In what resembles a new, bureaucratic version of the signing statements it’s become famous for, the Bush Administration has quietly slipped a clause into its just released fuel economy rules that declares as unlawful the efforts of California and 17 other states to enact their own stricter mileage requirements.

Its inclusion comes despite assurances to Democratic leaders in congress that the federal rules would remain neutral on state regulations.

Environmentalists expect automakers will begin quoting the new clause immediately in court fights against states seeking cleaner air and the reduction of dangerous greenhouse gasses.

I decided to take an in depth look at the Bill Clinton Primary from 1992 as its been used by Sen. Clinton to answer questions about her continued viability. After looking at the newspaper accounts from the contest I have to conclude that Barack Obama is Bill Clinton. There are many eerie similarities between the two contests.  The historical comparison does not look at all good for Sen. Clinton and if there was really a close look at this maybe her coverage would get worse. Behold my historical comparison.

I was reading this ABC blog post about Bill Clinton's claim that the primary he won in 1992 lasted until June, and also the description of the same primary in Jerry Brown's Wikipedia article.  It's almost as if they're describing two different races, and I was hoping one of you political encyclopedias could help me clear it up.  And there's a wonderful irony to all this, since Bill Clinton--pledged delegate leader with uncertain status in the coming big states--seems to have been the Barack Obama of 1992.  

Four years ago, when Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon and more than 4,000 other couples said "I Do" this country took an irrevocable step toward securing equality for every American.

While many feel what we did was too much, too fast, too soon – we stand firm in the belief that our actions were not only just, but legal and constitutional. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the pursuit of happiness.

Today, the California Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether excluding gay couples from marriage violates the state constitution. Today, these Justices have a unique chance to follow in the proud tradition of California's high court, which took a courageous stand on marriage equality in 1948 when it ruled that the state's ban on inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional.

My all time favorite former governor is currently suing the EPA for not allowing California to save the planet a little bit.  Recently, Attorney General Jerry Brown had a meeting with Senator Barbara Boxer on this subject.  As reported in theLA Times, White house interference [!] may have been involved.  Please take note of the AGs comments:

"Subpoena these guys," he urged Boxer. "Send the marshals out. Get them to tell us under oath. They are not going to get away with this. Sooner or later, we are going to uncover real corruption . . . that is dangerous to California and to the whole world."

Brown said that the Bush administration may be able to delay court action a year, until the president's term is over, but that Congress may be able to speed the process. "What you have is a bunch of scofflaws in the White House," he said. "This fellow [EPA administrator Stephen L.] Johnson is becoming a stooge in a really pathetic drama that hopefully will not play out much longer."

So, why didn't we elect this guy president?

Although as an office it is not much of a credential, I was the President of the Jerry Brown for President campaign at my college in 1992. There are probably many future Kossacks in that campaign.  Brown's 1992 platform included replacing the income tax with a national flat tax.  I bring this up because I am one of the few Democrats with experience defending the flat tax, and with the rise of Huckabee I thought I would weigh in.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has announced that the State of California has filed suit against the EPA to force them to reverse their denial of the state's proposed regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks and SUVs.

The Bush administration says that states have no business setting emission standards. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson denied a Clean Air Act waiver for Claifornia to adopt regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks. He said that the federal government was developing a national solution and that recent energy legislation was a far more effective approach to reducing greenhouse gases.

Bravo to the Judiciary branch for doing what the other two can't or won't do!

Since the U.S. government announced new fuel efficiency standards in March of 2006, environmentalists and 11 states have argued that the standards do not go far enough to combat the harmful emissions that lead to global warming.

Today, the Ninth Court of Appeals gave a victory to environmentalists and a "rebuke" to the Bush administration in ruling that regulators "failed to properly assess the risk of global warming" in part at least for exempting larger SUVs and trucks.

The court decision is a rebuke to the Bush administration and its refusal to make meaningful steps to reduce global warming pollution from our automobiles," said Pat Gallagher, director of environmental law at Sierra Club. "The decision tells the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it can't monkey the numbers when it sets fuel economy standards by ignoring the cost of carbon emissions."

The court’s action invalidates the March 2006 fuel standards for minivans, light trucks and smaller SUV’s.

The thundering herd of ponies, pooties, and kossacks and the rest of our brothers and sisters in the netroots are passing Dianne Feinstein by. She is a relic of another time in California politics -- a time when California was solidly red and we were glad to take any Democrat that we could get for the Senate. But now, the times have passed her by and she has failed to adapt or change with the times. Now is the time to find someone to replace her with in 2012.

