Pity The Sad, Apocalyptic Clown

From the NY Times:

The conservative writer David Frum said Mr. Beck’s success “is a product of the collapse of conservatism as an organized political force, and the rise of conservatism as an alienated cultural sensibility.”

“It’s a show for people who feel they belong to an embattled minority that is disenfranchised and cut off,” he said.......

From the blog "View From The Sandbox":

We all remember the kids in school who, if they didn't win the game, would knock over the table in revenge.

Well, it would appear that they got older and joined the GOP.

Glenn Beck has started a new group which is actually talking about secession. Yes, I said secession, as in Civil War. The party, which has amused us all by touting itself as the "Party of Lincoln" while fighting any civil rights for minorities, now has members promoting the dismembering of the country they claim so much to love.

First they want Texas. And Glenn even has his first candidate for the presidency of his new Confederacy - Chuck Norris.

While it sounds like a SNL sketch, there's nothing funny about the fact that there are folks taking these extremists and their discussions of armed insurrection seriously. In fact, a local GOP Boone County (Cinncinatti). commissioner, Cathy Flaig, is leading one of these "cells" as Mr. Norris calls them.

The present economic depression/recession is already causing violence which is being regularly reported in the news and I question if these GOP pundits and leaders fully understand that their discussions of seceding, being on the "eve of battle", and "conquer or perish" can and may be taken seriously by those who are mentally unstable and looking for a scapegoat.

Are they willing to take responsibility for the logical conclusions to their actions or will they throw up teir hands and claim that it's not their fault if people took them seriously?

They need to know that if they incite violence against Americans and associate with those calling for the dismemberment of our union, they go from being disgruntled citizens to domestic terrorists.

Earth Hour

It's not cheating if you used your computer, right?

BREAKING NEWS! GOP Budget "Plan" Takes From The Poor And Gives To The Rich!

Shocking, I know:

Yesterday, the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives released the outlines of a tax and spending plan that they argue is a more fiscally responsible alternative to the budget outline proposed by President Obama and the similar budget resolutions working their way through the House and Senate.

Comparing the income tax proposals in the House GOP plan to the income tax proposals in the President’s plan, we find that:

• Over a fourth of taxpayers, mostly low-income families, would pay more in taxes under the House GOP plan than they would under the President’s plan. 

• The richest one percent of taxpayers would pay $100,000 less, on average, under the House GOP plan than they would under the President’s plan. 

• The income tax proposals in the House GOP plan, which is presented as a fiscally responsible alternative to the President’s plan, would cost over $300 billion more than the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone. 
  

The Citizens For Tax Justice has the complete breakdown, including a great comparison with Obama's budget plan. 

The Republican's pathetic budget "alternative" might be a running joke by now, but's no laughing matter for the American people. 

Forgive my french, but were these asshats really in charge for the last 8 years?

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You.....

From Daily Kos:

President Barack Obama switched gears this week in his Saturday address, from economic crisis to natural disaster crisis, as he praised the volunteerism and collaborative response to the flooding in the Dakotas and Minnesota. The first portion of his address simply outlines the steps the federal government has taken to bring aid to the region. The second half of his speech, however, moves into more familiar oratorical territory: extolling the virtues of the magic American dance between individualism and collectivism, and coming down strongly on the side of reminding Americans of the gifts they owe to their shared national efforts:

For at moments like these, we are reminded of the power of nature to disrupt lives and endanger communities. But we are also reminded of the power of individuals to make a difference....

In the face of an incredible challenge, the people of these communities have rallied in support of one another. And their service isn’t just inspirational – it’s integral to our response.

It’s also a reminder of what we can achieve when Americans come together to serve their communities. All across the nation, there are men, women and young people who have answered that call, and millions of other who would like to. Whether it’s helping to reduce the energy we use, cleaning up a neighborhood park, tutoring in a local school, or volunteering in countless other ways, individual citizens can make a big difference.

Such a tribute to selfless volunteerism will surely be echoed by the administration in the coming week as the Kennedy-Hatch Serve America Act, which would greatly expand Americorps and national service programs moves to the House after its passage in the Senate.

There is also a sub-text of salute to members of the military as well as reminders that our national destiny is tied together, one and all:

In facing sudden crises or more stubborn challenges, the truth is we are all in this together – as neighbors and fellow citizens. That is what brought so many to help in North Dakota and Minnesota and other areas affected by this flooding. That is what draws people to volunteer in so many ways, serving our country here and on distant shores.

