California Politics archives
The motto of the United States Marine Corps is simple and profound: "Semper Fidelis", Latin for "always faithful." And, as any Marine can tell you, there is no such thing as being a "former" member of the corp. "Once a Marine," goes the saying, "always a Marine."
But the government these men and women serve does not always live up to the promise of loyalty it asks its members to make. That's a sleeping problem for the thousands of gay and lesbians who have served our nation honorably in the Marines, or any branch of the Armed Services. At any time, a recent veteran could risk losing his or her health, education or other benefits, even after years of service and their spouses will never be treated equally under the law.
Even after the California Supreme Court's historic decision granting marriage equality, not all Californians have the right to marry - and those who don't are the ones who deserve the right most. With a nervy nonchalance, in it's Q&A on Gay Marriage, the Los Angeles Times states that, "Marrying or attempting to marry a person of the same sex is grounds for dismissal from the service."
That just seems just plain wrong particularly since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies let many gays in the military serve with honor and distinction. But the awkward compromise of the Clinton era doesn't just apply to those on active duty. According to the Service Members Legal Defense Network, an organization that fights for equal rights for gays in the military, the injustice of Don't Ask, Don't Tell extends far beyond one's enlistment. It covers veterans of all wars and of all ages.
Regardless of when they served, gay and lesbian veterans and their spouses are denied equal treatment in life and death. Although my grandfather violated military laws by joining the Army before he was eighteen, the enthusiastic soldier lays buried in the cemetery at Fort Sam Houston. Next to him lay my grandmother, who never served a day in her life but was entitled to be buried next to her husband as a dutiful - and legally recognized - spouse. Such a privilege would not be afforded to a gay draftee from World War II or Vietnam.
It is even worse for the men and women who are just now returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. While nearly three thousand service members have been dismissed under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since the beginning of the Global War on Terror, tens of thousands more have left the service after their first enlistment. Although they survived in the closet for years and finished their active duty honorably, as they return to civilian life, they must still keep the closet door shut, or risk being discharged and imperiling their veterans' benefits. Soldiers, sailors or marines who are no longer on active duty are subject to the provisions of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". So are veteran members of the National Guard, Reserves or Individual Ready Reserves even after they have left active duty and are allegedly living civilian lifestyles. For all these men and women, that means no statements regarding their sexual orientation, nor sodomy, nor hugging, nor hand-holding...and most certainly no marriage!
The burden on these veteran reservists is already great enough. After putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom in combat, they are returned to civilian life with a years-long noose around their neck: the threat that, one day, they may very likely get called back to duty.
For some, this burden can result in a near paralysis, where the uncertainty of their future keeps them from making any commitments beyond the time that they know they have for certain in civilian life. And for our gay and lesbian veterans, the military is telling them that they must go it alone. Anyone who says they support the troops should find this contradiction morally repugnant.
According to SLDN, not only is gay marriage out of the question, but so are accepting domestic partnership health care benefits, joining a group like the Log Cabin Republicans, or being added to a partner's USAA policy (or vice versa), if the law is strictly followed. And these are rules governing civilians in strictly civilian settings.
For gay and lesbian veterans, the unfortunate reality is that, until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, they must hope that the ones they love, and those that love them, are more abiding by the spirit of Semper Fi than the government they've so loyally served.
Today, the California Supreme Court has decided that, on equal protection grounds, the State cannot discriminate on gender when it comes to marriage. That's a great victory for equality. While opponents will decry the changes such a decision will have on the institution of marriage, few have pondered what such a decision will mean for gay and lesbian culture.
I think we'll see two changes, one's a fad - gays are good at that - the other, a true shift in gay culture.
Between June 15 and November 3, 2008 it will be possible for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, to get married in California. This summer, gays and lesbians will be coming to California to gain legal recognition of their relationships just as they did on Valentine's weekend 2004 when San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses. And like that romantic weekend get-away, they had better make plans fast.
With a November 3rd Constitutional Amendment looming, the joy felt today will soon be replaced with a sense of urgency. On election day, the state's voters will consider a ballot measure to rescind that right. Previous rulings in Hawaii and Massachusetts have not fared well once they're out of the courthouse and in the political discourse.
But what good is a right if you cannot exercise it? The right to marriage on paper is nice, but knowing that that right might be lost may lead people to make decisions they otherwise wouldn't. "Now we just need someone to marry!" one friend messaged me, pretty much summing up the conundrum facing gays and lesbians over the next six months.
In some respects, gay marriage in California is no different than the George Bush tax cuts. Inherit an estate in 2011, and pay nothing. A year later, your estate tax will go up to 65%, and a $3 million dollar estate becomes a $1 million inheritance. Imitating the Menendez brothers could be the cultural phenomenon of the new decade; worried about inheriting, too many folks may pull the trigger instead of waiting for nature to take its course.
Likewise, a gay or lesbian who may not be quite ready to make a commitment like marriage two weeks ago could feel that the opportunity is too good to pass up. The prospect of wasting the right to marry now must be balanced against the cold reality that the opportunity could be lost forever once the state's voters have spoken. I see a summer filled with rice-tossing and bouquet-throwing in my future as friends pair up - just for the sake of getting married. Talk about your shotgun weddings!
Still, this rush to the altar may lead to one of the largest shifts in gay culture since the Stonewall riots in New York in 1969.
Until today, there has been no archetypical relationship for gays and lesbians across America. Nothing to look at and say "That's what I want." Only in tiny Massachusetts could a gay man like me even think about getting married and then consider with whom to form that union. This lack of a model or structure for legal, recognized partnerships created the impression that promiscuity was the norm for the gay community. And, I would argue, contributed to the spread of AIDS and other plagues on the gay community.
But today, all that has changed.
There is something higher to aspire to in gay relationships, and it is real, accessible, and free to all. The discussion about partnership shifts from "Mister Tonight" to "Mister Right." It's a change that can only be good for society, gay or otherwise. At least, for another six months.
Last September 26, I broke with conventional wisdom and predicted that the economy, not the war in Iraq, would be the deciding issue in the 2008 election. I was wrong. Ironically, the issue that President Bush heralded as the most important challenge facing America before 9/11 will be the issue that determines his successor: China.
Regardless of what happens with the economy - whether we slip into a recession or narrowly avoid one - the issue will be an afterthought by August 2008. Either things will be getting better - as recent activity on Wall Street seems to indicate - or the issue will have lost its political currency as the drumbeat of recession fade to provide little more than the background rhythm to the campaign march.
Much to this political junkie's regret, it looks more and more like the two parties' conventions will provide no more drama than usual. Instead, the conventions and the campaign will be framed by what happens in the two weeks prior: the Beijing Olympics.
How we relate to China is perhaps the critical question facing America today. When he came to office, President Bush made it his top priority, engaging China in a dialectical competition of superpowers old and new. But then 9/11 happened and the world's most populous country fell our of America's consciousness, as the U.S. slowly developed a relationship with China that was more codependent than competitive.
The China Question is about much more than foreign policy and the basic question of whether we should have a competitive or a cooperative relationship with the country. Each approach is a dual-edged sword.
The chief argument for why we need a cooperative approach with China is economic. China is beginning to rival oil in its importance to America's well-being. America's ability to have growth without inflation depends on our ability to outsource manufacturing to China, while growing our science and service sectors here at home.
