If you’re not outraged, we’re not doing our job.
HOME •
BASE8 •
BABYLON •
VIDEOS •
RSS •
TWITTER •
GOOGLE READER
Via email from People For the American Way:
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post! 
California may be in a shambles, but living here still has a few rewards — Barbara Boxer among them.
By the way, when you get to Sen. Boxer’s floor remarks, notice the letter from Lee Baca — do you remember his name? We certainly do. 
Via email this morning:
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
As my grandmother would say, while lifting her eyes and her outstretched hands heavenward: “Che pastiche!”
In short: To get the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed, it was attached to next year’s defense funding authorization bill — a must-pass bill, but one President Obama warned he would veto if it “included a provision to fund seven twin-engine F-22 Raptors at a cost of $1.75 billion” (WaPo). The F-22 funding was struck, increasing the likelihood the bill would pass, and Obama would sign it — thus increasing the likelihood the attached Matt Shepard Act would be signed into law along with it.
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
WASHINGTON, DC — July 21, 2009 — Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Judy Biggert (R-IL) today reintroduced the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. House, along with Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and over 50 other original co-sponsors.
Tweet This Post!
No offense to Ted Kennedy, but…
Big damned deal. I can’t afford bloody health insurance — which pretty much guarantees I won’t be bloody well alive to need longterm home-health care. Cagey, this Congress, making themselves look like a bunch of humanitarians, while betting on the majority of us carking it before we’ll need it:
Finally, long-term home health care WITH LITTLE FANFARE, a new public program to help pay for long-term care for adults is moving through Congress. The premium is low and the coverage is good.
Largely geared to personal and health services provided in the home, though it extends to nursing home care as a last resort, the new coverage is built into the emerging formula for national healthcare reform. …
Yeah, I’m just in the mood tonight.
Tweet This Post!
Via email from the Courage Campaign:
Dan Choi, a native of California and an Army Lieutenant, asked us to share the news of the verdict from his military trial with the Courage Campaign community.
Your overwhelming response to Lt. Choi’s requests for support has touched him deeply. In the last five days, 162,741 people signed Lt. Choi’s letter to the Army. And, a few weeks ago, 141,262 people signed Lt. Choi’s letter to President Obama. Combined, more than 300,000 signatures were collected and submitted to the Army by Lt. Choi as “Exhibit E: Courage Campaign.”
Tweet This Post!
Say it with me: “filibuster-proof majority.”
Coleman concedes Senate race to Franken The long-running political saga known as the Minnesota US Senate election is finally over.
After the state’s Supreme Court today ended the recount and affirmed Democratic challenger Al Franken as the winner, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman conceded. That cleared the way for Franken to be seated, giving Democrats a potentially filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate — and giving a boost to President Obama’s agenda. …
More at the link.
Oh, I know what the Dems’ excuse will be for anything and everything they just don’t wanna do: “We’re too close to midterms… Just wait until after the next election cycle…”
Nevertheless: Congratulations, Al. You’re good enough, and doggone it, people like you.
Tweet This Post!
Good gays:
Pulling out out of the DNC fundraiser: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey, Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, and WordPerfect founder (and million-dollar donor to No On
Good, BIG gays: Caught this just before I went to post: We’re stunned — and thrilled — to learn that the National Stonewall Democrats (there is no bigger or more influential organization of LGBT Democrats) has pulled out as well.
Tweet This Post!
Our good friends at People for the American Way have a petition for all of us to sign:
“Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont now allow same-sex couples to marry and to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage in those states. And thousands of same-sex marriages performed in California before the passage of Prop 8 ended equal marriage there are still valid according to a recent court ruling.
“But in none of these places can someone in a same-sex marriage who has paid into the social security program collect survivors’ benefits if his or her spouse were to pass away, nor receive the hundreds of other important federal benefits that heterosexual married couples are entitled to receive. This is because of the prohibitions contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“DOMA is a looming roadblock to full legal equality for same-sex couples … a roadblock that candidate AND President-elect Barack Obama pledged to remove.
Tweet This Post!
June 15, 2009
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have had the privilege of meeting you on several occasions, when visiting the White House in my capacity as president of the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights organization representing millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people across this country. You have welcomed me to the White House to express my community’s views on health care, employment discrimination, hate violence, the need for diversity on the bench, and other pressing issues. Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,”[1] I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.
So on behalf of my organization and millions of LGBT people who are smarting in the aftermath of reading that brief, allow me to reintroduce us.
Tweet This Post!
Today’s Congressional Record isn’t available yet, but when it is, it will be here.
In the meantime, The Washington Blade has a rundown of the proceedings:
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
Yes, Virginia, there are a few good congresscritters out there — and since we’re much more prone to zinging the bad ones, we’re long overdue in recognizing one of the very best.
