November 7, 2024
(Today’s Date)
June 15, 2020
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or deletion
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information or material added after the publishing of the original blog)
This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States).
Former Vice President Joe Biden has narrowed his potential V.P. selections down to six candidates: Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Kamala Harris, Susan Rice (former National Security advisor) , Gov. (New Mexico) Michelle Lujan Grisham, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, and Florida Rep. Val Demings . According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Warren, Harris, and Rice are still in contention, while the remaining three will be looked at closely.
My “vote” (i.e., opinion) will be in favor of that candidate that will best represent the interests of Black people, especially Black males.
Candidly, I voted for Warren for President. She displayed the strength and courage to stand up to corporations, progressiveness in terms of social programs for all citizens, and the willingness and insightfulness to advocate on behalf of Black people. See, for instance, Warren’s 2015 Remarks at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, where she stated , in part, “A half-century ago, when Senator Kennedy spoke of the Cvil Rights Act, entrenched racist power did everything it could to sustain oppression of African-Americans, and violence was its first tool. Lynchings, terrorism, intimidation. The 16th Street Baptist Church. Medgars Evers, Emmett Till.
African Americans were effectively stripped of citizenship when they were denied the right to vote. The tools varied—literacy tests, poll taxes, moral character tests, grandfather clauses—but the results were the same. They were denied basic rights of citizenship and the chance to participate in self-government. The third tool of oppression was to deliberately deny millions of African Americans economic opportunities solely because of the color of their skin.” She also produced a videotape advocating Black rights. Finally, Warren, during her presidential campaign, had a campaign office in largely Black Oakland, California.
So, I will vote for Warren to be at least one of the final three candidates to be considered by Biden.
As for the remaining candidates, they all have equal footing with me.
As for Harris, she is separated from the remaining candidates in that she is one of my *federal senators, and a former attorney general of California, and I have had some contact or communication with her office as Senator.
Also, while I might ordinarily just vote for Warren as the final selection for Biden, I won’t , because I do believe that a woman of color should be a consideration for the appointment, but not the only consideration.
Therefore, I will consider Harris as a woman of color. And, because she is one of my senators, I will provide a decision as to whether I will vote for her to be one of the final three.
As I stated above, I have had the opportunity to communicate with Harris’ office before (not with her as I had hoped), and I was always seeking assistance as a Black male.
I now have two matters pending before Sen. Harris that will help me decide whether she will get my vote as a possible V.P. candidate. One of the matters she has already issued an initial response on, but she can reconsider. The other matter is still pending. Both matters involve me seeking assistance as a Black male, one clearly so, and the other impliedly so. And, while I am seeking relief, my main concern is how the matters are handled, that is, what type of assistance, if any, am I provided by the Senator.
One matter I have raised before, the refusal of the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate complaints brought by Black males. I raised the issue before Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and copied Sen. Harris with the same letter/complaint addressed to Sen. Feinstein. Neither Feinstein nor Harris responded or provided any assistance in resolving the issue. The other matter involves the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)/CARES Act program, which is a federal program and/or statute designed to provide unemployment relief, and the state EDD interpreting the federal statute to deny relief.
Before proceeding further, I will state that Harris is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, which means, at minimum, she can inquire into its performance of its duties.
With the above in mind, my dilemma, as to the first matter, was that I would ordinarily contact the FBI regarding a burglary of my car, where some items taken were potentially evidentiary matter for a potential federal lawsuit. But, since I’ve found that the FBI does not investigate complaints filed by Black males, I wanted assistance from Harris as to how to proceed. Harris responded to my letter, and I thank her for doing so, but it didn’t provide me with any assistance. And, the specific language of the letter is very telling as to this point. However, I will not share the contents of the letter at this time; for I will give Harris an opportunity to reflect , while keeping in mind that I am a lawyer, and that my letterhead on the letter indicated so. After Harris has decided both matters, depending on the outcome, I may reveal the contents of the letter.
Regarding the second matter, I am seeking assistance and relief. It’s a matter of the state EDD carrying out the directives of a federal statute, which, on its face, dictates relief be granted. My position is that the State is not following the federal dictates for its own reasons.