Week in and week out, President Obama seems to be using the Saturday address largely as a bully pulpit , with more than a dollop of patriotic inspirationalism as flavoring. A pattern is emerging of using this particularly setting as an aspirational weekly sermon about our bonds as fellow Americans and our higher collective commitment to our country and each other. In other venues, he's light (on Leno), conversational (online citizen questioning) or professorial (press conference); in these weekly addresses, however, he seems to hit his most natural stride, the one he hit with his famed speech at the Democratic convention in 2004 and his speech on race last year. The only difference in tone is usually the abbreviated form. It's an interesting trend to watch.

Obama's First Online Town Hall: Drama-Free OKness

From Wired magazine:

President Obama's experiment Thursday with an otherwise traditional town hall format flecked with questions posted and voted on at whitehouse.gov was a useful experiment with interactivity. But it was a relatively small step forward, and the online crowd did not provide much of a disruptive alternative to topics Obama certainly would have been asked about anyway.

How did the tech president do? Fine. He genuinely took popular questions and he certainly took many of the top-rated ones. His answers were long, which meant he took only five of the 104,000 questions submitted and, more important, only a tiny fraction of the approximately 1,000 questions that the public seemed truly enthusiastic about.

But it wasn't exactly as if he took penetrating, unanticipated questions from "Open for Questions," which the administration set up two days ago to solicit questions in advance. In fact the only subject that might not have otherwise been addressed came from an organized campaign to ask Obama his position on legalizing marijuana.

Obama obeyed the spirit (and letter) of the event by entertaining the question while blunting the troll effort that had put it to him: "No, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," he said to laughter in the room.

Other than that bit of comedy relief how exactly would it have differed if this town hall were to be entirely scripted by the White House? They would have touched many of the same subjects — health care, veterans, outsourcing — and Obama would have given his regular stump points. That's more or less what happened.

But he gets credit for effort and breaking new ground. As we've written about extensively here, using the internet is a sophisticated way to boost democracy is actually pretty tough. So one of the metrics to use here is: Will this experiment get us closer to an administration that uses the internet in an effective way to communicate and get input from people, or will the experiment flame up in such a way that it sets that cause back?

My instinct is that the former is what happened today. The Obama team got to test the software and the model; we all got to test the feedback loop. Buzz will fade if the next town hall is non-interactive; but for now I think it increases. So I'm judging today as a small advance that may lead to better things to come.

What Would Happen If "The Onion" Put Together A Budget?

The Republican's unleashed their long-waited budget alternative today. And the reaction was, well, pretty funny:

From FiveThirtyEight.com

The Republican "Road to Recovery" budget alternative, rolled out today by John Boehner, has been criticized by left and right for its lack of specificity and its promise to eliminate the national debt while significantly cutting taxes. FiveThirtyEight.com, however, has received an advance copy of additional details prepared by the Minority Leader's office. Although some elements of the proposal are still under discussion -- Eric Cantor is said to want to eliminate North Dakota rather than Idaho, while Thaddeus McCotter has suggested using the balance of TARP funds to purchase scratch-off tickets -- the final plan can be expected to contain most or all of these components.

From The American Prospect:

If you're having a bad day, I highly encourage you to spend some quality time with the Republican budget proposal. It's reads like what would happen if The Onion put together a budget. "Area Man Releases Proposal for 2010 Federal Spending Priorities." (Though, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, it turns out that I'd prefer a federal budget written by an area man than the first six names on the House Republican Leadership roster.)

And last, but not least, from Wonkette:

I love the idea of Boehner in his office, with his staff, paging through this, fresh from the graphic designer that someone hired from craigslist and smelling like fresh printer’s ink, and realizing that they’ve already called the press and they have to have something to wave at them.

There is a moment, just a moment of silence, while everyone considers the repercussions of the press, you know, actually getting their hands on this, this… thing.

Because here where they are safe, they know. They *know* this is a piece of shit. But nobody wants to say it. Eyes avoid eyes. Faintly in the background a siren dopplers by. Someone clears his throat. You can hear heels clacking against the marble in the hallway.

And Boehner takes a deep breath, straightens his cuffs, and says “Fuck it”.

That’s leadership, people.

Measure B: Tweets Against The Machine

It's official, Measure "B", the so-called "Green Energy/Good Jobs" ballot initiative went down to defeat by a razor-thin 2,644 votes.

