November 2006 Archives
NBC News makes its move, referring on air to the war in Iraq as a "civil war," despite administration protestations that it is not:
Matt Lauer said on the "Today" show that "after careful consideration, NBC News has decided that a change in terminology is warranted, that the situation is Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as civil war."
The network's cable news outlet, MSNBC, drummed the point home repeatedly by using the phrase "Iraq: The Civil War" on the screen.
There are different criteria for defining a civil war. Webster's New World College Dictionary defines it simply as "war between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation." Some political scientists use a threshold of 1,000 dead, which the current conflict has long since passed.
The administration's comment:
"You have not yet had a situation also where you have two clearly defined and opposing groups vying not only for power, but for territory," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "What you do have is sectarian violence that seems to be less aimed at gaining full control over an area than expressing differences, and also trying to destabilize a democracy — which is different than a civil war, where two sides are clashing for territory and supremacy."
Also on board with the "civil war" talk: The Los Angeles Times, which has been calling it that since October.
Not on board: The AP, which has "discussed" the issue but hasn't reached "a definitive stance."
ABC, CBS and CNN have not made the leap, either. But CNN's Michael Ware says, "If this isn't a civil war, I don't know what is."
Arnold fans can catch the governor talking to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press this weekend.
The MSNBC website exclaims "Exclusive! Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California that defied the political odds and sailed to re-election, joins us in studio to discuss how he managed to win in the middle of the 2006 anti-Republican tide. What is next for him and the GOP? "
In Los Angeles, the show airs at 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. Sunday on KNBC/Channel 4.
Just in case the Red Staters don't already think of Californians as a tad on the wacky liberal tax-and-spend side ...
A Glendora labor union has proposed a ballot measure that would essentially amount to a massive redistribution of wealth in California, with most of the funds going to help the environment.
The measure would impose huge new state taxes on the wealthy and semi-wealthy, starting with a 17.5 percent levy on individuals making over $150,000 and 35 percent on individuals making over $500,000. At the same time, it will grant new tax credits to teachers, college students and organ donors.
(San Fernando Valley angle alert: The measure also lists a number of organizations that would qualify for new tax credits, including $25 million for the Studio City-based Center for the Improvement of Child Caring.)
There would also be a new "Hasta La Vista Tax" on millionaires who try to leave the state to avoid the tax.
Money generated from the new taxes would be deposited in a "Global Warming Fund" which would then seek to purchase majority shares in the major oil and automobile companies, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, General Motors and Ford. As majority shareholders, naturally, the state would then have the power to stabilize energy prices for Californians, prevent offshore drilling, preserve the environment, pursue alternative fuels, and, let's not forget, "direct the management of the acquired entities to conduct their operations without engaging in the overthrow of governments of sovereign nations, the mass murder of human beings and the destruction of the global ecosystem."
It's called The McCauley-Rooker Wealth Tax and Oceans Preservation Act, named for proponents Paul McCauley and Bradley Rooker of the Glendora-based Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local 105.
(By the way, McCauley and Rooker earlier this year tried to qualify a somewhat different wealth tax on the ballot this year, but were unsuccessful.)
Link here if you want to see what some conservative bloggers are saying about this idea. As you might guess, they're not big fans.
One sample of the comments, from Simi Valley-based Steve Frank's newsletter, California Political News and Views:
"These folks promoting this are not socialists or communists, they are seriously ill. Looks like they had a party one night, drank "Thunderchicken" (that is what we in the Army called Thunderbird Wine), got some bad weed and got sick inhaling from an aerosol can. That can be the only reason for the theft of private property envisioned by this measure. Obviously, the sponsors have "money envy" problems."
*****
As a side note, if you haven't had your fill of ballot measures this November, here are two links where you can see what's in the works for the 2008 elections.
At the Attorney General's site are measures that have been submitted for title and summary -- basically the step right before proponents can start gathering signatures.
And at the Secretary of State's site are all the pending measures and their timelines.
New statistic today from the UN: There were 3,709 civilian deaths in Iraq in October alone -- that's 120 a day. It's up from 3,345 deaths in September. And 100,000 Iraqis a month are fleeing the country (wouldn't you?). It's the equivalent of 1 million Americans leaving this country.
