The Broad View

All fall down

In 1967 a horse named Foinavon won Britain's Grand National Steeplechase. His odds were 100-1.

Foinavon did not win because he was a great horse; he wasn't. He won because all the front-runners fell going over one of the notorious obstacles that make the Aintree course — and the race — a legend. The front-runners piled up on each other. Foinavon was so far behind that he missed the pile-up and was able to get through and clear the jump as the others were only barely regaining their footing.

I keep thinking of that Grand National as I watch the Republican pile-up. If Democrats are "winning," it's because Republicans are losing, not because we are the better bet in the race. I'm as happy as the next guy to see BushCo's well-deserved fall from grace, but I want Democrats to be the class of the field, to win not by default, but because we've got what it takes to be winners in our own right.

My heart falls to know that we're coming out of the gate with the focus-group-tested slogan "We can do better." Not exactly a thundering message, that. But I'm hoping that somehow we'll pick up speed. In that same race my husband and I had our money on another long shot, Red Alligator, who finished third. By the following year "our" horse had muscled up. And, glory be, he won! In his own right.

So I am hopeful. But only just. When I hear Wes Clark say, "We're the party of values, faith and national security," and then go on — in a couple of well-chosen bullet points — to say just what that means, my heart lifts up again. When I hear the touts talking up Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Biden et. al., well, folks, we can do better. And we must, dammit! (We could start by deep-sixing that stupid slogan.) But I'm keeping my money in my pocket for now, waiting for that dark horse who has the sinew and stamina to break through the pack and lead.

Good, but not perfect

I heartily second RJ's sentiments in the previous post: "Tomorrow it's back-to-work time.  As always, I feel that Democrats need to articulate a strong and coherent vision of America's future and its security.  I think that vision needs to repudiate the cynicism and manipulation that led us into Iraq, while stating clearly how we can be led out of that morass without 'buying' it as our own.   And I think any Democrat who voted for the horrific bankruptcy bill ought to find another Party to join."

For now, victory is sweet. For me, though--as a former citizen of New York City and still a resident of the greater metropolitan area--there is one gaping and sour failure: the reelection of Republican Michael Bloomberg as mayor of NYC.

Tuesday was a blur for me. My father-in-law, after a two-week battle, succumbed to cardiac arrest and passed away on Tuesday afternoon. Events overtook my family and I didn't even get to vote. It didn't matter much in the scheme of things, since the races in my neck of the woods were minor and I live in a strong Republican district.

I can, however, respond to Ellen's call for comment with some thoughts on the state of the New York City Democratic failure. I've already written as much to Ellen privately; what follows are my own warty feelings in the matter.

As a friend of mine said, Bloomberg bought the mayoralty. My response was that he wouldn't have been able to buy it if the Democrats hadn't put it up for sale.

First a bit of history: We moved out of Brooklyn in 1990, while David Dinkins was still mayor. He was completely inept, IMO. I know that statistics show that crime was beginning to drop during his tenure and in response to new neighborhood policing policies.

The incidents that marked his time in office, however, were so large and egregious that they'll always be associated with Dinkins. There were the Crown Heights riots which were a blot on all concerned and completely alienated the Orthodox Jewish community. They also cemented the growing rift between the black and Jewish communities, which was unforgiveable. Nobody seems to remember that there were a lot of Jews who were marching down south during the civil rights era in the '60s. The Crown Heights riots marked the end, I believe, of a natural alliance.

Then there was the Korean grocery store boycott on Church Ave. in Brooklyn--only about a mile or so from where I lived--which was just shameful. And Dinkins didn't seem to take a strong stand in either case. As a result the unrest dragged on much longer than necessary. His image was terrible--an out-of-touch mayor concerned more with fashionable togs on the tennis court and in the stands at Forest Hills than someone who could master events. Frankly, the white middle class in the city wanted to see a "Sister Souljah moment," but Dinkins never obliged.

