I wanted to give you an update on my congressional race.
On Monday, the LA Times reported some good news about California's redrawn Congressional districts. According to the Times, Republican "party leaders aren't happy about the situation. Some say privately that the GOP could lose up to five of its 19 California congressional seats."
However, the Times also quotes David Wasserman, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, who said "there are some Republican opportunities" as well. Specifically, Republican strategists have targeted my race because Congressional District 24 "has been made more compact and more evenly divided between Democrats and Republican voters." LA Times link
Without question, my district is the toughest Democratic-held seat to defend in California. The district has the slimmest margin of Democratic voters in the state.
During my time in Congress, I have developed strong relationships with the residents of my district. But the Republican playbook is to "nationalize" this race and try to distract voters from my solid record working as their representative in Washington and providing effective constituent services.
Already Karl Rove's SuperPAC Crossroads GPS has run a false TV ad criticizing me for supporting Healthcare reform. The National Republican Campaign Committee also ran a TV ad against me in the district that the Washington Post factchecker debunked, giving it "4 Pincocchios!"
There are at least three Republicans who have indicated they may run. Millionaire Abel Maldonado is running and has already invested $250,000 of his own money in the race. Tea Party favorites Tom Watson and Chris Mitchum are also running and they tied for first place in a recent straw poll, showing their ability to energize the Republican base.
Meanwhile, I'm not taking any chances. Our experienced campaign manager, Kris Pratt, is on the ground now and we're staffing up our finance and field teams so we can be ready for 2012.
I know there's a big bulls-eye on my race, so I'm reaching out to you and progressive activists across California. I hope you'll play a big role in my campaign. You can reach us at lois@cappsforcongress.com or get involved at www.cappsforcongress.com
We need your help to organize in my district and raise money so we can communicate with voters. We need to win seats like CD24 to take back the U.S. House of Representatives.
So I hope you'll join me in 2012 and help us keep California's beautiful Central Coastal district blue.
One of the many flaws of California's term limits law is that it creates needless conflict and enmity between would-be allies each vying to do their part to make the State a better place, as each candidate is forced to abandon a job they have just barely learned, to campaign for a different job. Conflicts arise in this perpetual game of musical chairs, accountability is minimal, and activists are left in a jam deciding whom to support.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in AD-35, where Assemblymember Pedro Nava has been termed out, forcing a run at the Attorney General job. The power vacuum left by Nava's absence has opened the field for two impressive candidates, both of whom are well-liked in the district: Susan Jordan, Mr. Nava's wife and co-founder of the California Coastal Protection Network (CCPN) and Vote The Coast, and Das Williams, Santa Barbara City Councilman and longtime community activist through CAUSE as their legislative analyst. Williams also serves as a national board member of the National Organization for Women, and is on the Peabody Charter School Board.
Most activists here in the Ventura and Santa Barbara areas know each of these individuals well, and have worked with them on multiple issues. As the race intensifies, it is painful for many to make a choice between them, and many have avoided doing so to date. I personally have endorsed Mr. Williams, having worked with him on a number of different issues here already in less than a year of local activism, while my contact with Ms. Jordan has been more limited. Each candidate has amassed a long list of endorsers (in-fighting remains about who exactly has endorsed whom at this point, adding to the confusion), and a large number remain on the fence. Ms. Jordan's biggest ally, obviously, is Assemblymember Nava; Mr. Williams, however, counters with the almost equally hard-hitting support of Hannah-Beth Jackson, whom he served as Chief of Staff in the SD-19 2008 election.
On a personal level, there is already significant rancor between the two sides: while both have promised a positive campaign, and neither candidate has made overt attacks on the other, various operatives have been busy attempting to earn support with some negative charges. Williams is extremely active in the community and had expected to be next in line for the spot; his backers have hinted at nepotism between Nava and Jordan; Jordan backers paint Das as overly ambitious and opportunistic because Williams previously ran unsuccessfully for Supervisor, because of his comparative youth at 34 years of age, and because many say that Williams had told them earlier in the year that he would not run for the seat. Williams is in his second term on the Santa Barbara City Council, and will be termed out--needlessly adding increased stakes under the guise of "reform" through term limits.