Add to that the 2,869 U.S. deaths in Iraq, along with 46,137 wounded, otherwise injured or medically evacuated (updated figures from the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Web site), and it's pretty obvious that invading, occupying and trying to police Iraq was a very, very bad idea.
With hindsight, and all, anybody who says it wasn't a mistake to invade Iraq should have their head examined.
Invading foreign countries is freakin' messy, and it looks like we've turned a nation with one despotic nutcase (by that I mean Saddam) into a terrorist/insurgent free-for-all that won't stop until we get the f*** out of there. Seriously, you could have been "for" the war at the outset (though I question your judgment even for that), but "staying the course" at this point is sheer death-inducing folly. It's definitely time to talk "exit strategy."
A "democratic" Iraq? With every faction voting for their own (Sunnis for Sunnis, Shia for Shia, Kurds for Kurds), the timing and conditions on the ground just aren't right. I pity the "conservatives" who feel they have to support President Bush's decidedly non-conservative policy.
Pre-emptive war? The Rumsfeld doctrine? Both are probably history for at least the next 30 years. And a good thing, too. Defenders of the faith say it's not Vietnam all over again. But it is. Minus the draft.
Do I support the troops? I do. I support getting them the hell out of there.
After month of quietly fuming, Ethics Commissioner Bill Boyarsky is letting the world know how he feels about the whoel campaign about Proposition R _ the measure approved by voters giving City Council members a chance at a third term _ as well as the role of the League of Women Voters.
Boyarsky lets loose with both barrels in a new blog as part of the laobserved.com group of blogs, a move he said he was doing to vent his views in his own fashion. A former columnist and city editor with the Los Angeles Times, Boyarsky is no sranger to using the written word to make his points known.
' As for Proposition R, Boyarsky said he was constrained by the Ethics Commission rules from speaking out against it, but now that the election is over he is letting the world know about his outrage.
``This proposition was bad, and its advertising misleading,'' Boyarsky writes. `` Contrary to what the ads said, the measure extends term limits and weakens lobbyist control laws.''
Boyarsky said he will be asking how the commission can enforce a weakened law and also ask for an opinion on why Ethics Commissioners can't get involved in campaigns.
As a final note, Boyarsky voices his disappointment with the role of the League of Women Voters in sponsoring the measure along with the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.
``I can understand why the chamber was for Proposition R. The chamber is pretty much a front for the business lobbyists who, with city employee unions, call the shots at City Hall.'' Boyarsky said.
``But I still can't believe the League of Women Voters would lend its name to a measure that reached a new low in false advertising.''
You can take the team out of San Francisco but you can't take the San Francisco out of ... oh, never mind.
With the 49ers looking to leave their hearts but not their franchise in San Francisco, one legislator wants to make them leave the name behind, too.
Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, plans to introduce a bill that would prohibit any professional sports team from using San Francisco in its name if it doesn't actually play in the city.
“The name San Francisco has cachet all over the world as a number one destination spot,'' Leno said. “I don’t think San Francisco’s name should automatically be able to be used by a franchise that is not located in the city."
Hmm. Someone oughta explain that one to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.
***
Assemblyman, if you want to do something really useful, you should prohibit teams from taking names that were tailored for one geographic region and make absolutely no sense in another.
To wit - the Los Angeles Lakers? The team's name, of course, made sense when they were playing in Minnesota, the land of 10,000 lakes. Can someone tell me why they kept that name in dry SoCal, other than for the sake of alliteration?
And the Los Angeles Dodgers were of course named in Brooklyn, and originally called the "Trolley Dodgers" in a reference to the borough's web of trolley lines. There's not a whole lot of trolleys to dodge in L.A. (Though you might want to watch out for that Orange Line).
And how 'bout that Utah Jazz ...
***
While we're at it, why not have a law forcing entertainment writers to stop referring to "Hollywood" productions when everyone knows the studios long ago moved to the San Fernando Valley. Come on Valley legislators -- force 'em to rename that famous song "Hooray for Burbank."
With Democrats now in charge of both houses of Congress, lawmakers say they intend to pass immigration reform that includes a guest worker program as well as legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants.
Area Republicans who oppose such measures and label it `amnesty' say they fear they no longer have the votes to stop it.