This trade benefits everyday Americans by keeping the products we buy affordable, and it benefits China by giving working-class jobs to millions of its inhabitants. Ours is a symbiotic relationship that, if broken, could have disastrous geopolitical consequences.
At the same time, China's economic growth comes at a cost to the environment that can be seen on our shores. As much as a quarter of the air pollution in Los Angeles comes from China, and with its smoke-belching ships coming in to port in San Pedro and Long Beach, the Chinese can probably be considered the single-largest source of pollution in California.
China can no longer get a pass on the environment like it got in the Kyoto Treaty. Unless China joins in the fight against climate change, no regulation or cap-and-trade system here at home will make a dent. If we restrict our economic activity with environmental regulation while allowing China to pollute at will, the sun will set on the American empire faster than the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Morally, pursuing a cooperative relationship with China is dubious as well. Beijing's human rights record is notorious and while its subjects are beginning to enjoy economic liberties, the concept of universal human rights is foreign to them. How can we claim to be defenders of freedom, whilst turning a blind eye on the world's great oppressors?
Pulling out of China, economically, would be exponentially worse than pulling out of Iraq militarily, but maintaining the relationship without action on the environmental and human rights front will also place us in peril.
The China Question has everything: the economy, the environment, human rights and geopolitics. But it does not have partisanship, yet. Neither ideology espoused by John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton provides a logically consistent answer to the many issues it raises.
This voter wants to know how our would-be Presidents would approach this tangled web with China, and after the world focuses on Beijing this summer, many others will be asking the same question: Is China friend or foe, or is our relationship status summed up with, "It's Complicated"?
Last Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger shocked a ballroom full of gay Republicans - and perhaps an entire state - when he announced that he would oppose a constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians in California. The religious right screamed "betrayal" from a governor who twice vetoed legislation to make marriage equality the law, and liberal Democrats were befuddled by what they saw as a shift of position.
Outside of California, the announcement to the Log Cabin Republicans was seen as a change of position, making the California Governor seem like the enigmatic maverick he has endorsed for president. But in reality, Schwarzenegger has never changed his position on gay marriage and gay rights; indeed he's signed into law more pieces of gay rights legislation - 19 in all - than any other governor. Instead, he has but slowly revealed how he feels about an issue mired in the complexities of California lawmaking.
Schwarzenegger's position on gay marriage comes from a wholly California perspective. As he sees it, there is a difference between marriage equality as a constitutional amendment versus a legislative statute or an initiative statute. That's why he twice vetoed legislative statutes granting marriage rights. But it's also why he said he would support an initiative statute if the people decided the issue at the polls.
Of course, given his record, it came as a shock when Schwarzenegger announced in 2005 that he would veto a bill from the legislature designed to grant gay couples the holy grail of civil rights: the right to marry. During the month that followed that announcement and his actual veto of the bill, gay rights groups led by Democrats thought they could win him over by comparing him to Governor George Wallace--an attempted scare tactics that in the end proved only to get the door to Sacramento's Horseshoe slammed in their face. He is, after all, The Terminator.
When he vetoed the marriage rights bill, Schwarzenegger was very forthright in his reasoning. Because the voters had passed Proposition 22, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the legislature could not, constitutionally, override the will of the people. Only the courts, or the people themselves with another ballot initiative, could do that.
Schwarzenegger subsequently said that if the people decided to make marriage equality the law, he would be for it.
So let's review the Governator's positions on marriage equality. He is against a legislative statute allowing it, acknowledges the fact that there is an initiative statute banning it on the books, would support a court decision or initiative statute making it law, and is against a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.
But until Friday, Schwarzenegger had not taken a position on whether gays and lesbians should have equal marriage rights. This is why there has been so much confusion. Early statements outlined the governor's positions on how the legal means used to grant such rights, not on their merits.
On California's November ballot, there may will be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage which would make the debate over legislative versus initiative statutes irrelevant. Governor Schwarzenegger said that he thought that such a measure would not only be "a waste of time" but that he would fight against it - creating room for a solution to the procedural problems that give gays the right to marry - and drawing rancorous applause from the Log Cabin audience.
It's not as easy as saying Schwarzenegger is "for it" or he is "against it" when it comes to same-sex marriage. And if Democrats weren't trying to score political points in their attacks, they might even call his positions "nuanced." The reality is that Schwarzenegger's position is as complex as California's government itself. A telling statement on the the governance of the state as a whole and why it can be so difficult to get anything done in Sacramento.
A year ago, California politicians decided to split the state's June primary elections and move its presidential contests to February 5. The goal, we were told, was to enhance the state's standing in national political circles and get the candidates to talk about issues that matter to Californians.
Coincidentally, the state legislature was able to get a ballot measure extending their term limits on the earlier ballot...(but that's a whole 'nother story, as the kids say). And with less than a week to go, I’ve heard nary a whisper about those so-called issues facing the state. In fact, some people are wondering whether California’s clout would have been greater had their primaries not been held on the crowded Super Tuesday ballot.
Many federal issues hit us here at home in California, and they bridge partisan divides, but no one is talking about them. So far I have seen one television ad with Sen. Hillary Clinton talking about the environment. It was so vague, it could have been an ad for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger except that he’s not on the ballot.
California Republicans recently surveyed indicated their top priorities as immigration and the War on Terror - not much different from GOP voters across the country so it's hard to justify how a discussion on these issues was worth the cost of adding a third electoral cycle for the Golden State.
So, I say if the presidential candidates want to appeal to Californians over the next week, let’s give them some things to talk about. Here's my list of questions. You voters - Democrats and Republicans - should feel free to try this at home as well.
How will California keep its economy growing if we cannot get enough water to where it is needed? Growth in Arizona and Nevada is taxing supplies of the Colorado River and federal environmental lawsuits are threatening the ability to transfer water from the San Joaquin Bay-Delta. What’s their plan to keep Southern California from shriveling up in a drought?
How do we pay for transportation improvements? More than half of the country’s international trade travels through the ports of Oakland, Los Angeles and Long Beach, and California’s freeways are among the nation’s most congested. Yet California sends more tax dollars to Washington than it gets back. How are we going to pay for freeway expansion, goods movement and improving public transit?
California has taken a leadership role on the environment and is serving as an incubator for green business of all different types. Yet the federal government has gotten in the way of the state’s ability to pass its own air quality rules. Should the federal government continue to force California to use ethanol, despite its dubious environmental benefits, and should the EPA continue to block California’s vehicle emission curbs?
Although California bans gay marriage just like the federal government, it mandates employers treat all employees equally when it comes to benefits like as health insurance. So domestic partners have to pay federal taxes on these benefits while married couples do not. Is that fair? And a bonus question to any candidate who like Mike Huckabee thinks sexuality is a choice: When - exactly - did you choose to be straight?
These are all issues that have no easy answers, and are neither Republican nor Democrat, they're truly Californian. None are likely to come up on the presidential campaign trail in Iowa or New Hampshire although a few might surface in New York or Illinois. Still, if California is going to get its money’s worth for switching its presidential primary date, I’d like to hear some answers.
The clock is ticking…
This past summer, Minneapolis grabbed national headlines for its crumbling infrastructure. Late next summer, the nation's eyes will return to Minnesota again, for the Republican National Convention. Although I was there in 2000 and in 2004, it seems more likely that you'll find me in Charlottesville, VA come next Labor Day than in Minneapolis, MN. I am a victim of political geography.