From the LA Weekly:

There’s one thing both sides agree on following the defeat of Solar Measure B: It was a message to those in power to watch out. A handful of activists armed with one-twentieth of the budget of their foes, savvy use of the Internet and repetition of a clear message were enough to overcome a slick campaign, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and 12 of the 15 members of the City Council.

Last week, the City Clerk certified the death of Measure B, which would have draped L.A. buildings with 1,500 acres of solar panels at a cost of billions. It would have been the single largest solar plan in the country, and in a city with more sunlight than it knows what to do with, it was widely expected to be a slam-dunk.

Yet the key underlying motives that propelled the solar measure forward, arrived at in backroom discussions by a handful of power brokers, turned out to be the proposal’s fatal flaws.

The measure’s sponsor was the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and its chief, the often overblown Brian D’Arcy. His union controls much of what unfolds at DWP, where critics say a weak management team, led by neophyte director David Nahai, is making long-lasting strategic errors by letting D’Arcy bully his way into a shadow role as the actual executive at DWP.

Measure B would have given the IBEW a near-complete monopoly over all the work on the multibillion-dollar project. D’Arcy’s assumption was that the voters of Los Angeles wanted solar power so badly they wouldn’t mind the open-ended costs or the underlying dual ballot-measure motives: to dramatically increase the reach of IBEW while using the city ballot as a self-promotion tool for Antonio Villaraigosa.

Does this mean the end of solar for LA? Hardly. First of all, Measure B was only one part of a massive three-part plan involving residential and commercial components (read about it here). Secondly, there's nothing to stop Measure B's proponents from bringing a workable proposal to the City Council for public review:

From the LA Times:

One day after the solar energy plan known as Measure B went down to defeat, backers of the proposal said they would push the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to pursue the environmental initiative anyway.

Environmentalists, labor leaders and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said they would continue to press the municipal utility to achieve Measure B's core mission: the installation of 400 megawatts of DWP-owned solar panels throughout the city, and on city-owned property, by 2014.

Brian D'Arcy, who heads the union that represents DWP workers, said the ballot measure remains a good plan even though Los Angeles residents "voted the wrong way."

"It's the kind of thing our president was talking about. It puts people back to work where they live," said D'Arcy, business manager for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18. "I am not discouraged because it's the right thing to do, and I'm going to keep pressing them to do it."

But it's going to be up to us to move this process along. Don't think we have the power to do that?  Think again.

The Los Angeles Ethics Commission official revealed, as required by law, that Yes on B spent nearly $1.6 million only to fail against the tiny $74,451 mustered by No on Measure B, which it used mostly to send out mail.....

Its defeat was a shock to former Obama California campaign manager Mitchell Schwartz, who became part of the melodrama in January when he filed an unsuccessful court petition to water down the “con” language opposing Measure B in the Official Voter Guide. Schwartz’s attempt to prevent voters from seeing the “con” argument as written by Jack Humphreville and other Los Angeles activists turned into yet another black eye for Measure B.

Schwartz put up $1,000 of his own money to help Measure B. He now says, “When something that should be very popular doesn’t pass, it is a wakeup call to the mayor and the City Hall establishment. There was something that went on that the mayor and others need to look at and understand. There is some discontent out there which is directed at the powerful.”

The opposition surfaced on neighborhood council websites and in blog posts by people like DWP ratepayer advocate Humphreville, DWP Advocacy Committee activist Soledad Garcia, Citywatchla.com’s Ken Draper, MayorSamBlogspot.com’s Michael Higby and former Los AngelesDaily News Editor Ron Kaye, who blogs at ronkayela.com.

On January 3, DWP officials presented Measure B to a meeting of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition. Michael Trujillo, a consultant who ran the Yes on B campaign, disingenuously warned the crowd that without voter approval, “the DWP won’t do it” — when in fact, bloggers had already reported that DWP has a backup plan to embrace most of Measure B with or without voter approval.

“After the meeting, we started grappling with the idea that we had been dealt the hand of being a ‘No’ group,” says Stephen Box, a bicycle activist who wound up running the on-the-fly communications effort against Measure B.

Using sites like Twitter and Facebook, Box started organizing. By February, No on Measure B was trading punches with the mayor, City Council, IBEW and DWP, tapping into neighborhood councils and other groups to hold 80 town hall meetings and debates in February alone.

