CA 11

Andal endorser can't explain Iraqi demands for withdrawal timetable

2008-07-10T13:58:00.000-07:00

"Vets for Freedom" endorsed Dean Andal today. Coincidentally, "Vets for Freedom" representative, Pete Hegseth, spent about 10 minutes of total incoherence with MSNBC's Chris Matthews today, telling us that it a good thing the Iraqi's want us to leave while at the same time demanding we must stay with no timetable.

I wonder if Dean Andal can explain all this. Perhaps an enterprising media type can ask him.

Watch the video.

Background on what the Prime Minister of Iraq said here.

Dean Andal: I'm a staunch advocate of the law I violated

2008-06-23T09:32:00.000-07:00

How nice.

Andal said he lobbied at least one Delta College board member but said he never received any confidential, closed-session information from any elected official.

“If someone had tried to give me closed-session information, I would have stopped it,” Andal said. “I am very experienced with the requirements of the Brown Act.”

Andal called himself a staunch advocate of the Brown Act, a state law which spells out how publicly elected boards must conduct themselves in both public and closed sessions. Elected officials cannot disclose what was said in closed session and the law limits the topics under which they are permitted to hold discussions outside of the public eye.

Delta College Trustee Ted Simas, however, was quoted in a Stockton Record story of Aug. 21, 2006, saying that Andal had called him on the telephone several hours after the board concluded its Feb. 9 meeting and “had information that could have been obtained only by board members in closed session.” Simas said Andal told him that two college trustees had provided details of the closed-session negotiations to Kamilos. Andal was quoted in the same story saying that he did not remember the conversation.

So a staunch advocate of a law who claims to know its every detail just can't remember a conversation that would violate it. This is the explanation from a person who running for Congress and calling for a restoration of ethics and conduct? Weak sauce.

McNerney votes to eviscerate 4th Amendment

2008-06-20T10:42:00.000-07:00

Short version of what McNerney voted for:

If the Executive Branch asks telecom companies to knowingly violate existing laws (FISA) to spy on American citizens without a warrant for several years after 9/11, that's OK with me.

Inexcuseable.

Full explanation of this issue here.

Roll call here.

McNerney holds firm to deny Iraq war funding

2008-06-20T10:02:00.000-07:00

McNerney voted to deny $162 Billion in unconditional funds to continue the war in Iraq. Roll call here. Make no mistake, this was no easy vote McNerney with the GI Bill included in the package.

Andal's ethics on display

2008-06-19T10:46:00.000-07:00

One of the three grand prongs of Andal's campaign platform is Ethics. Whoops...

The San Joaquin Delta College Board of Trustees has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and violated open government laws by discussing closed-session matters outside its meetings, charges a San Joaquin County civil grand jury report released Wednesday morning.

The seven-page report found the board made decisions that have "caused serious problems'' and that trustees were "ill-prepared'' to handle the Measure L funds, a $250 million school bond approved by San Joaquin County voters in 2004.

[...]

At a closed-session meeting held by the board on Feb. 9, 2006, the college's attorney and administrative team said a developer would be missing the deadline for delivery of letters of credit, resulting in a breach of contract. The board then discussed the possibility of returning to a deal offered by the city of Tracy to put the campus on the corner of 11th Street and Chrisman Road, according to the report.

[...]

The day after the closed-session meeting, the report says, phone calls and a faxed letter indicated that one or more board members had relayed confidential information about the "breach of contract'' discussion to the developer and his consultant, Dean Andal, the Republican nominee for the 11th Congressional District seat in November.

"If true, this is a violation of the Brown Act,'' the report reads. "The Grand Jury has no confidence in the Delta College Board of Trustees as they are currently constituted.''

Andal was out of the area Wednesday and unavailable for comment, a campaign spokeswoman said. Kamilos did not return calls seeking comment.

Andal to McNerney: Help! Please!

2008-06-05T09:29:00.000-07:00

Andal requested a series of debates in every city in the district. The gerrymandered CA-11 is big district so we could be talking about 25 debates.

Andal is mostly an unknown quantity outside of Stockton and with his fundraising numbers in the toilet, he must be struggling to get his name out in the district. Naturally, he asks McNerney to help him get that done. Nice try. Na. guh. ha. pen.

I can already hear the cries of "McNerney won't debate me!". Waaaaahhh!

Jerry McNerney: Declared SuperDelegate

2008-06-04T09:44:00.000-07:00

McNerney endorsed Obama.

He included a VP plug for HRC:

“I think Clinton would be a great choice for vice president,” McNerney said. “It would really energize the party. If I get the opportunity, I’m going to encourage Senator Obama to select her.”

Based on the timing and content of his statements alone, I would speculate that McNerney did not have a strong preference between Obama and HRC.

McNerney effectively leveraged his moment in the spotlight to underscore his sustainable energy vision. Good for him.

Jerry McNerney: Undeclared SuperDelegate

2008-05-30T10:49:00.000-07:00

So Speaker Pelosi asked all the undeclared superdelegates to make a choice by next week.

Obviously, since he has not done so already Jerry would rather not make any decision and has said previously: "I'll make a decision when I have to."

Well, McNerney "will have to" very soon. Here are his choices:

1. Pick Clinton. CA-11 went decidedly for Clinton (54% Clinton / 40% Obama) so I suspect he has not already supported her because he would rather support Obama or he thinks there would be some fallout for him politically if he supports Clinton.

2. Pick Obama. This would override the will of the Democratic voters in his district. It would speak volumes about who McNerney really is politically speaking. He would have to defend the decision on grounds of his convictions which would be nice to hear. I suspect it would gain him support with Democratic clubs/activists within the district and put him on the "right" side of history due to the liklihood of Obama eventually being the nominee.

3. Do Nothing. This is not an option in my opinion. McNerney would risk much more than any fallout from his choice which is: intra-party war. This would be a clear failing to exercise the leadership the superdels are charged with.

I hope McNerney sees his way clear to make a decision next week. And since we know about Dean Andal's unhinged, fanatical support for John McCain his decision will get us one step closer to get this primary behind us and begin the real business at hand.

McNerney votes to de-fund Iraq war

2008-05-15T17:12:00.000-07:00

McNerney cast a very important vote today. He voted to deny $163 Billion for the purpose of continuing the Iraq war.

I have been very critical of McNerney's past statements and votes on Iraq. I stand by what I've said but this is a huge step in the right direction for McNerney.

Roll call here.

McNerney on Iraq: More in line with Obama, Clinton, or McCain?

2008-04-23T15:40:00.000-07:00

You decide...

April 2008 ABC Democratic debate:

HRC:

GIBSON: [...]So, if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one, and said, this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?

CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why. Thankfully, we have a system in our country, of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice. And then they execute the policies of the president.

[...]

But I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we've had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do. But I think it's important that this decision be made. And I intend to make it.

Obama:

GIBSON: [...]So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?

OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie.

That's not the role of the generals.

And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus."

Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.

McNerney, August 2007, Washington Post:

"I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

McCain, March 2008, Associated Press

Despite all that, McCain told reporters: "I don't think I would change the strategy now unless General Petraeus recommended it. I think he's trusted by the American people, the president and by me. And General Petraeus again showed me facts on the ground where the surge is succeeding."

Andal wants to privatize Social Security

2008-04-18T11:32:00.000-07:00

At least that is one of the logical conclusions from his acceptance of $13,500 from the Club for Growth this cycle (10% of his overall fundraising number).

Another conclusion is that Andal favors destroying public education through "school choice".

Learn more here, and here.

Perhaps McNerney can look forward to an attack ad like this one sponsored by the Club for Growth against Howard Dean.

h/t to Hank Shaw

Deep Thought

2008-04-07T13:45:00.000-07:00

If history was different and the '08 race pitted McNerney against Pombo, is there any doubt that McNerney would be a member of this group?

McNerney's bipartisanship on Iraq

2008-01-19T12:22:00.000-08:00

Here is a Danville Weekly story that got me reminiscing about McNerney's stance on the Iraq war.

Criticism rained on U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney last week at Faz restaurant for his support of setting a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq.

"I can't forgive you for setting a timetable," said Bill Baker, a former Republican congressman who lives in Danville. "It's unrealistic."

"We are seeing progress," he added. "I hope you reconsider your position. We should not have a debate about that."

Listeners surrounding Baker gave him a round of applause and cheers. Then McNerney (D., 11th District) responded.

"Thanks for your comments, Bill," McNerney said. "The war is hurting our country. We need to hold the Iraqis accountable. They need to take steps in (keeping) their responsibilities."

I can only think McNerney's stance on Iraq was designed to prevent such things and give him an aura of bi-partisanship. Granted, the folks at this meeting were obviously partisan - Bill Baker is helping Jerry's opponent, Dean Andal - but I suspect many GOP'ers would have the same reaction.

I'm reminded of something Jerry said not too long ago when the blogosphere was hopping mad about McNerney's post-Iraq trip comments. Here's Jerry talking about Iraq in August 2007

I truly believe that the best and soonest way to end this tragic war is to work with open-minded Republicans to find an acceptable end date. That’s what I believe, and that’s what I will fight for.

I can only hope such outbursts from bloodthirsty GOP'ers will serve to inform Jerry about how they operate.

McNerney votes for spending bill to end Iraq War

2007-11-15T16:30:00.000-08:00

HR.4156 would:
-set goal of withdrawal by Dec 2008.
-only provide funds for redeployment (not expanding war)
-mandate redeployment beginning 30 days from passage of bill.
-ban torture.
-require all troops sent to Iraq to be "fully mission capable".

If McNerney holds to his stated position of "we don't have the votes to end the war", his vote on this bill is meaningless. The Democratic leadership has given McNerney cover to break from that position. I hope he does.

