Chris Gembinski* (not Gembinsky)

who was one of the most corrupt legislative members in the history of the state, its already severely-depleted credibility shrinks further.

We need a reform slate for DCCC which excludes all the usual suspects who have done nothing but suck off the system their entire lives. And it needs to start by excluding corrupt, "Sacramento's worst boss" Carole Migden.

It is true, on a philosophical level, Paul does not support welfare because it requires too much debt to fund the programs. The interest payments on this debt require income taxes from the working class that ultimately are redistributed to the wealthy, banks, and foreign governments. But if you are going to vote in the Primary for Republican primary this June, Please consider Paul!!! He has reiterated over and over that welfare is better than warfare, and would much rather see the trillions wasted overseas spent here at home.

I'm not surprised by these Democratic Establishment endorsements. They are what I expected from the BG. What one would expect from a Democratic Party-front paper? That's what the BG is (just like most self-described "liberal" and "progressive" sites). Democratic Establishment Sheep 101 and a front for the misnamed "Democratic" Party, while the BG hides behind the word "progressive," which doesn't mean anything any longer. The word "progressive" has become so abused, overused and is as meaningless as giving a neocon war-warmonger (Mr Hopey Changey) a Nobel Peace Prize while he now widens the droning "war" into Yemen and soon to launch another "war" on Syria.

Google:
The Drone-Happy President: Obama Escalates in Yemen – Again (April 26, 2012)

If the BG staff had paid close attention over the past 3+ years, they would know that most of Mr Hopey Changey's policies are to the right of those of George W. Bush. Yet they never endorsed Bush. Their short list of what they don't like about Mr Hopey Changey (while they endorse him) is very weak. Have they paid close attention to what he has done to expand on the Bush policies? I don't sense that they have.

They've endorsed Obamabot Norman Solomon. He was an Obama delegate. He fell for Mr Hopey Changey. That shows how poor Norman Solomon's judgment is.

They write that "The Republican Party is now entirely the party of the far right." Nothing new there. That's standard. That's what we hear every election. That's always been the case for the Republicans in recent times. And who works for them? The Democratic Party, most of the time. They are buddies.

All Democrats in congress voted for House Resolution 347. Have you heard of that? Three Republicans did not vote for HR 347. Who's the more right-wing here?

Google these:

ACLU trashes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act (January 6, 2012)
US Congress expands authoritarian anti-protest law (H.R. 347, which Obama signed) (March 3, 2012)

http://www.obamatheconservative.com/

http://obamascandalslist.blogspot.com/2009/10/table-of-contents.html

The BG plays the Fear Card every general election. It's so tiresome and predictable. That comes out every election without fail. Since they think that the "evil" Republicans are "worse," why not go ahead and hit the wall? Why does the Guardian staff want to slow the process down of hitting the wall? Get it over with. Why drag it out any longer when we're going to hit the wall anyway.

A progressive (a real one, not a fake one) would not be endorsing Obama, Feinstein, Pelosi, and that "Democratic" Establishment corporatist crowd because none of those people are progressives at all. A real progressive would say, "No Endorsement, because we have no one to endorse in good conscience. There are no progressives running, nor are there any allowed to run (who will get the needed corporate media coverage)." But they (the BG) are not about to say that. No, they will continue to cheerlead for their "Democratic" party line and make the excuses for doing so.

That's the most half-hearted endorsement of Dianne Feinstein imaginable. Why damn her with faint praise (hard to find any praise), as Democrats are running who are more in tune with your positions. This is a Open Primary and only the top 2 vote getters will go to the November election. The Republicans who are running are polling maybe 2%, so Feinstein is nearly certain to come out of this primary and on to November even if you endorsed someone more to your liking. Thus, we have a really good chance of Feinstein and someone more progressive will come out of the primary.

We at the TaxTheRich2012.org/Mike Strimling for Senate campaign never got any sort of interview or look/see from you. In fact, we are not the only other more-progressive-than-Feinstein running in the primary. We urge voters to consult your Voter Guide pamphlet from the Secretary of State which has short statements from most of the candidates. And go to our websites. The Guardian isn't really even trying here.....

Carol Migden? Really? Crazy Carol? With the Don King hair? What do you think an election is, full employment for the mentally ill?