City politics have always been rife with the richest and loudest special interest groups imaginable, and Dems have become adept at pandering in the worst way. As a result, the local Dem party is riddled with hacks. They haven't figured out that any pandering to one ethnic group begets resentment from the other groups. I won't even try to describe the complications of various uniformed and white-collar union factions.

Ferrer is a hack whose only claim to the nomination seems to have been his ethnicity and tenure as Bronx borough prez. It certainly wasn't his brilliant political instincts or charisma. As today's New York Times reports:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg forged his historic re-election victory on Tuesday by drawing roughly half of New York's black voters and about 3 in 10 Latinos to the Republican line, even though he faced a Hispanic challenger who sought to capitalize on ethnic pride, an analysis of voting returns shows.

The mayor's wide support among minority voters is a sign that the strategy of the Democrat, Fernando Ferrer, to build on a dependable base of black and Hispanic votes fell victim to emerging political realities: that blacks and Hispanics no longer vote reflexively as a bloc, and that a middle-class coalition can trump traditional ethnic-based appeals. The winning multiethnic coalition turned out to be Mr. Bloomberg's.

He won a second term by wooing liberal defectors from Democratic ranks and by carrying every Assembly district in which white Catholics or Jews predominate. He also carried the only district in which Asians outnumber others. [...]

His victory - 59 percent to 39 percent - defied the conventional political calculus in what was projected as the first mayoral race in which non-Hispanic whites would be a minority of the electorate. Most analysts said it was too early to draw long-term implications from this campaign for several reasons, including that Mr. Bloomberg spent more than $70 million on his campaign.

There are just too many bickering factions in Dem city politics. How else can one explain the fact that an overwhelmingly Dem city has elected Republican mayors for years? It's astonishing that they can't seem to find a strong, appealing candidate that everyone can agree upon, so instead the nomination goes to the next hack in line. That's what I meant by the Dems putting the mayoralty up for sale. A rich Republican like Bloomberg comes along and by paying enough for media and enjoying solid support from the ReThugs and business interests, he can buy his way into City Hall with no effective opposition. Plus, he was smart enough to avoid the ethnic thickets. Bloomberg is all about money, not race.

I know Bloomberg was a registered Democrat before conveniently turning Republican and that in the Republican party he is as far left as they come. That doesn't matter to me. Nor do any of his supposed good works as mayor matter. What matters is that a premier city of the U.S., the city that had to choose a mayor after 9/11, turned once again to a nominal Republican.

I don't want the Republicans to have NYC, it's as simple as that. I'm sure Dems who voted for Bloomberg feel they were voting for competence over hackery, and that they have the best interests of the city at heart. Still doesn't matter, in my opinion.

To me, there's the larger picture of the Republican Party in this country, and what it represents and what it does. Bloomberg has not denounced them. He has donated large sums of money to the Republican Party and to Bush personally. He eagerly hosted the scandalous Republican convention last year. He authorized and approved police tactics during the convention that were clearly unconstitutional and that resulted in police sweeps that rounded up and detained scores of people for no reason and with no real charges.

Finally, he is at heart a CEO. As such, I see him as a natural dictator, used to getting his way just because he's in charge. He will always believe that businesses' interests are in the best interest for everyone. Proof of that is his stubborn and quixotic support for the West Side stadium (at taxpayer expense) and trying to get the godawful Olympics to NYC. Right--like NY needs a net-loss Olympics to make it even more of a target!

But, hey, he's not my mayor. It will be interesting to see if the pathetic Dems can get their act together for 2009.

Update: I really should say something about Democratic victories on Long Island, where I live. The Times has a pretty good rundown and analysis:

Now the era of Republican hegemony on Long Island is over, and the implications for statewide politics as the 2006 elections for governor and United States Senate get under way are profound. Republicans can no longer count on Long Island for huge vote margins to push their candidates into office, officials in both parties said yesterday.

The shifting center of Long Island politics was underscored this week by a string of Democratic victories across the Island. In January, Democrats will simultaneously take control of Nassau and Suffolk Counties for what officials say is the first time. Both counties will still be run by Democratic county executives, and, thanks to the legislative seats that Democrats picked up in Suffolk County on Tuesday, Democrats will have a majority in both legislatures. The vaunted Republican machine of old is just a memory.