"I was very glad we've already passed the fence bill, because I don't think we'd do that today," Rep. Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar said, referring to the 700-mile fence between the U.S. and Mexico that Congress authorized before the elections.
Of legalization measures, Miller said, "We're gonna fight against it. But it's got a very good chance now:"
At the White House Briefing this morning, Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the president "remains committed to border security." But at the same time he stressed that Bush is open to compromise on the point of legalizing undocumented immigrants after making them pay a fine and back taxes.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora, who had long professed a desire to see compromise on immigration reform but quickly took up border security as his No. 1 issue when faced with hoards of angry, illegal-immigration hardliners in his district, now says it may be "too early" for legalization measures.
"There's a lot of work that remains to be done on the issue of securing our borders," Dreier said.
Or so says the Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times, found via Romenesko:
It could be that men still dominate because election night is like the N.F.L.: it’s always two guys in the booth doing the play-by-play, while women cover the sidelines. Maybe it’s the women who avoid signing on to a lifetime of covering politics; the campaign trail is fattening and requires far too much math.
More likely, the election night throwback to the days of Brylcreem and cigarette smoke comes from a confluence of overconfidence and insecurity.
And there's lots of Katie Couric analysis:
Since taking over the anchor chair in September, Ms. Couric has tried to insert some of her morning-show informality to the evening news, and that was in evidence even on election night. As she had said she would on her chatty blog on CBSNews.com, Ms. Couric worked some obscure trivia into her election-night conversation with Mr. Schieffer, including the fact that Jon Tester, the Democratic Senate candidate from Montana, lost three fingers in a childhood meat-grinding accident. She also wove in a word that is naughty by network standards: when discussing the Virginia Senate race, she cited the Democratic challenger Jim Webb’s infamous description of the United States Naval Academy as “a horny woman’s dream.�
In politics, it's never too early to look ahead to the next campaign. Some Dem insiders are already handicapping the 2010 gov's race and none other than our Mayor Antonio is considered the leading contender.
The word on MAV from a Dem blog: "The energizer bunny of California politics, he starts off with a strong base in LA, sky-high popularity ratings, instant appeal to Latino voters statewide, and connections to the resources he needs to run the race in both LA and Sacramento."
The blog entry is on the California Majority Report (www.camajorityreport.com), run by Democratic staffer and consultant types. See the archives for Steve Maviglio's entry for Nov. 8 titled "Governor's Race: The Early Line on 2010"
Or, here's the link:
www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=9&aid=1208
Maviglio, by the way, works for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, who is rumored to be eyeing the mayor's job after Antonio leaves. Some of the Sacto conspiracy theorists even went so far as to advance the somewhat silly idea that Nunez was cooperative with Arnold this year because he wanted him to win a second term, leaving the governor's office an open seat in 2010 for Antonio -- and therefore leaving the mayor's office open for Nunez.
Kinda farfetched, but insiders in Sacramento love whispering about this kind of thing. Still, can't really blame them for focusing on the 2010 race, given how uninteresting the actual 2006 race ended up being.
Maviglio writes this about his boss: "If you believe the black helicopter theories being advanced by Dan Walters and other columnists, the Speaker isn't running for Governor but simply wants to fill Antonio's shoes at LA City Hall when he runs for Governor. The Speaker is termed out in 2008. What he'll do after that is anyone's guess. "

I finally remembered to check on the election for Superior Court Judge, Seat No. 144, since I heard candidate Janis Barquist speak at the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council meeting.
She lost. David W. Stuart won with 645,962 votes, or 58.88 percent, to Barquist's 451,201 (41.12 percent).
Still, it was nice to hear from a living, breathing judicial candidate. And as they say, better luck next time.
Janis, you seemed to have it pretty together -- lots of endorsements, getting yourself out there. It's got to be hard to do this countywide. I don't know how anybody can figure out what to do as far as campaigning goes over such a large area. Even a mailing would be too expensive. The Web site was a big help, but how do you get the name recognition needed to win? Hell if I know.
I suppose money is what really helps -- getting yourself on "slate mailers" and doing advertising, in addition to speaking to community groups and distributing flyers. Oy, what a job.
Here's an early snapshot of the Democratic agenda in Congress.