More on HR 347:

How to fight Obama’s police-state policies
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/demo-m09.shtml

1) In July and August of 2011 after Levine announced for Assembly, he campaigned for Assembly from a table set up by the city of San Rafael at the San Rafael Thursday night Farmer's Market. That table is for the specific purpose of city council officeholders to discuss city issues. Campaigning for Assembly from that table is a misappropriation of city funds for private use. That is a felony here in California. Witnesses are afraid of retaliation.

2) Late last year Levine announced to several people, including a city council candidate from Novato, that he was "too busy running for Assembly to be concerned with the city of San Rafael."

3) Levine authorized the misfiling of state assembly campaign papers in June, 2011. The misfiling had to do with the requirement that he specify which funds were transferred from his re-election campaign for city council to his assembly coffers. And Levine violated other provisions of campaign finance law which are under investigation by the FPPC.

4) Our state senator advised Levine to stand down in the Assembly race. Levine's reply: "It's my time."

5) It's been documented that Levine told the volunteers of a fellow councilmember, Greg Brockbank, that he was voting for Brockbank for mayor last fall. But Levine then sent out an email saying the only two candidates he thought people should vote for were Brockbank's opponent, Gary Phillips, and Andrew McCullough. Levine also did not mention his fellow council-member, Damon Connolly, who was running for re-election, which was a stab in Connolly’s back.

6) Levine is San Rafael's representative to the Marin Telecommunications Agency. Levine is the only rep to the MTA who has taken funds from Comcast. Comcast owes the Community Media Center $600,000 as compelled by law, and he is recommending that Comcast not pay the funds.

7) In February of 2011, a year ago, Levine held a fundraiser specifically for his re-election to city council. At that time, however, Levine was already soliciting endorsements for a run to the Assembly. In this case, the endorsement was from David Weinsoff, a Fairfax town council member, now running for county supervisor.

8) Two months later, in April of 2011, Levine voted for Target to come into San Rafael. In late 2011 Levine collected $500 from the landowner of the parcel, Stephanie Plante, on which Target is going to build, as well as $500 from her husband's company. It can easily be argued that Levine arranged those donations before the Target vote.

9) Levine proudly announces on his web site that he "created the first requirement in California conditioning (sic) land use with meeting the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for clean energy." This is a feckless “requirement” because all energy providers in California already have an RPS.

This “requirement” was borne out of the Target vote--if Levine wanted to push a valid point, he could have attempted to require that Target use Marin Clean Energy.

10) In an interview where Levine was vying for an endorsement, Levine declared that "I personally helped 15,000 people with my vote on Target."

Levine truly believes that the 15,000 people who live in the Canal area of San Rafael, who are mostly Latino, benefited from his vote and his vote alone.

Levine wishes the Latinos will leave their community and drive two miles to Target for food when there are already two local food markets nearby.

Levine does not care that his vote helped condemn the Canal area to a bad traffic situation which cannot be mitigated. Nor does he seem to care that Target will cannibalize sales tax from the small businesses in downtown San Rafael and in the Canal.

11) Levine assumes that all 15,000 people in the Canal are Latino. And he assumes, very mistakenly, that all 250 Target jobs will be given to those Latinos who live in the Canal area.

The Target jobs are almost all part-time, minimum wage, non-unionized and without benefits. Levine assumes those low-paying jobs are just fine for Latinos. His justification: “There’s a place in the economy for everyone.”

Levine cares naught that there is a 60 to 70% turnover at Target stores, which means that as soon as a worker reaches a stage where they may be eligible for benefits, they are laid off.

One wonders if, because Levine is unemployed and lives off his wife's family's money and job, and because he’ll lose the Assembly race as well as his City Council seat, he’ll go find a place in the economy and get such a job at Target.

12) Levine wants to institute a living wage ordinance as a way of helping Latinos get a higher wage from Target. That is impossible—living wage ordinances can only be imposed upon for-profit or non-profit entities which have a contract with the city, and Target won’t have such a contract. His declaration clearly demonstrates he does not know what a living wage ordinance is.

13) Levine was quoted as saying that Target will bring a pharmacy to the Canal. That is simply not true. Target and its pharmacy will be located further from the Canal than CVS and Rite-Aid at Montecito.