"I think the days of monolithic, one-party control by the Republicans, interrupted by short spurts of losses, are over," said John V. N. Klein, a Republican and a former Suffolk County executive. "They are going to have to fight for every election going forward. From a statewide standpoint, these two counties have been stalwarts, delivering huge pluralities for Republicans. Those pluralities can no longer be taken for granted."

The turn isn't all that sudden. The last few election cycles begat some stunning local Republican losses, and Gore and Kerry carried Nassau and Suffolk in 2000 and 2004. Nassau County voted for Clinton in 1992 and both LI counties went for Clinton in '96. Republicans finally managed to do on Long Island what they've done nationally--get cocky, overreach and become so inbred and corrupt that the stench was overwhelming:

The catalyst in Nassau County was the Republican mismanagement that left the county in a serious fiscal crisis, even during the economic boom of the late 1990's. Voters revolted. In Suffolk County, Republicans were implicated in a series of scandals - some referred to Brookhaven as "Crookhaven" - leaving many voters disenchanted with the local Republican Party and ready for a change.

Through the darkest periods, we must remind ourselves that the pendulum always swings. With Dem fortunes on the upswing, it would behoove us to not repeat the Republicans' mistakes.

Addendum, much later on: I'd like to clarify my thoughts on Bloomberg. When he decided to run for Mayor, he realized that he'd have an impossible time getting the Democratic nomination. Giuliani, after two terms, had to step down due to term limits and the Democrats were in full pursuit, convinced the office was theirs. The hacks lined up in yet another bruising primary campaign. If you all remember, the primary was set for September 11, 2001. The primaries brought the worst out of the hack brigade and alienated everyone, as usual.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, was never ideological. What he likes and wants is to run things. When he decided to switch, the Republicans greeted Bloomberg and his wallet with open arms. They hadn't had an effective NYC organization in ages. They had lucked out with Giuliani at a time the city was perceived to be falling to pieces, but there was a dearth of Republican political talent to follow him.

If NYC had to be run by Bloomberg, it might have been a Democratic Bloomberg if the Dems had exercised some deeper political calculation than "Whose turn is it?" They misjudged the appeal a non-ideological candidate, who cuts across ethnic divisions, would have. They forgot the power of the business interests, Bloomberg's natural constituency. And when the election came around, the voters were battered and frightened by the attacks. Their choice was between Bloomberg, the perceived moderate, and Mark Green, who had secured the nomination in a shrill runoff election against Ferrer after the crowded Dem primary produced no victor.

Bloomberg spent over $40 million on that race--an unheard-of sum at the time. This year he spent $70 million, which was surely overkill given his competition. Meanwhile, NYC Dems spent on ammo with which to shoot themselves in the foot. Fuhgeddaboutit.

More: To get some of the flavor of NYC politics, read this fascinating article from the Village Voice. It was written in October 2001, during the Bloomberg/Green mayoral campaign. The ethnic cross-currents are more like riptides:

The other [flyer] went straight over the top with the kind of inflammatory language that is always reserved for anonymous leaflets on election days. Typed in capitals, it was headed "An Open Letter to the Voters of the City of New York." Although it was unsigned, the author proudly admitted his work. The letter started with the September 11 terrorist attack and then linked the perpetrators of that tragedy to the election. It read: "One of the candidates is actively supported by these local terrorists, who had prominent roles in the Crown Heights riots, the Korean grocery boycott, the 125th Street arson, and the Tawana Brawley case, in each instance seeking to violently destroy the very fabric upon which this city is founded. . . . These local terrorists possess the same demented and perverted values as those who attacked the World Trade Center. . . . We must all work together to ensure the defeat of these local terrorists and the defeat of any politician they support. . . . Vote for Mark Green for Mayor."

