PAUL HOGARTH

Sore Loserman -- Why Lieberman Must Drop out

2006-08-09T00:04:00.000-07:00

I wrote this for tomorrow's Beyond Chron:

Last night, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman lost a hard-fought Democratic primary to challenger Ned Lamont. Despite campaign visits from party leaders like Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer to boost the incumbent Senator's campaign, Lamont proved that Joe Lieberman is out of step with his party, his state and his country. More than any Democrat, Lieberman has consistently supported a failed war in Iraq that has hemorrhaged American lives, the American budget, and America's standing in the world. This election sends a powerful message to politicians of all parties that "stay the course" is the wrong strategy, and it shows Democrats in particular that they cannot continue to blindly follow President Bush's policies.

Lieberman was visibly angry in his concession speech, as he vowed to ignore the primary result and continue to campaign against Lamont in November as an independent candidate, draining away resources from the Democratic Party that would be better used elsewhere. He came off as a bitter old man, who after scolding his own party for being too harsh on President Bush, simply could not understand why Democratic voters would want to choose someone else. For an 18-year Beltway politician like Lieberman, losing a primary was a genuine blow that almost never happens. But it does happen occasionally, and the last time a long-time Democratic Senator lost his re-election in a primary should teach Lieberman a lesson or two about knowing when your time is up.

In 1992, Illinois Senator Alan Dixon had never lost an election in his 42-year career. Like Joe Lieberman, he was a conservative Democrat - but unlike Lieberman, he didn't delight in attacking and undermining liberals in his own party at every single opportunity. But a few months before his re-election, Alan Dixon voted to confirm Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. This prompted Carol Moseley-Braun, a Chicago politician who was then Cook County Recorder of Deeds, to face the odds and take on an incumbent Senator in her own party's primary.

Political establishments always support their own incumbents, and just like how the Democratic Party leaders got behind Lieberman, they got behind Senator Dixon in the primary. But Carol Moseley-Braun defeated Alan Dixon. Unlike the Lieberman-Lamont race, Moseley-Braun's victory was completely unexpected and must have been an even greater blow to Dixon and his long career. Unlike Lieberman, Dixon had never said things to his fellow Democrats like: "in times of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril" that would predictably cause a backlash. But on that night, Senator Dixon thanked the people of Illinois for electing him over 42 years, graciously conceded defeat, and vowed to get behind his party and support Carol Moseley-Braun in the general election.

I was in Eighth Grade at the time and living in Chicago, and it had a lasting impression on how I view politics. First, political incumbents - even if entrenched and powerful - can be vulnerable and held accountable for their actions. Second, grassroots insurgent campaigns can be won if chosen intelligently and handled skillfully. Third, if you lose an election, you accept defeat with class - even if you are vehemently angry about the outcome and feel that it was grossly unfair.

Joe Lieberman had threatened to run as an independent if he loses for weeks, saying that he did not want to be bound by a low-turnout primary election in August - when most voters are on vacation and the electorate is skewed towards passionate progressive activists. But Lieberman can't make that excuse anymore. While voter turnout had been expected to be around 20%, the Connecticut Secretary of State now estimates that it was about 50% -- the highest voter turnout for a party primary since 1970.

Lieberman has always been more popular among Republicans than among Democrats, and Connecticut has a large proportion of unaffiliated voters. Last month, Lieberman said that he wished to put his case in front of the entire people of Connecticut - not just voters in a Democratic primary. But if that were true, why not simply concede the primary to Ned Lamont, and run as an independent in November? Why insult the voters by putting them through a meaningless primary if you don't care about the outcome anyway? When Lieberman made his formal announcement that he would not be bound by the primary results, even his own supporters raised these questions.

Lieberman had attacked Lamont as a "one-issue" candidate (the war in Iraq), and said that he did not believe that Democrats should be subject to a "litmus test" on the issues. But Iraq was only the most serious of a long-standing litany of complaints that progressives have with Joe Lieberman. He has never supported universal health care, questioned affirmative action, supported school vouchers, and even supported the federal government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo matter. While he was the first Democratic Senator to scold President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, Lieberman derided the effort to censure President Bush for the illegal wiretapping program, because we should not "scold" the president. And while other Democrats supported the war in Iraq, Lieberman was the only one targeted for defeat because he has consistently attacked other Democrats for even questioning the war's motives.

In his concession speech, Lieberman used what he called a sports analogy - "we've just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead - but in the second half, our team is going to surge forward to victory in November." That's funny. I always thought that good sportsmanship meant that you don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you are losing. If an NBA team loses the semi-finals, can they just decide not to be "bound by the rules" and compete in the final championship? Of course not.

Joe Lieberman needs to know that his time is up. Like Alan Dixon (and other Senators before him who lost a primary), he's got to accept the defeat and move on with his life. He only risks himself further embarrassment by staying in the race. After all, I'm sure that Fox News would be eager to give him his own show - just like Zell Miller.

My "Crashing the Gate" Book Review

2006-03-23T16:02:00.000-08:00

I don't get to read much these days, let alone write book reviews, but "Crashing the Gate" is a truly amazing book. If you're reading this blog, then you're probably already plugged into the Daily Kos and MyDD.com "liberal blogosphere."

But even if you're not, this book is a great, quick read about the state of the Democratic Party, and how everyday Democratic activists who care need to take it back if we want to save the party, save the country and save ourselves.

I tried reading it with a critical eye because I'm already such a part of the liberal blogosphere that I didn't want it to come off as a narcissistic puff piece.