I will await Harris’s responses to my requests for assistance. I have to believe that the way she responds to my requests for assistance here, coupled with the past, is how she will respond as Vice President. And again, it’s not necessarily the outcome that determines my vote, rather, it’s how, or if, I am assisted with the problem with which I am seeking relief.
UPDATE—June 29, 2020
Thusfar , I haven’t heard from Harris or her office. And while I realize my request for assistance is probably not the only request she has received, I believe my request, in terms of prioritizing, should be among the top tier because of the urgency, importance, and the time needed to resolve the matter.
Basically, all that is needed from Harris is for her to contact the EDD and inform them that pursuant to the PUA and the CARES Act, *which are FEDERAL acts or programs, self-employed people are qualified for unemployment benefits and the EDD cannot deny benefits solely because one is self-employed. I know that the EDD knows this already, because the information is on its website, but, because , I believe, its action in denying benefits is intentional or made in bad faith, the assistance of Harris is necessary (for her to tell the EDD what it already knows) to expedite the process and expedite the receipt of benefits.
This case shows one of the problems with the feds allowing a state to implement a federal program involving benefits. If the Feds controlled the issuance of the Federal benefits, I probably wouldn’t need Harris‘s assistance. But, I’ll wait a little longer before I give my opinion.
Biden says that he will make his decision by August 1, 2020. My opinion will be by July 15, 2020.
More next time.
UPDATE—July 16, 2020
THE DECISION
I started this blogpost because I became aware that former Vice President Joe Biden had announced that he would be selecting a woman as a running mate for his presidential campaign, and that women of color would be considered. And I became aware that one of those women of color considered would be Sen. Harris. And unlike the other women of color mentioned for the position, I had been involved in some interaction with Harris and/or her offices in the past. And that interaction wasn’t positive. Further, and coincidentally, during this time that Biden is considering a V.P. running mate, I was prompted to call on Harris for assistance again. So, I decided to use this coincidence to see if Harris, or her office, had changed, or had become more positive. To my dismay, they haven’t.
Basically, I had turned to Harris when she was attorney general of California . I can’t recall now the exact subject matter of the assistance that I was seeking, but I can recall that I received a “courtesy” letter from her office that did not in anyway provide any assistance to me. The way the letter was written just sounded so “white”. The second occasion that I had to call on Sen. Harris was when I copied her with the letter I sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, requesting that Sen. Feinstein pursue an investigation before the Senate Judiciary Committee the complaint that the Justice Department in Los Angeles , especially the FBI, does not investigate complaints brought by Black males. Neither Sen. Feinstein, nor she (Sen. Harris), pursued the matter. I may still change the name in the letter from Feinstein to Harris and send the letter to Harris. The letter is equally as important now, as it was when I submitted it to Feinstein.
So now, I write a letter to Harris and tell her that I would ordinarily file a complaint with the FBI for investigation, but because I’ve found the FBI don’t investigate complaints filed by Black males, and ask for some guidance on how to proceed or how to get the FBI to investigate my complaints.. Harris writes back and says , “Individual criminal investigations are a matter that is outside my jurisdiction as a legislator (notwithstanding that she is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction over the Justice Department, which includes the FBI). If you have not already done so, you should report this concern directly to . . . the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Los Angeles Field Office, as they are in the best position to investigate your claims. Thank you again for contacting my office. I HOPE THIS INFORMATION IS HELPFUL.” (Emphasis added). Clearly, it is not.
The other issue, unemployment compensation, is the more critical issue, because, like so many others, I need the funds. After Harris’s Washington office requested I file an e-mail letter identifying the problem, and I submitted the letter, I haven’t heard anything from her office.
Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, enthusiastically support Sen. Harris as a candidate for V.P. For I must assume that she will act as V.P., the way she acts as Senator.
My Opinion : While I believe Sen. Harris should remain in contention for the V.P. position, because I believe she is as qualified as the remaining candidates, I don’t believe that she should be one of the final three at this time. But, she should be there in the event one of the final three doesn’t work out.
