CA 11

Andal endorser can't explain Iraqi demands for withdrawal timetable

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

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

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

Watch the video.

Background on what the Prime Minister of Iraq said here.

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

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

How nice.

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

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

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

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

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

McNerney votes to eviscerate 4th Amendment

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

Short version of what McNerney voted for:

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

Inexcuseable.

Full explanation of this issue here.

Roll call here.

McNerney holds firm to deny Iraq war funding

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

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

Andal's ethics on display

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

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

Andal to McNerney: Help! Please!

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

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

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

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

Jerry McNerney: Declared SuperDelegate

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

McNerney endorsed Obama.

He included a VP plug for HRC:

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

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

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

Jerry McNerney: Undeclared SuperDelegate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McNerney votes to de-fund Iraq war

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

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

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

Roll call here.

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

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

You decide...

April 2008 ABC Democratic debate:

HRC:

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

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

[...]

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

Obama:

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

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

That's not the role of the generals.

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

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

McNerney, August 2007, Washington Post:

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

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

McCain, March 2008, Associated Press

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

Andal wants to privatize Social Security

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

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

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

Learn more here, and here.

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

h/t to Hank Shaw

Deep Thought

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

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

McNerney's bipartisanship on Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McNerney votes for spending bill to end Iraq War

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

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

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

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

Dean Andal: first look

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

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

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

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

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

What a buffoon.

McNerney's moment

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

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

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

McNerney failed to sign a similar letter last July.

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

Obey or Hoyer/Emmanuel?

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

Looks like McNerney will have to pick sides.

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

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

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

So the question: Whose side will McNerney choose?

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

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

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

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

Who McNerney is waiting for

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

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

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

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

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

Time to play hardball

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

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

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

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

One step forward, ten steps back

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

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

Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

the task ahead

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

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

Rover

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, some Friday humor...

Questioning the Generals

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

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

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

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

While I wait

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

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

Democrats Praise Military Progress

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

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

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

I'm listening.

Houston not running in CA-11

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

Lisa V reports Guy Houston won't challenge McNerney.

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

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

Heh. I'll bet.