The perfect opportunity to do just that came with Anna Eshoo’s remarks to gay and lesbian California last night.
Tweet This Post!
Details at Immigration Equality.
Wow. Keep your fingers crossed!
Tweet This Post!
Good Frank Rich piece, “La Cage aux Democrats,” that deserves to be read in full:
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
Short version: I KNOW this shit backwards and forwards, and I keep WRITING about it, and nobody IN CHARGE ever freaking LISTENS! What the hell am I doing? Who am I trying to convince? I must be out of my freaking mind.
What’s set me off this time:
A transcript of openly gay Congressman Jared Polis saying he thought hate crimes passed RANDY BROWN: Is Washington aware of the fact that people may get hurt? Because we might get hurt in the process of trying to just come out of the closet, just trying to help the process along. It’s a very, very frightening thing.
JARED POLIS: Have your local law enforcement agencies been helfpful in offering you protection when you feel threatened?
BROWN: No.
POLIS: They haven’t?
BROWN: No.
POLIS: This is one of the reasons we have a federal hate crimes law, for that very reason. Sometimes in some conservative areas they don’t prosecute hate crimes, so we have on the books a law that allows the federal government to prosecute those if your local DA refuses to. So you might want to report it to your federal attorney general for your area if you feel threatened and the local authorities are not investigating or don’t seem to care. You can turn to the federal government for investigation of potential hate crimes.
BROWN: They generally throw hate crimes right out the court window.
POLIS: Well, that’s what your local, that’s what the state does, but I’m saying there is a federal recourse for that. That’s the very reason we did it.
[AT THIS POINT, TEXAS STONEWALL PRESIDENT DAN GRANEY STANDS UP AND TELLS POLIS THAT THE MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT DIDN’T PASS.]
POLIS: Oh, it didn’t pass? OK. So we still need to pass it? OK. So we’ll try to pass that one for you, too. …
More at the link.
And this guy was elected to public office? And we were all so excited about an openly gay Congressman? The LACK of federal hate-crimes legislation is one of the biggest “gay issues” this side of marriage! How can he not know this stuff?!
Somebody find me a brick wall, so I can slam my skull against it until I bleed out. No, no, just do me the mercy of freaking killing me, right now. I don’t think I can stand another minute of gay “leadership” that doesn’t know what the bloody hell is going on, from Jared Polis to the No On 8 committee.
Is everyone supposedly “in charge” 14 years old? Does no one in any position of authority know his ass from a hole in the ground? Is this why I keep getting Google queries in my server logs asking, “How did Harvey Milk die?” (You think I’m kidding about the Harvey Milk query? I’m not.)
I need to stop reading, stop listening, stop trying to make sense to anyone who doesn’t know this stuff already, or I’m going to lose my freaking mind, once and for all.
And if anyone reading this knows Jared Polis, tell him to get his ass over here, and I’ll give him a crash course in LGBT history — which he needs, desperately, before he opens his yap again and makes us ALL look ignorant.
Hey, Jared, can you tell me what the UAFA is, without asking anyone, or looking it up? Do you know what those letters stand for? Do you know what it was called before it was the UAFA? Do you know what year it was first introduced in the US House of Representatives? Do you know who wrote it? Do you know what state its author comes from? Do you know if that Rep is still in office? Do you know if it passed? Do you have any farking clue on earth why we need it? If you answered “No” to any of those questions, give me a call, ’cause I can school you on every answer, and a hell of a lot more.
Jesus! No wonder we never get anywhere in this country! Our own people are as ignorant as our enemies!
Tweet This Post!
Of course, he had to apologize to Dianne Feinstein, ’cause she’s somebody who could, like, you know, actually make his next four years less than pleasant (unlike us lowly ‘mos, who he thinks he’s got in his back pocket, no matter what he does):
President-elect Barack Obama had to do a little fence-mending Tuesday with the new Congress controlled by his own party — apologizing to a key Senate Democrat for failing to consult on his decision to name veteran Washington hand Leon Panetta CIA director.Vice President-elect Joe Biden also branded it a mistake for Obama not to discuss the decision in advance with the incoming Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Sen. Dianne Feinstein. …
After complaining Monday about the president-elect’s lapse, Feinstein, who will oversee Panetta’s confirmation hearing, said Tuesday that both Obama and Biden had called to reassure her. Feinstein had also questioned Panetta’s lack of grounding in intelligence matters.
“I have been contacted by both President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden, and they have explained to me the reasons why they believe Leon Panetta is the best candidate for CIA Director,” Feinstein said in a coolly worded statement. She added that she looked forward to “speaking with Mr. Panetta about the critical issues facing the intelligence community and his plans to address them.”