The blogging and social networking created a buzz, while the Los Angeles Daily News and L.A. Times both published editorials against the measure. A blog on the New York Times Website reported “dueling Facebook groups” fighting over Measure B. The City Council’s small group of just three fiscal conservatives, Bernard Parks, Dennis Zine and Greig Smith, broke ranks to slam the measure. City Controller Laura Chick, seen by some as the most popular politician in Los Angeles, warned that Measure B “stinks.”

This set the stage for a brilliantly sunny Election Day on March 3, when just under 18 percent of eligible voters showed up, and turned down Measure B by a margin of 2,644 votes.

“The public actually shut down a multimillion-dollar campaign” led by Villaraigosa, Box says. “They got a taste of real political will.”

Can rag-tag Facebookers and neighborhood council activists blog and tweet their way to a solar future and a real stake at the political table?

Mayoral spokesman Matt Szabo says Measure B’s opponents “will play an important role as citizen journalists in holding policymakers accountable as we move forward with our solar plan.” Garcetti’s office sounds less vague. “Eric did talk to Ron Kaye and Jack Humphreville and he does want to work with them,” says Garcetti spokeswoman Julie Wong.

But Brian D’Arcy, in a back-patting statement in which he insisted he was all about transparency, is already urging DWP and Villaraigosa to “swiftly implement a solar energy plan” that many experts say is not ready for prime-time.

Measure B’s opposition is wary about rushing a Measure B lookalike through City Hall. “The council members pay some lip service about transparency,” Kaye says. “But we haven’t heard [a plan for activing transparent] out of the mayor’s mouth or David Nahai’s mouth, and D’Arcy says, ‘Fuck you people, we will do whatever we want.’ ”

Change Comes To LA

Missed the Town Hall coverage?  You can see the whole thing here.

To see all my photos from the Town Hall at 

Miguel Contreras Learning Center, click here.

Help Obama Help America This Saturday!

President Obama was elected because millions of volunteers sacrificed their time and resources to take politics out of the hands of Beltway Insiders and put the power of our government back where it belongs: with the American people.

Our job as Americans now is to support our President in his quest to bring about the change that we elected him for.  He can't do it alone, and he is asking for your help.

We have to show that ordinary Americans are opening their doors to each other, discussing the need for action and demanding this new direction. For everyone who questions why the President has offered this plan, these pledges will be the answer: because the American people demanded it.

Organizing For America has launched the National Pledge Project Canvass which is happening Saturday, March 21st.  We are asking all Obama supporters to:

Take the Pledge - sign up here.

Take the Pledge to the Streets. Sign up for the Pledge Drive in your area:

VENICE

Whole Foods (Rose and Lincoln)

Venice, CA 90291

11am - 1pm

(meet in front of the store)

RSPV HERE

HERMOSA BEACH

615 24th Place

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

1pm-3pm

RSVP HERE

TORRANCE

Torrance Farmers Market 

Charles H. Wilson Park

2200 Crenshaw Blvd.

Torrance, CA 90501

9am-1pm

RSVP HERE

SAN PEDRO

Von's Shopping Center

1440 West 25th Street

San Pedro, CA 90731

9am-1pm

RSVP HERE

Tickets Still Available For Obama Tonight Show Appearance!

Tomorrow, Barack Obama will make his Southern California debut as President of the United States. After arrtiving at Long Beach Airport in the afternoon, he'll hold a 4 p.m. town hall meeting in Costa Mesa followed by a tour of the Edison International Vehicle Electrics Plant in Pomona on Thursday.

Thursday at 1pm he'll hold another town hall at the Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Downtown LA, then tape a segment for the Tonight Show with Jay Leno that will air Thursday night. Leno announced last week that he would host a free benefit concert on April 7 in Detroit -- one of the cities hit hardest by the recession. A second show has since been added to meet strong demand.

Tickets for both the OC and LA Town Halls are "sold out", but you still have a chance to see him in Burbank on the Tonight Show. 

This from NBC.com:

Tickets for the show are available the day of the show only at the NBC Ticket Box, located at NBC Studios, 3000 W. Alameda Ave. Burbank, CA 91523. The NBC Ticket Box opens at 8 a.m. All available tickets are distributed to the public on a first come, first-served two tickets per person basis.

Will The Last Sane Man At Fox Please Turn Out The Lights?

Shep Smith vs. Glenn Beck. 

