Friday, June 5, 2009
Join us this Monday as we show our SUPPORT FOR DIANE TAKVORIAN and our OPPOSITION TO BILL EVANS, as the San Diego City Council picks our next Port Commissioner.
What: Port Commissioner Hearing
When: Monday, June 8 at 2 p.m.
Where: City Hall Council Chambers, 202 C Street, 12th Floor, San Diego 92101
Diane helped lead the fight against Proposition B, which would have destroyed the Working Waterfront.
Diane worked with Labor to stand up for environmental protection and sustainable jobs on the Chula Vista Bayfront.
Diane has led the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports to cut diesel emissions and increase renewable energy on the Port.
Diane is fighting to ensure energy stimulus money is used to generate good LOCAL jobs.
Bill Evans does not share our core beliefs.
Bill Evans does not believe in strong unions that can lift us out of poverty. Bill Evans runs non-union hotels and has even sued the hotel workers union. Bill Evans is a multi-millionaire and the son of a multi-millionaire who does not understand the belief of expanding opportunities for workers, immigrants and underprivileged communities.
Bill Evans is an unacceptable choice to represent San Diegans as a Port Commissioner.
Diane Takvorian is the voice for the community, environment and workers.
Hueso – Burdick
Young – Burdick
DeMaio – Burdick
Gloria – Takvorian
Frye – Takvorian
Emerald – Burdick
Faulconer - Burdick
Lightner – Burdick
Labor is doing a final push for Takvorian and I will give them props in that they have their bases covered.
If it’s Takvorian, awesome! A true progressive gets on the Port. If Burdick, Labor still gets a seat at the table from a Democrat who wants to be pro-business but also wants a career and won’t anger potential future allies. If Evans, Labor loses out and Emerald, like Frye before her, gets played. Marshall may not have a chance because of Burdick.
All in all, Monday should be a good day and Marti should get a better strategist.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Cruel doesn’t even begin to describe the cuts proposed in the revised May budget to eliminate California’s $24-billion budget deficit.
Nearly two million Californians will lose health insurance if thefor children is eliminated and Medi-Cal is cut by $1 billion. More than 1 million women and children will be left without any means of subsistence if the is ended. California kids and young adults will suffer if the Cal Grant program is axed and billions more dollars are cut from public education. Another 5,000 people will land on our unemployment rolls, struggling to pay rent and buy groceries, if plans go forward to lay off 5,000 state workers. The grim list goes on.
The defeat of five budget-related propositions on the May 19th special election ballot was not a mandate for a cuts-only or mostly-cuts budget that will force the aged, blind, and disabled further into poverty. Nor was it a mandate for a budget that will hurt everyone from school kids to park lovers.
Rather, California voters sent the message that they want lawmakers and the governor to work together toward a budget that realistically looks at the services we all need and how to pay for them.
Last December, legislative Democrats passed an $18-billion plan to reduce the state deficit. If the governor had not vetoed that sensible package, California would have no need to even discuss the Draconian proposals now on the table.
This only underscores why it’s so critical to elect a Democratic governor in 2010. The California Democratic Party will do everything in its power to make this happen.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Bill Kolender decided to retire and circumvent the will of the people and the political process by giving a leg up to his Undersheriff William Gore. In making Gore his replacement, Kolender placed him in a good, not great, position to win. That beacon of democracy, the County Board of Supervisors (5-0 Republican) which is not above manipulation for personal gain (Horn), avoiding taking tough stands lest they lose their job (Jacob) or just unable to gain employment anywhere else (Roberts), voted unanimously to coronate Gore’. With the endorsement of three of the five supervisors for his election prior to the vote (Horn, Slater-Price and Cox) he should be a shoo-in.
But won’t be. Unlike Gore, who appears to be wrapping himself in the badge, Duffy has been making the rounds and is building support outside of the Board of Supervisors. Endorsed by his boss, Supervisor Roberts, and assembling a decent campaign team, Duffy has the background with his stint at the Sheriff's Department and could possibly pick up the Labor endorsement given his past with the Sheriff’s Association.
All of which may be for naught. Bejarano has good name ID, has proven that he can work with both sides of the political aisle, and is enough of a moderate to pick up the missing non-Republican half of the vote in this race. He looks formidable but it remains to be seen if he can motivate the moderates to vote and drag this race out of the partisan cesspool that it has been mired in.
Otherwise, why would a termed-out legislator run for Sheriff? This tent-city business generates press for Maricopa County, AZ but little else. Given his past stands on social and political issues, I don’t perceive the advantage in having the Sheriff’s Department helmed by a throwback to the 20th Century.
Coming out of retirement to run for office is noble, but against this field Ruff needs to have the prior four candidates self destruct in order to pull out a win.
Gore has the establishment, Duffy has the Republican establishment that isn’t East County, Bejarano has the middle, and LaSuer and Ruff have East County.
A Republican sand fight. Popcorn, anyone?