Abraham was asked if he had shown the letter and press release to the Green campaign. "No, no. This we do on our own. This is our statement." Did the campaign help with costs or distribution? He said no again. "Look, we are with Green now, but, who knows? We could be with [Republican candidate Michael] Bloomberg. If people thought Bloomberg could win, they would be for him, no question."

For more on courting various ethnic factions and the potential pitfalls of endorsements in this year's election, see the NY Daily News here, and the The Jewish Week here. What a snake pit.

Afterglow and Hangovers

Allow me to take a break from my constant criticism of leading Democrats as poor strategic thinkers, cowardly souls afraid of confronting unpleasant truths, morally compromised careerists, perennial losers, etc., to say:

How sweet it is!

I was invited by my good friend Ellen to offer my thoughts on yesterday's election results, and they're simple ones.  First, I'd like to savor the glow of victory.  Democrats triumphed in New Jersey and even Virginia (yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia!)  Arnold lost all the way down the line.  Life is good.  Even those who - like me - see the many flaws of the Democratic Party, and feel that its leaders often let the country down at critical times, can set their feelings aside and kvell.

For a day.  Tomorrow it's back-to-work time.  As always, I feel that Democrats need to articulate a strong and coherent vision of America's future and its security.  I think that vision needs to repudiate the cynicism and manipulation that led us into Iraq, while stating clearly how we can be led out of that morass without 'buying' it as our own.   And I think any Democrat who voted for the horrific bankruptcy bill ought to find another Party to join.

I never lost hope after last year's election.  Tides turn.  The brave, the wise, and the patient are ready to ride the surging waves when they do.  I don't hold out hope for any Republican leaders, so my own little corner of the world is dedicated to hectoring those few Democrats willing to listen - in the possibly vain hope the Party will rise to its better instincts (which I believe are also its more politically saleable traits).  Let's hope Democrats see yesterday's results as a call to their better natures, not an invitation to keep playing pseudo-Republican.

There are huge challenges ahead of us, but they can all be met.  Today proved that.  All it will take is determination, courage, and a moral compass.  I know a lot of citizens who are ready.  Let's hope the leadership catches up with them.  The times demand no less of our leaders.

Cleaning Arnold's Clock

Prop 75, the anti-union initiative, has been a squeaker all night, and now, for the first time since the tallies started coming in, it's in the NO column, by a bare .8% — but that's better than the .6% margin just a few minutes ago.

A trend?

If it holds, California's voters will have definitively cleaned the Schwarzenegger clock.

In fact, if it holds, then all eight propositions on the ballot will have failed — and the $50 million taxpayers forked over so the governor could hold his showboating Special Election might just have well have been put through a shredder.

Thanks, Aahnold. Thanks a lot.

Update:

Dems win governorships in VA and NJ

Joy to Lowell Feld and the gang at RaisingKaine. And kudos to Matt Stoller at the CorzineConnection.

OK. OK. I know that Lowell didn't win Virginia for Tim Kaine singlehandedly. Ditto Matt for Jon Corzine in New Jersey. But you can't help being happy for your friends.

Sweet, guys, sweet.

Election Day

Just desserts for the good guys

Jillian writes:

The firefighters down the street have a sign up outside the station, "VOTE NO on 75 and 76." I'm baking them cookies for tomorrow when I head on down to vote.

California Spotlight: November 2005 (3): Ballot Propositions #74, #75, #76, #77

Part 1 (Ahnold) is here.
Part 2 (Props #73, #78, #79) is here.

---

For a concise guide to the ballot propositions and the stand various Democratic and progressive organizations are taking on them, please go to Speak Out California.

---

It's been a bitter fight, Schwarzenegger v. the People of California. The most recent soundings of the zeitgeist tell us that the People are poised to win. But it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best. The cost of this Special Election, foisted upon us by a governator who just couldn't wait for a regular election next June, is enormous, both in terms of dollars spent and in terms of downright voter fatigue. George Skelton in the Los Angeles Times expresses the view of the disgusted many: just vote No on everything.