(warning: keep all liquids away from the keyboard before playing)

Dick Cheney: Loves Limbaugh, Hates America

From ThinkProgress: In his first TV interview since leaving office, Cheney said he adores Limbaugh and even said he wants to see President Obama debate him:

CHENEY: Rush is a good friend. I love him. I think he does great work and has for years. He has now offered to debate President Obama on his radio show. Hell, I’d pay to see that. … I think Rush is a good man and serves a very important purpose.

Watch:

                     

Weeks after President Obama was inaugurated, former Vice President Cheney warned that Obama’s policy promises — including closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and ending torture — would lead to a nuclear attack on U.S. soil. Today, in a new interview with CNN, Cheney upped his fearmongering, insisting Obama has made Americans “less safe”:

KING: I’d like to simply ask you, yes or no, by taking these steps do you believe the President of the United States has made Americans less safe?

CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that’s a great success story. … President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.

Watch:

                  

Take It To The Streets For President Obama March 21st!

 
Organizing For America has launched the National Pledge Project Canvass which is happening Saturday, March 21st.  We are asking all Obama supporters to:
 
1)      Take the Pledge, sign up here
2)      Take the Pledge to the Streets. Read how here.
 
 
What is the Pledge?
 
We are Pledging our Support for President Obama's bold agenda on Healthcare, Education and Energy. 


Why are we are asking you to join us in Taking the Pledge to the Streets on March 21st? 

Change has to come from us. The partisan politics being
played out in Washington needs to stop and one of the best ways to make
this happen is to make a strong, national, grassroots show of support
for our president. We have to show that ordinary Americans are opening their doors to each other, discussing the need for action and demanding this new direction.

For everyone who questions why the President has offered this plan, these pledges will be the answer: because the American people demanded it.
 

 How do I organize a Pledge drive?

This project is very similar to a voter registration drive, but you'll be asking members of your community to sign pledge forms instead.  Set goals for yourselves -- maybe 100 pledges per person.  With just 1,000 people, that's 100,000 pledges of support!
 
Please plan your canvass events today and post them on the Organizing For America website.

You can download host instructions, the pledge form, tally sheets, policy agendas and volunteer sign-ins at -- Pledge Project Canvass. 

Then please send an email with your event details and OFA link to volunteer@obamaca.com

Want to volunteer, but don't have time to host? No problem! Find local canvasses by entering your zip code at this link.

 

TIPS:
Locations you pick should be located in high traffic areas or in neighborhoods where you can easily go door to door. Supermarkets, beach boardwalks, and walkable shopping districts are all great locations.
 
What you'll need:
Clipboards for your team
Pens
Some copies of the policy points
A bunch of copies of the pledge form (1 form per signature)
And an Obama Volunteer smile!  
 
What you'll do:
Go out and get folks to sign the pledge.

Your host packets will also include instructions on how to enter the data collected on that day. This is very important!
 
That's it.
 
Now let's go change the world!
 

John Stewart vs. Jim Cramer and CNBC

John Stewart takes down Jim Cramer and CNBC. Maybe not Morrow vs. McCarthy, but it'll do.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part One

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part Two

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part Three


And now the outakes, minus the bleeps!

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Outake One

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Outake Two

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Outake Three

Schwarzeneger To Refuse $839 Million In Federal Unemployment Stimulus Funds

From D-day:

Arnold Schwarzeneger got a lot of good press from going on ABC and saying that he would take the stimulus money of any GOP governor who refused a portion of it.

"Well, Governor Sanford says that he does not want to take the federal stimulus package money. And I'll say to him, I'll take it," Schwarzenegger said. "I'm more than happy to take his money or any other governor in this country that doesn't want to take this money. I'll take it, because we in California need it. I think it's a terrific package. I think if you ask a thousand people for their opinion, what is their ideal stimulus package, you will have a thousand different answers. So everyone's is a little different. I think he's done a great job and I think California benefits tremendously from that $80 billion of tax benefits there, for around $35 billion. There are other advantages: $45 billion of money that go to transportation, to education, to health care, all those different areas. There's even some money that could benefit our revenues or, I should say, our budget itself...."

As you may know, what Sanford and Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour and these Southern Republican Governors were objecting to is changing their unemployment eligibility statutes so they could accept millions in additional funding through the stimulus to give to the jobless. It's the best kind of stimulus there is and would probably keep some of the retail sector in business, but these Governors feel that once the federal money to fund the new eligibles ran out, it would be too burdensome on business to raise the funds. So they have, rhetorically at least, sided with the corporate community in rejecting the funds.