Feinstein was miffed not only because of the breach in normal protocol but also because Intelligence Committee Democrats were still smarting from being largely dismissed by the Bush administration for eight years. …
Yeah, well, with each new day, I keep wondering more and more when — er, if — we’re going to see this big hopey-changey thing I heard so much about during the primaries. Somebody let me know if it ever happens, kthx.
Obama also didn’t consult outgoing chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., about his unusual choice- something a committee official said should have happened both for protocol and political reasons. …
Backstory:
Now We Know Why Obama Couldn’t Pick Richardson for VP, Even If Obama Didn’t; Meanwhile, Panetta is in as CIA Chief, January 5, 2009
Tweet This Post!
We couldn’t make this crap up:
Rejecting The ‘Chuck And Larry’ Defense:
Equal Benefits For All Federal EmployeesBack in September, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs considered the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, a bill that would provide Federal benefits to same sex domestic partners of Federal employees. Howard Weizmann, the deputy director of the U.S. Office Of Personnel Management (OPM) objected to the bill because it “could lead to fraud and abuse in the programs we administer.”
Proponents of the legislation, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the bill’s sponsor, and Susan Collins (R-MI), remained skeptical of Weizmann’s claim, arguing that a large number of private sector companies — including more than half of Fortune 500 companies — already offer domestic partnership benefits and successfully detect fraud through verification systems that should provide models for the federal government.
Weizmann, however, remained unconvinced. He claimed that the office was unaware of any interest from Federal employees for such benefits even and suggested that since fraud occurred in a fictional movie about two heterosexual New York firefighters who pretend to be a gay couple, it would be a problem in real life:
First of all, to suggest that we are being far fetched in the sense that these benefits are open to fraud or abuse. It’s not an unrealistic concern. I would suggest even Hollywood has discussed this in a movie with Adam Sandler. In which, I think, ‘Chuck and Larry’ get married, which the subject of the movie, was quite frankly, was insurance fraud, along the lines of what we’re discussing. This is not far fetched and it’s not disingenuous to suggest such.
Listen…
More at the link.
In the meantime, I think it is neither far-fetched nor disingenuous to suggest that Mars Attacks! is a realistic portrayal of what might happen if, well, Mars attacks.
Jiminy Christmas, and our tax dollars pay Weizmann’s salary?
Tweet This Post!
…which means Democrats will now have 58 seats in the Senate. Not a filibuster-proof 60, but still pretty sweet:
Stevens concedes Alaska Senate race Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, the Republican lawmaker convicted on felony corruption charges in October, officially conceded the Senate race to Democrat Mark Begich on Wednesday. …
Tweet This Post!
Major barfage, but that’s why it’s funny. Best line: Tony Perkins of the Let’s Make Up Shit About Homosexuals to Scare Stupid People With “Research” Council saying that “many churches are afraid of offending people”:
Tweet This Post!
Recently a woman reported that she was brutally raped at her home in Charlotte [NC]. Now an anti-gay marriage amendment has been introduced in the state Senate. You may wonder what the two have to do with each other. I believe they are directly related. You see, the woman, who chose not to disclose her identity to the one local TV station, WBTV, that covered the crime, said she was a lesbian, and that while brutalizing her, her attacker made it clear that he was raping her because she was a lesbian.… [In North Carolina] crimes committed on account of a victim’s sexual orientation are not classified as “hate crimes” under state law. But make no mistake, gay people are targets. The violence is real and it is systematic.
Efforts to amend the state constitution to preclude forever a same-sex couple from marrying are but one component of that system of violence. Such efforts, regardless of their sponsors’ intention, have the effect of branding gay North Carolinians as the “other,” as something less than equal.
Imagine systematically denigrating a segment of the population and then believing that the consequences stop with the law on the books, without any real-world ramifications. When proponents of a marriage amendment brand certain North Carolinians as targets for special disadvantage, other people believe them, and gay people, like the woman in Charlotte, are raped — or worse.
Last semester, I taught the close friend of a young man named Sean Kennedy. … Sean is dead. In May 2007, he was assaulted in Greenville, S.C., by a young man who called him “faggot” while punching him so hard that he broke every bone in Sean’s face. Sean fell to the pavement; the impact caused his brain to separate from his brain stem.
Shortly after driving away, Sean’s killer left a message on the cell phone of one of Sean’s friends: “Tell your faggot friend that when he wakes up he owes me $500 for my broken hand.”
Or consider Scotty Joe Weaver… Or there is the case of Danny Overstreet…
Studies show that in states, particularly in our neighboring Southern states, where anti-gay marriage amendments are in place, violence against gay people, and especially gay youth, is escalating at alarming rates. …
The [North Carolina] anti-marriage amendment was introduced on May 14 by Sen. Jim Forrester, R-Gaston, whose wife recently wrote that gay people in North Carolina are “seeking to … rob our children of their innocence.”