But here goes ....

Incidentally, Beyond Chron was partially inspired by blogs such as Daily Kos. The SF Chronicle certainly isn't doing a good job monitoring the excesses of Gavin Newsom and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and somebody has to be out there speaking up for progressives in the media.

Democrats Show How Out of Touch Gavin Newsom and Bevan Dufty Really Are...

2006-03-20T10:38:00.000-08:00

Here's an article I wrote for today's Beyond Chron:

Democratic Party Endorses Eviction Disclosure
by Paul Hogarth‚ Mar. 20‚ 2006

At last Thursday’s meeting, the S.F. Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) voted 22-4 to endorse Proposition B, the Eviction Disclosure Ordinance. At a time when more tenants are being evicted under the Ellis Act than during the dot-com boom, our local Democratic Party took the right stand on an issue that affects the heart and soul of San Francisco. It also showed how out of touch Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Bevan Dufty are with those who have supported them in the past – as well as how the City is changing.

Prop B will not cost the taxpayers a dime, and does not put any restriction on the right to own property. It merely requires real estate brokers at an open house to notify potential buyers that a tenant was evicted under the Ellis Act to make this property vacant. Because speculators have made millions out of targeting our most vulnerable tenants for T.I.C. conversions, and buyers have to pay more for a vacant property, the real estate industry should not hide their dirty little secret as they ruthlessly gentrify our City. San Franciscans pride themselves on being socially responsible consumers, and 85% have walked away from open houses when informed about an eviction on the property.

There are only two reasons why Prop B is even on the June ballot, and they are called Gavin Newsom and Bevan Dufty. After the Board of Supervisors voted 7-4 to approve this legislation, Mayor Newsom vetoed it. Supervisor Dufty refused to change his vote and override the veto, which requires 8 votes. Therefore, Supervisors Peskin, Maxwell, Daly, Ammiano and Mirkarimi had no choice but to put it on the ballot this June.

While one could expect some other Supervisors to oppose Prop B because they represent more conservative districts, Bevan Dufty’s district has a majority of tenants and has had more Ellis evictions than any other part of the City. Many of these tenants in District 8 (Castro and Noe Valley) have lived in the neighborhood for years, were pioneers in the gay rights movement, and are now dying of AIDS. In fact, the Castro has earned the dubious distinction as the “AIDS Eviction Capital of the World.”

The DCCC has generally sided with Newsom and Dufty in the past. In 2002, they endorsed Bevan Dufty – although there were two strong Democrats running in that race and the Committee could have easily remained neutral. In 2003, they endorsed Newsom for Mayor, although it was a non-partisan race and the majority of their constituents (i.e. registered Democrats in San Francisco) supported and voted for Matt Gonzalez. In 2005, when public transit advocates pushed for Prop D that would have weakened the Mayor’s control over Muni after two fare hikes, the DCCC overwhelmingly voted to oppose it.

Newsom and Dufty may try to distance themselves from opposing Proposition B, but the fact remains that it would already be law if they hadn’t stood in the way. Now that it’s on the ballot, the DCCC has shown how out of touch Newsom and Dufty are on this issue. For Bevan Dufty, it also shows how critically important it will be for progressives to challenge him with a strong candidate in November. It also raises the question: is there anything that Newsom and Dufty wouldn’t do to support real estate speculators?

Paul Hogarth is a life-long Democrat who has been actively involved in the Party for 10 years. He is a member (and former officer) of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club.

National vs. Local Politics

2006-02-05T13:46:00.000-08:00

My blog may be a bit schizophrenic and confusing to some. I am constantly shifting between national politics (which most people pay attention to) and local politics (which is esoteric to even some long-time San Franciscans.) The reason I do so is simple -- both are incredibly important if you want to push a progressive agenda. Local politics, in many ways, is where the rubber meets the road, and government's service directly hits the people. As one local candidate once said, "the outcome of local politics makes the difference between an unmitigated disaster -- and just a regular disaster."

Which is not to say that national politics isn't any less important. When Bush and Schwarzenegger intentionally decide to starve the public sector, it creates real consequences at the local level -- and constrains what positive things government can do. Sure, local politicians can step in to make up the difference (and we can't let them get away with just blaming Washington and Sacramento), but the reality is there just isn't enough money locally to truly deal with our problems. As long as the rich get more tax cuts, and our federal money continues to get drowned into the massive abyss of our failed Iraq war, we will never truly deal with our systemic economic problems at home.

A few months ago, Randy Shaw complained to me about how people weren't paying attention to what's going on locally and he noted, "it's because George W. Bush is president." Which is absolutely true. When we're trying to put out fires at the national level, most activists simply don't have the patience or energy to fight Gavin Newsom when he vetoes legislation that could help keep thousands of tenants in San Francisco.

I've been involved in politics for 10 years -- and my interests in local vs. national politics have alternated over the years. In 1996, I was new to California and knew nothing about local politics. I was focused on the presidential race, but was angry at Bill Clinton for signing welfare repeal. After the election, I decided that the Democratic Party needed to stop co-opting the Republicans, articulate a progressive agenda, and help undo the Reagan legacy. Which led me to start the "Paul Wellstone for President" website that was my special project for the next 2 years.

On January 9, 1999, Paul Wellstone announced he wasn't going to run for President. Around the same time, Berkeley Mayor Shirley Dean was re-elected by a 14-point landslide after scapegoating homeless people on Telegraph Avenue, opposing rent control for students, and red-baiting her progressive opponent. These 2 events catapulted me away from national politics, and got me to focus at the local level. I got more involved in housing issues, and in late 1999, I got involved in Tom Ammiano's historic write-in campaign for mayor.