Also an issue in the race is the vaunted PXP drilling at Tranquillon Ridge: during the early days of the proposed deal, Williams backed a variety of local environmental organizations in supporting the deal. Jordan and Nava were opposed, due to precedent and the belief, later reinforced by various agencies, that the deal's sunset provision would be unenforceable. The deal eventually became the famous statewide issue it is today, and it is sure to be a major attack avenue against Mr. Williams by Ms. Jordan.
To date, the race is playing out similar to the Clinton-Obama primary war in a battle between youth/change and experience/responsibility--but with an added wrinkle. While Mr. Williams is young, he also boasts greater experience in elected office, particularly in the field of balancing budgets, an issue particularly crucial to Assembly candidates. Mr. Williams has repeatedly referenced Santa Barbara's continued balanced budgets as proof of his ability to make difficult budget choices in a progressive fashion in a tough economic environment, and contrasted his record in Santa Barbara with that of the legislature in Sacramento (somewhat unfairly, as the SB city council is not hamstrung by a 2/3 rule). Ms. Jordan, meanwhile, will be running ostensibly (and probably unfairly) to the left of Mr. Williams on environmental issues, will be leveraging her longstanding statewide activism, and will portray herself as something of an outsider to the political process despite her connection with Mr. Nava, while attempting to frame Mr. Williams as a career politician.
It is in this somewhat unpleasant context that the Williams campaign released their surprisingly strong fundraising numbers yesterday evening (the Jordan campaign released its own press release this afternoon.) While it was expected that Ms. Jordan would outraise Mr. Williams due to greater large-scale institutional support and an earlier head start (including a high-profile fundraiser at the home of Pierce Brosnan), the campaigns are essentiallyeven in terms of fundraising, with each campaign spinning the numbers as coming out in their favor: the Williams campaign is emphasizing Jordan's $12,000 loan to her own campaign to even up the numbers, while the Jordan campaign is emphasizing its $10,000 advantage in cash on hand.
The full text of the competing press releases follows below the fold:
As Brian noted, in the full list of the Governor's slash and burn budget, the offshore drilling proposal in Tranquillon Ridge off the Santa Barbara coast remains. After a key environmental group backed away from the plan, which originally was structured as a compromise proposal to allow an additional rig in exchange for ending all drilling in the channel by 2022 (which the Lands Commission determined was unenforceable), many expected the plan to be scrapped. But it remains, despite the fact that the California Lands Commission spoke out yesterday, calling on the legislature to put a stop to this power grab.
The State Lands Commission on Monday lashed out at an attempt by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to allow the first new oil drilling in California waters since 1969.
Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, chairman of the three-member panel, called the governor's effort "a naked power grab." At a contentious hearing in Santa Monica, the commission passed a resolution urging legislators not to go along with the plan, which would revive a drilling proposal off the Santa Barbara County coast that the commission killed in January.
The Commission doesn't out-and-out call this illegal. But they hold jurisdiction over oil drilling, and the Governor is simply trying to go over their heads. You can basically shut down the California Lands Commission if this goes through, because they will be rendered impotent.
And of course, while the Administration foregrounds the $2 billion dollars to be gained from allowing the leases in Tranquillon, he does not make a peep about charging an oil severance tax, to actually make the oil companies pay to take California's natural resources out of the ground.
(Truly an amazing reversal by Governor Hoover on this. - promoted by David Dayen)
What can $100 million buy you? Apparently California's coastline if Big Oil has its way.
In late January, as chair of the California State Lands Commission, I joined State Controller John Chiang in a two-to-one vote to deny the first offshore oil lease off the coast of California in more than four decades. To permit more oil production off the coast of California, a state seen the world over as a leader in environmental stewardship, would have sent a terrible signal that California isn't yet prepared to embrace a green economy. The risk of a major oil spill killing marine life, soiling the coast, and decimating marine-based industries and tourism is simply too high for a quick buck.
Sadly, as part of yesterday's drastic state budget May Revision, California once again faces a renewed push to allow oil drilling off the coast of California. Big Oil has essentially offered to California $100 million dollars to seduce the state into granting the first new oil drilling lease in California since the Santa Barbara oil spill 41 years ago, a spill that covered hundreds of miles of ocean and over 30 miles of sandy beaches with more than three million gallons of crude oil. Learning from history means not blindly repeating the mistakes of the past.