In related news, I am glad to see McNerney is aware of the terrible human costs of this unnecessary war as he advocates for a PTSD clinic in Livermore. Then again, I understand Bush is also aware of the terrible costs.

Dean Andal: first look

2007-10-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

Finally a CA-11 GOP candidate who understands foreign policy...

Not only are Islamic extremists a security threat to the United States, so are the Chinese and Russians, Andal said. In the face of such threats, he said Congress needs to increase its intelligence budget as well as the military's.

Asked whether the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq, Andal said after the luncheon that candidates and incumbents shouldn't "pontificate" about military strategy and give away secrets to Iraq. However, Andal admitted that no one is happy with the war's results.

Andal displays a masterful grasp of the threats we face, although he forgot Poland. And thank god he won't even utter a single word about Iraq else they get our secrets (and our lucky charms).

What a buffoon.

McNerney's moment

2007-10-10T13:01:00.000-07:00

87 of McNerney's House colleagues signed a letter where they pledged no new funding for escalation or continuance of the Iraq War but would fully fund safe withdrawal.

The text and co-signers of the letter are available at the link above. One of the more notable co-signers is Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo).

McNerney failed to sign a similar letter last July.

This is rubber-meets-the-road time for McNerney. If he won't sign this time, I think he owes an explanation. The letter is supposed to be publicly released next week.

Obey or Hoyer/Emmanuel?

2007-10-03T15:53:00.000-07:00

Looks like McNerney will have to pick sides.

David Obey (D-WI) Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee said an Iraq funding bill will not be released from his committee without a withdrawal date. He also says he wants a war tax.

Steny Hoyer (D-MD) the House Majority Leader, basically said he's scared of a funding fight.

Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) stumbled all over himself about ending the Iraq war on Real Time with Bill Maher the other night. Basically he said "we need a new president so we can bring the troops home". Give the video a look (it is breathtakingly depressing).

So the question: Whose side will McNerney choose?

Answer: I have no idea but he has positioned himself to embrace either side.

On one hand McNerney says "I want a date certain withdrawal timeline" which leans toward supporting the Obey path. Also, he was pissed at the Dem leadership when the last Iraq supplemental was brought to a vote.

On the other hand McNerney keeps saying "we don't have the votes" which can be interpreted as: "I don't want the political fallout of a funding fight" and/or "let's punt the Iraq War to the next president".

I can only hope McNerney will be willing to go the mat to end the war. It's what he was elected to do and it's the right thing to do.

Who McNerney is waiting for

2007-09-28T09:27:00.000-07:00

The "moderate" GOP'ers that McNerney is hoping will end the Iraq war oppose and despise all things related to "timelines", right? Well, what if the timeline for withdrawal is conveniently based upon the US election calendar?

A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: a call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but not until President Bush is out of office.

The legislation was deemed essentially a nonstarter by Democrats Friday and underscored the difficulty Congress has in striking a bipartisan compromise on war policy. What attracts Democrats has repelled Republicans and vice versa, making it impossible so far to find a middle ground.

Once again, I'm obliged to remind Jerry of the character and mindset of the people he hopes will end the Iraq war.

Time to play hardball

2007-09-26T10:34:00.000-07:00

Today, "moderate" Republicans decided to leave 4 million children without medical insurance (SCHIP). Bush promised to veto and House Republicans acquiesced.

These are the same people McNerney is hoping will override Bush's veto on Iraq withdrawal.

Don't you think it's time to force the issue, Jerry? How many times over the next 13 months will we hear: "we don't have the votes"?

One step forward, ten steps back

2007-08-22T08:48:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, McNerney asked me and CA-11 to stand with him on Iraq. All I can say is: I will try but he must know he's making it very difficult with quotes like this:

Washington Post

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

Good. Lord. Someone is forgetting the Iraq Study Group report (aka Baker-Hamilton). They delivered the Republicans and Bush an "acceptable way out" on a Poppy Bush crony co-chaired, bi-partisan, American people approved (65%), silver f**king platter. You know, way back, 9 months ago in December 2006? Bush called it a "flaming turd" and "the surge" was born.

By all means Jerry, try that again. But this time do it by negotiating directly with Bush and the Republicans rather than using a bi-partisan, independent commission. Jeebus.

One question for McNerney: If I stand with you on Iraq and you don't stand with our Congressional leadership, where exactly will we be standing? On a hill in San Ramon with a bullhorn?

the task ahead

2007-08-21T10:24:00.000-07:00

I'm encouraged by McNerney's reaffirmation of his stance on a "date certain" redeployment from Iraq. I'm not encouraged because I agree with his policy stance (I always did) but I'm encouraged because he's unequivocally stated his position and can now begin the critical task of bringing others to an understanding of his judgement. As I stated in a recent comment, I don't think he can get this done by visiting Iraq and then signalling a willingness for "more time".

Rover

2007-08-17T11:18:00.000-07:00

Good article in the Tracy Press about Rove's legacy as it relates to CA-11 and all Congressional races.

I basically agree with James Carville who thinks Rove's legacy will be to lose a generation of Republican voters. The damage he's caused will continue to reverberate for some time to come.

Let's remember the depths of Rove's malfeasance are not known. Just take a look at three avenues of Congressional investigations that ain't close to being over.

Moreover, the "politics of hate" will continue. Take a look at each GOP presidential candidate try to prove himself more inclined to torture people than the other guy. The GOP base will be listening to this trash for months to come. It will be quite interesting how candidates like Andal will navigate this rhetorical minefield. Pass the popcorn.

My only hope is that we all remember what happens when we choose party over country and conflate with politics with policy.

And finally, some Friday humor...

Questioning the Generals

2007-08-15T10:39:00.000-07:00

It seems the "Petraeus" report, which McNerney has telegraphed a willingness to consider favorably, will be written by the White House. Perhaps that little factoid will help his decision to endorse/reject.

Wes Clark gave a fantastic talk at the DailyKos convention in which he hammers home a point I think McNerney should run with. It's not about the generals, timetables and such - it's about the strategy. video here (3min.).

Until we shift our political discourse to the strategy we are "playing George Bush's game".

While I wait

2007-08-09T15:31:00.000-07:00

for a response from McNerney on the questions I posed here and also emailed to his staff, I have the pleasure of reading news articles like this:

Democrats Praise Military Progress

California Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney had a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he'll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home.

``I'm more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,'' McNerney said.

What signs of progress? Where? What "way forward" do the Generals have in mind?

I'm listening.

Houston not running in CA-11

2007-08-07T14:55:00.000-07:00

Lisa V reports Guy Houston won't challenge McNerney.

Instead, Houston will run against his former staff member, Mary Piepho, whom he helped elect to her county supervisor seat. Piepho's current Chief of Staff is a former Houston staffer as well. Would seem like one big GOP happy family but it seems Piepho is none too happy about his decision...

"I talked to Mary this morning and it wasn't the most pleasant conversation, but we're cordial," Houston said. "We agreed to disagree on the reasons why I decided to run."

Heh. I'll bet.

CA-11 "leans Democratic"

2007-08-07T10:15:00.000-07:00

according to the Cook Political Report.

McNerney: I'm willing to consider more war

2007-07-31T12:25:00.000-07:00

USA Today:

"As long as we start at a certain date I'd be willing to be a little more flexible in terms of when it might end," McNerney said.

Stockton Record:

He said his conversations convinced him that, at least in Ramadi, the U.S. military was indeed making progress. But McNerney said he was well aware Ramadi was not representative of the rest of the country.

“I really don’t have an opinion on the rest of Iraq,” he said in a conference call from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany this morning. “I’m sure (the military) cherry-picked the best place for us.”

Still, McNerney said he will be more likely to listen to those who want more time in Iraq.

“If anything, I’m more willing to participate in a give-and-take with that viewpoint than I was before,” he said.

Mercury News:

"I was impressed with Petraeus' confidence," McNerney said. "... But he's aware of the pressure in Congress that we need to end this thing. He had a lot of data to show the progress. He's concerned about being given enough time to finish the job but he's aware that we need to come to a resolution."

I have some questions for McNerney:

1. What was it specifically about your trip that led you to believe "a give and take on more time" might be needed? Did Iraqi progress on benchmarks influence you? Was it the success in Ramadi (which by your own admission is not at all indicative of the situation in Iraq)?

2. Does your willingness to consider more time indicate you do not stand firm in your support of HR2956 which requires a "limited Armed Forces presence" by April 2008?

3. Gen. Petraus will undoubtedly issue a report in September saying he needs "more time". Is your willingness to consider more time another way of endorsing the Petraus report, the contents of which are largely known/predictable?

4. Do you believe the "surge" is working? If no, does your willingness to consider more time naturally open the door to consider more troops - a "surge" on top of the "surge"? What effects would "more time" and "more troops" have on our military which is already stretched to the breaking point?

5. Do you think your willingness to consider more time prior to an agreement on a redeployment start date increases pressure on the President, Petraus, or the Iraqis themselves to make progress?

6. Do you think your willingness to consider more time will influence your GOP House colleagues who refuse to agree to any timetable whatsoever?

7. Does your willingness to consider more time indicate some confidence in the Bush administration to use the additional time effectively? What is it specifically about the Bush Iraq strategy leads you to believe more time will result in either a more secure or stable Iraq and a reduction in loss of life/injury for US forces?

8. Your willingness to consider more time could indicate you disagree with Senate Majority Leader Reid who said" "Iraq is lost". Do you feel "Iraq is not lost"?

9. More time, undoubtedly, will result in additional U.S. casualties/injuries. You've indicated a concern about properly funding the current Iraq Veterans healthcare. How do you plan for the incremental veteran healthcare funding as a consequence of "more time"?