It's not that I don't want to attend the next GOP convention, nor that I don't have a candidate yet, which will keep me from becoming a delegate in 2008. I support Rudy Giuliani and want to do everything I can to make sure he represents the party as its nominee next year. I was an alternate delegate for George W. Bush in 2000, where I was able to get the 15,000 assembled Republicans to start a "We Love Dick" chant to welcome our vice presidential nominee.
At the time, I lived in Congressman Brad Sherman's San Fernando Valley district, and, as I later discovered, my selection as a delegate came on account of my age. I was 25 and the GOP had a quota for delegates under a certain age much like Democrats have quotas for Black, Latino, gays and lesbian delegates.
Nevertheless, I'm an experienced delegate! So, as the deadline to apply for the 2008 Convention approached, I asked my friend who is tied into the Giuliani campaign what I'd need to do to attend. "You can come as my guest," he told me. When I told him I wanted to be a delegate, he laughed and asked me if I knew where I lived.
I may be represented in Congress by Rep. Henry Waxman, one the House's most liberal Democrats. But for a district with a reputation for being one of the most safely Democratic in the country, California's 30th sure has alot of high-powered Republicans.
Despite its reputation, the district, which covers West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Brentwood and Malibu, might be the most highly-contested seat for Republican delegate selection in the state - if not the country. And it's nowhere near anything known as Reagan Country.
Actually, Nancy Reagan does live in the district. As does California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, former gubernatorial nominee Bill Simon - Giuliani's California Campaign Chairman. It's not just celebs.
According to Fundrace, a number of people in the district have already maxed out their contributions to the Giuliani campaign. They include hotelier Barron Hilton (no word on his grand-daughter's contribution history), real estate developers Rob Lowe and Fred Wehba, former Los Angeles mayoral candidate Steve Soboroff, California Redistricting Campaign chairman Bill Mundell, the former Mr. Arianna, Michael Huffington, Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey and Dole Foods mogul David Murdoch, to name a few. Add actor and humorist Ben Stein to the list of contributors and potential delegates, and well, maybe my friend has a point.
So I'm not even bothering to hedge my bets by submitting a futile application to be a Rudy Delegate which is too bad, because I hear even the airport can be interesting in Minneapolis - that's a joke. But I have learned that your chances of attending a political convention don't have as much to do with how many Democrats or how many Republicans live in your neighborhood. What matters most is how rich they are!
On my flight home Sunday night from visiting South Bend, Ind. the first officer contacted air traffic control asking about the fire was he could see blazing in the Temecula area, east of Los Angeles. It would be the first of many fires visible as flames made their way through Corona and the hills of Orange County, Lake Arrowhead, Santa Clarita and Malibu. It was pretty obvious: Southern California was burning.
Since Saturday night, more than a dozen wildfires have burned more than 1300 structures and tens of thousands of acres. Between Santa Barbara and San Diego, more than a half-million people have been evacuated from their homes.
A few decades ago, such wildfires would have been a major news event, but their impact on human lives would have been significantly lower. Because of the development and growth patterns of Southern California, residents are living on the edge and creating a built-up environment where a confluence of events can spark comparisons to the ultimate natural disaster in recent American history, Hurricane Katrina.
On the religious right, they would have you believe that exurban Southern California is burning because the City of San Diego filed an amicus court brief in support of marriage equality in California. Others are wondering whether the coincidence of so many fires could be tied to terrorism. But regardless of how the fires started, their devastation can be blamed on one group of people - NIMBY's.
If you don't have them in your town yet, let me tell you about our version of the NIMBY. Many Southern Californians believe that there should be no development any where near anyone. Once settled in a new community, they will say, "Not in my backyard!" to any building proposal that comes along. Like the Malibu environmentalist, they believe that the last house that should be built is the one they live in.
Unfortunately for us, politicians only respond to voters who live in their districts, not those who might move in, so NIMBY's can be very powerful. When they say that there should be no new apartment buildings or condos, local elected officials listen. They'll block projects, propose that density be capped and work the corridors of City Hall to make sure that nothing new gets built.
But the fact there is little to no density-increasing urban construction here in L.A., where it would make sense has not kept folks from moving to Southern California. To accommodate this influx, we first built up the San Fernando Valley, immediately North of L.A., in the 1950's. The Valley then spilled over the hills into the San Gabriel Valley. When that filled up, we started building in Ventura County and Santa Clarita, a community founded way back in 1984. The last decade has seen an explosion of growth in Orange County and now the Inland Empire, once nothing more than farms.
The fires raging in Southern California today are being compared to those of 1993, when a similar number of structures were burned. But if the fires of 2007 had happened in 1993, fewer homes would have been lost because, well, there were fewer homes in these outlying areas. The communities that were the suburban hinterlands back then - Altadena, Laguna Beach and Sierra Madre - are now considered close-in L.A. suburbs when compared to the far-flung subdivisions and towns which are burning today. In 1993, Rancho Bernando and Poway were considered the boondocks, whereas today, these communities are considered to be practically part of the city of San Diego.
Despite our wildfires, earthquakes and the occasional riot, people still seem to want to come to Southern California.I hate to admit it but I kind of agree with Al Gore about the need for smart growth here--and you know how I feel about the former Veep. If we continue to build out - not up - the wildfires one or two decades from now will be even more devastating as people live closer to the wilderness' edge.
To accommodate growth, Southern California's elected leaders will need to develop a scarce political resource - a backbone - and say no to the NIMBY's and to ask Washington for help to build the public transit necessary to make communities both more livable and more dense.
Sometimes, it takes a crisis to force our leaders into action. Just ask George Bush and Michael Chertoff as they visit Southern California this week. Maybe this will be the moment that prompts our leaders into action to develop a more sustainable pattern of development.
Presidential polling in August of an odd-numbered year isn't likely to tell you much, but it reveals a little something about those who obsess over the numbers. And coverage of the latest round of numbers hints at the possibility that the national political media, sticking to the narrative of presidential primaries of the past, may miss the boat when America votes in 2008.
Hillary Clinton stole the headlines in the latest poll by increasing her national lead to a near-majority of Democratic Primary voters. Her recent confrontation with rival Barack Obama over his experience and fitness to serve, so the narrative goes, worked. In the same poll, among Republicans, fellow New Yorker, front-running centrist Rudy Giuliani, extended his lead over non-candidate candidate Fred Thompson, big-spending Mitt Romney and the moribund John McCain campaign although you'd hardly know it from the news accounts.
Why? Well the political press are following the old script that says the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are still the most important states in picking a president. More likely, that talking point has been well-distributed by the campaigns of Mitt Romney and John Edwards who are undoubtedly saying: don't look behind the curtain of the national numbers - we're competitive in Iowa and New Hampshire!
Unfortunately for these two states and those two candidates, the traditional first-in-the-nation status held by New Hampshire and Iowa has quietly fallen. The first votes of the 2008 Presidential contest will be cast in Downey, Calif., not De Moines, Iowa and in Modesto, Calif., not Manchester, N.H..
The California primary is officially February 5th, but more residents of this state will have cast more ballots before the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary than will be counted in both the states combined when they are able to start voting on January 7 - a month before the polls open. And many of those folks - permanent absentees - will be reminded to vote when they get their ballots delivered to their doors by the U.S. Post Office sometime in early January.