Which is exactly what the Governor appears to be doing.

At a hearing of the Assembly Insurance Committee Wednesday, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's representative, Labor and Workforce Development Agency Undersecretary Steffanie Watkins, refused to support AB 3x 23, legislation that makes California eligible for $839 million in one-time federal unemployment insurance funds available at part of the President's economic stimulus package.

This from the same Governor who just last week was all over the national media circuit criticizing Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and other Republican Governors who were spurning economic stimulus funds.

What a difference a week makes.

In the end, the bill made it out of committee by an 8-2 vote with members of the Yacht Party crossing the aisle, suggesting that the legislature would have the 2/3 vote necessary to override Schwarzenegger, if it came to that. But take note of the extreme hypocrisy here. Mr. Governor-by-Magazine-Cover, the media darling, goes on national TV and wags his finger at fellow Republicans who won't take stimulus money. Then he signals that he won't take stimulus money FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON as those governors he criticized.

Incredible. This is another reason why the Governor has worn out his welcome with the people of California, has a negative approval rating, and can't poll above 31% in a Republican primary anymore. He has lost the trust of the electorate. He also happens to be a piss-poor lawmaker who has pushed the state to the brink of collapse. But you might have guessed that.

The Once And Future Limbaugh

While subbing on the Pat Sajak show in the 1990, Rush has his ass handed to him by the studio audience. It might explain why he prefers to work in a small, dark booth, and will only take calls from sycophants.

From Wikipedia:

Two weeks before The Pat Sajak Show was canceled, on March 30, 1990, Rush Limbaugh (whose radio show had just recently been syndicated and was still largely unknown) made headlines when he guest-hosted the program, and in a departure from its regular format, entered the audience to get its response about a bill in Idaho allowing for abortion on which he had just commented. After a verbal confrontation with an angry woman in the audience, Limbaugh addressed the camera and suggested that he went into the audience in an attempt to show the viewing public that there was an underlying prejudice against him. Due to the constant heckling by audience members, Limbaugh decided to conduct his interview with Sydney Biddle Barrows in another studio.

After a commercial break, Limbaugh attempted to address the topic of affirmative action, but was heckled again by several male audience members calling him a "murderer" before he could make a point. Limbaugh sat silently with the camera focused on him for nearly a minute while audience members continued shouting phrases such as "You want people to die!" Limbaugh responded with, "I am not responsible for your behavior," and got an ovation from the remainder of the crowd, as the few dissident audience members continued to shout.

After another break, Limbaugh returned and conducted the final segment from an empty studio after the audience had been cleared. He stated that the audience was not "evicted from the studio" or "forcibly restrained from doing anything they did" and gave CBS credit for handling the situation in the manner it did.

Limbaugh later publicly suspected the dissident audience members were planted by the show's producers as a publicity stunt, but that he was not informed in advance or after the fact, if that were indeed the case.

Limbaugh eventually gained his own short-lived syndicated television talk show.

What, ANOTHER California Special Election?

Yep. Mark you calendar - May 19th.After an endless stream of municipal, state and national elections, California activists and organizers are going to have an uphill battle turning out the vote.

Yet the May election might be one of the most important elections for California citizens in living memory.

Why?

Remember the craptacular budget the Republican legislative minority crammed down our throats last month? The one that will force an average working family of four to pay an additional $1000 over the next 17 months in regressive taxes like sales tax, personal income tax and vehicle license fees while, at the same time, big business got about one billion dollars in permanent tax breaks?

Yeah, that one.

Well, it turns out that the budget deal to close California's $42 billion deficit will fall apart unless voters approve 6 initiatives on May 19th.  (click on the links for a full description):

• Proposition 1A- Stabilizes State Budget. Reforms California Budget Process. Limits State Spending. Increases 'Rainy Day' Budget Stabilization Fund.
  

• Proposition 1B - Election Funding. Payment Plan.
  

• Proposition 1C - Lottery Modernization Act.
  

• Proposition 1D - Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget.
  

• Proposition 1E - Ensures Funding for Children's Mental Health Services. Helps Balance State Budget.
  

• Proposition 1F - Elected Officials' Salaries. Prevents Pay Increases During Budget Deficit Years.
  