10. A 2006 NIE reported our occupation of Iraq is the "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S.. Do you see any risks in your willingness to consider more time in terms of worsening this effect?

11. We spend about 12 Billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. A willingness to consider more time might result in extra costs to keep the war going. How would you plan to fund the extra costs?

12. Do you think your willingness to consider more time hamstrings and dilutes the Democrats' efforts to redeploy responsibly and as soon as possible from Iraq?

McNerney's vote against CA marijuana law

2007-07-26T16:22:00.000-07:00

McNerney just voted against an amendment which would end Federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients who are in full compliance with CA state law. Here is McNerney's explanation:

"I have spoken to many law enforcement officials concerned about the effect of drug use on our communities, particularly in San Joaquin County. The problem is real," McNerney said in a statement issued Thursday. "Just yesterday, Stockton police announced a successful drug sweep in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies that led to 51 arrests and the seizure of over 12 pounds of illegal substances."

"We are facing a drug crisis with meth and other drug use on the rise. Until we get a handle on the crippling drug use in our society, I cannot support the relaxation of current drug policy."

Invoking meth epidemics and massive drug busts to explain a vote on medical marijuana? I'm a little disappointed here. Not because I think McNerney voted the wrong way (he did) but because of his somewhat mendacious explanation.

From National Marijuana Policy Project (same article):

Bruce Mirken, communications director for the national Marijuana Policy Project, said McNerney's statement "deliberately confuses apples and oranges, and insults every California patient struggling to maintain life and dignity in the face of cancer, AIDS, MS, and other horrible illnesses."

"No sane person considers it a `relaxation of drug laws' that physicians are allowed to prescribe methamphetamine, cocaine and morphine, and no one seriously suggests depriving patients who need those drugs of their benefits just because someone else might misuse them," Mirken said. "This statement reads like an excuse, not a reason, to justify what McNerney thinks is a politically safe vote."

But that political calculation is wrong, Mirken insisted; three quarters of California voters support the state's medical marijuana law, "and those who worked and donated money to put McNerney in office will be the most bitterly disillusioned by his betrayal of the most vulnerable Californians."

Update: As fate would have it I stumbled upon a documentary last night on Showtime called "In Pot We Trust" which takes you through the everyday lives of people who struggle with chronic illnesses and live in fear of Federal or State prosecution. Some previews on YouTube - check it out.

McNerney votes to get out of Iraq

2007-07-13T09:53:00.000-07:00

... now that the word "responsible" was included in the legislation (HR 2956: Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act).

Previously, McNerney said he needed both detailed diplomatic plans and funding for veterans health care which prohibited him from voting in favor of the May 2007 Iraq Redeployment Bill (HR 2237).

Well, one out of two ain't bad. There is no mention of funding veteran's health care in HR 2956 but there is this requirement:

(4) Specific plans for diplomatic initiatives to engage United States allies and others in the region to bring stability to Iraq.

From Pombo toady to Boehner flack: the Brian Kennedy story

2007-07-10T09:53:00.000-07:00

Y'all remember Brian Kennedy? You know, the guy who lied about Richard Pombo's relationship with Jack Abramoff and furiously tried to spin his way out of documented evidence that Pombo's office continuously met with Abramoff surrogates?

Well, he was quoted today in the Hill as saying this:

“Democrats can’t claim to be strong on national security and repeatedly advocate retreat in the fight against terrorists at the same time,” said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

To be sure, Kennedy must be considered a rising star in the modern Republican party.

(via TPM)

Richard Pombo goes to Hollywood (sort of)

2007-07-10T08:47:00.000-07:00

Last weekend I watched the movie Evan Almighty (fun movie for the family, IMO) and one of the characters deeply reminded me of someone.

John Goodman plays the role of "Congressman Long" who is the chair of the House Resources committee. Long attempts to convince the main character, Evan, (Steve Carel) to join him in pushing through the "land act" which would open public lands for private development (at great personal profit for Long, of course). I won't post any spoilers but let's just say that the depths of Long's corruption plays a large role in the outcome of the movie.

Remind you of anyone?

Why doesn't this surprise me?

2007-07-05T15:07:00.001-07:00

Guy Houston, current CA Assemblyman and potential GOP candidate for CA-11, on trial in a civil suit for defrauding senior citizens.

They say Houston and his father, Fred, falsely represented the security of their investments, failed to disclose the risks, repaid themselves while abandoning their investors and failed to account for where the investors' money had gone in a confusing series of transfers among business entities.

There is a "pattern of irregular and incompetent financial transactions consisting of unexplained money transfers back and forth between the various schemes, and between the Houstons personally, without apparent disclosure to or authorization from the investors," according to court documents.

Modern day McGovern-Hatfield

2007-05-11T13:21:00.000-07:00

Rick Perlstein wrote an article titled "Why Democrats can stop the war" in January 2007. Perlstein takes a look back and reviews the legislative efforts to end the Vietnam war.

I can't get over the striking parallels between the Iraq redeployment bill and the McGovern-Hatfield amendment, which did not end the Vietnam War but undoubtedly played in large role in doing so. They are basically identical legislation - different war. Heck, even the sponsors last names are the same (McGovern).

It seems that wars are really, really hard to stop once they start. The legislative process to end them was once described as "hideous sausage making".

A snippet from Perlstein's article:

George McGovern, D-S.D., and Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., were in charge of the granddaddy of them all: an amendment requiring the president to either go to Congress for a declaration of war or end the war, by Dec. 31, 1970. Walter Shapiro wrote that a "skittish" Congress made sure its antiwar legislation had "loopholes" to permit the president to take action to protect U.S. troops in the field" -- which means no genuine congressional exit mandate at all. But McGovern-Hatfield had no such "loopholes." (Of course, McGovern Hatfield didn't pass, and thus wasn't subject to the arduous political negotiating process that might have added them.) It was four sentences long, and said: Without a declaration of war, Congress would appropriate no money for Vietnam other than "to pay costs relating to the withdrawal of all U.S. forces, to the termination of United States military operations ... to the arrangement for exchanges of prisoners of war," and to "food and other non-military supplies and services" for the Vietnamese.

Radical stuff. Far more radical than today's timid congressional critics are interested in going. But what today's timid congressmen must understand is that the dare paid off handsomely. With McGovern-Hatfield holding down the left flank, the moderate-seeming Cooper-Church passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee almost immediately. Was the president on the defensive? And how.

The bill McNerney voted against, was certainly about "holding down the left-flank". McNerney's justification for his vote (detailed diplomatic plans and healthcare funding for veterans) would have, indeed, subjected the Iraq redeployment bill to "the arduous political negotiating process that might have added them".

Look, I not only want Democrats to end the war, now, but I want them to be able to take credit for its end (only because they deserve it). McNerney's vote against the Iraq redeployment bill does not allow for such an outcome.

McNerney votes to stay in Iraq

2007-05-10T16:15:00.000-07:00

At this moment, my wildest imagination can't think of a single good explanation McNerney could provide about this vote.

I'm stunned.

McNerney is on Karl Rove's hit list

2007-03-28T14:14:00.000-07:00

As if we didn't already know. But anyway, in the process of Karl Rove's attempt to corrupt the non-partisan GSA for political gain, Rove's list of top 20 House targets was revealed. This list was presented to GSA employees in an effort to pressure them to use their resources to help GOP candidates. According to testimony here's a key quote attributed to GSA Administrator, Lurita Doan while addressing her staff after the presentation:

"How can we help our candidates in the next election"

Indeed, the administrator of a government agency who handles Billions in taxpayer funded government contracts asking her staff such a question.

Let's be clear on what's going on here. The GOP is in trouble. They are shaking the trees, calling in every marker, pressuring every ally, bending and breaking rules, crossing boundaries that were thought uncrossable, to win back or protect as many seats as possible.

Buckle up CA-11 - it's going to be a bumpy ride.

NRCC mailer attacks McNerney

2007-01-07T21:39:00.000-08:00

Someone at the NRCC must think the CA-11 seat is winnable for the GOP next cycle. I received this trash in the mail yesterday. For me, this mailer is a nice reminder of just how bankrupt the modern GOP has become and how important it is to keep the pressure on them.

My new Congressman...

2006-11-08T07:50:00.000-08:00

Jerry McNerney.

Congratulations to Jerry, A.J. and his capable team, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, the CA-11 "blog team", and most importantly - congratulations to the voters of CA-11.

I was on the East Coast for election night and when I heard the early exit poll results that "corruption and ethics" was the top voter complaint - I smiled wide.

We all have a lot of work to do now. Jerry begins by helping Speaker Pelosi "drain the swamp" then turn to the business of the people rather than special interests.

Pombo's State of Denial [Iraq Edition]

2006-11-02T14:25:00.000-08:00

Let's review some recent history...

When asked about his dogged, unquestioning support for the war in Iraq, Pombo had the following to say:

“The men and women of our armed services have performed exceptionally in Iraq, and I will continue to support them as they complete their mission.”

Pombo hides behind the only people who are asked to sacrifice anything for our Iraq misadventure. He desperately attempts to appear strong by attacking those phantom, non-existent folks who are saying our troops are not performing well. He wields the worthy support of our troops as a political sword.

The other day, Pombo refused to verify his past statements about his family members serving in Iraq:

Pombo's family's experience with Iraq is unclear. When asked at the Tracy Press forum, "What is your personal experience with the war in Iraq, and how has it affected you" Pombo said that outside of his work as a congressman, he had "the opportunity to have a number of people, friends and family members and others that have gone over and fought."

He declined to name them.