That's one reason why the presidential nominees from either party won't be those who are focused on Iowa, which caucuses on Jan. 14, and New Hampshire, which votes on Jan. 22, but will likely be the candidates who realize that Californians will begin voting just after Christmas, before college football has crowned my beloved USC Trojans champions in New Orleans on January 8th. And they'll keep casting ballots through and until February 5th when the polls open.
In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom rode to victory on ballots that were mailed in well before election day. Two years later, Republicans in California focused heavily on securing absentee votes and there were early indications that the GOP could claim victory in some statewide offices. On election day and anti-Bush, anti-GOP fervor swept the nation, suppressing Republican turnout and encouraging some Republicans to even punch the chads of Democrats. But despite the Democratic tidal wave on election day, Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Steve Poizner managed to win statewide office with two others coming within spitting distance of their opponents.
In 2008, California could see a similar phenomenon with its Presidential primary. So far, the State's polling numbers have tracked along with the national numbers. Clinton and Giuliani are not only leading but they're extending their leads in the Golden State.
Should a John Edwards or a Mitt Romney pull off an upset in Iowa or New Hampshire, it may be too late to affect the vote in California because, well, many ballots will already have been cast. The national media, if they continue sticking to their playbook of campaigns past and are either unaware or choosing to overlook this phenomenon may get left dockside as the Clinton and Giuliani campaign set sail on a tidal wave from the Golden State.
Editor's Note: California's permanent absentee balloting is a phenomenon Spot-on writers have been following for some time. Here's Chris Nolan's take on the Newsom election and the increasing popularity of the state's vote-by-mail system.
Sitting around with friends at a barbeque Sunday afternoon, I had to bite my tongue as the group discussion meandered into the issue of veterans’ healthcare.
The liberal friends gathered around the circle recited the horror stories of Iraq War veterans who were told they’d receive full healthcare benefits only to return home mentally ill and kill their families and so on. True or not, I wanted to ask these folks a simple question. How could they simultaneously criticize the healthcare our government gives to veterans while supporting the idea of a universal healthcare system run by that same government?
Before the American people today stand two philosophies for providing healthcare to all Americans.
One school of thought, championed by liberals like Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton would apply the VA model for healthcare to everyone with one single-payer, that payer being the government. The other approach, championed by Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger uses a market-based approach like the G.I. Bill, setting minimum standards of coverage and allowing people to choose the healthcare plan which best suits their situation.
I’m not a healthcare expert like others, but I do know that when it comes to government policy, we should not pay heed to the warning we hear in mutual fund ads: Past performance is indicative of future results. Besides, there's an alternative model to use.
Following World War II, the government set about to make sure our veterans got access to higher education and to health care.
Rather than creating a university systems just for vets, the U.S. Congress passed the G.I. Bill, essentially giving veterans what amounted to school vouchers to pursue a university degree. Under the G.I. Bill, millions of veteran - from WWII, Korea and Vietnam - have gotten a higher education. Some went to Harvard, others pursued occupational training but each received education according to their need.
On the other hand, when it came to providing healthcare, the government chose to create a network of hospitals under the Veterans Administration. As my friends' comments indicate, the Veterans Health Administration has not had the success of the GI Bill. The centerpiece of veterans care, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, is in worse shape than your local No-Tell Motel. That scandal has led Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson to resign.
If a veteran wants - you know, actual health care - without having to wait weeks or months for that “elective” surgery to repair his hip, the only option would be to pay out-of-pocket and go to a private hospital.
Some folks just need a physical once a year and urgent care when necessary, while others need a stack of prescriptions. The very nature of the kinds of demands and their variety makes the idea of a one-size fits all plan for health care laughable.
While past performance may not be indicative of future results, when my health is on the line, I’d rather hedge my bets by betting against the goverment-run model we know to be an abject failure.
Clarification: An earlier version of this piece referred to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center as part of the VA, which of course, it is not, being an Army Medical Center. Thanks to Matthew Holt for pointing me through the confusion caused by the Associated Press article on the reasons for Nicholson's resignation.
Editor's Note: Spot-on's health care writer Matthew Holt disagrees with Scott Olin Schmidt and he's put it in writing. You can read that post, which further clarifies Walter Reed's place in the government bureuacracy, here.
Somewhere between the helicopter-filled days when Paris Hilton was released - and returned - to prison and the 10-day Fourth of July weekend, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa learned a lesson that should be imparted to all politicians in the new media environment: love yourself, warts and all.
Rumors have persisted since January that the mayor had been in a more-than-friendly relationship with Telemundo news anchor Mirthala Salinas. But even when Salinas herself used a telling phrase - “the rumors are true,” - as she covered news of Villaraigosa’s June separation from wife Corinna, the back stories remained nothing more than speculative.
Perhaps hoping to avoid releasing any more "bad" news, the mayor's office opted for the slow drip of news rather than full disclosure. But that seems to have triggered a not-so-slow drip of rumors flying through the Internet on L.A. insider sites like Luke Ford and Mayor Sam.
The rumors run from the laughable - Villaraigosa is sleeping with press secretary Janelle Erickson - to wishful thinking for some - linking him to his other, gay male, press secretary. There's been the medically impossible, thanks to a vasectomy: that he has impregnated planning commissioner Sabrina Kay, forcing the later to release a denial. And the plausible; should Salinas, a native of Mexico lose her employment at Telemundo, she may risk deportation if she were on a work visa in the United States and needed to stay employed to remain in this country.
The whole thing follows a kind of odd logic. Because the rumors linking Villaraigosa and Salinas persisted, even though there was plenty of confusion, they turned out to be true and paved the way for an almost anything-goes state of affairs. In this climate, people can say just about anything about Villaraigosa and his personal life and it is presumed to be true until denied.
Villaraigosa’s case should be instructive to other candidates seeking public office. I'm thinking of potential Republican contender Fred Thompson.
Although a number of conservatives see Thompson as the third coming of George W. Bush, there are quiet whisper campaigns alleging that Thompson may be a tad more, um, liberal than thought, both with his personal life and his politics. For instance, when asked whether he had represented the pro-abortion group NARAL, Thompson chose to dodge the issue, claiming that he did not recall working for one of the lobbying groups most offensive to Republican Primary voters, evidence be damned. And as more stories come out about Thompson’s less-than-conservative values, I predict the enthusiasm of the “FredHeads” will diminish as quickly as Villaraigosa’s support among Latina voters.
By contrast, it is well known that New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a philandering, cross-dressing liberal who likes tax cuts. Rather than deny the charges against him, the former Giuliani has embraced his past and his positions, even when they are to the contrary of the GOP base. Voters not only respect Giuliani’s honesty, in many states like California, they’re embracing him.
Maybe it's because he learned his politics in the nation's most competitive media market - New York City - but whatever the reasons, Giuliani seems to understand the new political reality. Bloggers will chase big stories about politicians, and if they can do so in a way that isn’t libelous, they’ll report what they hear. And politicians can no longer rely on the mainstream media to protect them from their own peccadilloes. The only choice is for politicians to step up, be honest, and love themselves, warts and all. In exchange for such refreshing honesty, voters may just love them back.
