Progressive Blogs

The money quotes:

But then there was another interview – this is yesterday, same day – where somebody asked John McCain, how many houses do you have?  And he said, I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff. [Audience laughs.]

True quote. I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff, and he said, at least four. At least four. Now, think about that.

And by the way, the answer is John McCain has seven homes.

As we all know by now, McCain's really stepped in it with this nonsense about not knowing how many houses he has.

I mean, he might really not know, but what he was hoping to do with his non-answer was obfuscate the reality that he's kept and pampered by simply refusing to be the first one to put a number on it.

But could his flippancy be indicative of more than just not wanting to admit he collects houses like crazy old ladies collect stray cats? Isn't it really a sign that a McCain administration would bring us another four years of "I don't recall" governance? I mean, I know the play worked for Reagan, Bush I, and the Pretzeldent too. But haven't we had about enough of Republican "leaders" who can never recall a damn thing about anything they do? Puh-lease.

Anyway, in addition to laughing your ass off at how ridiculous McCain is, you should also take a moment to thank Brave New Films for sparking this latest round of questions for Mr. Furious. They did a lot of legwork and research that they put into a video about some of the vast real estate holdings McCain just can't seem to remember, and it's looking like that was what set off the questions that led McCain to stuff his $500 loafers in his mouth:

The McCain camp's response has been equally predictable: Obama's not exactly destitute himself. And that's true. But not being able to answer the question "how many houses do you own?" without having staff look it up is not in the same league as having made some money. Let's fact it, it's not in the same league as 99.9% of the planet. And this from the guy who just suggested that it took $5 million a year to be considered "rich," and had an auditorium full of his would-be evangelical base literally laugh in his face for it.

Good to see it's finally getting some attention, because it didn't when the same subject came up four months ago. And doubly delicious that it really got legs when McCain phumphered his way through a non-answer on a question that reg'lar Amur-kins have sooooo much trouble with themselves, "How many houses ya got?"

I think America deserves an answer, to borrow a phrase too often annoyingly parroted by the other side any time they can gin up something as dumb as what a candidate drinks at breakfast. Only this time, we really do deserve an answer. We have disclosure laws for candidates in this country for a reason. And given that the best his staff could come up with was, "at least four," I think it's fairly clear they don't want to give us that answer. It ought to be an question he's asked everywhere he goes, and frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to hear anything else from him until he answers it straight up. People ought to remind him of the fact that if he's hemming and hawing on a pretty damned basic question, they're never going to be able to believe him on anything else.

So why not remind him that it's time to answer the question whenever and wherever you see him? Maybe just with something as simple as what another blogger well known to you all once suggested: holding up your own house keys and jangling them at him next time he shows his face in public?

By Tim Salyer
President
California Therapeutic Communities (“CTC”)

On July 31, 2008, representatives from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (“DARS”) notified providers of in-prison substance abuse programs (“SAP”) that, due to Governor Schwarzenegger’s signing of the Executive Order, all in-prison treatment programs in 30 of our state’s prisons will be temporarily suspended. Because of this suspension, treatment staff was notified that they were NOT to return to work and that their pay was indefinitely suspended.

The Executive Order is having a devastating effect on the rehabilitative efforts of CDCR and the contracted non-profit and for-profit companies that provide substance abuse services in prisons. Already, hundreds of employees, mostly in the Central Valley, have been laid off and the companies they worked for are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars every week. While the Executive Order was implemented to help save California money, it will end up having the opposite effect as unemployment numbers swell and businesses throughout the state will cease to exist.

Further problems are sure to ensue. The rehabilitative services that are provided by CTC member companies have become very effective in reducing both the return to custody (recidivism) rate and the overall population of the California prison system. Without these services, we can expect a rise in recidivism and the prison population, which will end up costing the state even more. Recidivism rates dropped dramatically for those completing in prison and post prison community based programs – less than 28% return to custody.

We believe the CDCR interpretation of the Order is erroneous. The Order states:

“…all State agencies and departments under my direct executive authority take immediate action to terminate the services of the following four (sic, “six”) categories of employees and individuals: (1) Retired Annuitants; (2) Permanent Intermittent Employees; (3) Seasonal Employees; (4) Temporary Help Workers; (5) Student Assistants; and (6) individuals providing services under contract, except for services provided pursuant to multi-year contracts for development of Information Technology projects.”

