California Wildfires Cont'd

I've been hearing a lot about how much better the federal response to the wildfires has been compared to Hurricane Katrina. Yes, it would appear FEMA and the administration got it right for once, but perhaps we shouldn't be patting the President and his men on his back just yet.

There are big differences between Louisiana and California locally that must be looked at.

First, if any state in the union is prepared for a natural disaster, it's California. The Golden State lives everyday with the risk of earthquakes, mudslides, flash floods, wildfires, tidal waves, volcano eruptions and on and on. California also has their wealth behind them. They can afford to implement a major disaster plan, and they have to be prepared because they are constantly at the mercy of mother nature.

Second, the people of San Diego have certain luxuries, for lack of better word, in this disaster. For one thing, the city is still intact. New Orleans essentially ceased to exist. The entire city was underwater and left devestated. The city's buearcracy, already notably unreliable, was left stagnated. The fire department and police department could not function. The Governor could not get the people out of the Superdome. The people in New Orleans were left stranded and the local governments were left in shambles and unable to lead. This is where the federal government SHOULD have stepped in, but did not, leaving anarchy.

The people of Southern California also have means to get out. Many, specifically in New Orleans, had no car or means of transportation to get out. San Diegans, for the most part, have cars and trucks, as life without a car in California is pretty impossible. The evacuees in Qualcomm Stadium have electricity, food, and running water, all of which was missing from the Superdome in New Orleans. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out how to get supplies to the stadium. Unlike New Orleans, the roads are passable and the airport is open.

Third, and while this is theory, I believe it has teeth, San Diego may have learned a lesson we all learned after Katrina; help yourself because we don't know when the Feds are coming. It was the people of San Diego, those unaffected by the fires, who appeared at Qualcomm Stadium first to volunteer and help. It was the locals who decided not to wait for a government that has proven to lack leadership when it comes to responding to disaster. Andy Konradt writes this on The Huffington Post;

It's nice to see that even if FEMA had decided to sit on its thumbs for three days before stepping foot over here, the residents of San Diego decided to take care of themselves.

Thankfully FEMA didn't sit on it's thumbs for three days, but San Diego and California learned the lesson from Louisiana...the Feds tend to be incompetent with this stuff, so let's take care of ourselves and if they respond competently, then excellent. Louisiana and Mississippi did not have the luxury of having a certain group of locals left unaffected. Hurricane Katrina effected everyone on the coast, these fires directly effected some people and not others. Governor Schwarzeneggar, Mayor Sanders and the local government and authorities are the ones who responded effectively. Thankfully FEMA and the Federal Government didn't have to prove to be competent, Californians already beat them to it.

California Wildfires Open Thread

AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes

California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi told Chris Matthews yesterday the state's national guard needs to be redeployed from Iraq to assist in the wildfires.

Harry Reid blamed the fires on global warming.

Numerous e-mails have come to me stating the government's better response to the fires has a lot to do with the wealth of those being affected

All are valid points that may be correct and will need to be discussed in the aftermath of this, but right now there are one million people running from their homes and a massive firestorm unseen since perhaps the Allied bombing of Tokyo during World War II. Thousands of people are going to end up homeless from this. The concern right now may need to be on whether or not the city of San Diego will still be standing when the fires burn out and what kind of ways can the rest of this country help those who will return to their homes to find them scorched.

Clinton Gets Big Endorsement

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The leader of the second-largest city in America and one of the most powerful Hispanic politician in the United States gave his endorsement to the New York Senator. Although it was widely expected, it gives Clinton a huge plus in the Golden State. Villaraigosa is widely seen as one of California's most powerful Democrats and a potential statewide candidate in the future.

In California, What's More Popular, Bush or Gay Marriage?

Gay Marriage by 2 to 1.

Bush's approval in the Garden State- 26%

Californians who support marriage equality- 48%

Ronald Reagan's Home State has sure turned on the GOP, hasn't it?

Another Idiot President?

Most likely...cause now this race will be over in February all thanks to California.

And how does a candidate bring his or her message to California? Not by sounding great or giving great speeches, no, with money...money, money, money, cause that's what rules California.

And who has the money? The future idiot Presidents do.

Thanks California, for taking away our choices.

The Democrats take on...the Democrats?

Now that the Democrats have come back from the dead, it appears the left wing of the party is ready to not only take on the Republicans, but the moderate wing of the Democratic Party too.

Case in point...Representative Ellen Tauscher of California. Tauscher is a prominent moderate Democrat, a member of the New Democratic Coalition and a Blue Dog.