By November 2000, I had been elected to the Berkeley Rent Board and was now focusing full-time on pushing a progressive agenda in both Berkeley and San Francisco. I helped recruit candidates for the Berkeley Rent Board, walked precincts for lefty candidates in San Francisco, and got involved in the coalition that convinced Tom Bates to run for Mayor in 2002 against Shirley Dean.

In November 2002, we knocked off Shirley Dean -- which I saw as a victorious accomplishment after 4 years of hard work. But just 10 days earlier, Senator Paul Wellstone died tragically in a plane crash. The Republicans re-took control of the United States Senate. And George W. Bush was hell-bent on taking us into an illegal, idiotic and unjustifiable war in Iraq. I suddenly realized that I had spent too much time focusing on local politics -- and had ignored the absolute devastation that was going on nationally.

Which brought me back full circle. In 2003-2004, I worked on Howard Dean's campaign for President, and have been more attentive towards the national political scene since. The lesson I learned, frankly, is that both are absolutely critical.

A final word for you who don't pay attention to local San Francisco (or Berkeley) politics. It's often simple to look at the local level and think "c'mon, they're all Democrats!! Gavin Newsom and Shirley Dean can't be all bad. I mean if they were anywhere outside of the Bay Area, they would be practically socialists!! I mean Newsom has now become the national spokesperson for gay marriage!"

Right? Wrong. It's true that San Francisco is a very liberal city -- and no Republican could seriously expect to get elected mayor. But local politics should be judged on local issues -- not on a politician's philosophical beliefs on national issues where they have little effect on creating tangible results.

San Francisco's a liberal city -- but it's also a very wealthy city. At the local level, the Chamber of Commerce, real estate developers, and landlords will fight hard for their bottom-line economic interest. So you have people like Gavin Newsom and Bevan Dufty who support fare hikes for Muni, oppose increasing the budget for public health care services, and refuse to stand up to downtown business interests. In other words, they are doing the same type of bidding for the rich and powerful that Republicans in Washington DC do on a daily basis.

So local politics is not a waste of time -- nor is it "divisive" to attack other politicians who may agree with us on national issues. I expect national politicians to be progressive on national issues, and local politicians to be progressive on local issues.

Justice Alito ... Don't Dream it's Over!!

2006-01-22T13:39:00.000-08:00

I cannot over-emphasize how devastating it will be to our country if Samuel Alito gets on the Supreme Court. The precarious balance of power that has upheld affirmative action, abortion rights, environmental protection and worker protections will be thrown out the window if he gets confirmed. It's a truly frightening prospect, and as the mainstream media wants us to believe right now, it's pretty much a done deal.

But thank god for Dick Durbin (my former boss!) This week, Senator Durbin told the Chicago Sun-Times that a filibuster is still possible.

"A week ago, I would have told you it's not likely to happen," Durbin said. "As of [Wednesday], I just can't rule it out. I was surprised by the intensity of feeling of some of my colleagues. It's a matter of counting. We have 45 Democrats, counting [Vermont independent] Jim Jeffords, on our side. We could sustain a filibuster if 41 senators ... are willing to stand and fight."

So don't believe the bullshit you hear. Already, 2 Democrats who voted to confirm John Roberts (Max Baucus and Patrick Leahy) have gone on record saying that they will vote against Alito -- and if the Democrats stick together, we can prevent this catastrophe from happening.

It's not just a question of it being possible ... Given the stakes we're talking about, it's an absolute necessity!

Revolt of the Sane Republicans ...

2006-01-22T13:21:00.000-08:00

One of the trends I've noticed this election cycle is that former Republican members of Congress are coming out of retirement to re-enter politics because they are fed up at how extreme their party (and politics in general) has become.

First Lowell Weicker announced that he may try to re-claim his old Senate because Joe Lieberman has moved so far to the right and has a maniacal devotion to George Bush and the War in Iraq. Of course, Weicker admitted that he's old and he'd rather see someone else run -- but said that he'd do it if nobody else will.

This week in California, we learned that former Congressman Pete McCloskey is running against Republican Congressman Richard Pombo because "this is no Republican Party I recognize today."

I admit that I had no idea about McCloskey's record before he expressed an interest in running against Pombo -- but after some quick research, wow!! He ran for President in 1972 on an anti-war platform, and he co-authored the Endangered Species Act. That sounds better than a lot of Democrats!! And this guy was once a Republican Congressman?? It just goes to show you how right-wing politicians have become when geriatric former Congressmen come out of retirement because they're upset at how conservative Republicans (and in the case of Joe Lieberman, Democrats!) have become.

It goes to show you that Tony Kushner's words couldn't be better put - what used to be called conservative is now called moderate, what used to be called moderate is now called liberal, what used to be called liberal is now called radical, what used to be called radical is now called insane, and what used to be called insane is now called conservative. You know what's even scarier?? Tony Kushner said that ten years ago!

VICTORY!! WE KICKED ARNOLD'S BUTT!!

2005-11-09T00:28:00.000-08:00

Whoa this feels great!!! With 81.9% of the precincts counted, ALL of Arnold Schwarzenegger's propositions are headed for defeat -- which is where his re-election hopes are headed one year from now!!