Reading those words, I thought of my friend, shot at on the streets of Roanoke, who has now been with his partner for 13 years; neither of them is interested in robbing anyone of his innocence. I thought of Sean Kennedy, Gwen Araujo, Michael Sandy, Brandon Teena. Doesn’t anybody care about their innocence? …
Some in our state Senate recently opposed a bill passed in the House that would protect gay youth and youth perceived to be gay from bullying and harassment on that account. I can only assume that the opponents believe these youths deserve to be beaten, cut, urinated on and set on fire as gay youth I have known and counseled have been. Do these kids also deserve death?
It’s a hard truth, but when you recognize that marriage amendments, and the dehumanizing culture of which they are a part, break not only hearts but also bones, you understand what really is at stake. …
Tweet This Post!
Overall, there’s good news for equality — but bad news for choice — in the latest survey from the Public Policy Institute of California.
At first glance, it looks like support for California’s anti-marriage initiative, Proposition 8, is up three points since last month — but don’t panic: Remember that we’re tracking two different polls (the Field Poll and the PPIC Statewide Survey) — and the one-percent difference you see between the August and September PPIC surveys is statistically insignificant; the PPIC margin of error is between two and three percent in either direction. (See “About the Survey” at the end of this article.)
Of course, “Don’t panic” doesn’t mean “Be complacent.” There’s a lot of work to be done if we’re to defeat anti-gay bigotry at the polls, and we need everyone on deck.
May Field Poll: 51% oppose (good); 42% support (bad)
July Field Poll: 51% oppose (good); 42% support (bad)
August PPIC Survey: 54% oppose (good); 40% support (bad)
September Field Poll: 55% oppose (good); 38% support (bad)
Today (September PPIC Survey): 55% oppose (good); 41% support (bad)
Electorate Engaged, Worried About Economy
Palin Energizes GOP But Fails To Change the Race
SAN FRANCISCO — September 24, 2008 — California’s likely voters prefer the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden to Republican contenders John McCain and Sarah Palin by 10 points, but they’ll be watching closely to see how the candidates perform in a series of televised debates before marking their ballots. Eight in 10 say the debates, which begin Friday, will be very important (38%) or somewhat important (41%) in deciding who gets their votes, according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The James Irvine Foundation.
What do they want to hear the candidates debate? The economy leads the list.
Despite a month of high-profile activity that included the party conventions and selection of vice presidential candidates, the Democratic contenders’ lead (50% to 40%) over the Republicans among California’s likely voters is nearly identical to what it was in August (48% to 39%). Widely viewed as a move to win over women voters, McCain’s addition of Palin to the GOP ticket has shifted few votes to the Republicans. Female likely voters, who supported the Democratic ticket by 21 points last month (53% to 32%), support it by 20 points today (56% to 36%). Democrats and Republicans support their respective party’s tickets in overwhelming numbers, while independents back Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin, 53 percent to 35 percent. Latino likely voters favor Obama-Biden (57% to 30%), but their support for the Democratic ticket has dropped substantially since August (71% to 16%).
As the campaign enters its final weeks, a majority of California’s likely voters (65%) say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting. They are happier with their choices than they were a month ago (64% today, 48% in August), with Republicans registering the sharpest increase in satisfaction (67% today, 35% in August). Democrats’ satisfaction is also higher (74% today, 68% in August).
“The selection of Governor Palin dramatically increased the enthusiasm of California Republicans for their ticket, but it does not look like it will change many votes,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. “Californians are loyal to their parties in this race, but they still hope to learn more from the debates. They are worried about the economy, upset with leaders at all levels of government, and want to hear the presidential candidates’ plans to change the course.”
VOTERS RANK ECONOMY AS TOP ISSUE FOR DEBATES
With Wall Street in turmoil, likely voters across political and demographic groups most frequently name the economy as the issue they most want to hear the candidates debate. Four in 10 (40%) mention the economy, followed by the war in Iraq (12%), immigration (7%), and health care (6%).
When asked which candidate would do a better job handling key issues …
• Likely voters prefer Obama to McCain on the economy (53% to 37%), health care (57% to 29%), and energy policy (51% to 38%).
• They prefer McCain to Obama on foreign policy (51% to 43%).
• They are more divided on who would better handle the war in Iraq (49% Obama, 44% McCain) and immigration (42% Obama, 40% McCain).
Views on these issues are divided along partisan lines, with most voters believing their party’s candidate is the one for the job. Among independent likely voters …
• A majority prefer Obama to McCain on health care (59% to 25%), the economy (50% to 39%), and energy policy (55% to 35%).
• They prefer McCain on foreign policy (53% to 36%).
• They are divided over who they would prefer to handle the war in Iraq (48% Obama, 46% McCain) and immigration (40% Obama, 39% McCain).