To be clear, if Sen. Warren was my senator, and she proceeded the same way Sen. Harris has, I would have the same opinion about Sen. Warren as I have about Sen. Harris.
UPDATE—August 11, 2020
CONGRATULATIONS, SEN. HARRIS : JOE BIDEN’S V.P. PICK
I hope you prove that my reservations are unwarranted. Let’s work for racial justice!
My “vote” (i.e., opinion) will be in favor of that candidate that will best represent the interests of Black people, especially Black males.
Candidly, I voted for Warren for President. She displayed the strength and courage to stand up to corporations, progressiveness in terms of social programs for all citizens, and the willingness and insightfulness to advocate on behalf of Black people. See, for instance, Warren’s 2015 Remarks at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, where she stated , in part, “A half-century ago, when Senator Kennedy spoke of the Cvil Rights Act, entrenched racist power did everything it could to sustain oppression of African-Americans, and violence was its first tool. Lynchings, terrorism, intimidation. The 16th Street Baptist Church. Medgars Evers, Emmett Till.
African Americans were effectively stripped of citizenship when they were denied the right to vote. The tools varied—literacy tests, poll taxes, moral character tests, grandfather clauses—but the results were the same. They were denied basic rights of citizenship and the chance to participate in self-government. The third tool of oppression was to deliberately deny millions of African Americans economic opportunities solely because of the color of their skin.” She also produced a videotape advocating Black rights. Finally, Warren, during her presidential campaign, had a campaign office in largely Black Oakland, California.
So, I will vote for Warren to be at least one of the final three candidates to be considered by Biden.
As for the remaining candidates, they all have equal footing with me.
As for Harris, she is separated from the remaining candidates in that she is one of my *federal senators, and a former attorney general of California, and I have had some contact or communication with her office as Senator.
Also, while I might ordinarily just vote for Warren as the final selection for Biden, I won’t , because I do believe that a woman of color should be a consideration for the appointment, but not the only consideration.
Therefore, I will consider Harris as a woman of color. And, because she is one of my senators, I will provide a decision as to whether I will vote for her to be one of the final three.
As I stated above, I have had the opportunity to communicate with Harris’ office before (not with her as I had hoped), and I was always seeking assistance as a Black male.
I now have two matters pending before Sen. Harris that will help me decide whether she will get my vote as a possible V.P. candidate. One of the matters she has already issued an initial response on, but she can reconsider. The other matter is still pending. Both matters involve me seeking assistance as a Black male, one clearly so, and the other impliedly so. And, while I am seeking relief, my main concern is how the matters are handled, that is, what type of assistance, if any, am I provided by the Senator.
One matter I have raised before, the refusal of the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate complaints brought by Black males. I raised the issue before Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and copied Sen. Harris with the same letter/complaint addressed to Sen. Feinstein. Neither Feinstein nor Harris responded or provided any assistance in resolving the issue. The other matter involves the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)/CARES Act program, which is a federal program and/or statute designed to provide unemployment relief, and the state EDD interpreting the federal statute to deny relief.
Before proceeding further, I will state that Harris is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, which means, at minimum, she can inquire into its performance of its duties.
With the above in mind, my dilemma, as to the first matter, was that I would ordinarily contact the FBI regarding a burglary of my car, where some items taken were potentially evidentiary matter for a potential federal lawsuit. But, since I’ve found that the FBI does not investigate complaints filed by Black males, I wanted assistance from Harris as to how to proceed. Harris responded to my letter, and I thank her for doing so, but it didn’t provide me with any assistance. And, the specific language of the letter is very telling as to this point. However, I will not share the contents of the letter at this time; for I will give Harris an opportunity to reflect , while keeping in mind that I am a lawyer, and that my letterhead on the letter indicated so. After Harris has decided both matters, depending on the outcome, I may reveal the contents of the letter.
Regarding the second matter, I am seeking assistance and relief. It’s a matter of the state EDD carrying out the directives of a federal statute, which, on its face, dictates relief be granted. My position is that the State is not following the federal dictates for its own reasons.