I guess you don't exactly endear yourself to Californians when you call other politicians "girly men," lie to public school children, eviscerate higher education in this state, veto marriage equality for same-sex couples, and then brag about how you're going to kick nurses' butts. This time around, when Arnold wanted "DA People" to decide his right-wing agenda because Democrats in the legislature wouldn't put up with his political blackmail, California voters sent a message -- loud and clear -- that we don't want this bullshit.

Back when Arnold became governor through an unprecedented recall election, I had two conflicting predictions of what would happen. My Big Fear was that Arnold would be the next Ronald Reagan -- a B-rate movie actor who gets elected Governor of California and proves to be a charismatic leader who inspires a right-wing revolution whose intentional goal is to starve the public sector. My Big Hope was that Arnold would end up more like Jesse Ventura -- a plain-spoken celebrity governor who people voted for as a Joke, and then got sick of him when the joke got old.

Hasta la vista, Arnold!! And on that note, it's 12:30 a.m. and I'm going to bed.

Update: With 84% of precincts reporting, the closest initiatives (Prop 73 and Prop 75) are both down by 3 points.

But looking at the Secretary of State's website gives cause for even more optimism. Almost all the counties' tallies have been added except two -- (a) Los Angeles County, which is overall (but not solidly) a Democratic county, and (b) Alameda County, whose two largest cities are Oakland and Berkeley. In other words, folks, it's over.

If you want to get a chuckle, check out who lives in Arnold's neighborhood.

Kerry Admits He Was Wrong About Iraq

2005-10-26T14:21:00.000-07:00

In a speech today at Georgetown University, John Kerry has admitted that he was wrong about voting to authorize the war in Iraq -- and that George Bush lied to him.

Knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force — just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.

As I said earlier about Gephardt, this is huge. Admitting that you were wrong does not make you a "flip-flopper." It takes moral courage to stand up and say you were wrong. Say you made a good-faith effort to believe the President, and then attack him for lying to you.

It’s time for leaders to be honest that if we do not change course, there is the prospect of indefinite, even endless conflict - a fate untenable for our troops, and a future unacceptable to the American people and the Iraqis who pray for the day when a stable Iraq will belong to Iraqis alone.

Of course, later on in the speech, Kerry says that we should not withdraw our troops immediately -- but at least this is a very positive step. Gephardt has now retired from politics, so his mea culpa was less significant. John Kerry, on the other hand, has presidential ambitions in 2008.

Are you next -- Hillary???

Bush's Approval Rating -- and What Went Wrong in 2004

2005-10-19T15:03:00.000-07:00

As I've said before, I refuse to concede the possibility that George W. Bush did not get re-elected fairly. Discrepancies with the exit polls, the well-known chicanery with the Ohio Secretary of State, and the prevalence of Diebold machines makes it far too difficult to believe that he received every vote honestly. After all, Bush and Cheney already proved that they were not beneath stealing one election -- you gotta think they at least tried to steal this one.

But if we assume the 2004 election was not stolen, it is really difficult to reconcile Bush's abysmal approval ratings less than a year later. Survey USA has a new poll out that shows his approval ratings at 38% -- with 59% who disapprove. In all but the 12 most conservative states, he has a greater than 50% disapproval rating. Even in Texas for chrissakes, only 42% approve and 54% disapprove. With all the damage that this Worst President that Our Country Has Ever Had has caused and will cause, it is absolutely infuriating to look at how unpopular he is now -- and short of impeachment, we are stuck with this bastard for the next three years!!

Back in October 2004, Bush's approval ratings were at 51%-- which happens to be the exact percentage of the popular vote that he received. In other words, if we believe the polls and what happened on Election Day, absolutely everyone who approved of him at the time voted for him. Of course, there were also some who disapproved of Bush but still voted for him anyway -- out of fear (perhaps), or that Kerry was a terrible candidate.

On the day after the Election, Randy Shaw wrote a piece for Beyond Chron, called "We Are Outnumbered," which was positively the most depressing article that I have ever read in my entire life. In the article, he took issue wiht those who criticized John Kerry as a weak candidate ...

How anyone can disparage a presidential candidate who galvanized the Party’s base as never before is beyond me.

But the fact that the Party's base was "galvanized like never before" had nothing to do with John Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, we could have had a frying pan run against George W. Bush, and I would have still voted for it and enthusiastically campaigned for it. The very fact that somebody was running against Bush was enough reason for me to support whoever that was. Would thousands of liberal activist have taken time out of their busy schedules and campaigned in the swing states if John Edwards had been the nominee? Sure. Dick Gephardt? Why not? Wesley Clark? Of course! Howard Dean? Absolutely.

The facts to explain why George Bush should be defeated were all there, and then some -- and that was good enough for 49% of the electorate. What wasn't there was Kerry's argument for why he -- as opposed to anyone else -- should become our Next President.

On gay marriage: Bush wanted a constitutional amendment to enshrine bigotry, and Kerry was "against gay marriage" but didn't think we should change the constitution.

On Iraq: Even after it was proven that the Weapons of Mass Destruction didn't exist and the Administration had lied to us to justify an illegal, idiotic and criminally insane War, Kerry replied that he would have still nevertheless (with 20/20 hindsight) voted to authorize the invasion.

Which raises the general problem Democrats have had for a very, very long time: When was the last time that our presidential nominee actually inspired you -- and gave you a reason to believe?? Kerry didn't excite me. Neither did Gore. Clinton got re-elected in 1996 by absolutely betraying and selling out everything that the Democratic Party believed in (for that reason alone, Dick Morris should rot in hell). Clinton was exciting in 1992, but even then we all knew he was a "New Democrat" and we were all sick and tired of losing to Republicans so we gave him a pass. Dukakis? Mondale? Carter?