Regardless of their partisan leanings, Californians view the presidential election as crucial for the course of the nation. Most likely voters (79%) say that in making progress on important issues, it really matters who wins. With stakes this high in voters’ minds, it’s no surprise that nine in 10 are following news of the campaign very closely (52%) or somewhat closely (39%).
STATE BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE LOSING, RESTRICTIONS ON TEEN ABORTION WINNING
When it comes to the state ballot, a majority of likely voters oppose Proposition 8 (55% no, 41% yes), the constitutional amendment that would eliminate same-sex marriage in California. The overall percentages have held steady since August (54% no, 40% yes), but there have been shifts among voter groups. More Democrats plan to vote no on the measure (71% today, 66% in August), and more independents plan to vote yes (42% today, 36% in August). Eight in 10 likely voters say the outcome of this measure is very important (54%) or somewhat important (26%) to them, with those who plan to vote yes (62%) more likely than those voting against it (51%) to say the results are very important.
Almost half of likely voters back Proposition 4 (48% yes, 41% no), the constitutional amendment that would require a parent to be notified at least 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion. They were more closely divided in August (47% yes, 44% no). Voters defeated similar measures in 2005 and 2006.
Proposition 11, which would take the authority to draw legislative district lines from elected officials and give it to a commission of registered voters, has failed to rally a majority in favor or against it. Likely voters are as divided (38% yes, 33% no, 29% undecided) as they were in August (39% yes, 36% no, 25% undecided). Support for the measure has increased among Democrats by 5 points and dropped among independents by 10 points. However, divisions on this measure do not indicate support for the current redistricting process: About seven in 10 likely voters (69%) think it needs to be changed.
IN WAKE OF BUDGET STANDOFF, SUPPORT GROWS TO LOWER TWO-THIRDS THRESHOLD
At the time of this survey, the state budget standoff had entered its fourth month, and Californians’ frustration with the process was reflected in their changing views about structural reform. Three in four (76%) say major changes are needed in the budget process – an increase of 11 points since May, when the governor released his revised budget. Nearly half (49%) think it would be a good idea to lower the threshold for passing the budget from two-thirds to a 55 percent majority of the state legislature. This proposal, which was defeated at the polls in 2004, is opposed by only 37 percent of the state’s residents. A year ago, nearly half (46%) thought this change was a bad idea, and only 44 percent thought it was a good idea.
A majority (62%) say it would be a good idea to strictly limit the amount of state spending increases allowed each year, while less than a third (31%) consider it a bad idea.
APPROVAL RATINGS FOR STATE LEGISLATURE, BUSH SINK TO NEW LOWS
Against the backdrop of a worsening economy and the longest budget impasse in state history, Californians are feeling grim about the future and dissatisfied with many of their state and national leaders.
A record-high 44 percent of adults say that jobs and the economy are the top issues facing the state. This is true across all party and demographic groups, although Democrats (47%) and independents (44%) are more likely than Republicans (36%) to hold this view.
Nearly seven in 10 Californians (68%) expect bad times financially in the year ahead. About half say the current housing situation in California will hurt their finances a great deal (31%) or somewhat (21%). The perception that the state is going in the wrong direction is widely held (68%). While this negative view has changed little since last month, it has grown by 18 points in the last year.
Californians are pessimistic about their elected leaders’ ability to handle the challenges:
• State legislature gets record low rating: Only one in five Californians (21%) approve of the job the legislature is doing, a decline of 5 points since last month.
• Constituents give their own legislators low marks: Only one in three residents (34%) approve of the job their own state senator and assembly member are doing, an 8-point drop since March and a 7-point drop from a year ago.
• Governor fares slightly better: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 38 percent approval rating has held steady from last month but is still 12 points lower than a year ago.
• President Bush’s approval drops to new low: Among Californians, the president’s approval rating is 23 percent, a slightly more negative assessment than he received in a recent CBS News/New York Times national poll (27% approval).
• Congress’ job approval rating slips: Congress’ 29 percent approval rating is about the same as last month, but 4 points lower than in March.
• Congressional representatives rated higher: The state’s residents give higher approval ratings to their own Congressional representative (49%) and to Senator Dianne Feinstein (48%), Senator Barbara Boxer (44%), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (40%).
MORE KEY FINDINGS:
How Californians would have balanced the budget – Page 20
As they have since January, a plurality of residents (43%) favor a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, while fewer (36%) favor balancing the budget mainly through cuts and fewer still (7%) prefer tax hikes alone or borrowing money and running a deficit (5%). But they are deeply divided along party lines in their preferences.
Residents conflicted over the initiative process – Page 21
As they get ready to vote on a state ballot that includes 12 propositions — 10 of them citizens’ initiatives — Californians say the process is flawed and that there are too many initiatives on the ballot and that they’re too complicated. However, 38 percent say initiatives should be the guiding force in determining policy, while 32 percent choose the legislature and 20 percent prefer the governor.