Of all these, Proposition 1A will cause the most long-term damage to our state. It's quite literally the last nail in the coffin built by Proposition 13.  Should Prop 1A, pass, it would further tie the hands of the California legislature, making permanent recent spending cuts for education, social-services, and environmental protection.

Yet at the same time, Prop 1A may prove the most vulnerable, since passage would also extend regressive tax increases for another 4 years (as opposed to 2 should it fail). As a result, Prop 1A may prove as unpopular on the right as it is on the left. 

All this, of course, are just symptoms of a greater disease. As it stands now, our legislature can neither pass a budget nor raise taxes without a 2/3ds majority. As a result, we've had to fill budget gaps by floating bond measures (borrowing) and slashing programs.

But we can't keep patching up the 8th largest economy in the world with band-aids and super glue. Unless we find away to loosen the grip of a small minority of legislators, this state will fall apart, and likely drag the rest of the country down with it.

Essentially, there are only two ways to do this, turn 5 Republican seats in the state legislature Blue to achieve a 2/3ds super-majority, or pass a ballot initiative that would repeal the 2/3ds rule for both passing a budget and for raising taxes.

The recent budget drama has pushed this issue front and center. Already there are three budget-related initiatives gathering signatures. Yet others are being proposed. This fight will not be easy, (ironically, it would take a 2/3ds majority to repeal the 2/3ds majority!) and already there's a lot of debate on the best course of action, but at least the conversation is happening.

There's something everyone reading this can do right now to keep that conversation going. 

Sign the Pledge  Go to the Courage Campaign's "Stop The Insanity" page and pledge to restore majority rule in California. By pledging your support, you'll help organizers build a broad grassroots coalition with other progressive organizations to restore majority rule in California.  Members of that coalition are working on polling, reaching out to legislators, and gathering the information needed to get a winning and effective initiative on the ballot.

Write to the Courage Campaign organizers and tell them you support majority rule for both the budget and for raises taxes. Otherwise we'll just end up in the same place, borrowing billions, patching the holes with regressive taxes, and slashing programs. Speaker Karen Bass put it this way:

"If the people of California are the victims in the chronic budget crisis, the 2/3 vote and the outdated revenue system are the villains. Because of the two thirds vote requirement when legislative Democrats made cuts and supported taxes-- and when the governor made cuts and supported taxes-a small Republican minority was still able to hold the budget hostage for almost three months."

I'm fired up and ready to go on this. Are you?

LA Municipal Election Results - Villaraigosa Avoids Embarrassment

About 16% of eligable voters participated in yesterday's election, only half the turnout of the 2005 Mayoral primary race, when Villariagosa faced stiff competition against Jim Hahn. With around 9,000 late absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted, the results are in: 

Villaraigosa avoids embarrassment:

Villaraigosa avoids the embarrassment of a runoff with 55.56% of the vote, fending off a large field of oddballs and unknowns. But our Mayor's future in LA is far from certain. Asked about a probable run for California governor in 2010, Villaraigossa was characterstically evasive:

"Whether or not I seek another office down the line - and remember, it's 2010, not tomorrow - I can tell you it'll have nothing to do with who's in the race. It'll have everything to do with where I can best serve,'' 

Don't kid yourself, Mayor. In political time, 2010 is the blink of an eye. My guess is Villaraigosa's campaign for governor will kick into gear on March 18th, the day after San Fransisco's Mayor (and fellow gubenatorial hopeful), Gavin Newsom, holds his town hall in Villaraigosa's back yard.

Wendy Greuel and City Council incumbents coast to victory, others face delayed gratification, May 19th runoff:

Wendy Greuel will be the new LA City Controller, having also avoided a runoff with nearly two-thirds the vote. Considering she had far more name recognition than any of her opponents and a war chest to match, this came as no surprise. 

The incumbents for Council Districts 1,3,7,9,11,13 and 15 all won and will not have to face a May 19th runoff. Republican attempts to win College Board seats failed, as Santiago and Lowry retained their seats. The other incumbents, Angela Reddock in seat 2 and Nancy Pearlman in seat 6, fell a few points shy of winning outright and will face a runoff. Steve Zimmer and Nury Martinez won their respective LAUSD races.

In Manhattan Beach, city council hopefuls, including the Venice For Change endorsed candidate, Kathleen Paralusz, will have to wait a week for the official results while late absentee ballots and provisional votes are counted. Currently only 88 votes separate Paralusz from the third-highest vote getter. Only the top three candidates will win a seat on the Manhattan Beach city council.