Let's be fair. The California legislature has often been slow and even obstructionist when it comes to considering the governor's pet projects. Schwarzenegger thought he had a better chance taking his proposals directly to the people. It doesn't seem to be working out that way, however. And in the meanwhile vast sums of money that the state and its citizens can ill afford have been spent to satisfy Ahnold's insistence upon this last-ditch effort to ram his initiatives home.

The curious thing is that some of the ideas expressed in the propositions are not all bad, and should be debated in full at the appropriate time. For example:

There is general agreement that the present way in which voting districts are drawn is a mess. Gerrymandering at its most absurd. In fact there are even some reliably liberal organizations, devoted as they are to electoral reform, who are supporting Proposition 77, including the San Francisco Chronicle.

However, as George Skelton says, there are deep flaws in what the governor is proposing.

The current system is indefensible. If legislators had any shame, they'd have ended this conflict of interest long ago.

But this plan is nuts. Leaving aside whether it should be judges or citizens drawing the lines, these map-drawers would be selected through some overly complex, Rube Goldberg-type process. The measure requires redistricting for next year's elections, a logistical impossibility. There shouldn't be a disruptive, mid-decade redistricting anyway. And worse: Each new redistricting plan would need to be ratified by a statewide vote. It's a full employment act for political consultants.

Democrats have pledged to pass a sane, bipartisan plan next year. Hold them to it. NO on this.

Propositions #74 and #75 are largely transparent attempts to muzzle groups who have not been favorable to Schwarzenegger's tenure in Sacramento. In the past he has ripped into unions, particularly the teachers' and public employees' efforts to protect their members, their pensions — and their political clout. The unions have fought back, and appear to be winning the battle. NO on these two.

Proposition #76 would give the governor extraordinary power to do a slash-and-burn on the budget. A resounding NO on this one.

Steve Lopez in the L. A. Times says a pox on everybody's house:

...thanks to Schwarzenegger and his corporate pals on one side, and the forces of organized labor on the other, the political process has degenerated into nonstop fundraising by bitter enemies who then dump millions into TV ads that are designed to simplify and distort the issues while generally lowering the state IQ.

And this is where we are two years after a special election in which we elected a governor who promised he'd terminate special-interest fundraising, partisan monkey business and big borrowing, three categories in which he now reigns as undisputed heavyweight champ.

We're about to have an election that was entirely unnecessary and cost $200 million in political donations — favors to be named later — plus at least $50 million in election-day costs.

Given the huge number of robo-calls over the weekend, and the non-stop barrage of TV ads, it's ironic that — according to our Registrar of Voters — almost half the eligible voters in Santa Barbara County have already cast their ballots, enamored as we are of "permanent absentee" status. I expect you'd find similar numbers throughout the state. So this last-minute flurry, and all the expenditure it entails, addresses only the laggards, or the people like me who actually want to go to their polling place on Election Day. Someone will do the math eventually, telling us how much was actually spent to rally each defining vote. Whatever that sum is, it's money that could have been spent better to serve the citizens of the state, to address real needs. If for that reason alone, one should vote NO on Arnold's propositions, and send a loud signal that we want Sacramento to come to its senses and actually try to govern the state, instead of being locked in a perpetual posture of grandstanding.

California Spotlight: November 2005 (2): Ballot Propositions #73, #78, #79

Part 1 is here.

---

For a concise guide to the ballot propositions and the stand various Democratic and progressive organizations are taking on them, please go to Speak Out California.

---

Californians, experiencing large-scale buyer's remorse¹, have an opportunity on Tuesday to terminate the Terminator. Whether and the extent to which we are able to do this may hinge on voter turnout, voter tune-out, and last-minute elucidations of confusing, competing claims by the parties at interest. This last is of particular worry. It is almost impossible to get a clear signal through the static: mailboxes overflow with flyers, robots ring our phones, radio and TV commercials flood the ether.