When the California Republican Party sought an H1-B visa for their new political director, Canadian Christopher Matthews, they all but acknowledged that among 300 million Americans, no one was qualified to steer the state party towards a more positive path. But as the California GOP struggles with its demons - xenophobia and homophobia - it is becoming obvious that perhaps no one can save the GOP but itself.
Two weeks ago, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that the California arm of the Republican Party had sought an elusive H1-B visa -reserved for technical, skilled workers and much prized in the neighborhood just south of San Francisco, Silicon Valley - for Matthews, its newly hired deputy political director. The move sent Republican activists and consultants, like Karen Hanretty, into a tizzy: "There are talented Republicans in California, and the message that (party chair) Ron Nehring is sending is that there's no talent pool here.”
The story then focused attention on Matthews’ immediate boss the party's Chief Operating Officer Michael Kamburowski - an Australian citizen. Like so many who cannot stand the glare of a spotlight shown near them, Kamburowski could not stand the scrutiny when his own immigration records were researched. It turns out that the top official for California’s GOP was jailed for three visa violations by the Department of Homeland Security. Party conservatives have also pointed to "marriages" - scare quotes included - as apparent attempts to legalize his status in the United States.
If the story were all about legal or illegal immigration, it would interesting cocktail party chatter, a kerfluffle among Republican insiders. But the “scare quotes” surrounding Kamburowski’s “marriages” reappeared this week on the editorial pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, hinting at a hidden agenda - long whispered, not openly discussed - among some party activists who are eyeing the unmarried status of their newly-elected bachelor Chairman.
In the Chronicle piece, California’s Republican National Committee member Tim Morgan discusses how Kamburowski got brought into the California party: Though their mutual connection with Republican activist Grover Norquist, head of the Washington, D.C. organization, Americans for Tax Reform. “When Nehring learned that he and I would both be in Washington for the Conservative Political Action Conference, he arranged for Kamburowski to meet with me," Morgan wrote. "Later, I learned that Norquist accompanied Kamburowski on his visit to California to meet fellow board members, providing Nehring's "friend" an unexpected element of "gravitas" upon his introductions. Few questions were asked about the circumstances of their association.”
Anyone familiar with the patois of a gossip column - from Washington's Wonkette to Perez Hilton here in L.A. - won't wonder why there are “quotes” around the word “friend” in Morgan’s telling of this story. But as a West Hollywood resident like Perez, I clearly understand the code here. The suggestion that Norquist and anyone were something other than "friends" appears to be a wink and a nod to extremists within the party who are unsettled by what they've heard that Nehring may be doing in his personal life. And it's not fair. If Morgan is suggesting that there's more than an amiable relationship between Norquist and Kamburowski, then the Chronicle's editors should have made him be less coy about it; if all he suggests is that they are actual, you know, friends, then why put that word in quotes? Friends are, after all, friendly.
This whisper campaign is nothing new. Even before Nehring was elected chairman of the California Republican Party, I heard a steady but quiet discussion over whether Nehring’s bachelorhood was a choice or whether he was born that way. Now that there’s an a full on assault against Nehring - including a brief but moribund website "RecallRon" website - a less pleasant question stirs in the background:
Is the California Republican Party’s circular firing squad motivated by xenophobia or homophobia? Is one being used as an excuse to hide the real intentions behind the latest imbroglio? Sadly, we may never know. But Republicans ever hope to win in California and elsewhere we need to follow the example of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and purge ourselves of both xenophobia and homophobia.
Editor's Note: Scott Olin Schmidt is an elected member of the 42nd District Republican Party Central Committee and serves on the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Republican Party.
Los Angeles hosted an unprecedented conference of Republican and Democrat leaders this week, meeting in this year before the election for an unusual purpose. They didn't gather to discuss not how to claim America's votes as though they were the rightful property of one political party or the other but, instead, this group proposed that this nation be governed for Americans - not its ruling political classes.
The roster of speakers at the University of Southern California’s Ceasefire! conference on bridging the political divide had the superstar status worthy of its location: the new Creative Artists Agency headquarters in Century City. Talking heads Juan Williams of Fox News, Jay Carney and Lawrence O’Donnell of the McLaughlin Group, Michael Kinsley of Slate.com and former Bush advisor Matthew Dowd were but an intermezzo between appetizer courses of mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York (who has left the Republican party) and Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
Despite their party affiliations - Villaraigosa and Napolitano are Democrats, Schwarzenegger a Republican and Bloomberg an independent having been a Republican and a Democrats - the themes of the four speeches given by the state and local leaders were remarkably similar: if Washington is going to be paralyzed by gridlock in some many important policy arenas then it is up to the states and cities to take leadership on setting policy and taking action on the pressing issues of the day: immigration, health care and global warming (or climate change).
As Villaraigosa, a Democrat, said, “State and local leaders are moving the needle on big issues because we are daring to think and dream big. We're doing so across party lines. We're doing so by refusing to trim our expectations or to hedge our bets," he said. "Like generations of Angelenos before us - we are imagining a brighter future, and we are building it. And I believe, like cities around the country, we’re demonstrating that it’s possible to create a different kind of government - one that is both fiscally responsible and socially progressive.”
Fiscally responsible and socially progressive - that sounds a lot like the agenda of Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who promotes an agenda of economic and social freedom.
The California Governor pointed to the debate over immigration as a clear area where a post-partisan agenda would shun the extremes and build compromise. Advocating that politicians “re-introduce the concept of the mainstream,” Governor Schwarzenegger laid out a simple compromise for immigration reform in his keynote remarks, “How about being realistic and just solving the problem? There's a totally reasonable centrist approach to the issue, and it is this; secure our borders while at the same time recognizing the economic and social reality by providing a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already here, and who meet certain criteria, like pay a fine for coming here illegally, learning the English language, and being law abiding citizens.”
If starting to build bridges across Washington’s partisan divide sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve heard it before.
At the end of the day, however, a Post-Partisan approach to governing will only work if it can translate into a post-partisan way of running for elected office. With the exception of Ronald Reagan’s landslide win in 1984, most Presidential races in recent memory have been won by single digits. As Bush Strategist Matthew Down pointed out, when all you need to win office is 51% of the vote, why spend the money to win with 61%?
This economical approach to campaigning leads candidates to win by ungovernable majorities which, rather than bring the nation together, split us apart. And it's not like Dowd doesn't know what he's talking about. He perfected the practice of micro-targeting for politics - and got George W. Bush elected. Twice.
The partisan campaign starts with an established base of voters, then slowly tries to add to it to reach 51%, adding incrementally to the number of voters as the campaign wears on. By contrast, a post-partisan campaign, like that of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, embraces the center of the political spectrum and establishes itself as the only viable alternative for his own party’s base. It's "put up or shut up" to some extent and while some politicians might think they have the skill and the courage to run such a race, they often take the easier course. Why? Well, it works. Unfortunately it also results in the election of poll-conscious politicians who cater to their parties' extremes instead of attempting to forge workable compromises.
In California, the number of voters choosing not to affiliate with any political party has climbed 50% in the last eight years making it the third largest political group in the State. As more and more Americans abandon political labels and consider themselves members of neither the Republican nor Democratic Party - just as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has done - it's possible that a post-partisan approach to politics will become the only winning strategy. And we can finally bridge America’s political divide, where action is valued ahead of posturing.
But that day may be some time away. If Americans don't abandon their partisan affiliations, what looks like positioning for an "independent" bid is more likely to land Michael Bloomberg in the crossfire of American politics than on the front porch of the White House.