I will await Harris’s responses to my requests for assistance. I have to believe that the way she responds to my requests for assistance here, coupled with the past, is how she will respond as Vice President. And again, it’s not necessarily the outcome that determines my vote, rather, it’s how, or if, I am assisted with the problem with which I am seeking relief.
UPDATE—June 29, 2020
Thusfar , I haven’t heard from Harris or her office. And while I realize my request for assistance is probably not the only request she has received, I believe my request, in terms of prioritizing, should be among the top tier because of the urgency, importance, and the time needed to resolve the matter.
Basically, all that is needed from Harris is for her to contact the EDD and inform them that pursuant to the PUA and the CARES Act, *which are FEDERAL acts or programs, self-employed people are qualified for unemployment benefits and the EDD cannot deny benefits solely because one is self-employed. I know that the EDD knows this already, because the information is on its website, but, because , I believe, its action in denying benefits is intentional or made in bad faith, the assistance of Harris is necessary (for her to tell the EDD what it already knows) to expedite the process and expedite the receipt of benefits.
This case shows one of the problems with the feds allowing a state to implement a federal program involving benefits. If the Feds controlled the issuance of the Federal benefits, I probably wouldn’t need Harris‘s assistance. But, I’ll wait a little longer before I give my opinion.
Biden says that he will make his decision by August 1, 2020. My opinion will be by July 15, 2020.
More next time.
UPDATE—July 16, 2020
THE DECISION
I started this blogpost because I became aware that former Vice President Joe Biden had announced that he would be selecting a woman as a running mate for his presidential campaign, and that women of color would be considered. And I became aware that one of those women of color considered would be Sen. Harris. And unlike the other women of color mentioned for the position, I had been involved in some interaction with Harris and/or her offices in the past. And that interaction wasn’t positive. Further, and coincidentally, during this time that Biden is considering a V.P. running mate, I was prompted to call on Harris for assistance again. So, I decided to use this coincidence to see if Harris, or her office, had changed, or had become more positive. To my dismay, they haven’t.
Basically, I had turned to Harris when she was attorney general of California . I can’t recall now the exact subject matter of the assistance that I was seeking, but I can recall that I received a “courtesy” letter from her office that did not in anyway provide any assistance to me. The way the letter was written just sounded so “white”. The second occasion that I had to call on Sen. Harris was when I copied her with the letter I sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, requesting that Sen. Feinstein pursue an investigation before the Senate Judiciary Committee the complaint that the Justice Department in Los Angeles , especially the FBI, does not investigate complaints brought by Black males. Neither Sen. Feinstein, nor she (Sen. Harris), pursued the matter. I may still change the name in the letter from Feinstein to Harris and send the letter to Harris. The letter is equally as important now, as it was when I submitted it to Feinstein.
So now, I write a letter to Harris and tell her that I would ordinarily file a complaint with the FBI for investigation, but because I’ve found the FBI don’t investigate complaints filed by Black males, and ask for some guidance on how to proceed or how to get the FBI to investigate my complaints.. Harris writes back and says , “Individual criminal investigations are a matter that is outside my jurisdiction as a legislator (notwithstanding that she is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction over the Justice Department, which includes the FBI). If you have not already done so, you should report this concern directly to . . . the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Los Angeles Field Office, as they are in the best position to investigate your claims. Thank you again for contacting my office. I HOPE THIS INFORMATION IS HELPFUL.” (Emphasis added). Clearly, it is not.
The other issue, unemployment compensation, is the more critical issue, because, like so many others, I need the funds. After Harris’s Washington office requested I file an e-mail letter identifying the problem, and I submitted the letter, I haven’t heard anything from her office.
Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, enthusiastically support Sen. Harris as a candidate for V.P. For I must assume that she will act as V.P., the way she acts as Senator.
My Opinion : While I believe Sen. Harris should remain in contention for the V.P. position, because I believe she is as qualified as the remaining candidates, I don’t believe that she should be one of the final three at this time. But, she should be there in the event one of the final three doesn’t work out.
To be clear, if Sen. Warren was my senator, and she proceeded the same way Sen. Harris has, I would have the same opinion about Sen. Warren as I have about Sen. Harris.