Today we learned that the Jesusita fire in the Santa Barbara area was likely caused by power tools used in brush cutting around the Jesusita hiking trail. The good folks at the Santa Barbara Independent have been an excellent source of information:
The fire cause appears related to the use of power tool equipment involved in vegetation clearance. Fire investigators are requesting public assistance with identification of the person or persons engaged in vegetation clearance on Monday, May 4th, and Tuesday, May 5th, 2009. The unidentified persons are known to have been on the trail between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on both days.(Press release via SB Independent 5/10/2009)
While nobody has suggested arson of any sort at this point, the hot dry weather combined with the fact that the region has received very little rainfall made any spark dangerous. It is just that this one took off. As noted above, the authorities are looking for whomever was cutting brush with the power tools though.
The fact is that areas across the state are extremely vulnerable to fire this year.
"Every year seems to be getting worse," said Halsey, who works for the California Chaparral Institute. "I don't see the climate changing and people are still building. If this is any indication, it certainly seems like it is going to get a lot worse."
Invasive, fire-prone weeds have taken over in many areas of Northern and Southern California, he said, creating kindling for fire. Combine that with a warming climate, drought and an ever-increasing population and you have what he called "a perfect storm" for fire.(SF Chronicle 5/9/09)
Every year the fires begin earlier and earlier, the droughts have been devastating, and increasing temperatures only add to the danger. Of course, the fires themselves are massive contributors to global warming as they release massive amounts of C02, some have estimated that wildfires release up to 5% of America's greenhouse gasses. And so the cycle continues.
Whether or not the state is in a budget crisis, the fires this year are going to require whatever resources they require. Quite simply they are not optional. While the feds will provide some resources, a big fire season will still be a huge drain on our state budget. And even more importantly, it will threaten lives and the wherewithal of Californians already stretched to the brink.
The flames are growing above Santa Barbara this afternoon, as a wildfire that seemed to start near Jesusita Trail in San Roque Canyon continues to march its way up the mountains.
Wildfire expert and Indy correspondent Ray Ford is with a fire crew about 400 yards from the fire, which has been officially named the Jesusita Fire. He said that it is burning straight uphill, with 40-foot high flames. He said that the wind is starting to blow hard, with 20 to 25 mph gusts, pushing the fire northeast and east into Mission Canyon. He's watching two helicopters attack the fire, and says they are doing a good job of knocking it down. He has noticed a plume coming up from Mission Canyon and believes something may be burning there. But the fire does not seem to be moving back down San Roque Canyon at the moment.
Mandatory evacuations are underway in the Santa Barbara foothills, although the current path of the fire is quite unclear. This is pretty early in the year to see a major wildfire, as the "season" usually doesn't start until June 1. But global warming and the drought are causing nearly year-round fire conditions across the state, putting an added strain on firefighting resources.
Something Arnold might want to think about before threatening to destroy Cal Fire as part of a tantrum over voters' unwillingness to support Prop 1A.
The State Lands Commission scuttled a proposed compromise that would have brought new oil drilling to the Santa Barbara coast for the first time in California since 1969, in what is seemingly a victory for environmental and coastal protection advocates. However, some are arguing that the proposal, which would have mandated closure of 4 additional oil platforms off the coast within 13 years, should have gone through.
But a parade of local officials, residents and environmental activists insisted the plan would have advanced efforts to protect the coast by eventually closing four of the region's 20 platforms.
"For the first time in history, the public and the state will be able to shut down existing oil production," argued Linda Krop, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center and one of the people behind the proposal. "Without this project, they'll continue indefinitely -- perhaps another 40 years." [...]
Nineteen of the 20 platforms that dot the ocean off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties are in federal waters. Shuttering four of them, says Krop of the Environmental Defense Center, would make it difficult for the federal government to lease underwater tracts accessible from those platforms.
And with closure of the two processing plants, the prospect would have been more unlikely, she said.