John Edwards talks about "Two Americas" as a rhetorical device to cover his true political intention: Fanning the fames of class warfare. Whether or not you believe Edwards' assertion, one thing has become clear in recent weeks: there are two Los Angeleses. There's a Spanish-speaking Los Angeles and an English-speaking Los Angeles and, as recent events here demonstrated, the two rarely speak to each other.
On May 1st at an evening pro-immigrant rally in MacArthur Park, Los Angeles police officers were attacked by protestors throwing glass bottles and rocks. Several were injured and had to go to the hospital for treatment. In response, officers on the scene decided to shut down the rally. That's when things got ugly.
LAPD officers in black SWAT-like uniforms formed a line pushing everyone in their way - protesters peaceful or otherwise - into contained areas and out of the park. Those who did not comply were made to do so by force - and that included members of the press who always believe they should get special treatment. The televised imagery was disturbing for anyone who knows of the LAPD's past history of intimidation, retaliation and often brutal beatings. The media, outraged as its own unfair treatment, dubbed the incident the "May Day Melee."
Traveling in El Salvador on what was to be an anti-gang mission, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa sent the message to remain calm by continuing his work, asking police chief Bill Bratton to stay behind in L.A. to respond to the situation and to figure out exactly what happened.
While the media went apoplectic over the attacks on members of their own, most of Los Angeles seemed to shrug and move on. The incident in MacArthur Park barely registered a blip in coffeshop or cocktail conversation on the English-speaking Westside. "Gringo" Los Angeles wanted to find out what happened before rushing to judgment or, after years of bad publicity and determined reform, they assumed that the LAPD would not be so stupid as to break up an immigrant march unprovoked.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger summed up the sentiment of most of English-speaking Los Angeles when asked about the May Day Melee: "What incident?" he inquired. Indeed, within a week, May Day was a distant memory, if even that, for most of Gringo L.A. But in the Spanish-language media, the focus remained on May Day. When Mayor Villaraigosa arrived in Mexico City he quickly learned that the incident had been the talk of the town for almost three days. He decided to cut his trip short and return to Los Angeles, even if his return would provoke an escalation of the incident.
Meanwhile, the English-speaking city turned its energy towards saving historic Griffith Park from the flames of an early brush fire. Several landmarks - the Greek Theater and Griffith Park observatory were threatened when a wildfire swept across Griffith Park near downtown. Back in town, Mayor Villaraigosa was quick to respond, scheduling hourly press availabilities featuring himself, the Fire Chief and, oddly, Police Chief Bratton.
Bringing Bratton to the press conferences at the Griffith Park fire was a stroke of brilliant political theater on Villaraigosa's part. While most of non-Spanish speaking Los Angeles had a vague idea that he was embattled, there was no city-wide resentment towards him as there was for former police chief Darryl Gates. The Griffith Park inferno was the May Melee for Gringo L.A. impacting the livelihood of its residents who had to flee the fire, Sierra Club environmentalists, equestrians and those who can afford to live in Los Feliz.
As Griffith Park burned, Bratton reassured Angelenos that the police were securing the neighborhoods from potential looters where fire fighters had evacuated homes, he announced. "OK, thanks," most of us thought to ourselves wondering why the man was sharing the screen with the folks who were actually relevant to the situation. Of course, Villaraigosa was putting Bratton front and center to help him restore the department's good name - with some city residents.
The Griffith Park fire is out, the flames of the May Day Melee have not calmed. The Spanish-language media continues to fan them, leading to what some outsiders may perceive as an over-reaction by Los Angeles' leaders. But this points to an interesting political balancing act for Villaraigosa - who's been talked about as a running mate for Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton. As he plots strategy for his next office Villaraigosa's greatest task will be walking this tightrope, bridging the gap between these two Los Angeleses.
While Californians happily debate how to spend the billions of dollars in excess revenues generated from last year’s stock market surge, the state is facing an energy crisis eerily similar to that of seven years ago. Only by this time, the pending shortages will be almost entirely of our own doing.
Seven years ago, California’s government overlooked a looming energy crisis when natural gas prices at the Arizona border soared, sending spot-market rates for electricity skyrocketing in what were then newly-deregulated San Diego markets. Because it only impacted a remote part of the California (ie not LA), the problem was widely overlooked - until the black-outs spread state-wide.
Since the Energy Crisis of 2000-01, California has permitted and built new generation capacity - with a heavy focus on clean energy. In fact, we’ve built enough generation using clean natural gas, solar, wind and other sources that we’re weaning ourselves from coal-burning generation in other states.
But these advancements are apparently not good enough for some. Seeking to demonstrate that it needs regulatory authority over mobile pollution sources (i.e. cars, trucks, etc), Southern California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District is proposing new, onerous provisions in its new Air Quality Management Proposal.
The worst of these proposals would limit the natural gas burned in Southern California to a “Wobbe” index of 1360. Current sources of natural gas have a Wobbe rating of 1400 or so, and the State Public Utilities Commission last year set a requirement of getting a Wobbe rating of 1385. Are you getting sleepy, yet? I am. Zzzzzz.
But dull statistics aside, what does this all mean? Practically speaking, it means that natural gas from California, the Rocky Mountains and liquefied natural gas would be verboten across Southern California and any territory served by Sempra Energy’s So Cal Gas Company because it wouldn't meet our clean fuel requirements (the 1385 goal is more than 1360). And what is a primary source of electric generation for Southern California? You guessed it…natural gas!
Meanwhile in Texas - and it seems like every Californa energy nightmare story involves the phrase “meanwhile in Texas…” - the natural gas companies have created a front-group and hired John McCain’s Hollywood media team to launch an all-out assault on the coal industry. They like natural gas as well.
The so-called “Texas Clean Sky Coalition” is a natural gas front-group spending a million large to convince Texans to go the route of Californians and ban coal-fired electricity.
Now I understand why the President keeps talking about “clean coal.” There is no way that we can realistically wean ourselves from the fossil fuel in the near future without substituting it with something else. Obviously the kind gentlemen at Chesapeake Energy Corp and the other gas companies which are funding this Texas-based front group believe that their profits will increase if, all of a sudden, the second-largest state in the union suddenly switches to using their product to replace coal for electric generation. Imagine if the smaller states went along as well.
But somewhere, something will have to give. If California begins relying almost exclusively on Texas as a source for natural gas for electric generation, water heating and other needs (agricultural, for instance) what will happen when Texans decide they cannot afford to send it our way?
Something tells me they won't share their precious resource with the same enthusiasm they're now showing.
After two centuries of Presidents delivering the State of the Union to Congress, we've gotten used to hearing a one-word summary. The State of the Union is (fill in the blank).
The words "strong" or "resolute" no longer seem to apply as much as "divided" or "frail" this year, so it is probably best that President Bush held it back until the closing moments in his 2007 address.
But I can report to you here today that the State of the Union is…California!
With a Republican chief executive forced to work with a hostile legislative branch, the Washington is looking a lot like California has over the past three years under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The question remains as to whether we're looking at California in 2004 or the Golden State of 'ought-six.
Like California, the nation is benefiting from a strong economy. Tax receipts to the federal government are coming in ahead of projections, cutting the federal deficit in half. Similar revenue gains have led Governor Schwarzenegger to submit a balanced budget for the first time since the dot-com boom.