Phrases like "we are outnumbered" and "we are a conservative country" are designed to keep us down and depressed, and resigned to the "fact" that supporting conservative Democrats is our only hope to preventing the worse wreckage of a Nixon, Reagan or Bush II. But by continuously moving to the right, and allowing Republicans to frame the debate, we only allow political discourse to move further to the right. If Democrats actually learned to stand for something and were not afraid to take risks every once in a while, maybe we could drive public opinion, rather than let ourselves be driven by it.

Think about it: In 1964, the Republicans suffered a crushing defeat with their nominee, Barry Goldwater. Were they undaunted?? No. They continuously pushed their agenda and by 1980, a full-fledged Goldwater Republican was elected President.

In contrast, what did the Democrats do after 1972 -- when George McGovern lost by a landslide? They felt that it was "too much," "too risky," "too liberal," and proceeded the next 30-plus years running mediocre candidates who do nothing to help build a progressive movement in this country and take it back from these right-wing lunatics.

As Jim Hightower once said, it seems that lately we lose when we lose -- but we also lose when we win. And I, for one, am sick of this crap!

Nervous About Proposition 73 ...

2005-10-18T12:33:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned earlier, one of the scary initiatives on the November ballot is Proposition 73. Prop 73 would require all doctors to give parents a 48-hour notice when their teenage daughter wants to get an abortion. Not only does this violate the fundamental right to privacy, but it will deter many terrified girls who get pregnant from having a safe abortion when they are unprepared to face the daunting task of raising a child. They will either have the child, or get the abortion in dangerous back-alleys.

Of course, in an ideal situation, we want parents to be part of the decision -- and most of the time, they are. But Prop 73 would mandate parental notification. Supporters claim that teenage girls who believe that they will be in danger can apply for a "judicial bypass" -- where a judge can waive the notice requirement. But do you really think that a terrified teenage girl will know how to navigate our judicial process?? For more info on why Prop 73 is wrong, click here.

This semester, as part of the Street Law program, I am teaching a 12th-grade class at Mission High School -- introducing them to basic, practical aspects of the law like family law, consumer law, housing law and criminal law. Because we are doing Family Law, I gave my students the Official Ballot Arguments for and against Prop 73, and assigned them to write a one-page essay on how they would vote.

Because my students are teenagers, I fully expected them to unanimously oppose this initiative. I am shocked to report that out of the 17 students who did the assignment, 9 said they would vote "Yes," 7 said they would vote "No," and one said that they were undecided. Keep in mind that these are High School students in SAN FRANCISCO.

Back in 1997, the religious right attempted to get a proposition on the California ballot that would require parental consent. I believe that this current effort to get parental notification is a less-radical, poll-tested attempt to get the same outcome they want -- to take away a woman's reproductive freedom.

More insidiously, Prop 73 is a Constitutional Amendment, which would put the following language in the California Constitution:

The authors of this initiative have slipped in a provision that would add “unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born” to the California Constitution.

This could have legal repercussions that we don't yet know. Again, another attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Gephardt Admits He Was Wrong About Iraq

2005-10-17T14:26:00.000-07:00

As Daily Kos reports, Former House Minority Leader and 2004 Presidential Candidate Dick Gephardt has admitted that he was wrong about the war in Iraq. After cowering to Bush and his liars back in 2002 to assemble bi-partisan support for a Congressional Resolution authorizing the President to go to War (which created a huge rift within the Democratic Party that we have not yet recovered from), this is big news.

"It was a mistake," said Gephardt last week in Seattle. "I was wrong."

As the American public continues to oppose this illegal, idiotic and unjustified war in growing numbers, the only thing that Democrats like Gephardt can do to is apologize, admit that they were wrong, and then blame the Bush Administration for lying to them. This won't make them look indecisive. It will show that they made a good-faith effort to trust the President, and that they were betrayed.

I honestly don't see how the Democratic Party can get any political mileage out of this never-ending quagmire, without completely renouncing the initial vote in October 2002 to authorize the invaison in the first place. If our potential 2008 Presidential nominees continue their wishy-washy bullshit, they will have yet again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

In fact, I strongly believe that (assuming the election wasn't stolen), John Kerry lost the Presidential race when he refused to admit that he was wrong on the War. Right after the Democratic National Convention, George W. Bush held a press conference in which he asked Kerry ...

''My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq," Bush said. ''The American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer."

And what did Kerry reply?? The FUCKING IDIOT said that he would have still voted for the war anyway. Despite the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found -- and that in fact they never existed. Despite the growing number of Americans being killed needlessly in a war that we never should have started -- and an occupation that has made the United States universally hated by even the most moderate Iraqis.

If there is any mistake that John Kerry made in the 2004 election, this was it. His later attempts to attack Bush on the inept occupation were completely ineffective.

November 8th Election ... I Just Voted!!

2005-10-14T14:05:00.000-07:00

As everyone should (but many people don't) know, California has a Statewide Special Election coming up on November 8th. Arnold Schwarzenegger just can't resist attacking the Democratic legislature yet again, and has decided to override these "girly men" by calling a special election to ram his right-wing agenda down our throats. He's counting that young progressive voters don't show up, because if they don't, he wins. That means if you live in California, please vote!!

Here in San Francisco, we are also voting on some local candidates and propositions at the same time. San Francisco is a very very political town, where we elect our City Attorney, our Treasurer, our Assessor -- and even our Public Defender, but not -- for some strange reason -- our Rent Board. As an avid political junkie and passionate progressive activist, being a San Francisco voter is almost paradise.

