Find out what you need to know about California's June 6, 2006 Primary Election.

Flashreport freedom smackdown

July 17, 2006

I'm in the process of reading George Lakoff's latest, Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea. It's great, and obviously something I've been thinking about a lot too. I'm only about a third of the way through, but so far Lakoff is taking a much different approach to understanding the conservative notion of freedom than I have. He's either being more charitable or more nuanced, or he's just flat out wrong.

My take on conservative freedom is that it all pretty much boils down to property rights, and Russell Kirk had it about right when he put it seventh out of ten and after a bunch of stuff about defending the moral order. This is what is behind the endless bellyaching about taxes we get from the conservative punditry: It's becauase they're just not really into any kind of freedom beyond that, whether you describe it as substantial freedom or FDR's four freedoms or cognitive liberty or whatever. And the reason the current occupant of the White House talks about it so much is pure Orwell: it's a pretty word and it sounds nice in speeches and hopefully no one will notice what a shallow mockery they're making of the concept in their actual policies...

MORE »

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (5)

What does it all mean?

June 07, 2006

As far as we can tell, it means: run progressive.

It seems as though running lame just isn't going to get you anywhere.

Phil Angelides won the Democratic Primary. His campaign was not the most innovative when it came to online tactics. And toward the end, it degenerated into a predictable mudslinging war with Steve Westly. But in the end, his campaign spoke to progressives. He got most of the progressive endorsements, and distinguished himself from the pack by being the only major statewide candidate in God knows how long to actually try to make a case for tax increases on coporations and the ultra-wealthy in order to pay for the things we need to get our state back on track.

I for one am convinced that Phil will be an excellent candidate to go up against Schwarznegger in the fall. He is a clear choice, and will be presenting a clear vision that is positive and that is nowhere anywhere near anything Schwarzenegger will touch, in spite of his fancy new marketing.

Francine Busby lost in her race for Congress. Kos has a great analysis of how her Republican opponent actually ran to her left, and WON.

Meanwhile, the fall campaign has already begun, and it looks like Schwarzenegger will be playing the duck and cover game when it comes to him being associated with President Bush, whose approval numbers have hit a record low in the Golden State. No more than 28% of Californians approve of the job Bush is doing.

In Schwarzenegger's first election where he will only face *gasp* ONE opponent, those numbers aren't looking so hot.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (2)

Today is the day - Vote!

June 06, 2006

It's election day, so if you haven't already, please get out and vote today!

If you are still deciding, chek out our one-stop source of election information, the 2006 Primary Voter's Guide.

And if you need to be motivated, read our good friend Frank Russo's analysis of why this election is important.

Don't let this be an historic low-turnout election! Go vote and remind your friends, family members and coworkers to do the same.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Swiftboating of Judy Chu: Tobacco rears its ugly head - again!

June 04, 2006

We've been tracking the source of late money going into a number of key races in the state and in the process, lifting the veil of these misleadingly named IE committees. The tobacco industry has been a major contributor to several of the Orwellian titled groups and targeted many progressive, anti-smoking candidates through the years. So why should we be surprised that tobacco continues its deceitful practices--this time in the form of a hit piece against Board of Equalization candidate, Judy Chu, who is running against Jerome Horton for the 4th district seat in Los Angeles County.

Of course, tobacco has a big stake in the outcome---can they continue their favored treatment with Mr. Horton on the key state taxing board or be subject to greater scrutiny by the persistently critical Ms. Chu who has stood up to this industry for years? She won't take their money and has voted against them time after time. Mr. Horton, on the other hand, has taken lots of their money for his campaigns and carried their water politically as well.

The truth is that Judy Chu has been tobacco's worst nightmare, not their best friend. So what is tobacco doing in this race-sending out pieces claiming Ms. Chu is actually on their side?

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Following the money: Prop 82

June 01, 2006

We know that Prop. 82, the measure on the primary ballot that would provide preschool to all California 4-year-olds, is being fought by big business interests. What you may not realize is that the No. 1 donor against Prop. 82 is Don Fisher, owner of The Gap, who along with his family has put in hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat the measure. Of course, Fisher has made much of his fortune by clothing kids. Is it more important that they look good than be properly prepared for a lifetime of learning?