"What I was saying is that I have family members who have served in the military, and obviously, some of them have been deployed to Iraq," Pombo said this week. "I have had family members that have served in the military, and that is as far as I'm going to comment."

Pombo may or may not have family members who served in Iraq. If indeed he does, Pombo owes that family member an explanation about why he is unable to stand up and challenge a single aspect of a clearly failed strategy in Iraq. Perhaps during that discussion Pombo can learn something about courage.

Toss Up

2006-10-30T22:42:00.000-08:00

Cook Political Report upgrades CA-11 from "Leans Republican" to "Toss Up".

I'll be interested to see how this grabs those trying to handicap this race (and get the narrative "right").

I voted today

2006-10-28T15:42:00.000-07:00

...via absentee ballot.

I voted for change.

I voted for protecting our environment while fostering economic development.

I voted for affordable Healthcare for every American.

I voted for a smart and tough foreign policy.

I voted for economic security during working years and retirement years.

I voted for the return of science to inform and shape our policies.

I voted for a serious debate about Iraq.

I voted for sustainable energy.

I voted for ethics, accountability, and integrity in government.

I voted for a person who will be a fierce advocate for my working family.

I voted for Jerry McNerney today.

Abramoff scandal not over for Pombo

2006-10-24T11:39:00.000-07:00

1. Abramoff is talking so much he needs his own FBI "desk".

2. Federal prosecutors requested Abramoff be placed in a nearby Maryland prison for easy access.

3. US News and World Report says that the Abramoff probe is expanding rather than wrapping up.

This is not over for Pombo. Note for Contra Costa Times Editorial board: Pombo may soon find himself "adequately explaining" his relationship with Abramoff with the assistance of Legal Counsel.

Shorter Contra Costa Times Editorial Board

2006-10-18T14:56:00.000-07:00

Shorter Contra Costa Times Editorial Board:

Dear Readers: Please vote for Pombo based on what he and George Bush say they believe in - you know, things like "limited government" and "development of alternative fuels". Go sift through Pombo's voting record and cavalcade of ethical violations on your own time.

Also, there is this nugget:

"McNerney was not the choice of the Democratic Party in the primary."

McNerney's landslide primary victory must have caused quite the hiccup in their little brains.

My Advice for Brian Kennedy

2006-10-12T14:32:00.000-07:00

Local news coverage here where Pombo toady Brian Kennedy says the following: "Congressman Pombo didn't know Jack Abramoff"

Richard Pombo in a January 2006 interview:

Interviewer: Have you ever met Jack Abramoff?

Pombo: Yeah. I've met him. I've seen him probably, I don't know maybe, half a dozen times. Um, different big Republican events n'stuff. And I had lunch one time, I was having lunch with John Doolittle, and Abramoff came in and sat down and had... John invited him to have lunch with us and he sat down. I had never met him before that. That was probably, I don't know maybe 4 years ago. It was the first time I met him.

Mr. Kennedy, stop, drop, and roll because you're pants are on fire.

Does Pombo have confidence in his man Hastert?

2006-10-02T12:50:00.000-07:00

He did when he asked Hastert to attend a fundraiser last May.

Does Pombo think Hastert should resign if Hastert knew 5 months ago about Rep. Foley's sexually explicit communications with a 16 year old male Congressional page and covered it up?

I'd sure like to know.

Pictured below: Your Republican leadership.

Pombo votes for Torture

2006-09-28T14:28:00.000-07:00

Here.

I find it really hard to wrap my head around the fact that our leaders think we should torture people. Really quite stunning when you think about it.

It's even more stunning when you hear from every military and intelligence expert who say torture simply does not work, while at the same time the negative consequences are far reaching in terms of inspiring and spawning terrorists, the safety of our own military, and our standing in the world.

Whaddya know...

2006-08-28T23:26:00.000-07:00

Yet another staged Pombo campaign event featuring a Bush Administration appointee. This time it was Commerce Secretaty Carlos Gutierrez campaigning for Pombo. I thought I heard from someone that Pombo is so strong he probably doesn't need to stage these events. Hmmm...

Pombo suggested to the Stockton Record that he is a champion of small alternative fuel companies. Perhaps his cognitive dissonance is flaring up again?

"The biggest hurdle that little companies like this face is the initial investment to get started."

In one short sentence Richard Pombo redefined the phrase "up is downism". Of course, the biggest hurdle these small companies face is Richard Pombo's policies themselves.

CA-11 Narrative

2006-08-24T14:46:00.000-07:00

One sentence from a ContraContra Times article from Lisa Vorderbrueggen really smacked me between the eyes. From an 8.18.2006 article about Pombo running around pretending that after 14 years of traffic congestion he is now committed to solving the problem by a staging a campaign event with a former "top Republican Party executive"...

From a campaign perspective, it doesn't hurt Pombo to appear at the helm of Bay Area leaders in a collaborative discussion with a high-ranking federal official about how to fix congestion on I-580.

On the other hand, Pombo probably doesn't need to stage such an event to win.

While political experts say Republicans are vulnerable in the wake of public ire over the Iraq War and President Bush, few predict Pombo will lose.

Umm Lisa?

From your own reporting on 8.13.2006...

The Cook Political Report's analysis last week lists 10 GOP-held seats as toss ups but Pombo's is not one of them. It ranks the district as "leaning Republican," which is more competitive than "likely Republican."

And most recently from the Cook political report...

GOP INCUMBENTS IN DANGER: Rep. Barbara Cubin’s weak showing in yesterday’s Republican primary for Wyoming’s At-large seat highlights a significant weak spot for House Republicans: the considerable number of incumbents in safe Republican districts who are struggling. Other seats in danger include Reps. Richard Pombo (CA-11), Jean Schmidt (OH-02), Don Sherwood (PA-10), Randy Kuhl (NY-29) and Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04).

Sorry but the phrases "leaning Republican" and "in danger" mean that Pombo does, in fact, have to "stage such events". Not to mention Pombo's name included with incumbents like Don Sherwood (he was accused of choking his mistress) and Jean Schmidt (she called John Murtha a coward on the House floor).

Also, Pombo has to "stage such events" because he has nothing else to run on other than staged events. (You know, kinda similar to what some call the "Photo Op Presidency".)

I take no issue with Lisa V doing her best to handicap this race but lines like the one she invoked above quickly change the CA-11 narrative from "it's an uphill battle for McNerney" to "McNerney cannot win". The latter narrative simply has no basis in reality.

Pombo needs a CHiP escort on I-580

2006-08-22T10:55:00.000-07:00

Since Pombo has not lifted a finger to alleviate CA-11 district highway congestion, he needed a California Highway Patrol escort when travelling with the Secretary of Transportation on Interstate 580.

[Secretary Cino] and Pombo, escorted by a California Highway Patrol car, also fought late-morning traffic to meet with transportation planners and elected officials in Pleasanton.

I wonder if the average district commuter can call in the CHP for an escort to their business meetings in Pleasanton?

Pombo gets "Terminated"

2006-06-27T21:26:00.000-07:00

Turns out the Governator does not like the oil drilling plans Pombo has for "Collyfournia". Of course Arnie probably likes Pombo's plans just fine - he just can't afford to like them politically at the moment.

Serious Question

2006-06-24T13:01:00.000-07:00

Is there a dirty, corrupt GOP operative that Pombo is not involved with? Seriously, I'd like to know.

Over at TPM, they have been reporting on Grover Norquist and his antics. Norquist got hit pretty hard in the McCain report about using is "non-profit" Americans for Tax Reform group as a money washer and pass-through organization. There is now the possibility Norquist will be pursued by the Justice Department.

Betcha can't guess who is pictured above...

CA-11 Blog | Policy Discussion Series | Iraq War

2006-05-23T22:45:00.000-07:00

"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
-Colin Powell February, 24 2001

"Iraq continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
-George W. Bush March, 17 2003

There is a wide array of evidence that during the lead-up to the War, the Bush administration was:

cherry picking intelligence which fit its Iraq policy
falsely implying that Iraq had a connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11
vigorously stating the certainty of what was uncertain intelligence
continuing to cite known false intelligence

The examples of this activity are well documented but here's a fresh one from the April 11 2006 Washington Post:

"On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true."

Question: In the spirit of "you can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been": Do you believe we were lied into this War?

Steve Filson: I don’t think we know the answer to that question just yet, but we need to win back the House of Representatives to find out. Because Democrats have been in the minority, we have not had the power of subpoena or even the ability to call hearings to investigate this very question.

But here is what we do know. The Republican Congress has completely ignored its duty to oversee federal agencies and the President to ensure they carry out laws in an effective, efficient, and honest fashion. From what some organizations and media outlets have been able to discover, at best, the Bush Administration cherry picked intelligence and presented it to Congress and the American people as the only existing fact.

Question: What specific actions should Congress take to investigate the lead-up to the Iraq War and what is the value of Congress addressing this matter?

Steve Filson: First, Congress should finish the investigations begun in the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. In the Senate, Chairman Pat Roberts has continued to stall the completion of phase 2 of his committee’s investigation. This phase was to look at how the Administration used the intelligence they had collected. From that point I believe other committees can move forward to examine particular elements of the lead-up to the Iraq War.

The value of Congressional investigations should always be the same. To find out what went wrong and how, if any laws were broken, and to put in place rules, laws, and people to ensure the same mistakes are not made again.

Six former Generals have recently criticized the Bush Administration for their conduct and incompetence in the execution and planning of the Iraq War. Many of these Generals express how the Bush administration willfully ignored advice and existing Iraq war plans from the Military during all phases of the war.