So today, when I received my absentee ballot, I opened it up right away. This is the first time I can vote in local San Francisco elections, despite having been involved in SF politics for years. One may want to wait until they get their ballot pamphlet, but given that I've read up on the State Propositions already, and I know most of the local elected officials personally, I just went ahead and voted. As the old saying goes, "Vote Early, Vote Often." Here is How I voted:

California Propositions: When I phonebanked the other night for the Alliance for a Better California, I spoke to a lot of voters who hate Arnold, hate the special election, and therefore assume that they should vote "NO" on everything. Unfortunately, it's not that simple:

NO on Prop 73: Requiring that doctors give parents 48 hours advance-notice that their teenage daughter wants to have an abortion would not only violate her right to privacy, but also create unwanted pregnancies or dangerous back-alley abortions. Arnold supports it. Vote No.

NO on Prop 74: It's hard enough recruiting good teachers who want to teach in California's under-funded public schools. This semester, I'm teaching a class at Mission High School and only have undying respect for the people who choose to do this every day. Prop 74 would extend the probationary period for teachers from 2 years to 5 years, and allow them to get fired without cause. Arnold supports it. Vote No.

NO on Prop 75: At first, this doesn't sound too bad, but it's probably the worse initiative on the ballot. It would require public employee unions every year to ask each and every member on whether to spend a small portion of their union dues on political campaign expenses that push a pro-labor agenda. Never mind that these workers have already voted to be part of a union, voted collectively to charge themselves a separate account for political campaign expenses, and if any individual member wants to not have their dues spent on this, they can already opt out [see Railway Employes’ Department v. Hanson, 351 US 225 (1956)]

Prop 75 would be a bureaucratic nightmare that would completely strip working people of their political clout and power to speak up against Arnold's insidious agenda. Prop 75 is pure spite on Arnold and his corporate cronies' part to retaliate against labor's very successful campaign to expose them for the scumbags that they are. For more information on Prop 75, click here. Vote NO, NO, NO!!

NO on Prop 76: This initiative would give the Governor discretion to slash the budgets of state government departments, even when the legislature votes to fund them. This is a basic violation of our system of checks and balances, and would put our scant health care, education and transit resources at the mercy of Arnold. Arnold supports it (No Shit!), so please vote NO.

NO on Prop 77: This would take redistricting of legislative districts out of the California legislature, and to a panel of retired Republican judges. While there are certainly problems with the way current districts are drawn out, this is not the way to fix it. Again, this is another power-grab by Arnold. Vote NO.

NO on Prop 78 and YES on Prop 79: This is confusing. Both propositions deal with prescription drug reform. But Prop 79 is a grass-roots effort by senior citizen activists to hold the greedy drug companies accountable, and Prop 78 is the pharmaceutical companies' effort to offer "reform" so that people don't support Prop 79. Don't fall for the corporate bullshit. Vote YES on Prop 79 and NO on Prop 78.

YES on Prop 80: Remember that wonderful electricity de-regulation that brought us the energy crisis of 2001?? Remember how those out-of-state Enron executives later admitted that de-regulation allowed them to concoct this phony energy crisis and rip off California grandmothers? Prop 80 would prevent that criminal corporate robbery from happening again. Vote YES.

San Francisco Elected Officials: I can't say I'm really excited about our choices this time around, and choosing among the candidates was often a lesser-evils option, but here goes:

Dennis Herrera for City Attorney: A no-brainer. First, he's unopposed. Second, he's done a great job from representing the City in the struggle to legalize gay marriage, and going after bad landlords. I wasn't crazy about him when he first got elected four years ago, but he's definitely earned his stripes.

Gerardo Sandoval for Assessor: Sandoval is a progressive Supervisor from District 11, and a member of the Progressive Class of 2000. Which makes me inclined to not want him to win this race because I don't want to let Gavin Newsom appoint his replacement on the Board. But his opponent, Phil Ting, is yet another Newsom appointee who, despite running a venerable non-profit, did an owner move-in eviction. The progressive community has rallied around Sandoval, and he deserved my vote.

Jose Cisneros for Treasurer: Like Phil Ting, Jose Cisneros is another Gavin Newsom lackey who got appointed thanks to a vacancy that the Mayor is entitled to replace (we have got to change the City Charter to prevent this from happening again.) But worse than the Ting replacement, Gavin Newsom engineered that vacancy himself. And while Cisneros is qualified, and seems to be doing a good job, the reason he probably got appointed was because he is Bevan Dufty's gym partner.

Unfortunately, Cisneros' opponent -- Calvin Louie -- thoroughly unimpressed me at the Harvey Milk Club endorsement meeting. At that meeting, he confirmed that in November 2002 he supported Prop R (the condo-conversion initative), opposed Prop L (the real estate transfer tax), and in November 2003 he opposed Prop L (the minimum-wage increase). In other words, he's a conservative. Vote for Cisneros.

San Francisco Propositions: Ah yes, just like the hated California initiative process, San Francisco voters are asked to vote on local measures too. I generally don't support statewide initiatives, but at the local level, I support the initiative process because it's more possible to pass a progressive grass-roots measure that politicians aren't willing to go to the bat for.

NO on Proposition A: While I normally support any bond measures that would help schools, the San Francisco Community College Board has proven itself inept at managing money -- and apparently flushed the money for the last bond they got just a few years ago down the toilet. Sorry, but this time I won't be supporting their bond measure. I agree with the Bay Guardian's endorsement on this one.