Read the whole article. There was a significant green alliance in favor of this drilling-for-closure exchange. I tend to agree with the Lands Commission that the proposal for closure wasn't completely enforceable, but then, that's their job to write the law with some enforcement, isn't it? (I guess their concern is that these are federal waters and the state would be limited to enforce end-dates.) I also understand John Garamendi's stated rationale, that approving one lease would set off a parade of oil companies coming to sully the coast, but off course those are approved on a case-by-case basis as well.
If we're going to talk seriously about drilling off the coast in the future, there should be at least a couple bright lines - closure deals like this, and the implementation of an oil severance tax so that we're not the only state in the country that doesn't charge a fee to industry for taking our natural resources out of the ground.
It's an interesting debate - legislators are split, with coastal Assemblymembers opposing but the locals in Santa Barbara in favor, and even Lois Capps thinks it's a worthwhile deal. Endless oil and gas concerns off the coast ought to be dealt with, it's a good question to ask whether this is the right way.
The Santa Barbara based Alliance for Sustainable and Equitable Regional Transportation (ASERT) convened a panel discussion at the Santa Barbara Central Public Library on Saturday January 24th, 2009. The event celebrated the Nov 2008 passage of Measure A, which funds county transportation projects through a dedicated sales tax, while anticipating future challenges and opportunities in light of both economic conditions and the funding priorities of the Obama administration.
One of the most potent objections to the Republicans' drilling zealotry has been to remind Americans of the devastation that resulted from the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. As Van Jones explained in his talk with David Dayen, the fight against drilling is a fight FOR jobs and the economy and Santa Barbara knows this well. When oil drenches the beaches, kids get sick, service industry jobs that the already-struggling Santa Barbara working class depends upon vanish, and the overall economy suffers. Which is why Santa Barbara County has led the fight against offshore drilling for the last 40 years.
Until now. The rapid growth of Santa Maria, in the northern part of the county, has shifted the county's political demography. North county conservatives now control the Board of Supervisors 3-2. And even though they voted last year to reaffirm their support of the offshore drilling ban, Santa Barbara's role as the poster child for drilling's consequences has led them to change their minds. As the LA Times reports, the Republican majority is expected to vote to support drilling:
Nearly 40 years after a disastrous oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast galvanized the nation and gave birth to the modern environmental movement, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors is poised to vote Tuesday in support of offshore drilling...
But Tuesday's vote is as much about the tension between inland and the coast as it is about the price of a barrel of crude. Population and political power have been shifting away from the more liberal coast, and the board of supervisors has a conservative, pro-industry majority for the first time in about a decade.
The result: An expected 3-2 vote to support increased oil drilling off the same beaches that were coated in crude and covered with the corpses of birds, seals and dolphins after 3 million gallons of oil leaked from an offshore drilling site in 1969.
As you can see by the lede, the LA Times is dutifully buying into the Republican game plan - if you can show America that even Santa Barbara supports drilling, then your cause is boosted that much more strongly. The devil's in the details, of course - the Supervisors that actually represent the coast support the ban, and the 3 who will vote against the ban are from inland areas. They're playing their part in the grand Republican plan quite effectively.
At the same time they're going against the economic needs of their constituents. The rapid growth of Santa Maria is driven by housing costs - it's more affordable for workers whose jobs are on the coast to live in Santa Maria and commute down 101 to Santa Barbara. If drilling is renewed, it WILL lead to more oil spills, and Santa Maria residents will suffer. And for what? So that oil companies can sell the oil on the global market.
As David Dayen and Van Jones agreed earlier today, Democrats need to fight back on economic terms. Santa Barbara County residents need permanent alternatives to high gas prices, they need good jobs, and they need affordable housing. Santa Barbara County residents would be signing an economic death warrant by backing new drilling, regardless of which side of the mountains they live on.
The latest on the California wildfires is that Goleta has been saved for the moment. Firefighters are diverting their resources to protecting the much larger city of Santa Barbara.
Fire crews, backed by 10 airtankers, will now concentrate on rugged terrain near Goleta to block a potential advance toward Santa Barbara, said Rolf Larsen, another spokesman for the multi-agency effort.
"The priority is to put a lot of resources in and order where there are homes and specifically to the east ... where it could move toward Santa Barbara," Larsen said.