Many say a third political party is needed – Page 22
Despite their views that there are important differences between the two major parties, a slim majority of Californians (52%) say that the nation needs a third political party. Republicans are much less likely than they were four years ago to say that the two major parties are doing an adequate job.
ABOUT THE SURVEY
This survey is the 31st in the Californians and Their Government series and is supported with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. It seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion on state and national issues and the November general election. This is the 90th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 192,000 Californians. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 California adult residents interviewed from September 9–16, 2008. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 1,157 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on methodology, see page 25.
Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998.
PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
Tweet This Post!
WASHINGTON — September 10, 2008 — Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released its fourth annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress.
CREW’s Most Corrupt Members of Congress provides a detailed analysis of the unethical and sometimes illegal activities of 24 congressmen and women who have most egregiously betrayed the public’s trust.
CREW also has launched the report’s tandem website, www.CREWsMostCorrupt.org, which offers short summaries of each member’s transgressions as well as the full-length profiles and all accompanying exhibits.
New to this year’s study are Reps. Marsha Blackburn, Vern Buchanan, Vito Fossella, Dan Lipinski, Charlie Rangel, Laura Richardson and Mike Turner, and Sens. Mary Landrieu and Norm Coleman.
Of this year’s list of 24, at least 12 are under investigation: Ken Calvert, John Doolittle, Tom Feeney, Vito Fossella, William Jefferson, Jerry Lewis, Alan Mollohan, Gary Miller, Tim Murphy, Rick Renzi, Don Young and Ted Stevens. One other, Charlie Rangel, is under a self-initiated House ethics committee investigation.
Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today, "With soaring gas prices, a housing market in crisis, rising unemployment, and a nation at war, elected officials should be prioritizing their constituents’ needs over their own self-interests. Unfortunately, the members of Congress listed in CREW’s Most Corrupt report have decided that their personal needs are paramount to those they represent. This report holds them accountable for those choices."
The 20 most corrupt Members of Congress
Dishonorable mentions
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions.
Tweet This Post!
July Field Poll: 51% (good guys) oppose Prop 8; 42% (bad guys) support
August PPIC Survey: 54% oppose; 40% support
Economic Angst, a Partisan Divide, Softening Support for Obama
Mark Start of Election Season
SAN FRANCISCO — August 27 — A majority of California’s likely voters oppose Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that would eliminate gay marriage, according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. Likely voters are divided on two other closely watched measures — one that would require a parent to be notified before a teenager has an abortion and one that would take the power to draw legislative district lines away from the legislature.
As the fall campaign season begins, Californians are united in their pessimism about the direction of the state and nation and in their worries about the economy. But they are split sharply on key issues ranging from the state budget to health care and the war in Iraq. Their views on the three state ballot issues — Propositions 4, 8, and 11 — reveal the fault lines among voters.
Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage, is favored by 40 percent and opposed by 54 percent of the state’s likely voters. Democratic (66%) and independent likely voters (59%) are against it, and Republican likely voters are in favor (60%). The last time voters decided this issue — in 2000 — they approved a ban on same-sex marriages by a wide margin (61% yes, 39% no). After the state Supreme Court ruled that ban unconstitutional, supporters of Proposition 8 qualified the initiative for the 2008 ballot.
Opposition to Proposition 8 this year is not an indication of a dramatic shift in voters’ opinions. Asked whether they favor letting gay and lesbian couples marry, likely voters are evenly split (47% in favor, 47% opposed) and have been since August 2005. Also playing a role in the November outcome is how strongly voters feel about the issue. A majority of likely voters (57%) in favor of Proposition 8 say it is a very important issue to them, while less than half (44%) of those opposed to the measure consider it a very important issue.
“It’s early in the campaign season, and in the end, the vote on this measure, like the other two, could be hard to predict,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. “Overall views on gay marriage have not budged in a year. Californians who plan to vote for Proposition 8 appear to hold that view with greater intensity than the opposition — which means they are very motivated to vote.”
PROPOSITION 4 REVEALS PARTISAN SPLIT, PROPOSITION 11 LAGS AMONG ALL GROUPS
Likely voters are divided over Proposition 4, which would amend the state Constitution to require that a parent be notified at least 48 hours before a minor has an abortion: 47 percent are in favor and 44 percent are opposed. Most Republicans (62%) favor the initiative, most Democrats (56%) are opposed, and independents are divided (48% yes, 44% no). Californians defeated a similar measure in 2005 (47% yes, 53% no) and in 2006 (46% yes, 54% no). These views on Proposition 4’s parental notification requirement do not signal a shift in opinion on abortion: Seven in 10 likely voters (71%) think the government should not interfere with a women’s access to abortion, similar to their response in February 2004 (74%).