This order does not appear to apply to private organizations under contract for inmate and/or parolee rehabilitative services as has been inferred by CDCR/DARS.

The immediate impact of shutting down these in-prison programs overseen by the DARS is:

More good rapid response. At a townhall in Chester, Virginia earlier today, Barack Obama laid out the narrative that John McCain cemented with his admission yesterday that he doesn't recall how many houses he owns. Jake Tapper covers it HERE. Barack's comments are below:

But the fact of the matter is that John McCain is offering more of the same. He said a while back that he thought that we had made great progress economically during the years that George Bush has been in office. Now, that raised some eyebrows. Great progress economically. Who is he talking to? And it turns out that you get a sense of who he's talking to because some of you saw the Saddleback Forum with Rick Warren. He was asked, well, who do you consider rich? And he thought about it for a second, I don't know. Maybe if you make $5 million. $5 million, then you're rich. Which means, I guess, if you're only making $3 million a year then you're middle class. I guess that's what he meant. His top economic adviser said the other day that Americans should stop complaining; they've become a nation of whiners. That all these economic problems everybody is talking about is just a mental recession. And if you would just change your mind, everything would be okay. Somebody's been laid off, their plant's closed and gone to Mexico or China, change your mind. It's all good. Then, yesterday, he was asked again, what do you think about the economy? He says, Well, I think the economy is fundamentally strong; said the economy is fundamentally strong. Now, this puzzled me. I was confused as to what he meant. But then there was another interview - this is yesterday, same day - where somebody asked John McCain, how many houses do you have?  And he said, I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff. True quote. I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff, and he said, at least four. At least four. Now, think about that. I guess if you think that being rich means you've got to make $5 million and if you don't know how many houses you have, then it's not surprising that you might think the economy was fundamentally strong.  But if you're like me, and you've got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, you might have a different perspective.  And by the way, the answer is John McCain has seven homes. So there's just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain's world and what people are going through every single day here in America. And you don't have to be - you don't have to be a Nobel Prize Laureate economist.  You just have to have  a little bit of a sense of what ordinary people are going through to understand that we can't afford eight more years or four more years or one more year of the same failed economic policies that George Bush has put in place.

Watch it:

The McCain campaign's response is pretty funny, the way it clumsily -- but predictably -- wraps Rezko and "bitter gate" all into one.

"Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people 'cling' to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who's in touch with regular Americans? The reality is that Barack Obama's plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he's completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans."

Actually, it looks like Barack is perfectly happy to get into a debate about houses, although it should be noted that while the Obama campaign is citing 7 McCain homes, Progressive Accountability counts 10. Great list is HERE.

The McCain camp attempts to deflect criticism over McCain having so many damn houses, he can't even keep count:

"Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people "cling" to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?

"The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans." --McCain spokesman Brian Rogers

Hmm. $4 million? John McCain said just the other day that's not "rich." So yeah, let's have that debate.

Question one: How many damn houses do you have, Grumpy?

Answer: Umm, umm...

Sorry, you lose.

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

In ancient Athens, when an elected official acted offensively in the opinion of his peers, his punishment was not to be defeated, but either death or “exile”. Some would say Assemblywoman Parra is lucky.

The punishment of recalcitrant Members is not a new thing in the legislature. Freshman Republican Curt Pringle was given a refurbished restroom as an office by Speaker Willie Brown in the wake of the poll guard scandal that marked Pringle’s election. The “Gang of 5” were stripped of staff and status during their abortive revolt in 1988.

Brown was not known as a Speaker with a heavy hand. He had been present when Speaker Unruh had locked up Republican members in the chambers overnight for failing to support the budget bill (sound familiar?). The fallout damaged Unruh’s ability to lead and forever tagged him with the sobriquet, “Big Daddy”. Brown also witnessed the political carnage produced in the Speakership War of 1980 – brought on, in large part, because of what was perceived as arrogance on the part of then Speaker McCarthy’s staff.