14) Recently Levine telephoned the client of a local political consulting firm in order to get that client to demand that the political consulting firm not do a political mailer against Levine.

15) Several endorsers rescinded their endorsement of Levine for all the reasons noted above.

16) And he has named some individuals as endorsers who have not endorsed him. Among those are Armando Quintero, on the MMWD board, and Andrew McCullough, San Rafael city council member. That is unethical behavior.

17) Right after the meeting where he voted for Target, he went around city chambers to those who opposed Target and asked "Will you still love me in the morning?"

That’s code for “How do you like being fucked over?”

There is no need to vote for Obama.
The presidential election is won by the Electoral Vote alone. The popular vote has nothing to do with it, like it or not. I don't like it.
BUT there's no way Obama will lose in states which always vote Democratic.
These are the states in which it is always SAFE to vote for 3d party candidates. California is one.
Go to http://electoral-vote.com . The site owner checks 8 different polls and averages them. You can check this site daily, up to election day, to see if there is a chance of the Republican candidate winning.
There never is, in California. If you're worried about a Republican win - check electoral-vote.com , and worry not.
Now you are free to help build the real Progressive movement by voting for the 3d party candidate of your choice. You will be building the progressive movement, encouraging the like minded, helping to put forward real progressive platforms - which will push the discourse to the left, educate voters, maybe result in more media coverage of righteous alternatives or even real debates.
Third parties may not win but they are needed to educate the voters and motivate politicians to act reasonably and humanely.

Again you betray the 'progressive' values you once represented. Sin cojones you endorse the same corporate plutocrats who have misrepresented us for to long.
Unfortunately Diva Di-Fi and Madame Pelosi, Queens of the 0.1%, will probably be reappointed to continue their reigns of privilege and patronage. Hopefully the candidates of the Republican disloyal opposition will neuter themselves. But in case you weren't aware, the rules are different this time. We could have two 'democrats' running against each other. The race is for #2.
IM(not so)HO, a truly bold and 'progressive' move, one that demonstrated your committment to, and realisation of, the need for rapid and drastic change, would have been to endorse David Levitt and Barry Hermanson. No 'they' couldn't win, but we might. It could finally force these two pooh-bahs into a public debate in front of us peons where they could be challenged and held to account for their many malfeasances. If by some miracle a Republican won, well WTF, 'The Queen is dead', we're all going to hell in a handbasket pretty soon anyway.
www.Levitt2012.org
www.barryhermanson.org
Just my thruppence

As lots of these comments point out, the Bay Guardian kinda fell down here in not even interviewing or considering candidates who could be the alternative Democrat or Green in this top 2 primary.

In the Feinstein race for Senate, probably 4 candidates are more progressive, in exactly the ways that the Guardian criticizes Feinstein for her record.

Here at the TaxTheRich2012.org / Mike Strimling for Senate Campaign, we are getting good results on a shoestring budget. A Pulse poll in early May had us already running 4th in the field, apparently, and the top of the Democrats running besides Feinstein. This is on the strength of our strong statement in the Voter pamphlet to restore taxes on the rich.

Come check us out at TaxTheRich2012.org or read your voter pamphlet from the Secretary of State. Contribute or link us on facebook or twitter or your own email list, if you want this message to get out. Whoever wins, you could send a strong and credible message to the pundits and other politicians that there is a strong constituency for taxing the rich at the levels they were taxed from 1940 to 1981.

It is understandable that vested interests like the Bay Guardian, let alone the Chronicle, will not tell you about our campaign. We have to run our campaign as insurgents in these "comment" zones. But come check us out. If you agree that we need to return to progressive taxation, this is your chance to send that message!

So the cigarette tax is supposed to be for cancer research. But how hard would it be to divert it to pay for other services that need money more (and they are plenty that do)?

By means let's all think of the children- I'm sure they will grow up to be fine Americans without jobs or education because everyone was more concerned with keeping them away from cigarettes

As desperately as reforms are needed, a plan to pay workers five day of benefits for four days of work costs taxpayers money. His plan is absurd.

If we had any journalists in this state, Brown's faulty plan would be exposed.

I am writing because it is very important that your voter guide info be correct. Barbara lee is listed as District #12 on your voter guide, and she is actually from District #13.