As I wrote previously, all President Bush needs to do is get on board and he can Schwarzenegger it, potentially saving his legacy, and actually walking the "I'm a uniter not a divider" walk.
(also posted in the Daily News' Politics blog)
First you've got Iraq going into the shitter, then your members are either resigning and going to jail -- or just resigning and not going to jail -- over ethical violations, and then you've got a guy getting cozy with Congressional pages -- and then in the days before the election, one of the conservative movement's most visible preachers turns out to have a thing for meth and men. It's enough to sour your base, not to mention send swing voters in the other direction.
Did I mention Iraq?
So it's no secret why the Democrats were able to take the House and very likely the Senate.
And the irony? As a conservative ex-Democrat, Sen. Joe Liberman -- thrown under the bus by his own party -- gets to have a pivotal, king-making swing vote in the upper house.
Then Donald Rumsfeld steps down as secretary of defense. There's your fall guy.
Sure, the GOP contention that the Democrats have no plan to govern is true. But voters didn't care so much about what the Democrats would do as they do about what the Republicans are doing.
It's going be an interesting two-year run-up to the 2008 elections, with Bush turning into Mr. Veto ... and a whole lot of investigations into Republican doings over the past few years.
Clearly the GOP will have to rethink it's base-based strategy and appeal once again to the center. And Democrats will have to tread carefully and take care of that same center, or risk squandering what they've gained. That means things like "prescription drug reform," but not "national health insurance." Not yet, anyway.
And in another bit of irony, this Congress will likely give President Bush an immigration bill -- one with border security, a guest-worker program and probably some form of amnesty -- that he'll be willing to sign.
Bottom line: George W. needs to call up Gov. Arnold and ask for tips on how to really work across the aisle for a change.
Angelides called Arnold around 10 p.m. to concede the race. Wonder what took so long?
In any case, Schwarzenegger declared he wants to unite the state. Also claimed a mandate, sort of. Said it wasn't a mandate for him, exactly, but a "mandate to move the state ahead. A mandate for leadership. A mandate to build a better and brighter future for California."
The California Secretary of State has a county-by-county map showing returns for the various races. Turning to the governor's race, nearly the entire state is colored blue ... for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Not sure exactly why they chose that color for a Republican, but in any case the map shows a very stark difference.
As of 9:46 p.m. it looks like every single county in California, except two, are favoring Arnold. Those two exceptions are tiny Alpine County and, of course, San Francisco County.
Even Dem-friendly L.A. County is favoring the Governator. Except, of course, that's with less than 1 percent of the Los Angeles returns, as the state's most populous county is also typically one of the slowest in tabulating results.
Here's the link: http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/gov/mapBN.htm
"Today is a great victory for the American people,'' new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces to a cheering crowd of Democrats in D.C.
She vows "the most open, the most honest Congress in history."
New York Democrat Louise Slaughter is revving up to tear the "Mr. Dreier" sign off of David Dreier's office on the top floor of the U.S. Capitol.
With CNN and others now declaring a Democrat takeover in the House, Slaughter is poised to become the new chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, a panel currently ruled by the Glendora Republican.
:Today, the American people have stated loud and clear that they want a new direction for our country," Slaughter said in a late-night news release. ``"To get there, we're going to open up the political process in the House, from the Rules Committee on down. ''
No word yet from Dreier's people...
CNN says so.
CNN projects that the Democrats will take control of the House once all of the ballots are counted, but the Senate is still up in the air. Right now, the Dems are three seats shy of taking control of the Senate...
UPDATE: The AP says so, too. So we're saying so. Say hello to Mrs. Speaker Nancy Pelosi...
With "inclusion" the night's buzz word, it was nice to catch a few minutes with Log Cabin Republicans California director Jeff Bissiri who was glowing with the anticipation of standing with The Gov on stage during his victory speech _ another first for state politics, he said. "We've never been there at that level. We're included." So what if Arnold hasn't come out for gay marriage. Bissiri had a list of 21 pieces of gay friendly legislative and policy decisions he's backed. Besides, while Angelides might be a Dem, Bissiri noted he had trouble naming any gay or lesbian staffers.