These were not lessons lost on Speaker Brown. He used to say that he only asked two things of his caucus members: a vote for Speaker and a vote on the final budget package.

The budget had to be placed off limits to member demands for quid pro quos (my vote in return for this) both because it required a 2/3 vote – hence the implication of the Republicans – and because it couldn’t be made a Christmas tree (with a present for everyone) during bad times. In 1991, the GOP and Governor Wilson insisted that the votes needed for that terrible budget be provided by the delegation from San Diego in order to entrap the late Mike Gotch, who had narrowly defeated a Republican incumbent the year before. Playing my role as a protector of members in ‘harm’s way’, I had advised Gotch not to supply his vote.

Speaker Brown dispatched his caucus chair and majority leader to engage me in conversation about it at the back of chambers. With me distracted, he led Gotch to the podium to ‘add on’ his deciding vote. When I complained Brown said only that he had his job to do as I had my job to do – and that he’d done it better.

This vignette only to reinforce the point that no Speaker can allow any one member to hijack California’s budget for individual reasons.

The latest to try is, of course, King County Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, exiled for her action to the Legislative Office Building. Parra announced publicly that she would vote for the budget only if she got a water bond placed on the ballot – imprudently making her vote a “quid pro quo” in apparent violation of the Penal Code Section that makes such actions a felony. A small office across the street might be considered better punishment than the mandatory three years in state prison for conviction under the penal code. Especially since Ms Parra is termed out and will only have to sit in the LOB this week and the next.

This is remarkably fast:

No word yet on where the ad is running, but I'll pass on the details if and when I get them...

Update [2008-8-21 13:3:13 by Jonathan Singer]: I'm informed by the campaign that the ad is running on a "national cable buy."

"It's seven."

"Hmm."

Three words lay the McMaverick low.

Today, the Wall Street Journal joins Sean Hannity and Karl Rove in promoting Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for Secretary of State in a McCain administration, praising his “first-rate” national security judgment:

Our own view is that Mr. Lieberman would make a fine Secretary of State, and that, given the political risks, making him vice president would probably be too great an election gamble. But Mr. Lieberman’s national security credentials are first-rate, and we’ve known him long enough to remember his opposition to an income tax in Connecticut, and his support for lower capital gains taxes, school vouchers and private Social Security accounts. Liberated from having to run as a Democrat, he might recall those policy instincts.

Today, Lieberman showed exactly what type of diplomacy he’d practice as Secretary of State. Speaking in Poland after a trip to Georgia with fellow McCain ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Lieberman proposed kicking Russia out of the G-8:

“We’re not going to let Russia, so soon after the Iron Curtain fell, to again draw a dividing line across Europe,” said Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut and close friend of Republican presidential hopeful John McCain. “It is simply unacceptable.” […]

“The G-8 should become for a while the G-7 until Russia proves that it is capable of being a law-abiding member of the international community,” he said.

McCain first proposed this idea in October 2007, and again in March. Not only do senior government officials consider this plan to be “dumb,” it’s also most likely “impossible,” as most other developed nations would never go along. In April, the LA Times reported that McCain was beginning to back away from the plan because it was greeted with alarm by his supporters.

Much of the McCain campaign’s condemnation of Russia has been based on hyperpbole and inaccurate facts. On Tuesday, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney blasted Russia for deciding to “act militarily against a sovereign nation.” Last week, McCain declared that “in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

Digg It!

Just to follow up on Josh's post, this is the type of lede from the Associated Press that can serve as a real problem for a presidential campaign.

Days after he cracked that being rich in the U.S. meant earning at least $5 million a year, Republican presidential candidate John McCain acknowledged that he wasn't sure how many houses he and his wealthy wife actually own.

At a time when the Democrats are taking Chuck Schumer's advice -- that while "John McCain who wears $500 shoes, has six houses, and comes from one of the richest families in his state... It's Barack Obama who climbed up the hard way, and that's why he wants middle-class tax cuts and better schools for our kids" -- and McCain's comments about a $5 million annual salary being the cut off for being labeled "rich" are being ridiculed in strong web ads by the Democratic National Committee (this one goes as far as explicitly labeling McCain as "out of touch" -- and don't be surprised if it's not the last time you see this line of attack before November), McCain could ill afford a gaffe of this magnitude.