UPDATE—August 11, 2020
CONGRATULATIONS, SEN. HARRIS : JOE BIDEN’S V.P. PICK
I hope you prove that my reservations are unwarranted. Let’s work for racial justice!
AsqUPDATE—November 28, 2020
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM’S SENATOR PICK
Now that Senator Harris has been chosen as the V.P. Elect , Gov. Newsom must now select someone to fill the now vacant senator position. A group of women has submitted a full page ad in the L.A. Times requesting that Gov. Newsom select another woman of color for the position. I agree with them , but for probably a slightly different reason. I believe that Newsom should select another woman of color because Harris is a woman of color, and that type should be maintained for diversity and consistency, that is, California voters voted a woman of color into the office, so Gov. Newsom should maintain that consistency, if possible (based on qualification).
Moreover, in keeping with the selection type chosen by Newsom, I believe that the new senator should be a Black woman, the same as the originally-elected type. At least to finish out Harris’s term. But also , it should be a Black woman because Black people in this country face unique discrimination that no other minority faces. And there should be someone Black (genuinely Black) , where possible, to represent Black people. And Harris is (was) the only Black female senator in the U.S. Senate. She should be replaced by another Black female, if possible. I believe that it is possible.
I believe that Karen Bass would be an excellent candidate. Or Barbara Lee.
UPDATE—November 30, 2020.
GOV. NEWSOM’S SENATOR PICK (AFTER THE SECOND FULL PAGE AD)
Now, there has been a second full page ad in the L.A. Times posted by “California Latino Leaders”. This ad has gotten more specific than the first ad. The first ad generally requested the governor to appoint a woman of color. This second ad specifically request that Gov. Newsom appoint Alex Padilla, a Latino Male, “to make history”. I feel compelled to respond.
I continue to recommend that Gov. Newsom appoint a woman of color, and that the woman of color be Black . I recommend either Karen Bass or Barbara Lee. Here are the reasons why :
1. Sen. Kamala Harris was not appointed. She was ELECTED by the citizens of the State of California, including a great many Latino voters.
So, the citizens of California chose a Black woman to be one of California’s senators.
2. When Sen. Harris ran for office, she was matched against a Latino female, Loretta Sanchez, who was also running for the office. The People chose Sen. Harris, a Black woman.
3. When California citizens elected Sen. Harris, in 2016, they intended for her to serve a full term. Therefore, another Black woman should be selected to fulfill the term of the initial Black woman. When the term is up, the People can once again decide who they want to be senator, e.g., what characteristics. And, the citizens will be open to any and all suggestions.
4. As long as there is a qualified Black woman available to be selected (and there is) Gov. Newsom should select one, in order to carry-out the WILL of the People (the real People—not the so-called “People” designated by the criminal law. That’s not the people, that’s the government, i.e., prosecutors). Otherwise, the governor will defy the will of the People.
5. Sen. Harris is the only Black female senator serving in the U.S. Senate at this time. Therefore, if she is not replaced by a Black woman, there will be NO Black female senators in the U.S. Senate. And there needs to be at least one, to represent the interests of both women and Black people.
6. As I stated above, Black people in this country face unique, *and inhumane , especially racial, discrimination that no other minority in this country faces, and there needs to be at least one Black California senator , where possible (and , again, it is possible) to represent the interests of Black Californians in particular, and Black people in the country, generally. And, hopefully, that senator will be a genuine Black person, and not a “fake” Black person, i.e., Black in color only.
7. Finally, the California Latino Leaders “urge” the governor to “make history” by appointing Secretary of State Padilla , who would be the first Latino Senator to represent the State. But, making history does not take precedence over the will of the people or the needs of the constituency, i.e., Black people needing Black representation, where possible.
Moreover, if the governor was to appoint a male, I would suggest that a Black male should be appointed. That would also be a first, and would be badly needed.
But, my recommendation here is for a Black woman, for the reasons stated above.
