation but still reflects his abiding belief in equality, so I applaud it. Then, he announced his support of a half-cent sales tax hike to fund mass transit. Big-city mayors are obviously sensitive to transit issues, but Villaraigosa is making sure they are prioritized. This could be a reaction to a Metro Board study that showed on-time rates to be among the worst in the nation. The Metro Board has hired ten more supervisors in response to that, and yesterday they drafted the proposal for the sales tax increase for the November ballot as part of a 25-year plan. If Villaraigosa, who sits on the Metro Board and appoints three other members, can make himself the poster child for expanded transit, and transform LA from a car city to a more vibrant transit culture, he will have left a positive legacy.
Finally, Villaraigosa's LAPD successfully fought a court challenge over its policy banning officers from "initiating contact with people for the sole purpose of learning their immigration status." It's a resource question but also one about the kind of city we want to be, one that is humane and respects the dignity of our people or one like an Eastern Bloc nation constantly asking everyone for their papers and engages in ethnic profiling. The LAPD now has the legal right to continue their policy.
The Mayor certainly has higher aspirations, and with some more weeks like this, he may actually deserve them.