This is kind of a game-changing type of mistake. While it relates to the candidate's personal attributes rather than his policy positions, do not think for a second that it does not have the potential to be as damaging to McCain's candidacy as, say, Jerry Ford's statement in 1976 that Poland did not fall under the Iron Curtain was to his candidacy, or John Kerry's statement that he voted for the war funding before he voted against it was to his -- McCain's inability to recall just how many houses he owns gets to the heart of why he is unsuited to be President at this moment of time: He is fundamentally out of touch on the issue of the economy.

The only question at this point, I suppose, is whether Mike Allen recorded this interview on his trusty tape recorder or whether there is video footage of McCain flubbing awkwardly flubbing his answer.

Continuing his race-based attacks from the day before, Rush Limbaugh declared yesterday that Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) success so far is because people “can’t criticize the little black man-child:”

LIMBAUGH: It’s — you know, it’s just — it’s just we can’t hit the girl. I don’t care how far feminism’s saying, you can’t hit the girl, and you can’t — you can’t criticize the little black man-child. You just can’t do it, ’cause it’s just not right. It’s not fair. He’s such a victim.

Limbaugh has made racist attacks on Obama his forte. In March, he declared Obama had “disowned his white half” and “decided he’s got to go all in on the black side.” Last year, he called Obama “Barack the Magic Negro.”

No, really.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

Granted, McCain has a lot of houses, but even the highest estimates are like a dozen. That's not some ten-digit number like 1,537,993,625 (which anyone would have trouble remembering) where if you transpose the five and the three it's a major misrepresentation.

Is McCain's memory really that poor, and if so, what does it say about his ability to be president? Or is the number of houses he has such an unimportant question to him that it's not worth remembering? That he has a house everywhere he goes, so why bother singling them out to remember?

Or maybe it's a politically inconvenient question and he knows most reporters will give him a pass.

Matt Yglesias has another possibility:

When one of your homes is really a combination of two different luxury condos the metaphysical status of your property comes into question. You’d really need to ask a trained professional mereologist to resolve the issue and can’t expect McCain to speak to it personally.

(h/t Atrios)

By Casey Mills

Earlier this month, Governor Schwarzenegger vowed he wouldn’t sign any legislation before a budget was passed, an obvious attempt to blackmail Democrats into hurrying along the process and accepting a Republican-driven result. Since then, mainstream coverage of the budget battle consistently includes hand-wringing over the looming deadline – this Saturday – for placing or altering measures on November’s ballot. This sort of coverage goes on to cite all the ‘major’ initiatives that wouldn’t go before voters due to the current logjam. Yet of the four big initiatives that must meet Saturday’s deadline to move forward, none are essential to a progressive Democratic agenda, and all were initiated at least in part by Schwarzenegger himself. State legislators should let the deadline pass … and let the Governor eat crow.

There’s no doubt that vital legislation remains trapped due to the Governor’s freeze on signing bills. A variety of important health care initiatives, for example, would benefit immediately from the budget passing. Landmark bills involving farm worker protections and electoral reform are also winding their way through the process, and deserve immediate attention by the Executive once they’re ready.

However, when it comes to items that must be approved by Saturday in order to go before voters, the ‘Big Four’ shouldn’t make progressives lose any sleep. They include:

Water: The Governor and Senator Dianne Feinstein want voters to okay a $9.3 billion water bond, which would go towards a slew of major infrastructure improvements. For starters, the bill remains woefully inadequate in terms of utilizing simple, cheap and effective strategies like water conservation, efficiency and recycling, which has earned it the ire of many major environmental groups. But even more important, Democrats have not had ample time to develop a counter proposal. There’s no question California faces severe challenges concerning its water supply, but at this point waiting a year for a good proposal is far preferable to rushing a bad one.

Lottery: Back in May, the Governor proposed borrowing $15 billion from state lottery income over the next three years. While Democrats continue to seek legitimate and progressive sources of new revenue to ensure a sustainable budget, Schwarzenegger continues to push this one-time fix with dubious certainty of success. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass hit the nail on the head when she called it “a Rubik's Cube budget, not a long-term, structurally balanced budget.”