In my view, the following factors underscore the importance and unprecedented nature of these Generals speaking out in such strong terms:

the Military has a long and established history of withholding any criticism whatsoever for current civilian commanders
we currently have military personnel in harms way
most of these Generals have personally worked with the highest levels of civilian leadership or they served as ground commanders in Iraq

To this day, the Bush Administration refuses to admit any strategic mistakes in the Iraq War. However, Condoleeza Rice recently admitted the Bush administration made "thousands of tactical mistakes".

Question: Has the Bush administration damaged the relationship between civilian and military leaders by fundamentally altering the historic roles each play?

Steve Filson: Yes. The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has made, under this administration, decision that should have been left to the professionals in the military. This has and continues to cost lives and billions of taxpayer dollars.

Question: Do you think Condoleeza Rice's statement was intended to place blame on the military?

Steve Filson: Probably not, but it was a very poor choice of words. I served as a Navy tactical pilot in the Navy for 8 years on active duty and 14 in the reserves. I know the men and women in uniform serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have performed with the utmost of skill and courage.

We know military men and women are not to blame for the complete lack of planning by the Bush Administration and the total lack of support from Secretary Rumsfeld. The military asked for 400,000 troops, they got 150,000. The military asked for armored vehicles, they had to wait. The troops asked for better body armor, they had to wait. This was and is unacceptable.

Below is a quote from the 1998 book, "A World Transformed" by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

Question: Was this war a mistake? If so, how can a Member of Congress ensure we don't repeat such a mistake in the future?

Steve Filson: Yes, looking back I think the war was a mistake. We have failed on all the criteria the Bush Administration set out for success. North Korea and Iran continue to develop weapons of mass destruction while none were found in Iraq and the Bush White House is cutting side deals with India. Terrorist’s attacks have increased in frequency around the world, including the horrific bombings in Spain and England. Finally, the Bush Administration continues to support dictatorships and repressive regimes, ignoring their own call to foster Democracy around the world.

We went to war because we believed that Iraq was a threat, it wasn’t. If we want to avoid the same mistake in the future we have to address the limits of our intelligence community. During the Reagan Administration and even through the Clinton years, the intelligence agencies became obsessed with technology. We need more human resources, people who can speak the language and understand the culture. We also need members of Congress willing to use their oversight ability to check the President to ensure the flow of honest and reputable intelligence.

Question: What is the difference between you and the other Democratic candidates on how to move forward from this point?

Steve Filson: First, it should be noted, Iraq has yet to fall into civil war, as some have argued. However a civil war remains a very real possibility. A civil war in Iraq would inevitably spread to neighboring nations including Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Such a widespread conflict would only create more terrorists, which would directly threaten the United States and our allies.

An immediate withdrawal of forces would guarantee Iraq’s slide into a ruthless and prolonged civil war.

A set public timeline, with a politically artificial date, would play into the hands of the insurgents. As a veteran I know there is no better way to lose a battle then to show your cards to the enemy. Additionally, how do we set this timetable? Do we pick a random date with no concern as to the level of security Iraqi’s can provide for the public?

But to stay the course is an even greater error. What I would advocate, as a member of Congress, is the immediate creation of an exit strategy from the Generals in the Pentagon, who have been largely ignored by this administration, combined with a clear message that the United States has no long-term desire to stay in Iraq. This exit strategy must consist of clear measurable standards to track progress in areas such as electrical production, training of security forces, political representation, etc. Then, and only then, will the Sunnis, Shites, and Kurds strike a deal and take responsibility for their future.

President Bush was careless and irresponsible to suggest to the American and Iraqi people that American troops might be in Iraq for several Presidencies. These types of statements, among others, gives the Iraqi’s no incentive to settle they’re political and/or tribal disputes. Americans feel strongly about keeping our promises to the world, but our patience is not infinite.

Pombo's adherence to GOP talking points

2006-05-23T20:42:00.000-07:00

is truly stunning. A Luntzie is surely in the works for him. Here are some choice quotes I previously missed in the Danville Weekly's coverage of the McCloskey, Pombo, Benigno forum in Tracy.

Answering a question about alleged corruption in Congress, Pombo said the Internet, a strong media and public hearings have made the current Congress "quite transparent."

"There's much more exposure today and full disclosure of all the money that we spend and receive," Pombo said. "The vast majority of us who serve in Congress are honest, hard-working people."

[...]

Pombo favors a guest worker program that would register illegal immigrants and allow them to continue in the essential services they are performing in the fields in the Central Valley and in local restaurants and hotels.

"But I am opposed to an amnesty program," Pombo said.

[...]

Pombo said that while no one wants to be in a war, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were in response to Sept. 11, 2001, and the terrorists' attacks. "All but one of the 435 members of Congress gave the president the authority to wage those wars," he said. "To believe that there was a conspiracy or anything else that led us into these wars is spreading a very dangerous idea."

Empahsis mine. Distortions and lies Pombo's.

Pombo hosts Big Oil front group

2006-05-22T21:27:00.000-07:00

Washington Monthly has details:

Today the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, creators of an ongoing ad campaign against "global-warming alarmism," ran a briefing for media and Hill staffers on the "collapse" of the Kyoto Protocol out of the House Resource Committee's hearing room. Nice digs. Framed oil paintings of frontier scenes, buffalos, and American Indians on the walls.

Think Progress has more on CEI.

CEI’s general counsel Sam Kazman said, “I think what attracted [Exxon] to us was our position on global warming.” CEI’s position? The Institute believes the dangers of global warming are akin “to that of ‘an alien invasion.’”

Pombo. Has. No. Shame.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is coming soon to theatres throughout the Bay Area. I'll be checking it out at the CineArts in Pleasant Hill. I hope you can find time to see it.

Let Pombo's slide begin

2006-05-21T15:42:00.000-07:00

Cook political report now rating CA-11 as "Lean Republican" from "Likely Republican".

Pombo is weak...

2006-05-10T15:13:00.000-07:00

depending on the poll you are currently viewing. Defenders of Wildlife published some really encouraging poll results today.

Washington, DC -- Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund released a survey today showing a majority of voters in California's 11th Congressional District would vote against Richard Pombo if the election were held today. Pombo also trails either of his prospective Democratic challengers, Steve Filson and Jerry McNerney.

In a question asking voters whether they intend to re-elect Pombo or vote for someone else -- 52% say they intend to vote for someone else, while only 35% say they intend to vote for Pombo. In head-to-head match-ups, Pombo loses to Steve Filson 49% to 41% and to Jerry McNerney 46% to 42%.

[...]

A major factor in Pombo's drop in support is the fact that a majority of voters now believe that he "puts corporate interests over the people's interest." 53% of voters believe that the above description describes him well, while only 30% say it does not describe him well.

Pombo's job approval is also in negative territory. 45% of voters disapprove of the job Pombo is doing in Congress, while 40% approve. His personal favorability is also negative. 43% of voters give him an unfavorable rating, while only 31% view him favorably.

Sweet.

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch...

2006-05-07T10:00:00.000-07:00

In a sign of rising tempers in the Democratic primary showdown for Congressional District 11, the campaign chiefs for the top two contenders traded pointed barbs last week.

[...]

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE: While the Democrats rumble, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, is busy raising money.

He entertained House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., at an Acampo fund-raiser Friday night.

Next, Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to help his GOP pal collect cash at a May 22 fund-raiser at an undetermined site in the San Joaquin Valley.

Nice.

Wesley Clark interview with Al Franken

2006-05-06T09:27:00.000-07:00

Below is an excerpt from that interview where Clark talks about Steve Filson's run and who he's running against. I listen to Franken all the time and Al's immediate reaction to hearing Pombo's name was sweet. Pombo is the guy all Democrats are fighting against this year.

Franken: So what are we doing to help these veterans run?

Clark: Well what we've got is – we've got some Political Action Committees and we've got a lot of people out there helping and the Democratic Party Leadership has been very good in supporting them but you have to realize these are people, by and large, are in their first political race ever. They don't understand press conferences - how to use a media consultant. They don't understand – and I know how they feel - because that's the way I was last time.

Franken: Well you ran for President with your first run for office.

Clark: It's a really, really steep learning curve – let's put it that way. And so they are out there doing it – they're doing it against some hardcore Republican opponents. I was out in San Francisco last week advocating support for Steve Filson. Steve's a former Navy carrier pilot who flew fighter planes. He flew A7's and A4's off aircraft carriers for 8 years then he joined United Airlines. He's a United Airlines captain now. And he's laying everything on the line to run for Congress – and you kow – he's never done anything like this before. He was a leader in the Unions – he worked with the Airline Pilots association at united to try to help them get throught the strike and so forth – but he hasn't run for elected office so this is a huge venture out. He needs help from all the people who are his friends – he needs the Party support – and he's got an incumbent opponent – a guy named Pombo -

Franken: Oh Gosh – Yeah - He's Terrible

Clark: Who is a hardcore – you know – Tom DeLay kind of a guy

Franken: Well he's also a very very hardcore anti-environmentalist.

Clark: Right.

Franken: Who wants to unravel the Endangered Species Act and all that kind of stuff. That's a – yeah – oh man. [still horrified at mention of Pombo's name]

Friday Humor

2006-04-28T10:40:00.000-07:00

Jesus' General writes a letter to Pombo.

Check out that picture. It's kinda disturbing somehow.

Pombo running away from his Immigration vote

2006-04-18T14:46:00.000-07:00

Pombo may pull a hamstring as he runs away from his vote in favor of HR.4437 which criminalizes the millions of illegal immigrants already employed in the U.S. which completely works against any hope of a "guest worker program".

Contra Costa Times:

Pombo favors a guest-worker program and disagrees with those that want to criminalize illegal immigrants and the people that help them.