YES on Proposition B: A bond measure to pave sidewalks and streets. San Francisco desperately needs it, and as someone who rides my bicycle all over town, I know this all too well.

YES on Proposition C: While I generally don't support ballot-box budgeting (see Proposition F), this measure would give the City's Ethics Commission enough teeth so that they can actually enforce their mandate: go after corrupt politicians. It's a necessary evil. Vote YES.

YES on Proposition D: This desperately-needed measure would create some accountability for our corrupt MTA -- that passed two bus fare hikes in the last two years alone. The current MTA Board is completely appointed by the Mayor. Prop D would follow the reform that have improved the Planning Commission, Board of Appeals, and Police Commission, and share appointments with the Board of Supervisors. It would also create one seat on the MTA Board for a disabled person, and require every MTA Commissioner to actually ride Muni on at least a semi-regular basis. If there is any single local proposition to support this time, it is Prop D. VOTE YES!!

YES on Proposition E: This is a no-brainer. It would move the Assessors' and Public Defenders' race from June 2006 to November 2006. The old system made sense when we had to have run-offs, but now that we have IRV in San Francisco elections, a November run-off is unnecessary. Might as well change the Charter to reflect that reality.

NO on Proposition F: While firefighters are sexy, and nobody wants to see firehouses closed down, the reality is that it costs a lot of money to keep them open when they're not being used. Prop F would require all the firehouses to stay open at all times -- which only sounds good if you don't consider that it would require devastating budget cuts elsewhere (think child care, education, health care programs.) Firefighters are already some of the best-paid city employees and their union is always the least cooperative when it comes to budget cuts. Sorry, guys. I can't support it.

YES on Proposition G: A compromise measure engineered by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi that would deal with extra lanes on some road in Golden Gate Park. Nobody is against it. Might as well support it.

YES on Proposition H: This would ban the sale of handguns in San Francisco, and make it illegal for SF residents to own handguns. At a time of record gun homicides in Bayview Hunters-Point, it's time that we say "fuck you" to the NRA and remind them that the Second Amendment does not give individuals the right to own handguns.

YES on Proposition I: This would make it City policy to not have military recruiters on public school campuses. 'Nuff said.

Tony Hall and the Mayor's Abuse of Power

2005-10-14T00:18:00.000-07:00

As the San Francisco Chronicle loves to gloat, Tony Hall just got voted off the island -- Treasure Island, that is. Last night, the Treasure Island Development Authority (the public body responsible for administering the conversion of a former military base and all development contracts on its property) voted to fire their Executive Director, former San Francisco Supervisor Tony Hall, without cause. Today, Hall asked the Mayor to give him his old job back as District 7 Supervisor -- but Newsom just had his staff people laugh at him.

Why did Tony Hall get fired? Apparently because he blew the whistle on the Mayor's sweetheart deals, contracts with Newsom campaign contributors who were ready to rip the city's taxpayers from millions of dollars. After all, Treasure Island sits right in the middle of the bay -- with exquisite views of San Francisco -- every gentrifying real estate developer's wet dream. Unhappy that Hall exposed what seemed to be obvious influence-peddling, Gavin used his cronies at the Chronicle to defame Hall. When that still didn't work, he just had the Board fire Hall. Even the Board members themselves admitted that they were just following the Mayor's orders ...

Treasure Island Director John Elberling: "TIDA is set up as a de facto project of the Mayor's Office... The Mayor appoints all Commissioners. Four are, for heaven's sakes, Department heads, which clearly are his votes. The other three are citizens who serve at his pleasure... If [the Mayor] says I want so and so to be my Director, I am not going to trump his judgment. It is the Mayor's call."

Of course, Tony Hall is no saint himself -- and I won't pretend that he was qualified for the job. And his right-wing politics leave much to be desired.

But what's especially galling to me is how Tony Hall got hired to run Treasure Island in the first place: the Mayor appointed him. Last year, in what became known in local media circles as the "Triple Play," Mayor Gavin Newsom promoted Treasure Island Director Annemarie Conroy to head the Mayor's Office of Emergency Services. He then replaced her with Tony Hall, who was finishing up his first term on the Board of Supervisors representing District 7 (West-of-Twin-Peaks area), and gearing up tu run for re-election. Because the Mayor gets to appoint vacancies on the Board of Supervisors, Newsom chose one of his own political aides (Sean Elsbernd) to replace him. With 11 Supervisors as the city's legislative branch, Newsom has appointed 2 Supervisors since he became Mayor -- and can often rely on 2 more who consistently side with his pro-business politics, enough to prevent the Board from overriding any veto.

To Repeat: Mayor Gavin Newsom

(a) promoted an incompetent hack to head our local equivalent of FEMA

(b) which created a vacancy from her old job

(c) that he chose to appoint a currently-serving elected official

(d) which meant he got to replace that elected official with one of his lackeys

(e) When one of those appointees tried to show some independence,

(f) he uses the Board that oversees that job (of which incidentally all of the members serve at his pleasure) to fire him.

You don't have to like Tony Hall to realize that this is garbage, and a clear abuse of power.

And this isn't the first time that Newsom has used a power play to abuse his role as Mayor to appoint elected officials (who ideally should be chosen by the people.) Last year, he appointed Treasurer Susan Leal to run the SF Public Utilities Commission, which then allowed him to appoint her replacement, Jose Cisneros. Like the Treasure Island Board, the Mayor also gets to appoint both the Executive Director of the PUC and all the Commissioners who allegedly "oversee" the Executive. In fact, the last time someone other than the Mayor appointed a Commissioner to the PUC, it created quite a ruckus.