The area's steep slopes and canyons are filled with dry brush that in some spots has not burned for a half a century.
Weather is aiding the effort to protect Big Sur as moist air has rolled in for a day, but already 20 homes have been lost.
The real problem is that we have so many fires and scant resources to deal with them. We need money, not just for more firefighters and planes, but to deal with the public health threat that arises from weeks' worth of smoke Over time we're going to need to find a way, with the increasing year-round fire season, to provide more equipment and staff to attack what will probably grow as a problem. It's yet another constraint on the budget that conservatives in the Yacht Party will dismiss as unimportant.
Today's Blog Roundup is on the flip. People wrote a *lot* in the last couple days, which means that yesterday was a bad day for me to quit sniffing glue be too busy to put together a roundup. Let me know what I missed.
This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah- Beth Jackson of Speak Out California
For those of us who remember the 60's (and yes, there are some of us who lived through them and still remember), it was a night to wax nostalgic and hopeful. Last evening, I had the pleasure of listening to Peter and Paul (two-thirds of the great Peter, Paul & Mary trio) talk and sing about what it has meant for them and still means for them, to sing about justice, freedom and a love between their brothers and sisters all over the land. They were in Santa Barbara, my home town, to receive the prestigious Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.
The award is presented annually to individuals who have "demonstrated courageous leadership in the cause of peace." To put this award in context, some of its prior recipients include: Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Carl Sagan, His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Walter Cronkite, Anne and Paul Ehrilich and Daniel Elsberg (among others). Obviously, a pretty impressive group.
While Mary was, unfortunately, back home in Connecticut recovering from back surgery (having won her battle against a virulent form of leukemia as well ), Peter and Paul sang gallantly (clearly missing that magnificent Mary Travers sound). They talked of their life-long commitment to peace, social justice and community well-being.
In addition to those of us who remember them with full heads of hair, there were 120 young people in the audience---primarily college students, but some high school students who were selected as the next best hope to restore a sense of commitment to the principles that moved so many of us during our college years back when the Vietnam War and Civil Rights battles were raging in this country.
In that earlier era,we sang and danced to the Movement for political and social justice, peace in our time, brotherly and sisterly love and respect. We hoped for a better world that was comprised of these things, not material things. We dreamed about justice and goodness and love and kindness. The notion of dreaming for Versace, BMW's, 10,000 square foot mansions and diamonds were nowhere on our radar-screens or desires. We wanted peace, and a more just world for ourselves and all humankind.
It brought tears to the eyes of many of us as Peter Yarrow implored the youngsters in the audience to pursue these goals as our next generation of leaders. He and Paul (actually Noel Paul Stookey) spoke eloquently about these causes and their hopes that we can, yet again, regain our footing by pursuing a kinder, more peaceful planet.
Although partially immersed in the music and nostalgia, I couldn't help asking: "What has happened in our nation that we see our youngsters dancing to gangsta rap and other 'music' that glorifies killing and objectification of women? Why are our youngster's heroes packing heat along with their ostentatious gold and diamond jewelry? How is it that the nation's heroes today do not call for social justice or self-sacrifice or human kindness? Rather, they are admired and even worshiped for the number of cars, or girl-friends or houses they own.
Where are the young people crying out for social justice or marching against this illegal and hopelessly failed war? Why are we and they not calling for accountability by a White House that believes it is above the law? Why are we not challenging Bush and Chaney for their corrupt and destructive management of our environment, their criminal indifference to the poor who are living on the streets or in gang-infested communities where neither they nor their children are safe from violence? Where is the public outcry against corporate greed and irresponsibility in the pursuit of greater and greater wealth, to the detriment to our own workers?
Where are we on all this, Peter and Paul ask? We of the so-called "peace generation' demanding social justice, peace and the freedom to think and be who we are and want to become. We HAVE the hammer, we ARE the hammer....of justice, of freedom of love between our brothers and our sisters.......... We are at a cross-roads in our nation's history and in our own sense of purpose. There should be little doubt: It's time to bring that hammer back.
As if on cue, Mother Nature reminds us that in a dry and fire-prone state such as ours, it is 