And deceptions², like roadside IEDs, are planted everywhere in the path of truth.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to ram through four "reform" propositions on the ballot has run afoul of generalized voter dissatisfaction with his performance, and with his use of vast sums of "special interest" money (breaking yet again one of his most emphatic campaign promises) as well as many tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, to promote a Special Election agenda that is, for anyone who can parse the obfuscatory (nay, Orwellian) rhetoric, outrageously stacked in favor of corporations and against ordinary citizens.

In addition to Arnold's Big Four, there are three outlier propositions whose potential consequences are equally far-reaching. One of them is Big Pharma's unabashed powerplay to secure profits for itself to the detriment of our citizens (so what else is new?) — this is a countermeasure to a drug discount initiative put on the ballot by a consortium of consumer groups; and an anti-abortion constitutional amendment. Yes. You read that right.

Of the seven measures, that one, the abortion amendment, still seems very much up for grabs. A couple of others may be too close to call. Here's the rundown on outlier props, as they are titled on the ballot.

#78: DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

#79: PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Both propositions entice the voter with promises of making low-cost drugs available to low-income people. The most significant difference between them is that Prop 78, bankrolled by the drug industry, would make drug company participation in the discount plan entirely voluntary and requires no capping of prices. Prop 79 has teeth — it makes compliance mandatory, if the drug company wants its products to appear on an approved list; and allows for lawsuits against drug companies that are overcharging for their products — while Prop 78 has none. Prop 78 would reach an estimated 6 million Californians, while Prop 79 would benefit 10 million persons in the state. The drug manufacturers have spent more than $75 million in their campaign. The Prop 79 consortium has spent $500,000.

These figures are from the Los Angeles Times, whose article yesterday, Drug Firms Gave Money to Some Who Endorsed Proposition 78, limns the extent to which Big Pharma's big money has infected a campaign it clearly sees as a "must win." (Estimates on expenditures vary depending on the source, but not significantly.)

The San Diego Union Tribune looked at the latest polling numbers three days ago; the report is a reminder of the critical importance of having an informed electorate.

The new poll also found that support for Proposition 78 fell if voters knew it was backed by the pharmaceutical industry. In June, a Field Poll found 57 percent of likely voters supporting Proposition 78. That has dropped to 36 percent for and 45 percent against, according to the most recent poll conducted last week.

Voters opposed the union-backed Proposition 79 by a 43 percent to 37 percent margin, with 20 percent undecided. The poll found support for the initiative increased if voters were aware it was backed by consumer groups and labor unions.

The curious, and very scary thing, is that Big Pharma's $75 million needs to buy only one vote. If both propositions succeed, whichever gets the most yes votes — even if it's only one — prevails. (This fact is not made clear in either side's propaganda.) You must vote on both propositions. Merely voting NO on 78 is not enough.

This is truly an instance in which every vote counts. So please remember, vote both NO on 78 and YES on 79!

#73: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

The Campaign for Teen Safety is leading the charge against this amendment to the state constitution, which is the darling of the anti-choice religious right.

A recent e-mail from the CFTS said this:

As proponents gamble with teens' lives under the guise of parental rights, others make no secret of the fact that Prop 73 is being used as a stalking horse for a broader conservative agenda.

These true intentions are evident with the Republican Party's hiring of Gary Marx, a strategist who courted Christian conservatives and led the get-out-the-evangelical-vote effort for President Bush's re-election campaign, "to reach out to voters supporting parental notification in the hope of helping the GOP's broader ballot agenda." (Sacramento Bee, October 30, 2005)

In the words of Benjamin Lopez, the Traditional Values Coalition lobbyist, "we need to get our base motivated about 73 and that, hopefully, will have a coattail effect with the other measures."

Lew Uhler, a veteran conservative activist sponsoring Prop 75 goes beyond that saying, "I've said from the beginning: Thank God for two things. One is for the special election and two is for the parental notification initiative. That combination will definitely help us."

The Los Angeles Times says this about Prop 73:

Teen Pregnancy and abortion rates have been declining in California for years, and most pregnant girls tell a parent before getting an abortion. So Proposition 73, requiring doctors to inform a minor's parents before performing an abortion, has little to offer this state — and much to take away. It adds to the court system's burdens, threatens to apply only to poorer teens and introduces troubling language to the state's Constitution. It's nice to think that all girls feel comfortable talking to their parents about sex, birth control and abortion. Nice, but absurd.