Of course the so-called Californians for Civil Justice Reform (anti-lawyer folks) have put in enormous amounts in opposition to this Proposition and millions into other Independent Expenditures. They're the
multi-national corporations who don't want any legal responsibility for actions that hurt consumers. And while the L.A. Chamber of Commerce has shown great leadership in endorsing Prop 82, the California Chamber is still refusing to accept that we need these investments in our children for our state to prosper in the long term. The Prop 82 campaign has a wealth of information on this. More on the flip...

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

Corporate Donors Continue Attacking Progressive Candidates while hiding behind front groups

May 30, 2006

While most Californians spent this past Memorial Day weekend with family and reflecting on those who have given their lives in the service of our country, our biggest polluters and profiteers were at it again....dumping enormous amounts of money into campaigns to defeat more progressive candidates in several key state senate districts.

We've previously exposed these huge corporate players from behind such Orwellian titles as "Californians for Civil Justice Reform"---which is funded primarily by oil, tobacco, development, pharmaceuticals and financial interests, "Californians for Progress and Education" comprised primarily of real estate and development money, in addition to insurance and medical industries, and "Californians for Jobs and a Prosperous Economy" (the anti-consumer people plus the Association of Motor Car Dealers)--to name some of the larger groups injecting Democratic races with money from big oil, tobacco and other disfavored industries.

In deciding who represent progressive values and will fight for them in public office, we've provided you with the latest updates on who is spending big money, and where it's going:

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Big money rolling in to hot races

May 27, 2006

We've been watching the enormous amount of money being spent by big tobacco, oil and pharmaceutical companies, who have been pulling out all the stops to influence the outcome of the heavily contested California State Senate campaigns we're highlighting on our Speak Out California's Primary Voter Guide.

We've been talking about the need to get corporate money out of the campaign process to ensure that our elected officials are beholden to the people and not corporate special interests. As proud progressives, we expect our system of government to be "of the people, by the people and for the people." But in modern-day election battles, in order to make that happen, it's extremely important to keep following the money - who is supporting which candidate and with what money?

The Sacramento Bee over the last few days has done its best to expose who these groups really are. Their coverage is excellent and worth reading.

MORE »

Posted by Guy Strahl - Comments (0)

Independent Expenditures: How corporations hide the ball

May 24, 2006

We've been talking regularly about the ever-expanding role of money in politics and elections specifically. There is no question that the system needs reform so that legislators and political leaders get back to the job of governing on behalf of the people, not the big corporations who have bought out Washington D.C. (ala Jack Abramoff, et. al.) and have been insinuating themselves into the California process as well.

These big business groups have no interest in protecting the public; their only interest is in expanding their profits. They are even so bold as to say so. So why do we tolerate this kind of greedy exploitation of our people and our planet?

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

The Launch of our 2006 Primary Voter Guide

May 21, 2006

We're very pleased to provide you, the voters of California, with important information for Election Day, June 6, 2006. As that date is fast approaching, you will be voting to help decide the direction our state will take. Our Speak Out California Voter Guide for the 2006 Primary Elections is here...

http://speakoutca.org/now/2006primary.php

The guide is designed to provide you with easy access to the best progressive input available for each candidate for statewide (Constitutional) offices and a select number of the hotly-contested State Senate district races which we are highlighting because they pit acknowledged or avowed big corporate-backed Democrats against more progressive Democrats.

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (8)

Tax debate: Angelides response

Angelides' campaign spokesperson Dan Newman provided us with this response to the previous post...

Westly's ads are false. The truth is: 99% of Californians would not see any change in their taxes under the Angelides plan. Angelides will roll back a portion of George Bush's tax cuts for millionaires and close unjust corporate tax loopholes in order to fully fund schools and balance the budget. Steve Westly supports Schwarzenegger's tuition and fee increases, and supports the Republican tax breaks for multinational corporations like Exxon Mobil. The bottom line: Steve Westly supports taxing the middle class, but is willing to let his fellow gazillionaires off the hook.

Mr Westly's campaign has been contacted, we'll run their response if they choose to provide one. Hope this is helpful! Also we're putting the finishing touches on the voter guide, it should be up later today.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (2)

The tax debate

May 20, 2006

Steve Westly's recent television ads have accused Phil Angelides of proposing tax increases on working families. As progressives, we care deeply about this issue. Doing something about the middle class squeeze happening in this state is a top priority, but given that taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society, not some kind of punishment. So Westly's "taxes are a last resort" message seems like too broad of a brush. The real question: "who pays?"