During a townhall meeting yesterday, an audience member asked a long-winded question that ended with a call to enact the military draft in order to “chase bin Laden to the gates of Hell.” McCain immediately replied, “I don’t disagree with anything you said.”

Brushing off his instant response, some journalists are refusing to take McCain’s statement at face value. “Does McCain favor a draft? Nope,” the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder wrote on his blog yesterday, deriding liberals for “having a conniption.” When asked about the quote last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, NBC Political Director Chuck Todd declared he was going to “give McCain the benefit of the doubt,” unbelievably claiming McCain was simply advocating some form of national service:

TODD: Let me just go there and give McCain the benefit of the doubt as to what he might have thought he was agreeing to. Which is that he has been a big advocate on the national service front, as has Obama, as sort of mandatory service in some form, that you see a lot of politicians take. So it is possible that that’s what he was talking about.

Watch it:

Given the context, it is impossible to believe McCain was talking about a kind of “mandatory service” program, not only because he never addressed such an idea in his full answer, but also because, unlike Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), McCain has no national service plan.

It’s possible McCain’s statement was directed at the portion of the question regarding veterans health. But it’s equally possible that he is leaving the door open to a military draft. After all, McCain has said he “might consider” a draft, and has also said it would take “an all-out World War III” to reinstate the draft — something he believes may have already begun.

Considering this record, journalists should be inquiring further about McCain’s views on the military draft rather than automatically assuming McCain didn’t mean what he actually said.

Digg It!

I don't see much evidence that Barack Obama has a problem with women voters. He leads among women by more than Al Gore or John Kerry did at the same time during their own presidential campaigns. The most recent Iowa poll shows Obama leading by six overall but by 12 among Iowa women.

Among purveyors of conventional wisdom, however, there is still a perception that Obama has work to do among women voters, and particularly the women who preferred Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

The Obama campaign has been scheduling women's outreach events to address this issue. Today Governor Kathleen Sebelius is campaigning around central Iowa, and one of her appearances is a lunch in Des Moines specifically geared toward women.

Last Friday I attended a different women's event featuring Dana Singiser. She served as Director of Women's Outreach for Clinton's presidential campaign before joining the Obama campaign as Senior Adviser for the Women's Vote.

Singiser wrote the Obama campaign memo on John McCain's "woman problem," released earlier this week.

Join me after the jump for more.

The Obama campaign is pitching these events as discussions of "economic security" rather than "women's issues." The media advisory before Singiser arrived in Iowa noted, "Singiser will discuss Senator Obama's plan to provide economic security for America's working women." Similarly, the statement announcing Sebelius's schedule in Iowa states, "Governor Sebelius to speak at a women's brown bag lunch about pay equity and Senator Obama's plan to strengthen economic security for America's women."

The Obama campaign wisely scheduled Singiser to speak in areas where Hillary did well in the Iowa caucuses. On August 14, she headlined events in Sioux City (Woodbury County) and Council Bluffs (Pottawattamie County), and the next day she spoke at a women's lunch in Boone (Boone County). Clinton won all of those counties, and Obama finished third in Boone and Pottawattamie.

I saw Singiser in the Des Moines suburbs just before she headed to Boone for lunch. She spoke in the same backyard where Michelle Obama addressed Polk County women Democrats a year ago.

A show of hands revealed that about half of the 30 to 35 women attending had caucused for Obama, and half had caucused for a different candidate. I recognized two other volunteers for John Edwards and three women I know who were precinct captains for Hillary.

A social worker and well-known Democratic activist in Polk County introduced Singiser. She had been very active in the Clinton campaign and explained that she was now volunteering for Obama because we can't afford another four years of George Bush, and because "When women vote, Democrats win."

Singiser began by talking about her transition from working for Hillary for five years (on her Senate staff before joining the presidential campaign). If you're wondering how she could switch to Obama, she joked, you're not alone, because her mother asked the very same question.

She explained that the same reasons she supported Hillary are why she's supporting Obama. Going over a few of the things Hillary stood for, Singiser added, "I trust Senator Obama to fight these same fights for me as well." She paraphrased Obama's comments to some 2,000 Clinton supporters in New York after the primaries. According to Singiser, Obama told that gathering what Hillary's candidacy had meant to his own daughters, who would never have to wonder whether a woman could become president. He also noted that the primaries incited passion, which is something to celebrate even if that passion is not automatically transferable.