Proposition 11, which would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts, has split California’s likely voters as well (39% yes, 36% no, 25% undecided). Republicans (47%) are somewhat more likely than independents (39%) and far more likely than Democrats (31%) to support the measure, which is championed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In 2005, a measure that would have turned redistricting over to a panel of retired judges was trounced (40% yes, 60% no).
Likely voters’ apparent lack of support for Proposition 11 does not indicate satisfaction with the current system: Seven in 10 say the redistricting process needs major (42%) or minor (27%) changes, and more than half (56%) say state legislators would more effectively represent their districts if an independent commission of citizens redrew district lines.
VOTERS PREDICT MORE CLOUDS OVER CALIFORNIA
Worried about the state’s future and distrustful of their leaders in Sacramento, Californians are in a grim mood. A record-high percentage of likely voters (39%) name jobs and the economy as the most important issue facing the state. Other concerns expressed by residents include the state budget situation (14%), education (7%), immigration (7%), and gas prices (5%). Most likely voters (75%) say California is already in an economic recession, and most (68%) say the state is headed in the wrong direction.
With the state’s leaders locked in a stalemate over an overdue budget, the governor’s approval rating has dropped among likely voters from 49 percent in July to 43 percent. The legislature fares even worse, with only 20 percent of likely voters approving of the lawmakers’ performance.
Most likely voters (84%) consider the budget impasse a big problem —the highest percentage since May 2004, when voters agreed to close the state’s budget gap by borrowing money in a multibillion-dollar bond sale. How would they deal with the budget shortfall this year? A plurality (44%) opts for a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Fewer (38%) would fill the gap mostly by cutting spending, and far fewer would do so mostly by increasing taxes (8%) or by borrowing money and running a deficit (4%).
OBAMA’S LEAD SHRINKS, PARTICULARLY AMONG INEDPENDENTS
The PPIC survey — taken before the conventions and announcements of vice presidential candidates — finds that Sen. Barack Obama’s lead over Sen. John McCain among likely voters (48% Obama, 39% McCain) has declined by 6 points since July (50% Obama, 35% McCain).
The most significant shift is among independent likely voters, with Obama’s share of their vote dropping 9 points (from 57% to 48%), while McCain’s share has increased 12 points (21% to 33%). Obama has the overwhelming support of Democratic likely voters (81%), and McCain’s support among Republicans is similarly strong (77%). Among other groups, female likely voters prefer Obama to McCain (53% to 32%), while men are divided (42% Obama, 46% McCain). Latino likely voters overwhelmingly prefer Obama (71% Obama, 16% McCain), and whites prefer McCain (38% Obama, 47% McCain). Likely voters under age 35 strongly favor Obama over McCain (65% Obama, 21% McCain), while support among likely voters age 55 and older is divided (43% Obama, 45% McCain).
In a worrisome sign for both candidates, likely voters are not especially satisfied with their choices for president. Just 48 percent say they are satisfied with their choices, and 49 percent are not. Now that the field has been winnowed, satisfaction with the candidates is much lower than it was during the primary season in January, when 64 percent were satisfied and 31 percent were not. Across parties today, more Democrats are satisfied (68%) than independents (40%) or Republicans (35%).
VOTERS TO CANDIDATES: IT’S THE ECONOMY, SENATOR
When asked what they would like the presidential candidates to talk about, the issue that California’s likely voters mention most often is the economy (34%), followed by the war in Iraq (12%), energy (8%), and foreign policy, health care, and immigration (6% each). The economy tops the list of issues among registered voters regardless of party (38% Democrats, 35% independents, 32% Republicans). It is also the top issue among Latinos (39%), followed by the war in Iraq (15%) and immigration (8%).
While united in their concern about the economy, California’s registered voters are split along partisan lines in their opinions about the government’s role in regulating it. In the aftermath of the subprime mortgage collapse, solid majorities of Democrats (67%) and independents (58%) think government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest, while less than half (41%) of Republicans hold this view.
Similar divisions show up on other issues likely to be discussed in the presidential campaign:
• War in Iraq: More than four in 10 likely voters (45%) say things are going somewhat well or very well for the United States in Iraq, a 26 point improvement since June 2007. But there are strong divisions across party lines in the views of registered voters: While 71 percent of Republicans feel this way, only 39 percent of independents and 20 percent of Democrats do. There are also vast partisan differences among registered voters about when to bring the troops home. While 76 percent of Democrats think the troops should be brought home as soon as possible, just 24 percent of Republicans share this view. Seventy-three percent of Republicans think the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq until the situation is stabilized, compared to 20 percent of Democrats.
• U.S. security: Half of likely voters (51%) doubt the positive effects of the Iraq war on the long-term security of the United States. But among registered voters, Democrats (68%) and independents (55%) are far more likely to hold this view than Republicans (27%).