Looking ahead even as the polls were closing, it seemed natural that Hector Barreto, the president of Hispanic Families for Arnold and the former administrator of the Small Business Administration, should be thinking about tomorrow's trip to Mexico where he'll join The Gov on another first _ his first "official'' sojourn to the south. "Obviously Arnold's made many trips to Mexico to make movies," he clarified.
Just spoke to Jeff Daar, head of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley a few minutes ago. He reports DP/SFV HQ is jammed with volunteers still working hard for Angelides. They're manning the phones with no dampening of spirts (or, apparently, awareness of reality.) Ya gotta admire their pluck.
CNN is calling two key House seats in Pennsylvania and Ohio for Democrats.
In Pennsylvania's 7th district, Democrat Joe Sestak has beaten Republican incumbent Curt Weldon. Weldon faced allegations that he used his influence to help his daughter's lobbying business. He denied the reports.
In Ohio, Democrat Zack Space will take over disgraced Rep. Bob Ney's seat. Ney resigned after pleading guilty to corruption charges.
The crowd went wild when MSNBC called New Jersey for Bob Menendez at 8:36 Eastern Time. They whooped when Michigan went for Democrat Debbie Stabenow. They waved American flags when Democrat Amy Klobuchar sailed into Minnesota's Senate seat.
But when Connecticut was called for Democrat-turned-Independent Joe Lieberman, the crowd at the DCCC's celebration party at the Hyatt Regency erupted in low boos.
"Traitor!" one 20-something shouted.
Lieberman, who beat Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger has pledged to vote with Democrats if re-elected.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, the would-be House Speaker from San Francisco, riled up the crowd, promising "a new direction for all Americans, not just the priviliged few," and shouting above the din, "Are you ready to make history tonight?"
From Drudge Report:
VA SEN [86.66% IN]
ALLEN 966,232 49.43%
WEBB 964,899 49.37%
This is a key race that could determine who holds onto Congress - and one of the dirtier races around, complete with sexually explicit books. Yes, I said sexually explicit books.
Bumped into a very perky Susan Kennedy, The Gov's chief of staff, in the Hilton's swanky watering hole (she was there to meet a friend). Could have made a campaign fashion arrest, though, as she was smartly clad all in red. "Oh my God, I forgot about the orange! I'm going to clash! I have to change." We'll see where she's standing when the balloons fall. later Otherwise, Kennedy reported a "very, very smooth" night, with Arnold "optimistic and energetic" and chomping back stage for another four years.
Not so optimistic were the hotel's valets puzzling how to cram the Hummers, SUVs and other transports of 2,000 mostly GOP partygoers into limited spaces (made trickier by press members who didn't get their off-site parking advance notices and had to be threatened with towing).
Sweetening things a bit: Republicans apparently tip better than Dems, between $10 and $15.
But, said one veteran valet, government officials (of which there are plenty here) don't tip at all.
"They just flash passes."
Sheriff Lee Baca was sure not to miss a moment of the festivities arriving before 6 p.m. and sporting what easily could have been taken as a sympatico orange tie. "Yellow and just coincidence," the dry witted lawman said.
His take on Arnold, "He has the strongest gubernatorial energy in decades." Baca said he was commenting on Arnold's "creative" energy and devotion to the state, not his biceps.
The Jim Webb-George Allen Senate race in Virginia is one of the most contentious races in the country, and could determine which party holds the Senate. Of course, there's all sorts of accusations flying, and the FBI is investigations allegations that some voters received phone calls warning them to stay home from the polls or face criminal charges, says the AP.
MoveOn can't be left out of something like this:
The liberal voter group MoveOn offered a $250,000 reward for information leading to a conviction for voter interference, which is a federal crime.
(no, I'm not talking about election-night parties. for ideas on how to spend your election night, click here)
Joe Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary for Connecticut senator but decided to run as an independent, retained his senate seat, AP reports. Lieberman beat out Dem Ned Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger.
Lieberman appears to have received strong support from the other side of the aisle. In early returns, only 10% of the voters cast a ballot for Schlesinger. Lieberman received 48% of the vote, and Lamont has 41%...
|
|
We don't have to resort to destroying expensive federal equipment. In fits of rage, we can just tear up a piece of paper.