According to the CBPP, unbelievably, California still has a regressive tax system. Despite a mildly progressive income tax, lower and middle class families pay a larger percentage of their budget than the rich. 70% of Californians support fixing this. A progressive tax system would have a host of benefits: it would result in less money going towards housing and stock bubbles and would give us less public squalor while preserving plenty of private affluence. And it's the right thing to do: the idea of tax levels being set according to ability to pay goes back to the founding of our country.

So let's try an experiment. The Angelides campaign has chosen not to respond to this misleading ad on their website, so we thought we'd give them a chance to do so here. In the interest of fairness we'll let the Westly camp respond to that, and then give Angelides a rebuttal if they want it. We'll run these posts over the next few days and see how it goes.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

The ad we wish Phil would run

May 17, 2006

In our dream world, this is the ad the Angelides camp would run next...

[Slow walking shot of Mr Angelides, maybe walking through a fancy neighborhood or along a beach. Malibu, perhaps.] Mr Angelides: My opponent has accused me of wanting to raise taxes on working families. He says he thinks of taxes as "a last resort." I and my advisors are very much aware of the difficulty of being middle class in this state and one of my objectives when I get in office will be to do everything I can to fix that.

I will not raise taxes on the middle class. But taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society, not a last resort, and the big question we have to ask is who pays. Yes, I am going to ask those who have benefited the most from the investments those who have come before us have made to step up to the plate. Right now we ask poor and middle class families to pay almost the same amount in taxes as the rich. [cut to simplified version of the chart from this CTJ study] All I am proposing is that we fix that in the most equitable way possible.

I know no one likes paying taxes, but they are an investment in our future. Join me and we're going to really rebuild this state.

We can hope, right?

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (3)

Money, money, money....makes the ballot go round

May 14, 2006

With the June primary election only three weeks away, it is important to consider the source of the money funding the upcoming campaigns. A great deal of attention has been directed toward the funding sources for the Democratic gubernatorial race -- reaching predictably into the multi-millions with Steve Westly again digging into his own very deep pockets to keep his race alive, and Phil Angelides calling on equally wealthy personal friends as well as the normal channels to compete with Westly's coffers.

While all eyes are focused on this out-sized battle, with mud and allegations beginning to escalate to a potentially damaging fever-pitch, let's not lose sight of Governor Schwarzenegger's campaign fundraising while waiting in the wings for the emerging and possibly bloodied Democratic adversary.

Indeed, the Governor is continuing his shameless shake-downs of business interests throughout California and the country. No matter how he tries to spin his "bona fides", this Governor is the corporate community's Golden Boy and he's making sure they pay big-time to keep him driving the Great State of California's corporate gravy-train. So much so that down-ticket candidates, such as Tony Strickland (engaged in a mutually mud-slinging battle against Abel Maldonado for the Republican nomination for State Controller), have publicly complained that there's nothing left for them after the Governor sweeps through with his vacuum-cleaner, sucking up all the eager and enormous Big Business campaign bucks.

While putting the finishing touches on our 2006 Primary Election Voter Guide, which will be available soon, we are focusing on Democratic races and who may be carrying the Progressive mantle; predictably, there are no Republicans under consideration in this election cycle. Therefore, we won't concentrate on the Governor's unrelenting fundraising activities. Instead, we will provide the best available information on the other side of the ticket for June. But for November, you'll be amazed to learn how prolific this Governor has been milking his cronies and corporate allies for all the bucks he can squeeze out of them.

In the meantime, the battles for key statewide and legislative races illustrate more than ever that we must get the money out of the system or at least reduce its influence. Regardless of which party or campaign, anyone running to represent THE PEOPLE is discovering that it is either a rich person's game or a place where principle has been sacrificed for political success. Progressive politics demand reform of the current system. Special interests simply are able to buy too much influence. And by "special," we don't mean those whose interests are the public, the environment and the consumer. By providing information, we'll try to identify some of those players for the progressive voter anxious to move our state forward and bring the power back to THE PEOPLE. We deserve no less.