• Immigration: California’s likely voters are divided in their perceptions of whether immigrants are a benefit (48%) or burden (45%) to the state. Once more, a closer look reveals a partisan split among registered voters, with 63 percent of Democrats viewing immigrants as a benefit and 66 percent of Republicans viewing them as a burden. Independents are more likely to say immigrants are a benefit (53%) than a burden (38%). When asked their views about immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years, 65 percent of likely voters say they should be given a chance to keep their jobs and apply for legal status, while 31 percent say they should be deported. Solid majorities of Democrats (77%) and independents (63%) favor a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, while Republicans are split (49% favor a pathway to citizenship, 45% favor deportation).
• Health care: A majority of likely voters (54%) favor a universal health care system run by the government and financed by taxpayers, compared to nearly four in 10 (39%) who prefer the current system. Among registered voters, Democrats (76%) and independents (62%) are more likely than Republicans (31%) to favor universal health care. Just over half of likely voters (54%) would be willing to pay higher health insurance premiums or taxes to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance. Among political groups of registered voters, most Democrats (66%) and independents (59%) would be willing to pay more, while most Republicans (59%) would not.
MORE KEY FINDINGS:
Californians say state government wastes a lot of money – Page 18
Six in 10 likely voters (63%) say the state government wastes a lot of the money they pay in taxes.
Approval of Congress drops to record low – Page 15
Approval rating of Congress hits a new low of 22 percent, while President Bush’s approval rating dips to 27 percent among likely voters, near his all-time low of 25 percent in July 2007.
Homeland security seven years after 9/11 – Page 21
A quarter of likely voters (24%) say terrorism and homeland security are big problems in California, nearly identical to perceptions before the last presidential election in 2004 and somewhat lower than the percentage in 2001 in the aftermath of September 11th.
ABOUT THE SURVEY
This survey is the 30th in the Californians and Their Government series and is supported with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. It seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion on state and national issues and the November general election. This is the 89th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 189,000 Californians. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from August 12–19, 2008. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 1,047 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on methodology, see page 25.
Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998.
PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
Tweet This Post!
Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy
The Paycheck Fairness Act passed by the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday evening is a major victory for women, as it is the most important piece of pay equity legislation to pass in decades. Fourteen Republicans joined Democrats to pass the historic measure with a final vote of 247 to 178. The Senate bill could be taken up after the August congressional recess.
The bill, if passed by the Senate and signed into law, could help women make real progress toward reducing the 23 percent differential in pay between women and men. Sex-based pay discrimination means much more than 23 cents on the dollar — it can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars over a woman’s lifetime that are lost to her and her family. These lost wages can mean the family is unable to afford college tuition or health insurance, and the lowered pensions and social security payments associated with lower income can lead to poverty for elderly women who were not able to save and invest for retirement.
The legislation would amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to strengthen penalties for equal pay violations, enhance data collection from employers so that patterns of sex discrimination in pay can be identified, and more directly place the responsibility on employers defending wage differences to show that the differences are due to factors other than sex. A particularly important provision establishes the right of wage discrimination plaintiffs under the Equal Pay Act to receive compensatory and punitive damages, a remedy that is available in most other anti-discrimination statutes.
The Paycheck Fairness Act requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to train employees and affected entities on matters involving wages, and encourages the Department of Labor to make grants for negotiation skills training programs for girls and women — sort of a “self defense” regimen for workers who cannot expect wage fairness from their employers. For African-American women and Latinas this legislation literally means a difference between living in poverty and surviving on a living wage. As a co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) explained, women of color suffer additional pay discrimination: Latinas are paid on average 57 cents and African-American women 68 cents, compared to the dollar paid to men.
In floor remarks, DeLauro recalled the unfair treatment of Lily Ledbetter whose pay discrimination claim was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. Legislation to address inequities in the law that affected Ms. Ledbetter has passed the House but is languishing in the Senate.
The treatment of women as second-class citizen cannot be tolerated, and this House victory is a sign that things are changing in Congress. We still must keep up the pressure on our elected officials, but change is coming.
Tweet This Post!
WASHINGTON — July 25 — The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund applauds the U.S. House’s vote late yesterday to repeal the HIV travel ban. The Senate voted July 16 to repeal the prohibition, which was codified by Congress in 1993. While immigration law currently excludes foreigners with any “communicable disease of public health significance” from entering the country, only HIV is explicitly named in the statute.
“For far too long, people with HIV have been inhumanely blocked from entering the United States due to profound ignorance, fear and misinformation. It’s time to abolish this arcane and unjust law once and for all. We applaud the House and Senate for acting to do just that, and we urge President Bush to move swiftly to sign the repeal.”
Tweet This Post!
Bad Behavior has blocked 1376 access attempts in the last 7 days.