From the AP:
In Pennsylvania, a would-be voter was arrested at a polling place in Allentown, where election workers said he smashed an electronic voting machine with a paperweight.Authorities didn't know what caused the outburst. "He came in here very peaceably and showed his ID, then he got on the machine and just snapped," volunteer Gladys Pezoldt told The Morning Call of Allentown.
The machine's screen was damaged and it was not immediately clear if votes recorded on the machine could be retrieved. Police said the man faced charges of felony criminal mischief and tampering with voting machines.
Just caught up with Arnold's event guru Carl Bendix, all dapper in black and feeling chipper about making California campaign balloon and confetti history with a green, orange and white motif intended to underscore The Gov's commitment to the environment and other forms of independent thinking. "It's campaign(ing) with a twist," Bendix said. Not to worry, party traditionalists -- there's a second bank of red, white and blue balloons ready to cascade down on your heads as the party ticket comes in.
To gain control of Congress, the Democrats need to pick up 15 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate. They've already started chipping away at those numbers.
OK so it may not be the biggest barnburner of an election in recent history.
Just chatted with Matthew Dowd, the governor's chief campaign strategist, who looked confident relaxed and dressed down in tweed jacket, open collar shirt and blue jeans, and said the candidate was feeling just as low-key, while polishing up tonight's speech. Dowd's prediction: tonight's main excitment at GOP headquarters inside the Beverly Hilton Hotel: the billions of dollars in bonds The Gov wants to replace the state's worn out infrastructure. "We still don't know on those ballot measures, so that will keep people late into the night."
Not exactly pins and needles stuff, but listen for those Prop A1-E1 cheers or moans wafting across the city if you're hard up for a political fix.
Speaking of fixes, the bartender inside the International Ballroom (The Gov afterall is jetting off tomorrow for Mexico to catch up on the political scene there) where the party faithful will converge in a couple of hours said he's stocking up on whiskey, scotch and lots of ingredients for Cosmos and other mixed drinks. Guess maybe the Dems are more the beer and wine crowd.
Pretty glitzy stage set for tonight's festivities with an over-sized guernatorial seal flanked by 16 flags before an ocean blue curtain, all screaming great photo ops. No guest or press will be without a flat screen TV monitor within about 10 feet in case the stage isn't big enough. It may not be Hollywood, but there are enough cameras in the room to flim a sequel to The Terminator.
And numbers are starting to roll in.
In one of the most contentious Senate races, between Allen-Webb race in Virginia, Allen, the Republican, has the slimmest of leads, 49.47% to 41.67%. Of course, this is with less than five percent of precincts reporting, so it means absolutely nothing.
But stay tuned to dailynews.com, and we'll keep you up-to-date on the latest...
UPDATE: You see what a difference five minutes makes? Webb has surged ahead, 52 percent to 47 percent, with 7.6 percent of precincts reporting...
At 3 p.m. - with the polls open for another five hours - more than a quarter of LA's registered voters had already cast their vote. 26.84 percent, to be exact. That's up from 23.72 in the 2002 mid-term elections.
UPDATED 4 p.m.: 29.8 percent of voters have filled out their ballots (yes, that includes me). That's up from 2002 but down from 1998. What does any of this mean? Your guess is as good as mine...
From the bowels of Come on Feel the Nuys:
In case you're waiting until ... now ... to vote ... or if you just want to see how my ballot-casting mind works ... here's how I voted this morning:
Afternoon update: Before you get to how this political spit-up began, I forgot to mention Angelides vs. Schwarzengger for governor. This bad boy is statewide, but Angelides inspires nothing within me as a voter. I think all the Democrats in Sacramento are plenty happy with Arnold and his willingness to work across the aisle since his special-election setback. The Dems in Sacramento (and statewide) seem to be pretty much accepting that it's four more years of The Big A, and then an open field for Antonio Villaraigosa (we'll call him Little A) and whoever plans to run against him for the Democratic nomination.
Phil Angelides never had a chance. So if I'm going to cast a vote in the wilderness, it's going to the Green Party's Peter Camejo. And while on the subject, it's a good thing Antonio isn't running for governor this time around, because he's got lots of talk, not so much walk, at this stage in the L.A. mayoral game. We'll see what happens in the next four years. But Angelides? They've got to be kidding. I feel for the guy. Didn't he see "Pumping Iron"? The Dems needed Warren Beatty. Didn't get him.