Is Dianne Feinstein following in the footsteps of Joe Lieberman? Voters want to know.

For example, Sen. Feinstein recently joined with the Republicans in voting to pass the Kyle/Lieberman amendment to the Department of Defense Budget, which essentially gives Bush the authority to attack virtually any country that he decides should be attacked - and Bush and Cheney already have Iran in their sights.

In addition, she was one of 22 Democratic senators who joined the Republicans in condemning the MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times that portrayed Gen. David Petreaus for what he really is, just one more of George Bush's military hacks who will do and say what he is told to do and say, a la Colin Powell.

She also recently voted to approve Bush's appointment of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, as one more in Bush's efforts to stack the judicial system with right-wing zealots. She did this, in spite of Southwick's judicial history of favoring special interests against workers and consumers, his demonstrated bigotry against racial minorities and women, and his homophobic judicial decisions based on sexual orientation.

George Bush has issued a new series of Zombie Alerts. The Bush administration has declared that they needed to suspend the entire Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment, in order that they can spy on ordinary Americans to see if they would turn into Zombies. Dianne Feinstein said that she would vote for the suspension of the 4th Amendment against illegal searches and seizures because based on the top secret intelligence received, the Zombie Alerts were legitimate. "This is a threat to our nation that all of us should worry about," she told reporters.

Hello. I am a dog. I am running for president. I consider a bite in the trouser the best way to ensure action. I would like to make an endorsement in this race -- I would like to endorse the effort to primary Dianne Feinstein.

Ever since the campaign to oust DiFi in 2012 kicked off, she has dug herself deeper every week. And last week was the last straw. First, she began digging by letting Hans Von Spasovsky, prospective FEC commissioner, get to the Senate Floor. Then, she kept right on digging by voting for Lieberman/Kyl on Iran.

September 18th edition
September 11th edition
September 4th edition
August 28th edition
August 21st edition
August 14th edition
August 7th edition
The case against Dianne Feinstein
The Senators who caved in on FISA

Eliminated:
John Chiang
Ron Dellums
John Garamendi
Bill Lockyer
Jerry McNerney
Rob Reiner
Frank Russo
Loretta Sanchez
Diane Watson
Steve Westly

This week:
Hilda Solis

One of the most contentious debates in this community and all over this country has been immigration. On the one hand, there are those who favor a more inclusive society and who thus feel that we need open borders in the name of achieving equality in this country. On the other hand, there are those who think that open borders would lead to more wage suppression than there already is in this country.

But the fact of the matter is that as things stand now, our current laws are unenforceable. There are now over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, with more coming every day. Many who are deported under our current laws simply come back. And our current policies are ineffective in stopping them, as they will simply move to states which are more welcoming of immigrants.

Sorry about deleting the diary from yesterday -- I omitted one of the candidates from the poll.

September 11th edition
September 4th edition
August 28th edition
August 21st edition
August 14th edition
August 7th edition
The case against Dianne Feinstein
The Senators who caved in on FISA

Eliminated:
John Chiang
John Garamendi
Bill Lockyer
Jerry McNerney
Rob Reiner
Loretta Sanchez
Diane Watson
Steve Westly

This week:
Frank Russo
Ron Dellums

This week, we are going to feature one thing that has irked people about her as much as anything -- the way she refuses to answer constiutent mail or treat any of her constituents with any kind of respect. She has shown a proven track record of either not answering mail at all, or sending the wrong form letter, or mailing the letter months after the issue is decided.

The fact of the matter is that there is a larger issue here than merely Iraq or FISA -- the fact of the matter is that she has become so revoltingly out of touch with the people of her state that she no longer cares what they want or what their interests are.

Four candidates are out, and two more are in. Once we filter out the insiders, then we will put in outsiders that are suggested by users, including other users.

But first, there was a comment in the August 21st edition that I must take issue with here. This poster makes arguments out of fear and totally misunderstands the nature of the process. And apparently, he conveniently forgets Lamont over Lieberman. I will address his comments below.

In recent weeks, I have been writing about the need to primary out Dianne Feinstein when she comes up for reelection and the need to lay down the groundwork now so that we will have a credible candidate in place. In recent days, we have been writing about the need for our Democratic legislators to not make any more deals with the President, given that he has proven that he is dishonest and cannot be trusted to keep his word.

The fact of the matter is that this is the exact reason why we need to primary her out by uniting behind a candidate to replace her -- she has shown a proven propensity for cutting deals with the Bush administration even though they have a proven record of dishonesty.