Shortly after the November elections, political observers (myself included) suggested that President Bush and Speaker Pelosi look west to California for inspiration on how to play nice in a divided government.
While Speaker Pelosi has yet to follow in the conciliatory footsteps of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez—instead pushing forward with a radically partisan agenda which I doubt will ever become law - it seems President Bush is reading off the cue cards of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election script.
The domestic issues highlighted by President Bush in his 2007 State of the Union reflect a "progressive libertarian" approach to solving issues traditionally considered the domain of Democrats; he's taking a page from Arnold.
Bush wants to use market forces to control greenhouse gas emissions and take healthcare decisions out of the hands of the government and employers and put it in the hands of people and their doctors. By proposing to give subventions to those states pursuing universal health insurance, he's propping up Schwarzenegger's "third way" to universal healthcare as opposed to those in the California legislature who would just want the government to be the single player.
Bush continues to pursue pension and political reforms - something on which both the President and Schwarzenegger have tried and failed over the course of their administrations. Yet the agenda has narrowed to "pork-busting" at the federal level just as Schwarzenegger has lowered his sights from blowing up the boxes with reapportionment reform to rearranging it on the ship-deck, alongside extended term limits.
We don't need to "Amend for Arnold" because we have the new George W. Bush, Presidentnator of the United States.
What will determine whether the State of the Union is California 2004 or the Golden State of '06 is Congressional Democrats' willingness to play along with an unpopular chief executive. If they look at recent California history, they'll see that even their poll numbers can benefit by working across the aisle.
At his inauguration on Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised to push the Golden State beyond the era of partisanship, or even bipartisanship, to a new era of "post partisanship." By taking the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, California's elected leaders could move the State forward, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Californians. Unfortunately when it came to political reform—the Achilles heel of the Schwarzenegger administration—the Governor could only reassert the same, tired proposals.
When Schwarzenegger delivered his State of the State address four days later, he took exactly the approach he promised. The Governor took "good ideas" from Democrats, such as broad healthcare insurance for all Californians and emissions controls at the same time he took ideas from the Republican agenda, such as building more prisons and surface water storage to control flooding and bank water as climate change affects snow levels in the Sierra Nevada.
On its surface, "post-partisanship" is as attractive and impractical. Introducing the notion, Schwarzenegger noted, " The question is not what are the needs of Republicans or Democrats? The real question is what are the needs of our people? We don’t need Republican roads or Democratic roads. We need roads. We don’t need Republican health care or Democratic health care. We need health care. We don’t need Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air."
It's hard to argue with the fact that California needs leaders whose interests are that of Californians—not their respective political parties. But getting everyone on board is next to impossible, especially with the way California elects its Legislature.
Governor Schwarzenegger has correctly identified the greatest hurdle to facing California's future. Political reform is needed to break the back of the political extremes, who through gerrymandering and closed primaries, have hijacked the State government from the people of California.
Schwarzenegger, however, continues to focus on reapportionment reform as the answer. Redistricting reform has been tried before in California, and as unappealing as the thought of letting our elected officials choose their constituents instead of the other way around, voters have never mustered the courage to turn the process over to an unelected body.
California's partisan divide is exacerbated by the closed primary system forced on the people by the courts. Although voters approved an open primary system, whereby voters could choose their preferred candidate, regardless of party, the political establishment opposed the process and got the courts to agree. As a result, candidates appeal to the few voters who will turn out in a partisan primary, knowing that, without reapportionment, the general election is meaningless.
Instead of chasing these tired, and failed political reforms, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger should consider proposing the creation of a "post-partisan" legislature.
That is to say, candidates for the State Senate and State Assembly should run neither as Republicans or Democrats, but as Californians. Voters should pick their candidates—not their parties. Too often, most voters I talk to vote for someone based on the letter after their name—knowing nothing of the candidates or their ideals. That's not good for democracy and it is not good for California.
Californians are already familiar with non-partisan elections. As part of the original progressive movement led by Republican Governor Hiram Johnson, political parties were removed from all local elections. When we go to the ballot to elect a City Councilman or County Supervisor, we're not choosing between Democrat and Republican, we're picking between Jeff Prang or Mike Antonovich.
Look no further than the 2005 race for Mayor of Los Angeles to see the power of a non-partisan election in promoting a discussion of ideas. Although the top five candidates were all Democrats, they distinguished their campaigns with a discussion of public policy. As a result, the winning candidate, Antonio Villaraigosa, took the best ideas for school reform, transportation and more from his opponents and has become a better Mayor as a result.
When Villaraigosa goes to Sacramento for the next Gubernatorial inauguration in 2011, we should have a legislature that looks like California—not fractured between red and blue, but a plush purple reflection of this great Golden State.
My eyes rolled Monday morning when I got to they gym and looked at the Los Angeles Times. The day before, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had appointed 31-year department veteran Fire Marshal Douglas L. Barry as the interim fire chief. The Times' headline read, "African American to run L.A. Fire Dept."
"Really?" I asked myself. "Is there nothing else about this guy other than the color of his skin?" Given the need for the new fire chief to reform the department, wouldn't it be more interesting and informative to highlight that Barry is an insider, veteran of the department?
"At least the Daily News will be better," I told myself. But I was wrong. Right above the fold, the second-City's second paper writes, "Black gets nod to head LAFD"
Does everything have to be seen through a prism of race? The guy's skin color is the least relevant fact to the story here. Would we emphasize race if the new Fire Chief were Asian, white or Jewish? I doubt it. Experience and viability as a change agent are what matters to Los Angeles' Fire Department—but apparently not to the media.
Paradoxically, this false emphasis on skin color is what led Los Angeles to go looking for a new fire chief to begin with.
In 2004, Tennie Pierce, an LAFD veteran nicknamed "Big Dog" renowned for his own frat-house style follies around the fire station was the subject of a prank by his colleagues. They mixed dog food into his spaghetti and meat sauce.
Apparently being subject to such a prank was so traumatizing to Pierce that he could not work - and he sued the City. The City Council approved a $2.7 million settlement this fall - before consenting to a veto by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa last month.
Only when you look at the color of people's skin does a prank become racism. Pierce, it turns out is African American - just like the new fire chief. Those who pulled the prank on him were not. But does the mere color of people's skin make an act racist? A court will soon decide that, since Pierce's settlement was rejected.
The focus on Chief Barry's race is a symptom of the same disease which led the City Council to accept the argument that a multi-million dollar payout was acceptable. If the victim is Black, it must be racism. That's silliness.
Likewise the selection of an "African American" as the new Fire Chief tells us nothing about what he will do with the position. I'd rather know whether, as a department veteran, he has done anything to stand up against the culture within the department which allowed Pierce and his colleagues' pranksterism to go on for decades.
We need to get beyond thinking about people in terms of the color of their skin if we want to end racism - yet claims of racism and our reactions to them, seem only to fuel its fires - often in the most unfortunate of ways.
Across the nation, voters turned on Republicans in yesterdays elections; from Congress to the State House, voters "threw the bums out," replacing them with anyone with a (D) after their name—with one major exception. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won resoundingly over State Treasurer Phil Angelides.
They say you should be careful what you wish for, and boy do I know that feeling today! Last April, I wrote that, " if the GOP is going to get beat in this election, I hope they get beat good." And a nationwide, Republicans were beat as badly as Democrat Angelides in California.