-------------------------
And now back to the beginning:
Since my work has more to do with "Borat" and less with ballot measures, I pretty much looked over the people and propositions involved in today's elections for about 10 minutes before trotting over to the polling place, still in the same inconvenient apartment building rec room as last time -- not in the ultra-convenient and parking-rich neighbor's house down the street where we used to vote. This time, the new polling place housed not one but TWO voting precincts. It was a bit of a circus, having to be pre-checked and routed to one table or the other.
One cool thing about this year's election: After voting, our "Inka-Vote" ballots were fed through some kind of electronic scanning machine to "verify" them. I hope they were counted right then and there, because that will certainly speed things up when the returns start being tabulated tonight.
Back to my ballot. Now I don't watch all that many commercials. I fast-forward right through them (on a VCR, not TiVo, because I'm old school). But I do watch the news, and I actually read this very newspaper, not to mention others. I read a whole lot of blogs. I got so much campaign mail this election season that I threw out most of it unread ... because it's unreadable propagandist crap. Sorry, candidates and committees, you wasted your money, .
First of all, I should mention that some journalists think those in the profession (not the world's oldest, but not generally held in any higher regard) shouldn't vote at all. While I see their point, I do vote, but I have been registered as "nonpartisan" for as long as I can remember. That's more because I find being considered a member of one of the two major political parties a potential conflict of interest on the one hand, and extremely distasteful on the other.
My voting strategy for candidates: None of the races on our ballot are close. I have a soft spot for Democrat Jerry Brown, the man with an entourage of one, and was happy to vote for him for state attorney general. He's an iconoclast, and that I admire.
Lloyd Levine (State Assembly) and Brad Sherman (U.S. House) are not iconoclasts. They also have their jobs for as long as term limits (in Levine's case) or sheer longevity (for term-limit-free Sherman) allow. There's not even any non-major-party opposition, so these two knuckleheads did get my vote. Reluctantly.
That whole flap with Levine's father, the guy behind one of those "Democratic" voter guides, taking money from tobacco and oil interests to urge a "no" vote on props 86 and 87 (I can't find the Web link for where I heard about this) leaves a bad taste ... and I did pause, but still Inka'd for Lloyd, although I didn't feel good about it.
For the other races, since they aren't anywhere near close, and the candidates on both sides haven't said anything that has me cheering for them, I pretty much cast my vote for the Green Party candidates. I feel comfortable with the environmental message of the Green Party, and were things not pre-rigged to elect Democrats, my vote for candidates from that party might actually mean something. But as things stand, it really does not. (So if I leaned Republican, which I don't, I guess I'd vote for the Libertarian Party.)
None of the Democrats on the ballot (from Sen. Dianne Feinstein down to controller candidate John Chiang) either needs my vote to win, or made much of any attempt to secure it. So they didn't get it. Especially when it comes to Feinstein, how can you get excited about her work in the Senate? Maybe if the Democrats get the majority, we'll hear from her, but either she's done next to nothing in her many years in the U.S. Senate or is very quiet about it. She's no Ted Kennedy, or even Joe Biden ... i.e. someone who I'd actually recognize were I not from California.
The machine politics of the major parties just chug along, and safe seats breed apathetic voters.
I'm not a big fan of ballot propositions. They're almost always poorly written, and the case for their success is often poorly stated. Why vote for an imperfect measure? Why keep on taxing myself? I don't know. But I do know that ballot measures that are bond issues and which don't regressively hit property owners exclusively, are more palatable to me. If the money to pay off the bonds comes from the general fund, I'm happier about it.
So 1A -- keeping gas taxes for transportation -- sounded good. Doesn't cost anything.
1B, highway bonds. Yep, we need it.
1C, Housing bond. This one was tough. Ditto for L.A.'s Measure H. But I'm in favor of affordable housing for seniors and the homeless, and I had to support both.
1D, school bond. Normally I'd balk. Seems that for construction, the LAUSD has plenty of money. But this is also for state colleges, and they could sure use some upgraded facilities. So yes on that.