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (4)

The Bush Machine comes to California

April 12, 2006

Inspite of the fact that George Bush and his band of thieves and incompetents continue to crash-and-burn with its lies and deceptions being exposed on a seemingly daily basis, it is curious that our own Governor would be bringing these folks to California to run his re-election campaign.

Given their betrayal of trust and extraordinary incompetence, it is hard to believe that Schwarzenegger would want to be associated with this lot, especially since we in California, hold them in such low repute. (Yesterday's Field Poll shows Bush's favorabilities at an historic low of 32% with 63% unfavorable). With such enormous baggage, one would think our Governor would be trying to make Californians forget about his sharp right turn into his ill-conceived and disasterous special election (for which we the taxpayers are still footing the bill). Or his Bush-lite corporate favoritism.

Instead, Arnold has imported and reconstructed the Bush campaign machine to run his re-election effort in November -- those same delightful folks who were able to dupe the American people into believing that a three-time purple heart winner was a traitor and a guy who went AWOL rather than complete his one year of National Guard duty in Alabama was a hero. Of course, it's going to take the same kind of smoke-and-mirrors logic to convince the people of California that this Governor has earned the right to serve for a complete four year term. It won't be easy, though.

As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce dumps millions of dollars into electioneering ads on TV touting Schwarzenegger's accomplishments, it only serves to reinforce that Arnold is beholden to the same corporate interests that are destroying the middle class in this country, reaping record oil profits, increasing the cost of health care and otherwise making it harder and harder for people to pay their bills and keep their financial heads above water.

We'll keep following the money in this race and asking why the big corporations, developers, drug and oil companies, auto industry executives and other ultra wealthy contributors are spending so much to keep this governor in office. It's not because he's looking out for the little guy, that's for sure.

We need to keep in mind for all these elections -- both national as well as state -- that the right-wing has gotten so good at messaging and language. It's not what they SAY that we need to pay attention to, it's what they're DOING.
Arnold's got their playbook and now Bush's slash-and -burn right-wing campaign squad. California's in for quite a ride this election season. Time to kick them all out of office.

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

The Terminator Fails Again

March 20, 2006

OK, so we Californians love our plastic movie stars, complete with manicures, pedicures and bikini waxes, but what we really love is a beautiful sunset unencumbered by smog and foul-smelling air; levees that won't break in severe weather; schools that don't leak above on our children's heads while they sit at their desks; transportation networks that aren't so clogged that you can walk and get to your destination faster by foot than by car and water systems that allow humankind to coexist with nature's creatures.

After the debacle of his $50 million special election, the Gov. decided to float an enormous bond measure but had used up all his political capital and goodwill so nothing was left to close the deal and no miracle occurred to restore his failed leadership. Even as the number one Reep, he couldn't get his own boys to support him. Sad how he had a moment when the people believed this guy could and would make a difference. But buying into the right-wing mentality cost him his credibility so now even the right wing is thumbing its nose at him. Arnold, it's time to go.

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

A day late and a bond dollar short

March 14, 2006

As Assemblymembers and Senators try to rush to put the largest bond measure in state history on the June ballot days after the legal deadline, the question on everyone's minds should be: where was the Governor on this earlier?

There is no reason why this rush should be happening. The Governor was fine with this proposal being on the November ballot -- why wouldn't he, after all? The infrastructure bond is very popular with voters and it would give him the opportunity to talk about it at every campaign stop if it was on the ballot at the same time as he was up for re-election. So why this last-ditch effort to rush for June?

My guess is it's more smoke and mirrors -- what we've come to expect from the Schwarzenegger administration. And with the mainstream press as clueless as it is, it's not difficult to sell the storyline of the "incompetent Legislature" that can't get it together to pass this bond. But this, of course, is not the true story.

There are two main things to remember here -- things you will not read about in the mainstream media. One, no matter how hard the Democrats work to come up with a plan that would benefit most Californians, the Republicans in the Legislature will always stonewall them. The Republicans in the California Legislature are some of the most right-wing, Neanderthal, outside-of-the-mainstream people in politics. They have seats only because seats have been rigged for them -- not because these kinds of Republicans could ever win in a competitive district in California, the most progressive state in the nation.

Two, stop for a second to think about the level of negotiation and compromise that must go into a $50 BILLION bond for massive infrastructure projects all across the state (in every Legislator's district). That's a lot of money. Those are a lot of projects. Furthermore, it has to pass by a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate, something that rarely happens anytime ever (see above comment about Republicans), as well as the Governor's office, when the Governor is banking his re-election on this plan.