Many are already asking whether Schwarzenegger could serve as a model for Republican success. His progressive-libertarian approach to politics—combined with bipartisan cooperation with willing leaders across the aisle—changed the course of California history in just twelve months.
Against all my wishes, I doubt that the Republican Party will all of a sudden boldly scoff at the Religious Right, as Schwarzenegger has, or adopt a pro-environment agenda if it will cost business a dime.
But if President Bush and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi wish to succeed in the next two years, they would be well-served to take a page from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Speaker Fabian Nunez.
Working together, Nunez and Schwarzenegger were able to do great things this year—fighting global warming, raising the minimum wage, expanding civil rights and more. Likewise, there are a number of areas where Pelosi and Bush can compromise and leave a legacy for the President and extend her speakership beyond one term:
Immigration Reform. The main obstacle between President Bush and reforming immigration policies last year was not the Democratic Party—it was House Republicans running from their shadows in what they thought were heavily-gerrymandered conservative districts. Pelosi could send the McCain-Kennedy compromise to the President's desk in her first 100 hours and few would object.
Healthcare Reform. The last time Congress tried to "fix" the healthcare crisis, we invented HMOs. However, as Schwarzenegger looks to models to provide universal healthcare without raising taxes next year, Bush and Pelosi could follow suit.
Alternative Energy. Bush has been trying to push Energy reform for years—and has been stymied by Democrats who oppose drilling in Alaska. Compromise here could focus on propping up American industries that promote clean energy to help such technologies become viable in the free market.
Minimum Wage. In a trade-off for pro-business tax measures—like extending the tax cuts of 2001—the President has said he will sign off on a raise in the minimum wage. Pelosi should send it to his desk.
"Protecting" Marriage. George Bush's push for a Federal Marriage Amendment is all but dead. However, he can nullify the need for one by signing a Federal Civil Unions bill—which confers the rights of marriage upon same-sex couples without redefining marriage. This would nullify the equal protection argument which "activist judges" have used to rule on. Moreover, voters in Arizona showed that this third-course was one which they prefer when they rejected a ban on gay marriage AND civil unions Tuesday—the first such defeat in the nation.
It may be a pipe-dream to think that any or all of these issues could result in a compromise. Short of compromising with the President, the new Democrat-controlled Congress will quickly regulate itself to "do-nothing status."
To show that they're serious about moving the nation forward, I propose that President Bush and Speaker-elect Pelosi should travel to California, sit down with Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nunez and ask them how they did it. Now that he has a Democratic Congress, Bush may finally have a chance to be a "uniter, not a divider."
Tan Nguyen never had a chance of being elected to Congress - but for the past week, he's the only candidate the Southern California media can talk about. His race-baiting intimidation letter to Latino voters was either the dumbest or most nefarious political ploy to be pulled in this election cycle.
If you hadn't heard, Nguyen is accused of sending out a letter to voters with Spanish surnames threatening that illegal immigrants who vote could get deported. The Orange County Republican Party decried the letter and asked the candidate to withdraw from the race.
Governor Schwarzenegger and his opponent have both criticized Nguyen - a Vietnamese immigrant himself - but the candidate remains in the race, and in the headlines.
Upset that the GOP and Governor have moved so quickly to decry Ngyuen's stupidities, the Democratic Party is trying to make this incident a bigger issue than it already is. The party's statewide candidates are now claiming that the Republican Party created a hate-filled environment where Nguyen's actions could be considered acceptable.
That is certainly the message Democrats want in voters' minds as nothing else has been able to stick on the California Republican Party this election cycle - not even the stench of George W. Bush. And for as much press as Nguyen's letter is getting in the English-language press, you can imagine what kind of coverage it is getting in the Spanish-language media.
But overlooked in the row over Tan Nguyen's letter is the candidate himself. Until a year ago, he was a Democrat.
In fact, Nguyen was a Democratic candidate in 2004 against Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
I say that Nguyen's letter was either the stupidest or the most nefarious political act this year because part of me wonders whether he's some sort of "Manchurian Candidate" planted by Democrats to pull this October stunt - and have it dragged out by the media going into the election. (Of couse, that's Cold War thinking - Vietnam, where Nguyen was born isn't the same as China for all kinds of reasons.)
That would take a lot of plotting and planning and coordination that, normally, I wouldn't give Democrats credit to be able to do. But since they withheld information about Mark Foley for months - if not years - to make his predatory sexual behavior a campaign issue, I wouldn't put anything past them.
Struggling to get poll numbers close to the Democratic registration in his bid for Governor of California, real estate developer Phil Angelides tried a new tactic earlier this month when he launched an ad introducing himself to voters. The ad, called, "Always on your side," however, doesn't tell us too much about Phil Angelides beyond what we already knew - he's a veritable "Dr. No."
Angelides positioned himself for his current run for Governor shortly after the 2003 Recall. While most Democrats say a wildly popular Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the State Treasurer was out defining himself as the anti-Arnold.
Angelides was against repealing the increase in the car tax. He was against the budget compromise struck between the Governor, Controller Steve Westly and the Democratic Legislature. And so on. If Arnold proposed it, Angelides was against it.
For those who wondered why Angelides was so out-of-synch with the California electorate, his new biographical ad tells all. "In 1972," the ad begins, "a young man from California saw a sign which changed his life forever."
That sign - featured prominently in the ad, implores us to "Dump Nixon." While dumping Nixon may have been prescient in 1972, it certainly wasn't popular - and I doubt Angelides had any clue about Watergate (and if he did, why did he cover it up?).
President Nixon ended the unpopular Vietnam War, gave us Affirmative Action and melted tensions away in the Cold War by seeking détente with China. I cannot imagine that Angelides would have found these policies on Nixon's objectionable, but the thought of "dumping Nixon" was what inspired him to enter politics, we're told.
Likewise, it is hard to tell what Angelides finds objectionable in Governor Schwarzenegger's moves to fight global warming, protect the environment and expand rights for California's minorities - but he's against him.
Oddly enough, Angelides does not appear to have taken such strong positions between 1972 and 2003. Where was he, for example, when Democrats lowered California's car tax to begin with. As the State Treasurer, you'd have thought he could have at least held sway with his own caucus.
I'm beginning to think that the only time Phil Angelides has an original idea is if someone comes up with one for him to oppose. This kind of character-assassination politics is an Angelides tactic that is well recorded. As Schwarzenegger campaign spokesman Matt Davis said, "just ask Steve Westly and David Roberti about Angelides' gutter politics…instead of focusing on issues important to the voters of California, Phil Angelides is choosing to focus on political attacks and divisive partisan politics."
As Governor, Californians should ask themselves who would be there for to Angelides be against?
Nixon, as you'll recall, "dumped" on George McGovern winning all but one State and more than 60 percent of the popular vote. Angelides may be lucky to do as well as George McGovern.
The Politics of Personal Destruction are back again - and with a vengeance! Smelling blood in the water following the outing and subsequent resignation of Congressman Mark Foley, Democratic activists, in the name of advancing gay rights, are emboldened and wielding their knives.
There are other Republicans in elected office - and not just in Congress - who have not fully disclosed their sexuality. And you know what? It’s time for them to come out. And not just because the gay jihad is coming for them.
Judging by the reactions to former Foley’s outing l