Singiser mentioned former Republican Congressman Jim Leach's recent endorsement of Obama as proof that the Democratic nominee can bring together people of different partisan backgrounds.

She then catalogued the "stark differences" between Obama and John McCain on economic policy, Social Security, retirement savings, and equal pay for women. After telling the story of Lilly Ledbetter and the Supreme Court's horrible ruling denying her legal redress for discrimination, Singiser noted that McCain opposed the Lilly Ledbetter act in the Senate.

She emphasized that the Supreme Court is not just important for Roe v Wade, but also for many other things affecting women. (Note: that was the only glancing reference to reproductive rights during this event.)

Singiser then contrasted Obama's health care plan with McCain's, which won't make a dent in the number of Americans lacking health insurance. She wrapped up by saying that Barack Obama's positions on so many of the issues important to her are shaped by the strong women in his life, like his wife, mother and grandmother. With only 80 days left before the election, there's a lot of work to do, and four more years of a Bush administration would be devastating for women.

Singiser then took questions for about 15 minutes. Most of the questions were about Obama's policies (immigration, foreign affairs, climate change). I asked her why Clinton supporters should volunteer for Obama, given the outpouring of hatred toward Hillary during the primaries. She deflected this with an answer about rampant sexism in the media, exemplified by commentators like Chris Matthews.

I followed up to ask about the way the Obama campaign frequently put the most negative interpretation possible on things Bill and Hillary said during the primaries. Why should a Clinton supporter now volunteer for Obama rather than for one of our down-ticket Democratic candidates?

Singiser downplayed the significance of the hardball politics during the primaries (there was "not much that happened during the primary season that I found really distasteful") and said Clinton and Obama had incredibly substantive debates over the issues. She added that if we don't elect Senator Obama, there won't be a friendly environment for our Democratic Congress to work in.

After a few more questions about Obama's policies, Singiser asked us all to keep in mind the power of women's friendships and social connections. We may get news from the media, but we count on our girlfriends to help us make really important decisions, such as which doctor to choose for our children.

She urged everyone present to talk to their friends, relatives and neighbors about why they are supporting Obama for president, because those contacts will be more important than anything phone-bankers and canvassers can say to voters.

All in all, I thought Singiser's presentation, like the memo she wrote on John McCain's "woman problem," made an effective case for Obama as the superior candidate for American women.

I am biased because she hit many points I recommend that Obama volunteers use when speaking to former Clinton supporters. She acknowledged that enthusiastic Clinton supporters may have trouble transferring that passion to Obama, she spelled out why Obama is so much better than McCain, and she pointed out that Hillary accomplished something for women by running, even though she did not win.

Singiser's longstanding ties to Clinton made her a better messenger on all of these points than a someone who had supported Obama all along could be. I don't know whether she converted any of the women present from reluctant Obama voters into Obama donors or volunteers, but she did an excellent job trying. I would recommend that the campaign keep putting her in front of women audiences around the country.

By Robert Cruickshank

Today Darrell Steinberg is expected to finally be elected as Senate President Pro Tem, bringing the failed leadership of Don Perata to a welcome end. George Skelton welcomes him to office with a column on the landmark smart growth bill that Steinberg has been pushing through the legislature. Although the bill won't pass this year, it has a big head of steam behind it, and faces good prospects in the 2009 session.

Steinberg's bill would link land use planning in California to the AB 32 global warming targets. From Skelton’s article:

"One issue everyone has been afraid to touch is land use," Steinberg says. "Everyone understands about using alternative fuel. But land use has been the third rail. AB 32 changed the equation because now land use has to be part of the solution to global warming. You can't meet our goal just with alternative fuels. You have to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.

"If people are going to drive -- and they are going to drive -- we need to plan in ways to get them out of their cars faster. That means shrinking -- not the amount of housing, not economic development, not growth -- but shrinking the footprint on which that growth occurs."

“Steinberg wants it to occur within a smaller circle around downtown.

