A new initiative organized by Howie Klein, Jane Hamsher, fellow Calitician Dante Atkins and myself to verbally and financially reward Congressmembers who pledge to vote down any healthcare bill that does not include the public option is catching fire today. The objective is to use carrots as well as sticks to achieve progressive goals. As I said in the diary kicking off this intiative at DailyKos:
Human beings are psychologically predictable creatures, much like Pavlov's famous canine. We do respond well to punishment, but we respond just as well if not better to positive reinforcement. Do nothing but beat a dog with a stick, and the dog is likelier to be aggressive than lovingly loyal. Do nothing but scream at a child, and the child will eventually fail to respond to her abusive parent. Senators and Representatives, no matter how elevated, are still just people: the rules of psychological conditioning still apply. If all we can do is scream at people who don't do what we want, eventually no one will listen to us at all.
If you have the resources, please consider donations to our excellent California legislators. For those who can't chip in, DFA has a thank you action item to thank our healthcare heroes.
With an approach that uses more carrots and less sticks, hopefully we can encourage others in California and across the country to join these brave progressive leaders.
I'm sitting here in the Pepsi Center for my first crack at the state blogger seat, and listening to CA Rep Mike Honda. He hit on all the major themes that have been coming up: service to one's country, and working to improve the nation's future. He spoke of the call that JFK issued to bring the country to service through the Peace Corps and other programs.
Earlier, JFK Speechwriter Ted Sorenson asked the following question to the hall:
Are we going to be the first generation to leave the country worse off than we found it?
And that, my friends, is the big question. It is hard to take the Senior Senator from Arizona seriously on the important economic issues when he says things like this from the Tonight Show with Jay Leno that will air this evening:
Leno: "For $1 million, how many houses do you have?"
McCain: "Could I just mention to you, Jay, that, at a moment of seriousness, I spent five-and-a-half years in a prison cell. I didn't have a house. I didn't have a kitchen table. I didn't have a table. I didn't have a chair. And I didn't spend those five-and-a-half years because, not because I wanted to get a house when I got out."
Senator, we honor your service, but your service is not a cloak of invincibility. It is not a shield that can be wielded against all comers. The Senator cannot simply ignore the question.
Back on the floor, LA area Rep. Linda Sanchez gave us a story about walking into an elevator in the Capitol. Some men in the elevator asked who's office do you work in? She responded that she had her own office in the building.
On the serious tip, Ms. Sanchez said that the costs for families have been rapidly increasing, and we worry about our economic security, but Obama knows that we need to get the economy back on track. If you work hard and play by the rules you won't be left behind. We must preserve the programs that help Americans to achieve economic success.
UPDATE: NY GOV David Patterson threw out the percentages of disabled Americans who are out of work and then asked who would do more to bring back the power of the American dream. The crowd, of course, responded with "Barack Obama."
I've been mulling this around in my head for a few days. Three powerful members of the House Judiciary committee have have sent a letter to the Justice Department calling for an investigation into leaks surrounding the inquiry into State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.
No article since November 2004 has explicitly said that any information came from a federal government source. But in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey obtained by The Times on Monday, U.S. Reps. John Conyers Jr., Linda Sanchez and Zoe Lofgren wrote, "We are disturbed and concerned that news story after news story . . . has cited federal law enforcement sources as the basis of information."
The only article specifically mentioned in the July 31 letter was a story in the San Francisco Chronicle. The article cited "sources familiar with the probe," a broad term that could encompass federal agents, defense attorneys and people who have been questioned [...]
On Friday, the day after the congressional letter was sent, a Wall Street Journal article said the investigation into Perata "gained momentum over the past year." The article's details were attributed to anonymous people "close to the defense," who said Perata's longtime political consultant, Sandi Polka, was granted immunity to compel her to answer questions.
The Perata investigation certainly has dragged on for years, leading to him needing more and more funds to raise in his defense. In particular, the dumping of $250,000 from the California Democratic Party into his legal defense fund raised a lot of eyebrows around these parts. After the initial explanation of "We're the CDP and we can do what we want," a secondary explanation was that the investigation had been politicized and that this was part of the DoJ's efforts to prosecute and delegitimize Democrats. A couple weeks later, out comes this letter, signed by two members of the California delegation. But it's Conyers' participation that makes me believe that this is a real concern. I trust Conyers enough to think that he wouldn't simply badger the DoJ to help out a political problem in California.
Of course, let's look at what the letter is actually alleging. It's not suggesting that the investigation itself is unnecessarily political, but that someone inside the investigation is using the media to disparage Perata. That may well be true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the whole investigation is a farce.
Let's now look at what this does NOT suggest:
• It in no way excuses the CDP for paying off Perata with $250,000 in the middle of an election year, whether that money was simply laundered through them and earmarked for Perata or not. Based on this SacBee report, it appears Perata is perfectly capable of raising money for himself:
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has solicited at least $200,000 this year from political interest groups for a nonprofit foundation that promotes and rallies support for one of his bills.
The arrangement, apparently legal, allows the Senate leader to solicit unlimited funds for his own political agenda without having to detail how the money is spent.