What is the liberal wing's problem with Tauscher? Well, it's a mix of where she's from and what she stands for. Tauscher represents the 10th district of California, just beyond the mountains from San Francisco and Oakland. It includes the San Francisco/Oakland suburbs of Walnut Creek, Livermore and Pleasant Hill, as well as Antioch and Fairfield. Her district voted 58% for John Kerry in 2004.

Tauscher has not been to most prominent opponent of the Bush Administration and has backed them numerous times over the years. Tauscher supported the war in Iraq (although she opposes the troop surge) and has been accused of not being hard enough when it comes to questioning the administration over failures in Iraq. Tauscher even backed a more moderate Democrat in the neighboring 11th district of California in last year's election. The more liberal Jerry McNerney won the Democratic primary and took on seven-term incumbent Republican Richard Pombo, defeating him 53%-47%

Tauscher's moderate stance comes from her 1996 race against conservative Republican Bill Baker, who represented what at the time was the most Republican district in Northern California. Tauscher defeated Baker and took office in a Republican district. Redistricting in 2001 made Tauscher safer, turning her district into a Democratic one. Tauscher's district, however, sits among other prominent California Democrats, such as Doris Matsui, George Miller, Barbara Lee, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, all notorious for being on the left of the Democratic Party. Her district sits in a region known for it's political liberalism. To many liberal voters in the Bay Area, she's a Tom DeLay-type.

The strong Democratic lean of Tauscher's district does not make her vulnerable to any Republican, but rather vulnerable in a primary. Tauscher's district is about as Democratic as the state of Connecticut, where Joe Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primary by a more liberal Democrat. The idea of ousting Tauscher in favor of a Democrat who sits with Miller, Matsui, Lee or Pelosi is entirely possible, and Tauscher knows that.

However, with the Democratic majority still young and fragile, a civil war within the party is probably not a good idea at the moment. The Republicans tried pulling this in the last few years, when their majority was just about as big as the current Democratic one. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was nearly ousted by the more conservative Pat Toomey in the 2004 GOP Primary, which nearly cost them that seat. In 2006, Michigan Republican Congressman Joe Schwartz was defeated by the more conservative Tim Walhberg, who only won the heavily Republican district 51%-47% against an unknown Democrat. In Rhode Island, the primary challenge of Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey probably cost liberal Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee his seat.

The liberal wing of the Democratic party has the right to protest against the centrist Democrats, but must be careful who it is they target. The Democratic majority was not won only by the liberal base, it was won by independent moderates and conservatives who came back. The Democratic majority would not exist if not for the victories of Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Chris Carney of Pennsylvania, Tim Mahoney of Florida, Nancy Boyda of Kansas or Charlie Wilson of Ohio. These moderate to conservative Democrats make up the "big tent" that allows for a Democratic majority. We've seen GOP primary challenges backfire or nearly backfire on them. The Democrats cannot allow that to happen to them...at least not until the Democratic majority solidifies.

I'm sure we will see a primary challenge against Tauscher out in California next year, and I'm sure it will make political headlines, but without the moderates like Tauscher, whom I may disagree with often, the Democrats would not have the majority they had today, and would not have the voice that led them to raise the minimum wage, implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, or stand up to the President's troop surge.

Pelosi's Plane Problems

No, that's not Air Force One...that's the plane used by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi...or at least that's the plane that was chosen for her.

Since 9/11, the Pentagon has agreed to provide the Speaker of the House, second in line to the Presidency with the private military plane to take him or her to and from his or her's home district and back to Washington.

Since 9/11, there have only been two Speakers...first Denny Hastert from Illinois, who didn't have to travel all that far, and now Nancy Pelosi from far away San Francisco, California.

For security reasons, the Pentagon and the Speaker agree he or she should fly to and from Washington non-stop, but San Francisco to Washington is close to 4,000 miles. Hastert's small Gulfstream-like plane brought him back to Northern Illinois without a problem, but California to Washington...a little more of a problem

It doesn't surprise me that the GOP is pouncing on reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has requested a more elaborate and expensive plane to transport her back and forth from California to Washington...but perhaps before they pounce, they should look more into things.

First of all, to listen to GOP Congressmen, such as Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) complain Pelosi's plane contributes to global warming really ticked me off

"The jet that Pelosi has produces 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour, far more than the previous speaker used" said Congressman McHenry

Oh so worried are we now about global warming after IGNORING IT for so long

Anyway, House Sargent-at-arms Bill Livingood now admits he, not the Speaker, requested the bigger, fancier plane. Pelosi admitted she wouldn't care if she just flew commercially (as Speakers pre 9-11 did).

Even the White House said the issue was overblown by House Republicans.

I guess the GOP is just sore about being in the minority...they don't like it. They don't like to be without power...they got too used to it.

Well...my only response is the same one they gave to Democrats after 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004;

YOU LOST, GET OVER IT