“Basically the bill would work like this: Each metropolitan region would adopt a "sustainable community strategy" to encourage compact development. They'd mesh it with greenhouse emissions targets set by the California Air Resources Board, which is charged with commanding the state's fight against global warming.”

Also included are preferential funding for transportation projects that fit with the "sustainable community strategy" and an expedited permitting process for those developments that fit the law's and the community strategy's goals.

Tom Adams of the California League of Conservation Voters called the plan "the most important land-use bill in California since enactment of the Coastal Act three decades ago" and he's right to say it. But the plan does more than help the environment and reduce carbon emissions.

One year ago I called for "redefining the California dream" - restoring the economic security of California workers by abandoning sprawl and turning to urban density and mass transit. This is not just an environmental move, but it is absolutely necessary for job growth, affordable housing, and basic financial security.

Although most states still refuse to recognize gay marriage, Hallmark has begun rolling out cards recognizing the unions between same-sex couples. They feature “two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. ‘Two hearts. One promise,’ one says.” Barbara Miller, a spokeswoman for the Greeting Card Association, said that the number of companies providing same-sex cards is expanding: “The fact that you have someone like Hallmark going into that niche shows it’s growing and signals a trend.”

By Katy Farber

I’m a big fan of California. I’m almost as far from the state as I could be, here in Vermont, but I usually wholeheartedly agree with the environmental and public health decisions made by the California legislature to protect their citizens.

The ban on phthalates for one. The chemical and toxin labeling law (hence all those “May Cause Cancer in the State of California” labels you see all over cheap goods from China). And the higher fuel efficiency standards, which have considerably reduced smog. Then, they were poised to ban BPA (bisphenol A and PFOA (a chemical in food wrapping). No dice.

What happened? In a close vote, the California legislature voted not to ban BPA and PFOA.

The FDA has long defended the use of BPA in plastics, citing studies done by the manufacturers of the chemical and the products that contain it. Again, they defended their stance about in the New York Times last week. Here is a breakdown of the studies done all over the world that share a much different view of BPA then the FDA states.

The timing of the FDA’s announcement is also suspect, coming only days before California’s vote on a BPA ban. Renee Sharp, Senior Analyst with the Environmental Working Group said on Yuba Net:

“The timing of the announcement by FDA raises eyebrows considering the California legislature is about to vote on a measure to remove the toxic chemical from some children’s products. BPA has been linked to altered brain development, behavioral changes and prostate problems in animals and should not be used in any consumer products that could potentially leach into food and liquids, especially in products young children use every single day. We have long since lost faith in FDA’s ability to be an impartial authority on BPA’s safety. Time and again, FDA has sided with special interests instead of the public interest on this chemical.”

Oh. Shut. Up.

ROMNEY: Well, Hugh, my own view is as the Caucuses are a hot spot, and as Russians have shown their willingness to act militarily against a sovereign nation, that the International Olympic Committee ought to revisit locating the Games elsewhere.

Just stop talking. Go away. Shut your malevolent gob. I'm sorry, but it'd be something akin to a sin to be even remotely polite about it anymore. Listening to people like Mitt Romney and Hugh "I have absolutely no memory of the last week, much less the last five years" Hewitt... listening to Grandpa McBombsalot declaring that in this century, "nations don't invade other nations"... our U.N. Ambassador Zalmay NotBoltonThankGod saying "the days of overthrowing leaders by military means (in Europe!), those days our gone"... Russia "expert" Condi Rice furrowing her brow and declaring military intervention is "not the way to deal in the 21st century"...

Just. Shut. Up. Do you think, do you honestly think that there is anyone on the planet that has less credibility on this issue than you? Seriously?

And then we've got Joe Lieberman warning against people who exhibit "moral neutrality." No, "moral neutrality" is what you get when you assert that any action on the part of the United States is moral by definition, regardless of how transparently malevolent the same act is when taken by someone else. It's not even moral neutrality, it's complete abdication of any premise of morality or desire for morality. It is pissing on the very concept of morality, and doing so gleefully, and for no reason more substantial than mere convenience.