"He may have found a loophole in the Political Reform Act that needs to be closed," said attorney Bob Stern, a co-author of the state's Political Reform Act who now runs the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.
Which leads me to point 2:
• There is no way that Perata should still be Senate President Pro Tem at this point. While he has done a good job of hammering Republicans for their intransigence on the budget, this image hit, as well as the constant distraction of having to find new ways to raise money for his legal bills, are not what we need at this sensitive time, ESPECIALLY when Darrell Steinberg is waiting in the wings and perfectly capable of performing the same duties without the black cloud of indictment hanging over the head of the Democratic leadership. They haven't even taken a caucus vote on this yet, to my knowledge - it's currently scheduled for August 21, but during these budget negotiations that's doubtful to come off.
It is perfectly consistent to be skeptical of the Justice Department's case against Perata and to ALSO demand that he step down from his leadership position, and to excoriate the CDP for their conduct in either shoveling Perata money or acting as a conduit for that fund transfer.
While not tremendously important, the Platform Drafting Committee kinda does its thing every four years. In 2004, the DNC produced this piece of milquetoast (PDF). As the nation's largest state, we always have some sort of hand in this, but this year, California will be represented by some interesting choices:
Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez were among the 19 Democrats named to the Democratic Party's national Platform Drafting Committee. (CapAlert 7/9/08)
I'd guess that clean money campaigns won't be the first thing we see Núñez lobbying for, but I imagine that the pair will have some specific issues of concern. These things tend not to get into a great deal of specifics, but they can become oppo pieces for a number of candidates. It will be interesting to see how the pair plays this.
Via Newseum, here's how Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton in South Carolina is playing above the fold in today's California's Sunday papers:
Bakersfield Californian: Obama routs Clinton in S.C. North County Times (Escondido): Obama romps in South Carolina LA Daily News: Obama defeats Clinton in rout in S. Carolina LA Times: Obama easily captures strongest win yet in S.C. Modesto Bee: Obama crushes Clinton in South Carolina primary Sacramento Bee: Obama's big win sets up next fight San Diego Union-Tribune: Obama thrashes rivals in S.C. San Francisco Chronicle: OBAMA WINS BIG IN S. CAROLINA Orange County Register: Obama runs away with S.C. Contra Costa Times: Obama nets huge win in S. Carolina
More after the flip and please use the comments to let us everyone know what you're doing and seeing locally.
There is a huge fight right now to fix the FISA bill, with a new one called "The RESTORE Act" (H.R. 3773). Two big issues: 1) Will they include language that let's the FBI issue blanket, rather than targeted warrants? 2) Will they give immunity to the phone companies who broke the law because Bush told them too? The bill is up in the House and the final language is a moving target. It is the crucial time to get in touch with people who might be persuaded to ensure good language goes to the floor for a vote.
The bill caves in to Bush's fear-mongering in a major way: it does NOT required the government to get an individual warrant before wiretapping Americans' phones and emails. Instead, it allows for program or basket "warrants," which aren't really warrants at all. They're the modern-day equivalent of allowing government agents to sit in our living rooms, recording our personal conversations. Only they're more frightening, because the government now has the capacity to monitor us remotely and without our knowledge, and to save the information in a secret database forever.
One good thing is that the bill doesn't yet include immunity for telecom companies that broke the law by handing over Americans' private communications to the government, but we're hearing immunity could be added back to the bill at any time.
Here are a few folks I know need to hear from you. Give them a ring. It is much more effective than sending email, though you can do that too.
CA-29 Adam Schiff Schiff 2022254176
CA-14 Anna Eshoo Eshoo 2022258104
CA-27 Brad Sherman Sherman 2022255911
CA-28 Howard Berman Berman 2022254695
CA-39 Linda Sanchez Sanchez 2022256676
CA-35 Maxine Waters Waters 2022252201
CA-01 Mike Thompson Thompson 2022253311
CA-08 Nancy Pelosi Pelosi 2022254965
CA-16 Zoe Lofgren Lofgren 2022253072
Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry's 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she's still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.
For all of you CA-45 fans, "moderate" Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she's still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.
On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she's being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.
(I was working on a similar post, but I'll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new "when the chips are down" scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA's congressional delegation, in descending order.
I'm guessing that at tonight's Calitics' Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house -- wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.
...who just signed on to a letter to the President vowing not to appropriate any more money to the Iraq debacle for anything other than a fully funded withdrawal. Kudos to these 12:
Lynn Woolsey
Barbara Lee
Maxine Waters
Ellen Tauscher
Diane Watson
Bob Filner
Hilda Solis
Grace Napolitano
Linda Sanchez
Mike Honda
Pete Stark
Lois Capps
Yesterday, we found out about that Rep. Joe Baca (D-San Bernardino) allegedly called his Congressional colleague Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove) "a whore". Also yesterday, we learned that Loretta intended to resign from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), which Baca now leads. Now, Politico is reporting that two California Congresswomen are saying that Loretta is not the only one who doesn't feel comfortable in the CHC.
Follow me after the flip for some insight into this growing problem on Capitol Hill...