The chances of something like this being hashed out in a week are slim, and they should be. In fact, if they do manage to squeeze something out in the middle of the night when everyone is at wits-end, it will be the people of California who lose. It's not possible for a bond package being executed in this rushed and thrown together way to be the best bond package for the people of this state. You can thank Gov. Schwarzenegger for another example of failed leadership amid opportunity.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Here's the beef.

February 17, 2006

There's been some very real danger that the June Democratic primary for Governor race was going to turn into a mud fest. Comments from both campaigns, bolstered in the press, seemed to indicate that they were going to try to make it about irrelevancies like personality, rather than ideas.

But today there is some excellent news on this front: Phil Angelides' campaign took a big step today in moving things away from that direction by releasing a bold vision for where this state can go, including a twenty-five percent reduction in gasoline consumption over ten years. After the state Democratic Party convention last year, I was thinking that someone running for Governor should run on energy independence, not just as an environmental issue but as a matter of national security. Just like this:

President Bush and the Republican Congress remain locked in denial about the security and environmental risks of our reliance on oil and about global warming. They have refused to raise vehicle efficiency standards or vigorously pursue clean energy alternatives. Governor Schwarzenegger has offered rhetoric about greenhouse gas targets and hydrogen highways but no real plan or substantial change of direction. His massive infrastructure proposal, rather than encouraging smart growth and reducing oil use, fuels sprawl as usual by directing less than 5 percent of its proposed $100 billion in transportation funding to transit.

- http://angelides.com/enviros/clean-california.html

This is exciting stuff. President Bush's paucity of leadership on this issue and Governor Schwarzenneger's pavement-filled vision for the future of our state have never looked more lame. To our friends in the corporate media: this is exactly the kind of thing we want this campaign to be about. Please do not impose your "personality" driven storylines (or whatever it's going to be) on this race.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Give me a break

February 13, 2006

The Governor's advisors are divided about Prop 82, the preschool for all initiative.

Richard Riordan, the governor's former secretary of education, and his wife, Nancy Daly Riordan, are among Proposition 82's leading supporters. Some of the big donors to the governor's campaigns - Robert and Elizabeth Lowe and Warren Hellman - are also lending their names to the campaign to tax high earners to pay for universal preschool.

On the other side, the campaign against Proposition 82 is relying on advice from some consultants who have worked for Schwarzenegger's political committees or Citizens to Save California, a coalition of business groups that supported Schwarzenegger's November 2005 initiatives. Two of the governor's staunchest allies are heading up the campaign against Proposition 82: California Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg and Small Business Action Committee President Joel Fox.

Hence the Governor can't take a position. Nevermind that very prominent pro-business groups, such as the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, have given him perfect cover by endorsing it. This guy just has no set of values guiding him when it comes to anything that's fundamental or important. He has very strong convictions about exercise programs. That's about all we've seen so far. He can't take a stand if any of his crony corporate contributors or right-wing advisors behind the scenes have a problem. That is not the kind of person who deserves to lead a state like California.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

I smell a campaign commercial

January 11, 2006

Is it just me, or did the Governor of the fifth largest economy in the world just compare this big state he's running to the motorcycle he just crashed? In case you missed it, this was the joke Schwarzenegger opened his budget announcement yesterday with:

"A car pulled out in front of me; it was right there in front. And I just couldn't make a decision which way to go," he said. "I knew, I knew if I would turn left, that the Republicans would get mad. And if I turned right, my wife would get mad, so I just crashed right into the car. I said, 'This is a safer thing to do.'"

The irony of this statement is not lost on us, but unfortunately for the 33 million people who have to live with the consequences of his poor navigation as our leader, we think it was lost on Schwarzenegger!

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Arnold's bond plan won't solve our problems

January 09, 2006

Ed Mendel of the San Diego Union-Tribune is probably the best reporter in the Sacramento press corps right now. He seems to be the only one lately willing to tell us some unvarnished truth, and he often provides good historical context to political events happening in the Capitol. So today, while most of the other major papers are still busy fawning all over Schwarzenegger and his "Big, Bold Plan" (As the Alliance rightfully pointed out, George Skelton's column in the L.A. TImes is quite barf-worthy), Mendel looks at the bond proposal from an objective viewpoint. Oh, right! That's what journalists are supposed to do all the time. Well, it's been so long since we've seen it, it really does jump right out and grab you!