UPDATE—December 5, 2020
GOV. NEWSOM’S SENATOR SELECTION (AFTER L.A. TIMES ARTICLE)
FOR THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT REASONS GOV. NEWSOM MUST RELY ON IN MAKING THE SENATORIAL SELECTION, ONLY *REPRESENTATIVES KAREN BASS AND BARBARA LEE FIT THE BILL.
The L.A. Times, in a published article entitled , “Newsom is urged to name a Latino Senator”, December 4, 2020, suggests that certain Latino officials and/or groups of California are urging Gov. Newsom to select a Latino candidate for Senator , which is understandable. But, even if that is the case, the two main reasons the Governor must rely on in selecting the candidate points to Karen Bass and Barbara Lee. In fact, they are the only two that fit the bill.
Before I proceed further, I want to address the Times’ assertion that “The California Legislative Black Caucus and Black Lives Matter have called on Newsom to appoint Democratic Reps. Karen Bass of Los Angeles or Barbara Lee of Oakland”. But, prior to my recommendation of the same two women, I hadn’t heard of the LBC or BLM making that recommendation. Perhaps they did , but it certainly hadn’t been made public to my knowledge. *Moreover, if the LBC or BLM made the recommendation, why didn’t they take out a full page ad in the Times like the individuals or groups urging the governor to select a woman of color or a Latino ? However, my readers and I know that I made the recommendation, specifically and publicly . See above in this blog. I was the first person (if not the only person ) in Los Angeles (and probably California) to recommend Bass and Lee for the Senator position. But, I’ll chalk up the Times’ assignment of the request to select Bass and Lee to the LBC or BLM as propaganda and the Times’ personal bias *against me.
*All mention of Bass and Lee being a possible selection as senator by Gov. Newsom, including mention by the the local media, broadcast and print, is nothing but johnnie-come-lately jumping on MY bandwagon. When I made the recommendation, I noticed that no one else had done so, at least not publicly. So, I did.
Now, back to the article and Gov. Newsom’s pick.
Notwithstanding the Times’ article and the push for Secretary of State Alex Padilla to be appointed the new senator, Bass and Lee best fit the main two reasons Newsom must consider and rely upon in making his selection. Those two reasons are : (1) choosing the best qualified person and (2) upholding and carrying out the will of the People of the State of California. Only Bass and Lee meet those requirements. Padilla does not.
First, the most qualified to be a senator and a member of the U.S. Congress. Only Bass and Lee are presently members of the U.S. Congress, and are therefore, eminently qualified for the senator position. They would only have to flip over from the House to the Senate. As Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Los Angeles) stated in the article, “Whoever is appointed is literally going to have to hit the ground running”; Bass and Lee are the most qualified to do that. Padilla lacks U.S. Congressional experience.
Second, and most important, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
In 2016, while pitted against a Latino woman, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, now Senator Harris, a Black woman, defeated Sanchez overwhelmingly, that is , Sanchez lost “soundly in the general election”, Times article.
So , the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA : BLACK PEOPLE, BROWN PEOPLE, *YELLOW PEOPLE, RED PEOPLE, AND WHITE PEOPLE spoke. And they selected a Black woman of color. Therefore, Gov. Newsom should, on this occasion, and for the other reasons I have identified above , respect the will of the people, and appoint a Black woman, Bass or Lee, as the new U.S. Senator for the State of California.
And, Alex Padilla is not a Black woman.
UPDATE—December 17, 2020
GOV. NEWSOM’S SENATOR PICK (AFTER TIMES’ A.G. ARTICLE)
ALEX PADILLA MAY BE THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR A SENATOR POSITION AT A DIFFERENT TIME AND UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES; BUT, AT THIS TIME, UNDER THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, HE IS NOT.
In a L.A. Times’ article, entitled “Pick a reformer for Atty. Gen., Newsom urged”, December 13, 2020, the writers state, “Harris’ election as vice president means the governor must also appoint somebody to fill her Senate seat, and if he picks Secretary of State Alex Padilla for the Senate AS SOME EXPECT, . . . .” Emphasis added. I hope the writers are wrong about the expectation.