The nation needs the workers, he says, and the criminal prosecution of the nation's 11 million or more illegal immigrants would be physically impractical and politically unpalatable.

Danville Weekly:

Pombo also said he favors establishing a guest worker law for undocumented immigrants so they have an opportunity to become part of the country's legal workforce.

"We just can't go out and evict the 15-20 million people who are already here and working," Pombo said. "But you also can't let this problem go on as part of an underground economy."

Why the bamboozle? Perhaps he's suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance? In any case, he's a guy who needs to be more proud of his work.

Gen. Wesley Clark coming to Stockton

2006-04-18T10:05:00.000-07:00

FILSON TO HOST GENERAL CLARK’S FIRST VISIT TO STOCKTON AT VETERANS FORUM

Democrat Steve Filson, US Navy Ret., To Hold Veterans Forum in Stockton With Special Guest General Wesley Clark (Ret.)

Commander Steve Filson (Ret.), Democratic Candidate in California’s 11th Congressional district, will be hosting a veteran’s forum with special guest General Wesley Clark (Ret.) on Monday April 24th at the Karl Ross Post in Stockton. The title of the forum is “Defending America, Defending Veterans.” Both General Clark and Commander Filson will speak briefly followed by questions and comments from the veterans in attendance. General Clark and Commander Filson will be available for press at the conclusion of the event for fifteen minutes. There will be camera positions available inside the hall.

Who: Commander Steve Filson (Ret.), Democratic Candidate for Congress in California’s 11th district, and General Wesley Clark (Ret.)

What: “Defending America, Defending Veterans” Veteran’s Forum

When: 10:30 – 11:30 a.m. PST on Monday, April 24th, 2006

Press availability 11:30 – 11:45am

Where:

Karl Ross Post No. 16
2020 Plymouth Road
Stockton, CA 95204

The "Abramoff seven"

2006-04-17T16:27:00.000-07:00

via TPM: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) predicted six Members of the House and a Member of the Senate will go to jail from the Abramoff scandal. Coburn is the worst of the worst in Congress so please consider the source.

However, a little speculation never hurt, right? Burns, DeLay, Ney, and Doolittle are shoo-ins. The rest of the list is less clear.

On the Al Franken Show, Josh Marshall from TPM added Pombo to the list of potential lucky winners of a federal indictment in Abramoff related matters.

After that, I think people that get talked about are Congressman Pombo from California although he's much less certain in my mind, than the other three I mentioned [Ney, DeLay, Doolittle].

From DailyKos diarist jorndorf:

Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX)
Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH)
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA)

my television has a "truth chip"

2006-04-09T13:02:00.000-07:00

Hammer Time

2006-04-06T02:51:00.000-07:00

Let's all take a moment and walk down memory lane on Richard Pombo's relationship with the disgraced Tom DeLay. When we're done reminiscing we'll play a little game.

Let's begin with the words of Richard Pombo:

Pombo says [he] believes DeLay will be exonerated. "Tom is my friend and I'm going to stick by him."

Only 3 short years ago, DeLay appointed Pombo to the Chair of the House Resources committee leapfrogging Pombo over 7 more senior members and making Pombo the youngest Committee Chair in history.

Seems like only yesterday when DeLay ordered Pombo and Doolittle to block a federal investigation into a crooked Houston businessman.

Reps. John T. Doolittle and Richard W. Pombo joined forces with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to oppose an investigation by federal banking regulators into the affairs of Houston millionaire Charles Hurwitz, documents recently obtained by The Times show. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was seeking $300 million from Hurwitz for his role in the collapse of a Texas savings and loan that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion. [...] The FDIC's chief spokesman characterized what Doolittle and Pombo did as "a seamy abuse of the legislative process."

Can it be only 6 months ago when Matt over at SNTP informed us of Pombo's DeLay ranking where we learned Pombo donated $5,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund and voted in lock-step with DeLay 3,999 times out of 4,307. Also, it was 6 months ago that Josh Marshall reported that Pombo's staffers were treated like Kings 12 times in 1 year to Abramoff's infamous $1,000 a pop skybox tickets.

Ah, the memories. The reality that Pombo wants desperately to avoid is that he's neck deep in the corruption that was institutionalized by Tom DeLay.

I promised a game - so here it is: Jeopardy. I'll take Congressional Family Values for $200, Alex.

Answers:

$200: This person was paid $115,000 to "determine the favorite charity of every member of Congress".

$400: This person directly received $43,000 in "commissions" with $1,022,729 going to their immediate family from an Abramoff slush fund dressed-up as a non-profit group working for a "pro-family" political agenda in Congress.

$600: This person received $50,000 in illicit payments to their "consulting firm" from Jack Abramoff.

$800: This person gets paid 15% of all the contributions brought into a campaign fund and was paid $180,000 so far.

$1000: This person was paid $120,225 directly from a campaign fund as a "fundraising consultant".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Questions:

$200: Who is Christine Delay? - wife of disgraced Texas Congressman, Tom DeLay.

$400: Who is Wendy Buckham? - wife of Edwin Buckham, Tom DeLay's former Chief of Staff, whose indictment is probably in the mail.

$600: Who is Lisa Rudy? - wife of Tony Rudy, Tom DeLay's former Deputy Chief of Staff, who plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges.

$800: Who is Julie Doolittle? - wife of John Doolittle (R-CA). John was kind enough to introduce Jack Abramoff to Richard Pombo.

$1000: Who is Annette Pombo? - wife of Richard Pombo (R-CA). Rich is "sticking" by his buddy Tom all the way - or until he's in jail.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who's ready for Final Jeopardy? Category: Tainted Congressional Donations

Answer: This charity received $1,250 of tainted money given to Richard Pombo by a former DeLay Deputy Chief of Staff who recently plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges.

Question: Who is the Boys and Girls Clubs of Stockton, Calif?

Thanks for playing!

CA-11 Blog | Policy Discussion Series | Bankruptcy Bill

2006-03-30T21:00:00.000-08:00

Against overwhelming evidence that the majority of Americans file for bankruptcy protection as a direct result of debt from personal catastrophes like medical problems, divorce, or the loss of employment, Congress decided to make it extremely difficult (if not impossible) and costly for working families to file for bankruptcy. Congress fast-tracked the Bankruptcy Bill, which was literally written by the Credit Card Industry and deceptively framed the issue as reforming bankruptcy laws due to people abusing the system by going wild with credit cards and not paying their bills.

The Bankruptcy Bill has received widespread criticism from those aware of its existence. While trying to interpret this legislation which harms honest people who are going through a serious financial crisis, Federal Judge Frank Monroe, in a written judicial opinion, said the following:

"Those responsible for the passing of the Act did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act. This is because the parties pushing the passage of the Act had their own agenda. It was apparently an agenda to make more money off the backs of the consumers in this country."

Questions:

1. Some see the Bankruptcy Bill as a prime example of how Congress has completely turned its back on working families. Do you think that's true?

Steve Filson: Yes. I believe the vote to pass The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) is a perfect example of lobbyists with big checks getting exactly what they wanted while working families and small business owners were ignored.

2. The Bankruptcy Bill garnered bi-partisan support, including vigorous support from Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo). Do you think it was a mistake for some Democrats to support this Bill?

Steve Filson: I think it was a mistake for Democrats and Republicans to support the bill. While I have the utmost respect for Congresswoman Tauscher and the work she does for the 10th Congressional district, I disagree with her on this issue.

3. How do you view the Bankruptcy Bill's relationship to other issues like Health Care Reform or Campaign Finance Reform?

Steve Filson: I believe these issues are related because they demonstrate how Congress can be held hostage on issues important to the American people by very small groups of powerful special interests.

There should be an honest and open debate in this country about how we get health care for all Americans. But that debate can’t happen when the only ones in the room benefit from obscene administrative costs at the expense of coverage.

There should be an honest and open debate in this country on campaign finance reform and free speech. But the debate is being stifled by powerful media interests benefiting from the outrageous prices charged to candidates so they can get their message to voters.

Money can narrow the conversation about how best to address the issues we all face and can suppress the best ideas that can move American forward.

4. What impacts do you think the Bankruptcy Bill will have right here in the CA-11 District?

Steve Filson: The impacts will be widely felt.

Small business will be punished by the complicated rules surrounding business formations that need to co-mingle personal and business assets.

Consumers and new students will suffer because the law does not address the aggressive marketing of high interest, high fee credit cards to new graduates and low-income workers. The majority of bankruptcies are not caused by one’s “moral failings” but have their origin in catastrophic events and medical emergencies. The law strips away the financial second chance Americans deserve.

Perhaps most depressing is the effect this law will have on active duty troops and Reserve and National Guard members. In 1999, a General Accounting Office study analyzed bankruptcy filings and determined that 16,000 active-duty service members had filed for bankruptcy during the course of the last year. In addition, a 2002 Pentagon study found that 1/3 of military families experience a significant drop in income when a member was deployed, and for Reserve and National Guard members this figure rose to 40%. The men and woman who defend this country must have better.

Since the bankruptcy law became effective, the Republican majority in Congress continues to block any exceptions to the bankruptcy law for service men and woman as well as victims of last season’s terrible hurricanes.

These are times when Congress should side with working families and the men and women who defend our nation.

Tri-Valley Dem club candidates forum

2006-03-24T10:19:00.000-08:00

A couple of folks have asked me how the forum went so I thought I would list my notes on each candidate.