The basic idea pushed by Schwarzenegger in his State of the State address Thursday -- that as the population booms, the state has done little to expand infrastructure for decades -- is nothing new.

Two former governors, Gray Davis and Pete Wilson, acknowledged the problem by appointing panels on infrastructure and growth, only to have their reports ignored when they were issued during economic downturns.

Davis, who was ousted in the recall, may have had a flashback as he sat in the Assembly gallery Thursday while Schwarzenegger rolled out his plan.

"Estimates of our unfunded needs for traffic, schools and other public facilities are at least $40 billion, some say as much as $90 billion," Davis said in his first State of the State address in 1999.

He then goes on to get into the political implications of the timing of this proposal in the beginning of an election year.

The lawmakers must act quickly to place a plan on the June ballot. Nunez said he has been told that the deadline is Jan. 26 to Jan. 28 for the regular ballot pamphlet and Feb. 12 for a supplemental pamphlet.

The interest of legislative leaders in infrastructure and tax revenue from a growing economy that's narrowing a chronic budget gap might by themselves seem like a sign of good timing for the governor's proposal.

But Schwarzenegger is running for re-election this year, raising the question of whether a Democratic-controlled Legislature will let the Republican governor lead the way on infrastructure or decide to wait until next year.

"If they can't make the June ballot, I'm not sure they would give him a program for November that he could run on," Business Roundtable leader Hauck said.

This bond plan is an old idea. We need investments in infrastructure, but this state has big problems, and they will not be solved by throwing a ton of money into a plan that is being rushed onto the ballot for reasons that are purely political. If this is Schwarzenegger's answer, his compelling reason for us to vote for him again, we should be able to beat him handliy, as long as we are able to articulate a clear and better alternative. We're working on it, and we sure hope others are, too.

Of course, there is the media. But reporters like Ed Mendel give me hope!

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

The 2006 Primary Election

January 07, 2006

Not sure who to vote for in California's Primary election, coming up June 6, 2006?

Check out our 2006 Primary Voter Guide for more information on statewide races and a few key State Senate contests around California, including the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to take on Gov. Schwarzenegger this fall. Primaries are historically low turnout elections, so help do your part to get people involved by reminding them of the election, and pointing them to Speak Out California as they make their ballot-box decisions.

In addition to the voter guide, Speak Out California will be publishing the results of candidate questionnaires, as well as following the money -- particularly what comes in late from big oil and development interests -- on the weblog.

READ THE 2006 PRIMARY VOTER GUIDE »

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (2)

Real change v. empty rhetoric

January 06, 2006

Wondering what the deal is with Schwarzenegger's State of the State address? Check out Speak Out California's response here.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

"She's not a real Kennedy, either"

December 02, 2005

Ouch!

As conservatives continue to freak out over Schwarzenegger's appointment of a Democrat as his Chief of Staff, our friends at Arnold Watch have the must-read on Susan Kennedy.

Check it out, and keep these salient points in mind when people inevitably ask, "But he appointed a liberal Democrat to run his office, so he must be moderate, right?":

• Kennedy may be a Democrat, but she's no friend of the people.


• She was a key part of the shady back-room, pay-to-play deals (think Oracle) that got Davis recalled and swept Schwarzenegger into office in the first place.


• The Kennedy appointment is all about the spin. Peel back a layer or two and you have the same corporate corruption and cronyism that is causing voters to be increasinly fed up with the conservative agenda.

As with most things Schwarzenegger does, this too is part of an act. The funny thing is he just still doesn't seem to be getting that he's dealing with some of the smartest voters on earth. This one is easy to see through, and it seems the only people who are moved by it are the right-wing conservatives. The best possible result could be a conservative challenger to Schwarzenegger in the primary. That's what I'll be asking from Santa!

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Thankful I don't have Dan Walters' outlook on life

November 23, 2005

In today's Sacramento Bee, Dan Walters takes a grim look at next year's race for Governor, suggesting that Schwarzenegger could still win, despite abysmal approval ratings, if he sufficently slimes his opponent. Walters points out that this is what happened in the past two gubernatorial elections, when the incumbent was suffering from low popularity due to poor decisions and leadership. He also notes how easy that could be this year, given the exciting news from the Field Poll that a majority of Californians have no idea about the leading Democratic contender, Phil Angelides.