The following campaigns will continue onto the May 19th General Municipal Election: 

• CD5: David Vahedi vs. Paul Koretz
  
• City Attorney: Jack Weiss vs. Carmen Trutanich
  
• Community College Seat 2: Angela Reddock vs. Tina Park 
  
• Community College Seat 6: Nancy Pearlman vs. Robert Nakahiro 
  

As expected, Measures A, C, and D passed, Measure E did not.

In a surprise upset, Measure B "too close to call" 

The biggest upset of the evening was the weak showing for Measure B, the plan for adding 400 megawatts of municipally-owned solar power.

The City Clerk's office reported that 50.3% of voters were rejecting Measure B - a margin of only 1,300 votes. 

With 9,000 late absentee and provisional ballots yet to count, this could change, but the unofficial results quickly created a series of awkward "Truman vs. Dewey" moments throughout the night.

From the LA Times:

First up was H. David Nahai, the head of the Department of Water and Power, who sent an e-mail statement to reporters at 11:12 p.m. hailing Measure B's passage and congratulating voters for making "a bold choice for the environment." In his statement, Nahai said the DWP "has already laid the groundwork for ramping up the workforce required to begin implementing Measure B."

Half an hour later, the solar energy campaign sent its own e-mail, titled "Los Angeles Labor, Environmental, Community Leaders Celebrate Passage of Measure B." That statement said the DWP would have a Measure B implementation plan ready within 90 days.

And shortly after midnight, the head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor sent her own statement touting her group's involvement in the Measure B campaign. "Tonight, voters clearly agreed that Measure B is more of what we need to get our environment and economy back on track," said Maria Elena Durazo, the federation's secretary treasurer.

If Measure B does ultimately go down to defeat, it will be because smart, grass-roots activists like you realized that the so-called "Green Energy/Good Jobs" initiative had a lot more to do with politics than it did with providing clean, efficient and affordable solar power to the citizens of Los Angeles.

To give you some perspective, IBEW, the DWP labor union which wrote the initiative (and for many years before that, actually opposed solar power for LA, because they saw it as a threat, not an opportunity), spent nearly $300,000 to promote Measure B, and another $200,000 to help elect Wendy Greuel as LA City Controller. (The Controller's office would be tasked with auditing the effectiveness of Measure B should it pass.) 

Measure B's opponents on the other hand, were largely made up of independent grassroots organizers, activists, neighborhood councils and City Hall gadflies - not exactly the most connected, powerful or well-funded group you could imagine. But aided by a few high profile editorials and the internet, the opposition managed to get the word out - and make a difference.

If Measure B fails, is that the end of solar in LA?

Not by a long shot. There is nothing to prevent the City Council from doing now what they should have done five months ago before they punted this political football over to the voters.

If voters reject Measure B on March 3, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the City Council, and the mayor would have the opportunity to do what they should have at the beginning of 2008 instead of trying to pull a fast one on L.A. residents.

What if Measure B fails? Following the recommendations of City Controller Laura Chick, the DWP should develop a full and comprehensive plan for a solar energy program that generates 400 megawatts of power locally. The plan should be presented to Los Angeles neighborhood councils, the DWP Board of Commissioners and the City Council for further debate and refinement. Finally, the City Council should discuss the plan in an open and honest fashion before passing an ordinance. We know that the DWP, the City Council and the mayor all have the political will to implement a solar program, as do many others in the city. So passing an ordinance should not be a problem.

Importantly, the ordinance should not eliminate competitive bidding so we can create a more vibrant solar industry here in Southern California.....

By creating an open system, the DWP and its many commercial and industrial customers would be able to benefit from experienced contractors and workers from the skilled building trades. A vibrant, open system that incorporates a larger share of the solar energy community would create far more jobs than the 200 to 300 new ones envisioned by Measure B. It would serve not only Los Angeles but the rest of the country and possibly even the entire world, just as L.A.'s movie industry has a global reach. 

Without a doubt, home and business owners would want to take advantage of the expertise in this open solar community and install their own green power facilities, generating more than the 400 megawatts of clean energy outlined in Measure B.

Make your voice heard. Encourage the City Council and the Mayor to do the right thing and get moving on solar, with or without Measure B:

Mayor Villaraigosa: mayor@lacity.org 

Eric Garcetti - Council President: councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org

Bill Rosendahl - CD 11: councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org