And from the San Francisco Chronicle:

The way to reduce abortion is not a law that requires frightened young women to either face a judge or the wrath of their parents. It's about increasing communication — about sex, about choices, about consequences — that prevents an accidental pregnancy in the first place. Californians should reject Proposition 73 in the Nov. 8 special election.

Complicating what once might have been a clear pro-choice NO vote, certain normally reliable Democratic voters hold opposing views on this issue. Latino Catholics figure large in the mix, and since they are also an important fraction of labor union membership, the union-backed Alliance for a Better California, doing superb work on the ground to defeat the Schwarzenegger "reforms," has not promoted a No vote on Prop 73.

The fact is that a NO vote on 73 is a vote against the Radical Right. For most of us that means it's a NO-brainer.

I'll take up Arnold's Big Four in another post.

---

For a concise guide to the ballot propositions and the stand various Democratic and progressive organizations are taking on them, please go to Speak Out California.

---

Footnotes

¹(Field poll, November 3, page 2) As recently as last February, The Field Poll found that a large majority (56%) of this state’s voters were inclined to support Schwarzenegger for another term as Governor. However, by June sentiment had turned completely around, with 57% saying they opposed his re-election.

That negative disposition has persisted throughout the summer months and now into the fall. At present 55% of the state’s registered voters are not inclined to support Schwarzenegger’s reelection bid, while 36% are supportive.

Four-fifths (81%) of Democratic voters are not inclined to re-elect Schwarzenegger. While a 66% majority of Republicans favors another term for the Governor, a sizeable minority (22%) are opposed. Among the approximately one in five voters who are not affiliated with either major party, 56% are disinclined to support the Governor’s re-election bid, while 34% are supportive.

²(SirotaBlog, yesterday) A photo of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, a great fighter for progressives, was used without her permission in a PhRMA mailer to deceive California votes on a upcoming ballot measure. This is yet another example of how PhRMA will lie, steal and cheat to ensure nothing damages their bottom line.

WASHINGTON - A mailer targeting black California voters pictures a dozen prominent black lawmakers next to an endorsement of a prescription drug initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot that some of them strongly oppose.

Several of the lawmakers on Thursday denounced the Proposition 78 mailer, which was sent by a group funded by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the powerful lobbying organization for the nation's drug companies.

And...

A mailer I got headlines "Stop Arnold!" and purports to favor No votes on the reform propositions. But closer inspection reveals that it is for Big Pharma's position on props 78 and 79. And though it lists many endorsees whose position on the reform props is "No" but whose positions on 78 and 79 I personally know to be the reverse of what this flyer is promoting, says this in the nearly unparsable fine print:

Appearance in this mailer does not necessarily imply endorsement by others appearing in this mailer, nor does it imply endorsement of or opposition to any issue set forth in this mailer. Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure designated by an *. Not paid for or authorized by candidates not designated by an *.

The campaign manager for my favorite City Council candidate has told me that he did not know about the Big Pharma position being espoused when he signed on. The candidate does not favor that position. In other words, my guy is No on 78, Yes on 79. So this flyer, unless you fully understand the fine print disclaimer, is, if not purposefully deceptive, at the very least misleading — and it's only one of several like it that I've gotten.

Yes, Virginia, EVERY vote counts

The latest polls show Tim Kaine with a "within the margin of error" lead over Jerry Kilgore in the race for Virginia's governorship. On Tuesday it will come down to which side does better at getting out the vote. (Kaine is way ahead in the crucial African-American vote, and substantially ahead with women — but there are a lot of white male Republicans in Virginia.)

Our colleague Lowell Feld, who's been beating the drum for Kaine for what now seems as long as I can remember, runs the RaisingKaine blog, as if you didn't know. They're this close to victory.

If there's any way you can help in Virginia, now is the time.