Walters also is so kind as to give the Republicans a suggested head start:

But as the Field Poll indicates, [Angelides] has a very indistinct image in the larger voting public, and as he advocates billions of dollars in new taxes, he risks being defined as a tax-and-spend liberal in a state whose voters are not particularly keen on expanding government.

Okay, first of all, Angelides is not a "tax and spend liberal," because such a person doesn't actually exist outside of the right-wing conservative talking points. And the only reason he "risks" being labeled that is because of the right-wing smear machine, which includes biased columnists like Walters. And while voters have been told for years, again by people like Walters, that they aren't "keen on expanding government," poll after poll has shown that they are quite keen on doing whatever is necessary for improving public education, increasing access to higher education, upgrading the state's transportation system and rescuing the state's health care system from complete implosion.

Unlike Walters' beloved Schwarzenegger, Angelides is showing the kind of real leadership that will bring our state in a position to actually resolve these challenges that lie ahead. He is telling Californians the truth: that we cannot provide the services we want for all residents if the wealthiest people in the wealthiest state in the wealthiest country in the history of the world do not pay their fair share. That saving our state means a drastic revolution in the status quo -- the kind of revolution that moves us forward, beyond the narrow way of thinking that appeals to the most selfish instincts in people. One that says we are all one California family, and in a state that generates $1.3 trillion in wealth each year, we have the means to ensure that people are given a chance to provide for their families the kind of security that we all dream of, and that we all deserve.

So this Thanksgiving, I will be giving thanks that there are leaders out there, like Phil Angelides, who share that broad and positive vision, and who are doing something about it.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (1)

Governor scores "D" grade on racial equity

November 17, 2005

Cross-posted at PowerPAC.org:

Gov. Schwarzenegger this year vetoed eight out of 18 bills that would have helped to advance equity for people of color in California, earning him a "D" grade on the Applied Research Center's annual Report Card on Racial Equity released Wednesday.

The report card, which evaluated the governor and the Legislature on five issue areas -- educational equity, economic justice, health equity, civil rights and criminal justice -- found that Schwarzenegger rejected policies that would have provided significant structural changes in California. Among the most stark examples were AB 772, the Health Access for Kids bill, and AB 48, the Fair Minimum Wage Increase. If signed, these bills would have improved the plight of millions of Black, Latino, Asian Native American, immigrant and poor communities across the state.

In examining each issue area, the report also documents glaring disparities that exist for people of color in California, highlighting very clearly why these reforms that were vetoed are so needed.

• Educational equity: Only one in four high school graduates of color is college-ready in California, compared to 40 percent of whites.
• Economic justice: Blacks and Latinos are nearly three times more likely to live in poverty than whites. Half of Latinos, 43 percent of Blacks, and a quarter of Asians live in or near poverty in California.
• Health equity: Seventy-one percent of California's 6.5 million uninsured are people of color.
• Civil Rights: Since 1995, there have been 12,000 hate crimes in California motivated by race and ethnicity, making up 60% of all hate crimes.
• Criminal justice: California spends more to keep people of color in jail than to provide them with a higher education.

And yet despite the existence of these historical and persistent racial disparities, Gov. Schwarzenegger's veto list reveals a disturbing pattern of resistance to addressing them. For the second year in a row, he vetoed a minimum wage increase and AB 13, which would have simply required public schools to ophase out the racist term "Redskins" in reference to team mascots. He also struck down AB 89, the Employer Health Coverage Disclosure bill, showing a pattern of denying racial disparities by refusing to collect data that may expose those inequities.

The report shows that more work is needed in the Legislature as well. The Assembly received a "C" score, and the Senate a "D," although 40 lawmakers, all Democrats, were listed as "honor roll" members for earning a perfect 100% score on all the bills.

Nevertheless, the report shows that "colorblind" policies have failed California dramatically. Race-based reforms are needed to ensure that all people of this state have an equal oppportunity to learn, live in safe and healthy communities, and earn a living wage.

Right now, Governor Schwarzenegger clearly lacks the courage and political will to address the needs of California's growing majority.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)