Yes: one of the problems with tenuously premised "preemptive war" is that it is an vacuous notion usable by any nation to justify any action -- it legitimizes even egregiously premised, first-strike military action by blandly painting it as moral necessity. That was, you know, one of the major arguments against it, not that anyone actually listened to two damn words worth of those arguments. The United States has squandered, nearly entirely, its moral authority in matters of war and peace, and for that we will be paying a price for decades. Yes, the Georgian-Russian conflict is abominable, but people like McCain, Rice, et. al. are so thunderingly flawed, as the voice of those sentiments, that they make a mockery of the moral authority of the United States merely in expressing them.

So, to put it succinctly... piss off. The greatest moral failing of the United States in the last forty years has been to continue to give credence to the architects of "preemptive" invasion. Active promoters of those wars should at the very least be condemned to lives of solitude, in which not a damn word they say is ever reported on again.

By Rosa Martha Villarreal

In the 2008 presidential election, Hispanics represent the key swing demographic in states such as Florida, New Mexico, and perhaps even California. Though early polls show Barack Obama with a substantial lead among Hispanic voters, this demographic is not reliably in the Democrats’ column. Given an attractive Republican candidate such as Ronald Reagan in 1980 or George W. Bush in 2000, a significant number of Hispanic voters---especially Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans---will switch sides. With this in mind, both John McCain and Barack Obama have made pitched appeals to Hispanic voters based on the bitter immigration issue. Polls consistently show that education, the economy, and the Iraq war are the issues that most concern Hispanic Americans, so is immigration truly relevant?

Unlike what the strident anti-immigration foes suggest, the reason why immigration matters to Hispanics is not that we want to take over the country in a reconquista or impose the Spanish language as co-equal with English. Quite the contrary. For those of us who are native born Americans, English is our primary if not our only language; we are as thoroughly modernistic as our fellow Americans, and we serve in the military in disproportionate numbers.

The issue is relevant because the anti-immigration rhetoric has taken the tenor of the ethnic baiting of 19th century when the United States “acquired” vast territories from Mexico in 1848 and the island of Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898. Although a majority of Mexican and Puerto Rican nationals are still bitter about these events, most American Hispanics are less concerned about the past than about issues that affect our families in the here and now. However, the immigration debate has stirred up some bad memories.

It is particularly discouraging that historians have not vigorously rectified the casus belli for the Mexican-American War in the public consciousness. Many Americans still think that Mexicans maliciously “shed American blood on American soil.” In light of today’s bitterness about people illegally crossing into our borders, it is interesting that so many Americans (with the possible exception of Patrick Buchanan) fail to see the irony that in the 19th century it was Americans who crossed into Mexican territory, most of them illegally, with the expressed intention of creating facts on the ground and fulfilling their dream of Manifest Destiny. Among those illegals was the infamous Donner Party.

In an interview with Politico yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was stumped when asked “how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.” “I think — I’ll have my staff get to you,” replied McCain. Though his staff says “the correct answer is at least four,” the McCains actually own 7 houses.

McCain’s out-of-touch response recalls his answer last week when Pastor Rick Warren asked him to “define rich.” McCain responded with a joke, asking “How about $5 million?” Other than his quip, McCain refused to give a serious numerical answer, instead saying that “it doesn’t matter really what my definition of rich is.” “Some of the richest people I’ve ever known in my life are the most unhappy,” said McCain.

In his interview with Politico yesterday, McCain again refused to give a number, saying that he defines rich “in other ways beside income.” He added that some people “are poor if they’re billionaires“:

He still did not give a number.

“I define rich in other ways besides income,” he said. “Some people are wealthy and rich in their lives and their children and their ability to educate them. Others are poor if they’re billionaires.”

Despite McCain’s professed desire to “define rich in other ways besides income,” distinctions between income levels are a centerpiece of his tax proposals that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. The Los Angeles Times reports today:

Where to draw the line among the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers is the central difference between rival tax blueprints that offer starkly differing formulas for reviving a faltering economy. […]

McCain’s plan would cater to wealthy taxpayers and corporations by extending and expanding President Bush’s tax cuts, slashing corporate taxes and weakening the estate tax, but it would also aid taxpayers across the board by making the full Bush cuts permanent.

Though McCain would get a $300,000 tax break if his proposals were enacted, middle class Americans would save only $319.

Digg It!