McNerney:

A.J. Carillo took on tough duty while substituting for Jerry due to a death in Jerry's family

Jerry is a "Barbara Boxer Democrat"
responding to a question about what his first authored bill would be if elected:
"support John Murtha's bill on withdrawl from Iraq"
CA-11 should not pursue an "electibility strategy" - sited the 2004 John Kerry strategy
reiterated Jerry's vision for CA-11 to become the world leader in renewable energy businesses and technology (I REALLY like this by the way - it is a big vision but it's really worth some attention)

Thomas:

Basically delivered an amplified version of his remarks from the Lamorinda event

he effectively stepped up the pitch and in one moment he said we need to "kick ass"
responding to a question about what his first authored bill would be if elected: "fix our Delta Levee problems"
turned his "impeachment" frame into "censure" (good for him)
he ran out of time and only enumerated 2 of his 5 key platform items: 1. terrorism 2. economic bill of rights (I really wish he would have returned to this in a subsequent answer)
spoke about and handed out flyers on how a Bob Casey Jr candidacy is bad because he is a pro-lifer (I respectfully disagree - I've met Bob Casey Jr. and no matter how much I disagree with him on that issue, he's the only one who has any shot at beating Santorum)

Filson:

Stepped up his tone and pitch somewhat but essentially delivered much of the same content as the Lamorinda event

Noted that the current GOP'ers think its "every man for himself" and Democrats know that we're all in this together
responding to a question about what his first authored bill would be if elected:
"transportation bill for the district" mentioned I-205.
went on the offensive and said that in the 2004 election 30,000 voted for Boxer while at the same time voted for Pombo
spoke effectively about ESA and "critical habitats"
re-iterated several times that "the time is now" to win this race - a real sense of urgency came across

Contra Costa Times "watchdog" reporting

2006-03-21T22:10:00.000-08:00

Here's how the editor of the CC Times, Chris Lopez, characterized an article which simply enumerated the dollars spent by each Bay Area politico for privately funded travel and stated this was a Congressional reform topic.

[The article is] an excellent example of the Times' commitment to watchdog reporting on public officials.

The article served its stated purpose and was clearly well sourced, well written, and thouroughly researched. But "watchdog" reporting? C'mon.

Cast your attention to the San Diego Union Tribune for an example of watchdog reporting. Duke Cunningham and John Doolittle have bite-marks on their trousers from these guys and in Cunningham's case, they replaced his trousers with an orange jumpsuit.

Indeed, there may be no "there, there" with Pombo but it sure seems like a target rich environment for journalists given Pombo's associates, his powerful committee, and the current state of play in Congress.

I think the McClatchey deal serves as a helpful reminder about the fundamental mission of these organizations. A mission which, in many ways, runs contrary to the pursuit of public official watchdoggery. I would be the first to applaud the CC Times for any progress in this area but if this is their standard of excellence for watchdogging, I fear I'll be waiting quite a while to congratulate them.

Pombo's demolition approach to our legislative process

2006-03-20T22:33:00.000-08:00

Erica Rosenberg, a former staffer for the House Resources Committee wrote an excellent LA Times Op-Ed piece detailing how Pombo dutifully follows the GOP playbook of circumventing and ignoring the legislative process in order to railroad their bills to a vote. I highly recommend you go read the whole thing.

Basically, what's at stake here is the erosion of our democratic process itself. This is intolerable and it transcends policy and politics.

Scientists agree: Pombo's anti-ESA bill sucks

2006-03-09T23:05:00.000-08:00

I guess these scientists are simply participating in election-year partisan politics.

5,738 scientists think Pombo's bill will effectively gut the Endgandered Species Act and they have a crazy notion that its better to allow scientists rather than political appointees to control which studies and scientific methods are used to evaluate Endangered Species.

Last August, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that undermines the science behind the ESA in significant ways. First, the legislation transfers the authority of deciding what is the best available science from scientists to political appointees in the Department of Interior. Second, the legislation requires decisions affecting species to be based on empirical data—effectively eliminating the use of established scientific techniques such as modeling, population surveys, and taxonomic and genetic studies.

The House legislation would fundamentally and negatively alter the way science would inform critical decisions affecting endangered and threatened species. Furthermore, it represents a Congressional assault on scientific integrity and the ability of federal scientists to do their jobs.

I'm sorry but this is shameful and its seems that Pombo has previously assaulted science for political gain:

Due to his unwillingness to regulate companies whose emissions result in unsafe levels of mercury in the fish we eat, Pombo issued his own "report" on mercury risks. Not surprisingly, the report was in lock-step with his decision avoid regluating the polluting corporations. Also not surprisingly, instead of using well respected mercury studies from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences, Pombo's report was written by the polluting industry itself and various Right-Wing think tanks. Chris Mooney catalogs the atrociousness of Pombo's report here.

You won't believe it until you read it. With its recently released report titled "Mercury in Perspective: Fact and Fiction About the Debate Over Mercury”, the GOP leadership of the House Committee on Resources has brought scientific debate on an already politicized issue to a new low.

The 33-page document, issued by anti-environmentalist committee Chair Richard Pombo and fellow Republican Jim Gibbons of Nevada, is billed as a "comprehensive synopsis of the federal agency, private and recently peer-reviewed research used in the debate over regulating mercury." In fact, it's a misleading contrarian pamphlet aimed at convincing Americans that despite everything they may have heard, mercury levels in fish aren't dangerous and U.S.-based mercury emitters aren't a significant part of the problem.

I can't help but think of the cry from President Bush that as a nation our students are falling behind the rest of the world in science and math. The GOP might as well be saying: "We want more kids to dedicate their entire scholastic career and life's work in the field of science so we can ignore them when their findings don't align with our policies." Ugh.

Pombo breaks House Rules

2006-03-08T01:39:00.000-08:00

Richard Pombo broke House Rules by allowing 2 "detailees" from the Executive Branch (DoI) to work on his sub-committee for a full year past their maximum allowable time limit. At the time, Pombo was pursuing 2 provisions to the budget-reconciliation bill which were eventually stripped before the bill passed:

Provision 1: Pay states to allow oil and gas companies to destroy their coasts

One controversial provision would have given states revenue-sharing incentives for opting out of the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf

Provision 2: Giveaway federal lands to private interests

The second [provision] would have amended mining law to allow federal lands to be sold to support the sustainable development of dying mining towns.

Aside from the devastaing effects these policies would have on our country, there are two things to note here:

First, this is yet another instance where Pombo exhibits his complete disregard for House Rules. The Rules say:

The Committees' Congressional Handbook states that “detailing agreements may not exceed a 12-month period, or the end of a Congress, whichever occurs first.”

Interestingly, Pombo is trying to hide behind Bob Ney (R - Ohio) who was ostensibly named in the Jack Abramoff indictment for taking bribes.

Before Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) stepped down as chairman of the Committee on House Administration because of his link to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, he signed letters giving [Pombo's detailees] permission to serve beyond the time limit set by House rules.

Second, Pombo's actions are part of a national theme where we've seen single party rule erode the checks and balances between each Branch of Government. Serious conflicts of interest arise when such cross branch coziness occurs. Hence the need for the rule Pombo decided to break.

Media, Ethics, and Pombo's Worldview: RV Edition

2006-03-07T12:16:00.000-08:00

Pombo has been interviewed by both the CC Times and the Sac Bee about his "business trip" to several National Parks at taxpayer expense. Each paper basically "took Pombo's word for it" that he was undertaking the people's business (along with his wife and three kids) and proceeded to minimize its significance.

Indeed, this matter is small in magnitude but when added to the cavalcade of Pombo's ethical entanglements, more of the forest starts to materialize from the trees. Perhaps its greatest importance is that it provides a window into Pombo's principles which is easy for voters to internalize. A nice lady from Richmond proves this point in her recent letter to the CC Times:

My family has not been able to afford the luxury of a vacation for the last five years. Therefore, I found it offensive Vorderbrueggen was surprised Pombo's wonderful trip with his three children (under the age of 15) could be called a "vacation."

Her letter also lays the smackdown on the CC Times for a "Republican bias". More on that later...

Putting aside the ethical aspects of this affair for a moment, perhaps the most revealing storyline is the profound insight Pombo gained whilst touring some of the most beautiful places on Earth:

He came away from the Mojave National Preserve thinking that the park needs to allow more off-road vehicle use. That preserve was designated by Congress as part of the national park system by the California Desert Protection Act of 1994; Pombo wants to reopen that act and "fix it" to allow more off-road recreation.

He came away from his visit to Yellowstone, the nation's first park, with more concern for preserving winter business for concessionaires - i.e., snowmobile use - than for safeguarding the park itself so as to leave it "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations," as the 1916 law requires.

Let me sum up. I'm maddened by the fact that the media has become our de facto Congressional ethics review panel because the previously professionally run, somewhat non-partisan, House ethics review process has been obliterated by Pombo associate Tom DeLay.

For certain, the media can be a positive force in this area but let's be honest, they are not suited for this task. They risk alienating readers with the mildest of rebukes of either side and thus risk losing money as a business. They have no benchmarks or established standards from which to analyze and pass judgement. They often confuse ethics issues with legal issues. The end result is subjectivity like this:

"A Contra Costa Times investigation of ethical charges leveled at Pombo reveals a more complicated portrait of a singularly dogmatic and calculating lawmaker who stretches the rules but stops short of breaking them."

Smacking the media on these matters is worthwhile to some degree but true reform must start elsewhere. It starts with the voters of CA-11.

Lamorinda Dem Club Candidates Forum

2006-02-20T13:55:00.000-08:00

Really great event at the Lamorinda Dem Club. All three candidates (Filson, McNerney, Thomas) were passionate, eloquent, and energized.

Personally, I wanted to hear the candidates speak more about CA-11 issues rather than the much discussed national issues like Iraq, NSA spying, and the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

I'd like to comment on one thing that jumped out at me during the evening. Both McNerney and Thomas included a statement something to the effect of: "I support a Bush impeachment". In my opinion, they could use more effective messaging around their position on this issue.