Susan knows she can't upset the mayor too much -- or else suffer the same fate as Tony Hall!

Bush's Approval Sinks Like a Stone

2005-10-12T21:51:00.000-07:00

NBC News has a new poll today showing George W. Bush's approval ratings down to 39% -- with 54% of Americans disapproving of his job as President. Only 28% believe that the country is headed in the right direction, and a pitiful 29% believe that Harriet Miers is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Evidently, George's effort to castrate Social Security, the federal government's criminally incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina, Tom DeLay's indictment, and the illegal, idiotic and unjustified quagmire in Iraq has finally caught up with Dubya.

While liberal bloggers are celebrating this news, and hoping that it will translate in Democratic congressional victories in 2006, I'm eternally frustrated. Why the fuck didn't this happen ONE YEAR AGO, when there was actually hope to get rid of this Clown, kick his ass out of the White House and bring some level of sanity back to our government?? It may be to an extent satisfying to know that the American public has finally woken up, but with all the devastation that Bush and his boys are doing on a daily basis, saying "Don't Blame Me -- I Voted for Kerry" just doesn't gratify me right now.

George and his ilk have already proven that they have no respect for the American people, so do you really think that low approval numbers now will change the way they act for the next three years?? Look at Harriet Miers. And unlike Bill Clinton, who obsessed during his second term about his place in history, George W. Bush doesn't care how history will judge him because "we will all be dead."

It's amazing what a difference a year makes -- which leads me to another question. If Bush was re-elected with 51% of the vote, and now 54% of Americans disapprove of him as President, there's gotta be a lot of sorry voters out there with a case of Buyer's Remorse. To my knowledge (and I could be wrong), there haven't been any news stories lately about people who voted for Bush last November, and now deeply regret it. If there haven't been, one of the following must be true:

(a) The Media has (once again) failed miserably at reporting a very obvious and pervasive story; or

(b) Maybe Bush didn't win that election after all.

I refuse to believe that our only solace can be the far-from-certain Democratic congressional take-over in 2006, or a Democratic president in 2008. And by then, it may be too late. After all, we won't be running against George W. Bush -- we'll be running against the Republican Party.

P.S. Reason #6,045 why the media is not liberal, take a look at the ridiculous spin that NBC is taking on their own poll:

It has been weeks since Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast; since gas prices began spiking to record highs; and since Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, held her antiwar vigil outside President Bush’s Texas ranch. But, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the fortunes of the Bush administration and the Republican Party have not yet begun to recover.

As if somehow those poll numbers deserve to "recover"?? What happens if Bush's approval continues to sink even further?? Oh, but no. NBC wouldn't want that happen, now would they?

Al Gore Not Running for President ...

2005-10-12T14:34:00.000-07:00

Today, Al Gore announced that he is not running for President in 2008 -- although reserved the possibility that he might run in the future. While Kos thinks this is bad news, I view this as a sigh of relief.

Not to say that my impression of Gore hasn't improved since his lackluster run for President. He has been an eloquent critic of the Bush administration, including an early critique of the impending Iraq invasion, going places that most tepid mainstream Democrats refuse to tread. He endorsed Howard Dean for President. And he came to my school last June and spoke out eloquently against the use of torture. It almost makes one wonder if, after ~~losing the election~~ having the presidency stolen from him, Gore had a mid-life crisis and realized that he finally needed to stand for something.

The trouble is, as everyone has said ad infinitum, the Democratic Party has an image problem -- and we've got to think outside of the box and stop nominating tired politicians who fail to inspire. The Clinton years really weren't that great (although compared with who's President now, I don't blame you for being nostalgic), but we're making a huge mistake if we don't think past nominating the former Vice President or the former First Lady. As Scott Shields brilliantly mentioned today at MyDD.com:

Personally, I think anyone who's limited their choices for 2008 candidates to Hillary Clinton and Al Gore is sorely lacking in originality, if not just flat out not paying attention.

And originality is what the Democratic Party is sorely lacking right now. We have got to stop resorting to celebrity candidates, and start thinking about how do we create a progressive movement in this country that recruits new leadership, grooms them for higher office, and ensure that we always will have a deep bench of qualified candidates??

It's the same problem as when progressives in Oakland recruit Ron Dellums to run for mayor, or when Berkeley progressives took former Assemblyman Tom Bates out of retirement and had him run for mayor. Sure, running a celebrity makes the job easier -- but it doesn't really help sustain a movement.

My early support in 2008 goes to Russ Feingold, notwithstanding his own set of problems. He's far and away the most progressive potential Democratic candidate out there, and after having been in the Senate for 12 years, it's about time that he gets promoted.

Running Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would be running on the goodwill Democrats have generated in the past. Running someone like Russ Feingold would be looking at an eye into the future.

Now Finally Joining the Blogger Generation ...

2005-07-05T23:51:00.001-07:00

It's about time. Most of my friends have livejournals, and I'm already addicted to reading these political blogs -- whether they be on national, state or local and more local politics. My friends have been begging me to start blogs for years. So here it is. Haven't figured out how to upload more photos than my old Rent Board campaign photo, but with my digital camera I'll be sure to find good use for it.

On this blog, I hope to provide my daily rants and commentaries about what's going on, as well as interesting links to good articles and postings. The real challenge: will I have time to post on a regular basis??