But ... Proposition 88, the parcel tax for K-12 education? I even have a child who will be in LAUSD eventually. But this is a statewide measure, and I've heard almost nothing about it. LAUSD is in major turmoil, given the Villaraigosa/Brewer transition. And a flat $50 parcel tax? That means I will pay $50. Madonna pays $50. Warren Buffet pays $50. Forget about it. I voted no. Come back with a compelling campaign as to why there's not already enough money in the hopper for education, make the tax progressive (or even make it a sales tax) and I'll reconsider. But $50 for every homeowner, on top of every other special assessment, is just too much.
1E -- Flood control. Gotta deal with that levee situation, or we could be in real trouble. Yes.
83, "Jessica's Law." I've been on the Megan's Law database, and it seems like there are thousands of sex offenders living in Van Nuys, hundreds in my neighborhood alone. That's an easy yes on the measure for GPS monitoring and the 2,000-foot-limit on living near a school or park.
84, water quality. Water, it's what L.A. is all about. Yes.
85, the abortion waiting period and parental notification for minors. Big no. Even though I'd want to be involved, were I in such a situation, but it's still the pregnant woman -- minor or otherwise -- who should have ultimate control. I imagine that most girls in this situation would involve their parents, but I don't think the law needs to mandate it. If a girl wants an abortion, and the parents are opposed, I still think it should be her choice -- and her choice whether to involve them.
86, cigarette tax. I don't smoke, and I am uncomfortable legislating morality, but hospitals could really use the money. I realize it's kind of hypocritical to talk about "regressive" taxes and then be whacking smokers in the knees, but the effects of smoking on society -- those people get sick and die quicker -- are too much to ignore. Sorry, smokers.
87, oil-production tax. Did I mention my affinity for the Green Party and environmentalism in general? This kind of thing is right up my alley. The recent lowering of gas prices has me plenty suspicious. So I'm enjoying the low gas prices while they last, but California needs to be a leader on this issue.
89, public campaign financing. Honestly, if the League of Women voters is for it, and the California Republican Party and the California Federation of Teachers are against it, it's gotta be good. Public financing could really level the playing field in California politics. A "yes" vote.
90, to restrict government's use of eminent domain. I voted no only because I just couldn't make up my mind. I had that proposition glaze that one gets when there are over 10 of these on the ballot. It's an issue I'm willing to revisit in the future.
Getting back to the nameless and faceless, I made a major change in my voting habits this election and voted for Superior Court judge.
Why? I actually saw a judicial candidate in the flesh: Janice Barquist, running for Superior Court Judge Seat No. 144, who made an appearance and spoke at the recent Van Nuys Neighborhood Council meeting.
Many in attendance were surprised that a judicial candidate actually did some campaigning, and they were ready to vote for her right then and there because she was suddenly more than an anonymous name on the ballot. And she has a lot of experience, the latest being more than seven years as a deputy city attorney.
Well, I had to fall in with all the "stakeholders" of Van Nuys and cast my first judicial vote in a very long time for Ms. Barquist (I usually skip the judicial offices because I have no basis on which to cast my vote).
So can anybody be a judge? Do you even need to be a lawyer? Seems that you can do a little campaigning and win, even if you haven't the slightest idea of how to be a judge. All I know is that anonymous people running in actual elections is not what democracy is all about. Kudos to Ms. Barquist for putting herself out there.
Our good friends at the Associated Press have passed on stories of inproprieties and problems all over the country:
- In Virginia, the FBI is investigating complaints from voters that they received phone calls discouraging them from voting or directing them to the wrong polling place.
- Glitches delayed balloting in dozens of Indiana and Ohio precincts, and Illinois officials were swamped with calls from voters complaining that poll workers did not know how to operate new electronic equipment. Voting machine malfunctions forced officials in Indiana to delay calling statewide races until 8:40 p.m. EST while in Pennsylvania, Lebanon County extended polling hours because of machine problems.
- In Daggett County, Utah, there are four more registered voters than the county's population in the 2005 census.
From the AP:
Democrats suspect County Clerk Vickie McKee is letting outsiders swell the Daggett County registration rolls to give Republicans an advantage. They say the father of the deputy running against Democratic Sheriff Allen Campbell has 14 adults registered at his household.
Here in Los Angeles, we've received reports of minor problems - a few precincts opening a little late - but nothing major.
