The Leno Challenge

Thanks for the challenge! (5.40 / 5)

I've been meaning to donate. I'm in for $50. This race is incredibly important so I hope others will join in.

---

by: Becks @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 13:42:06 PM CDT

Give me a break Be_Devine (3.00 / 2)

So the crappy Beyond Chron and hack Randy Shaw regurgitates a Leno press release and it's gospel?

Joe Nation is:

100% pro-choice.

100% on LGBT issues (EQCA scorecard), co-authoring the gay marriage bill.

100% anti-death penalty, running for Speaker so he would have the clout to close San Quentin.

100% pro-environment (CLCV Scorecard)

That's one step away from being a republican?  Get a grip.

Randy Shaw wrote as dishonest a piece as I've ever seen from a progressive (since we allegedly live in a reality based world and value truth over spin).

Joe Nation wrote a letter to the President urging him not to invade Iraq.  It's public record.  I'm happy to email it to you.  Randy Shaw would know that had he bothered to try to be evenhanded.  Joe did not sign the letter with others because there an error in the letter and the author refused to change it.  

Joe's position on troop withdrawal was/is clear.  Had his plan, which he introduced in 2006, been in place all combat troops would have been removed from Iraq by the end of that year and ALL troops (save the Marines tasked to protect our Embassy) would have been removed by the end of 2007.  Had the incompetent Randy Shaw done even a modicum of research, he would know that.

On health care, Joe opposed the single payer bill because there was no funding mechanism for it.  Nor was there any indication of how the revenue would be raised.  I know it's now a progressive shibboleth that single payer is the ONLY solution, but I live in the reality based community and need to know where the money is coming from and how it will impact the rest of the budget.  Rational healthcare has to be FUNDED, not just hope and dream it will.

On privacy, Joe opposed Speier's bill because it screwed small banks and credit union.  His alleged sin was carrying a bill that the industry favored?  Riddle me this, if that was actually the case why did the following companies oppose the bill:

AFLAC
Alliance of American Insurers
American Counsel of Life Insurers
American Express
American General Financial Group
American Insurance Association
Association of California Insurance Companies
Association of California Life & Health Insurance Companies
Bank of America
California Association of Industrial Banks
California Bankers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Financial Services Association
California Mortgage Bankers Association
California Retailers Association
California Credit Union League
Capital One Financial Corp.
Citigroup
Financial Services Coordinating Council
First Union Corporation
Household International, Inc.
Insurance Agents and Brokers Legislative Council
Investment Company Institute
J. P. Morgan Chase & Co.
MBNA
Morgan Stanley
National Association of Independent Insurers
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Professional Insurance Agents Group
Providian Financial Corp.
Securities Industry Association
The Direct Marketing Association (The DMA)
The First American Financial Corporation
U. S. Bancorp
Union Bank of California
Visa USA
Washington Mutual
Wells Fargo & Co.

Again, the craptastic legwork of Randy Shaw strikes again.

---

by: sanchez96 @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 19:55:40 PM CDT

Joe's donors incognito (0.00 / 0)

I think that sanchez96 just published Joe's donors. Looks like financial institutions have some use for him. Joe has proven that politicians, no matter how small, don't care about public opinion if they have a deep pocket to fund push polls and other pseudo-scientific clap trap that feeds his hoitytoity.

---

by: sobriquet @ Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:46:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bravo, Sanchez (0.00 / 0)

Thanks so much for that comment.  I was about to launch into my own inquiry about Nation's "one-step-away-from-Republicanhood."  This is exactly the kind of bullshit that turns people off to the process.  Just because the man doesn't ace your personal litmus test for what makes a "progressive" (ostensibly supporting the netroots and attending Calitics events) does NOT make him a Republican. It means that he's not your guy in the race.  Can't that be enough?

Leave the specious arguments to the candidates' campaign managers.  It's much more effective - and it lends you far greater credibility - if you attack him on the nuances of his policy proposals that you take issue with.

And just as an aside, I find it peculiar that Nation's vote against the Kuehl health care bill somehow brands him categorically "against rational health care in California."  Did you even READ that bill?  Do you have any concept of how unsustainable the funding mechanism was?  Do some homework.

---

by: Freccia @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:45:55 PM CDT

Joe the Republican's choice - Big Insurance, Big Money (0.00 / 0)

The Kuehl bill was a beginning, as were many other initiatives, that Joe aborted. He's for pro choice so long as you chose between bloated insurance carriers.

---

by: sobriquet @ Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 13:50:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Joe the Republican (0.00 / 0)

All that democratic legislation that he turned his back on or voted down, always a technicality, a typo, something that he never tries to correct in the process. Instead he sits and waits for the chance to say nay. Joe's a real opportunist but I think he has a whole lot more spin than ethics. He makes good web pages and has packaged himself well for conservatives, for example. But he hasn't made any good law and he spent a lot of time trying to learn the state assembly. The clock forced him out and all he got was that he needed to stay in office longer.   Regard the birds - don't shoot'em. Who can argue with that?  Never mind his opinions when there's nothing to show for them.  What good has he done?

---

by: sobriquet @ Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:12:08 AM CDT