I believe Dems should be placing this issue squarely in the "Congressional Oversight" frame rather than in the "Impeachment" frame. The politics surrounding the narrower "Impeachment" frame are very difficult and we don't need the extra baggage it brings. (To be clear, I'm commenting on the messaging here not the underlying position on the issue.)

Overall, I'm really glad I attended and I'm heartened that there are 3 solid guys running for this seat.

Pombo wants credit for his freugal non-visits with Park Managers

2006-02-17T12:01:00.000-08:00

Pombo wants us taxpayers to consider ourselves lucky that he didn't spend $25K for his visits to National Parks where he avoided meetings with Park Managers.

Kennedy said Pombo could have taken airplanes and stayed at expensive hotels, costing taxpayers $25,000 or more. Instead, Kennedy said, Pombo rented the RV and then decided to "take his family along at no additional cost to the taxpayer."

The quotes from Park Managers about Pombo's non-visits just get better and better. I guess the folks who manage these parks are all just partisans with an agenda...

"We had set up camping for him [Pombo] and gone to a lot of work and then he did not show," Pam Livermont, secretary for the park superintendent at Badlands National Park, said Tuesday. "He did not alert any personnel that he wasn't coming, and we never heard another word from him. We were disappointed."

A good question

2006-02-16T14:30:00.000-08:00

How did Richard Pombo become Chairman of the House Resource Committee?

Interesting thoughts here.

Pombo's bold stance on oil industry giveaways

2006-02-15T09:38:00.000-08:00

In a bold move for Richard Pombo, he opposes a giveaway of $7 billion over the next 5 years to oil companies.

"I don't think there is a single member of Congress who thinks you should get royalty relief at $70 a barrel" for oil, said Representative Richard W. Pombo, Republican of California and chairman of the House Resources Committee.

"It was Congress's intent," Mr. Pombo said in an interview on Friday, "that if oil was at $10 a barrel, there should be royalty relief so companies could have some kind of incentive to invest capital. But at $70 a barrel, don't expect royalty relief."

Not surprisingly, George Miller (D CA-7) has been fighting this royalty program for years.

Miller [...] opposed the royalty holiday when it was first proposed in 1995, chastised Congress for catering to the special interests. “This is the cost of Congress letting oil companies write public policy,” Miller said. “The oil and gas royalty holiday is one of the most egregious giveaways of taxpayer money in our history and it can and should be stopped.

This program is not justified, period. But it is even more outrageous coming at a time when Congress is cutting food stamps, home heating assistance and college loans for poor and middle class families. You just cannot justify giving away $7 billion in tax dollars to oil companies recording the largest profits ever in corporate history.”

Seems Pombo's "principles" kick in only after the oil and gas industry is flooded with profits and after this scandal was published in the New York Times. Great. Where was Pombo's leadership on this during the last 10 years?

Pombo and Bush: "addicted to oil [money]"

2006-02-01T15:34:00.000-08:00

Does anyone else find it ironic for Pombo and Bush to be talking about a renewable energy program?

After 9/11, the country and the world were united in an unprecedented way. A leader could have immediately urged for a massive renewable energy program. A leader could have brought business people, environmentalists, and technologists from around the country/world and made this a reality.

Instead, 4 years later, we have Bush orating about "renewable energy research" while his actions tell a different story.

Bush proposed a 22 percent increase in renewable energy research from the Department of Energy. He proposed increases in clean-coal technology along with wind, solar and nuclear power to supply energy to U.S. homes.

“What he didn’t say is that he’s reduced it … drastically over the last five years, far more than 22 percent,” said Jerry McNerney, a wind energy expert who also is running for the Democratic nomination. “So that’s a disconnect from reality.”

Instead, 4 years later, we have Pombo trying to drill a Wildlife Refuge which could yield America six months worth of oil.

“The president has been supportive in the past and continues to be supportive,” Pombo said, referring to his proposal to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Instead, 4 years later, the oil industry is bursting at the seams in profits and paying the people who made it all happen.

According to information compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign donations, the political action committees for the top 10 oil and gas companies have doled out more than $712,000 in campaign contributions so far this cycle.
Around 85 percent of that money has been given to Republicans, a traditional ally.
[...]

Oil Money

Who got it
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) $31,500
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont) $23,500
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) $22,500
Rep. Richard Pombo (Calif.) $21,000

[...]

Instead, 4 years later...

Exxon. Just. Made. More. Profits. Than. Any. Other. Company. In. History.

CA-11 blog agrees with Pombo

2006-01-30T14:40:00.000-08:00

The ca-11 blog agrees with the logic behind Richard Pombo's public statements on financial aid cuts for students and tax cuts.

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, in a meeting with the Times editorial board later Thursday, said reductions are key to reducing the federal deficit and defended the tax breaks as important to working families.

"We cut $50 billion out of a $2 trillion budget," Pombo said. "Where is the Democrats' alternative? Whose taxes do they want to raise? You can't have it both ways."

To prove the ca-11 blog agrees with this logic, here is a conversation I had with my wife just yesterday...

Brian: Honey, I've taken a $100,000 cash advance on our credit cards and I gave it to our millionaire neighbor. Oh by the way, since the interest payments are so large I cut the contributions to our the kids' college fund by $2,000 /year.

My wife: What!? Why did you borrow money we'll never be able to pay back and give it to our neighbor? He doesn't need it.

Brian: Working families like us must give more money to millionaire's because they create jobs for the economy and that ends up helping us.

My wife: Are you kidding me? He'll just invest that money in stocks and keep it for himself. That suply-side economics b.s. has been debunked by every credible economist. And what the hell are you doing messing with the kids college fund? How will we send them to college?!

Brian: You can't have it both ways honey. How else can we get that money to our neighbor? What are your ideas for that?

Pombo does the Abramoff two-step

2006-01-23T08:54:00.000-08:00

Shorter Richard Pombo: I'm not involved with Abramoff because he always sent in his surrogates to lobby me. And by the way, Abramoff was primarily looking for clients rather than engaging in lobbying.

The Contra Costa Times interviewed Pombo and asked him about Jack Abramoff. (warning mp3 file possibly behind a subscription site)

Rough transcript:

Interviewer: Have you ever met Jack Abramoff?

Pombo: Yeah. I've met him. I've seen him probably, I don't know maybe, half a dozen times. Um, different big Republican events n'stuff. And I had lunch one time, I was having lunch with John Doolittle, and Abramoff came in and sat down and had... John invited him to have lunch with us and he sat down. I had never met him before that. That was probably, I don't know maybe 4 years ago. It was the first time I met him. Um, he was a big player. Always very, very involved with the political side, of stuff.

He never lobbied me, on anything. I can't ever remember a single time that he ever asked me about a bill, about a vote, about anything. I know, I read that I'm one of his best friends. But I mean, there are a lot of guys who are his best friends now because they're on the target list. I mean thats, the game.

Interviewer: But it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to want to meet with you and ask you about bills...

Pombo: No it wouldn't have been. On stuff that was comin' before my committee, you know there were different guys that worked for that firm [Greenberg-Traurig] that would come in and talk to me. That, you know, 'cause the clients were represented by the firm so, different guys would come in and talk to me and bring in, you know, the head of this Tribe or the, you know, the other guy and say, you know, this is our issue, this is why want it or why we don't want it or, you know, whatever the case may be but he [Abramoff] just never, never did. And I don't know how much of that he [Abramoff] really did. In him, actually going in and lobbying.

Interviewer: Well, he sent his people in, you know, and his staff...

Pombo: I think he did a lot more trying to find clients than he did actually lobbying us. 'Cause most of the guys I've talked to, they're supposedly his best friends, have the same kind of story, that, you know, unless they went to a fund raiser with him or something like that, that he didn't do a lot of that.

Interviewer: His, or his people, to influence you...

Pombo: Try to influence me? The guy, different people that worked for that lobbying firm, sure they tried to influence me. That's their job.

Interviewer: Right.

Pombo: They bring in somebody and say, this is why we think, you should do this, you know, pass this bill, or vote against that bill, or whatever. And, you know, 10 minutes later, you got the guys from the other side coming in telling you the opposite.

emphasis mine

McCloskey enters CA-11 race

2006-01-19T14:38:00.000-08:00

From the CC Times.

Too early to tell but this has the potential to develop into an interesting situation if McCloskey can bring some legitimacy to the table while at the same time raising difficult questions for Pombo about his ethics and legislative record.

McCloskey is characterized as a potential Wild Card.

[...] McCloskey is often unpredictable and outrageous, an invaluable trait in a cash-strapped race in which press coverage and word-of-mouth cost nothing.

Gotta love his quote from the Sacramento Bee:

Still, McCloskey is sure that he can at least force Pombo to confront some difficult issues."I ain't going to get elected," he said. "But somebody's going to know they were in a hell of a fight."

Pombo begins his smear strategy right out of the gate. I wonder when the "swift boat" ads will begin about McCloskey's service as a Marine in Korea.

"From what I've heard, Mr. McCloskey sounds more like a liberal Democrat candidate than a Republican," said Pombo, who was 11 years old when McCloskey challenged Nixon for president in 1972.

McCloskey wrote the ESA legislation that Pombo has been trying to dismantle. Very interesting.

McCloskey, who served eight terms in Congress from 1967 to 1983, wrote the 1974 Endangered Species Act that Pombo has worked to alter for the past 13 years. Pombo finally passed a bill out of the House last year that would fundamentally change the way the country protects threatened plants and animals, although the bill faces an uncertain fate in the Senate.