This is not the right time for Padilla to be senator because there may not be in the near future, a highly-qualified Black person to represent the face and interest of Black people available for selection as Senator, and, at the same time, represent the face and interest of women and women of color. At another time in the future, this may not be the case, and it may be ripe for Padilla to be selected as senator. But, now, is not the time.
Moreover, as I’ve stated before it is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE of the State of California that a Black woman serve out the rest of the term of Sen. Harris, which present special circumstances for the selection of senators Bass or Lee; and , again , Bass and Lee are highly-qualified as compared to Padilla being minimally-qualified. When Sen. Harris’s term is up, then either the Gov. or the PEOPLE can select the next senator of their choice, which could include Padilla as a candidate.
Finally, I believe it would be difficult for Gov. Newsom to explain to Black people and women of color why he chose a Latino male, with minimal qualifications *(compared to Bass and Lee only, in terms of U.S. Congressional experience—otherwise, he would be equally as qualified as anyone else without U.S. Congressional experience) over highly-qualified Black women for the Senator position, at this time, i.e., the senator position is of great significance for the Democratic Party currently.
UPDATE—December 22, 2020
GOV. NEWSOM’S SENATOR APPT. (AFTER ANOTHER TIMES ARTICLE)
In another Times’ article written by a Times’ writer, commenting on whether Sen. Dianne Feinstein should resign, the author points out once again, “It’s generally EXPECTED that Newsom will appoint Secretary of State Alex Padilla , 47, to fill Harris’ Senate seat. He would be California’s first Latino senator . Padilla is a longtime political pal of Newsom .” Emphasis added.
First, I hope it is not a foregone conclusion that Gov. Newsom has made up his mind to select Padilla regardless. That would be unfair to Black people and women of color, because it would mean that the Gov.’s decision would be arbitrary and capricious, without considering the merits of the arguments of advocates on behalf of Black people, of which I am a member of the class, or women of color. At minimum, we deserve consideration of our viewpoints. And, I believe the Governor will be fair.
Secondly, I would hope the Governor would not select the next senator solely on the basis of friendship. If so, that would mean that he would place friendship above qualifications and the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I have to believe that he would not do that.
Third, I continue to stress on behalf of Black citizens of the State of California and of the United States of America, that if Gov. Newsom does not choose Representatives Bass or Lee, it will leave the State of California , the U.S. Senate, and the United States of America without a Black female representing the interests of Black people , in particular, and females in general. And, with we, Black people knowing that the opportunity for us to have a Black person in the U.S. Senate from the State of California, or from any other State for that matter, in the future, is likely to be slim and none. We only need to look at the history. No Black senator ever from the State of California before Sen. Harris, and only ONE Black female senator ever in the U.S. Senate before Sen. Harris, Carol Mosley Braun.
Finally, the article points out, “But, importantly for California, Latinos now are the largest ethnic group in the state, representing 40 % of the population”. And this presents yet another reason for continuing to respect the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and appoint a Black woman, because by Latinos having the greater population compared to Black people, it also means that they will have the greater chance of having a Latino senator chosen in the future than Black people (because there will be more of them to choose from).
SENATOR FEINSTEIN RETIRING
I support the notion of Sen. Dianne Feinstein retiring, thereby providing the opportunity for another senatorial selection. And I believe that if Feinstein places the Party above herself, she would resign, and the senatorial pick wouldn’t present such a dilemma for Governor Newsom.
If Feinstein was of the caliber of the late great RBG, I might advocate that she maintain her position at the U.S. Senate table until she decides to leave, but Feinstein is no Ruth Bader Ginsburg . So, for the good of the People of the State of California , her time is up. But, without Feinstein retiring, I continue to assert that the only fair choice, at this time, under the present circumstances, is Karen Bass or Barbara Lee.
*This comment is not meant to denigrate any of Sen. Feinstein’s past work as a senator, because I believe she has been a decent senator, but I believe at this time, the state of her advocacy and/or health suggests retirement rather than continued occupation of the Senate seat.
UPDATE—December 23, 2020
NEWSFLASH : GOV. NEWSOM’S SENATE PICK : ALEX PADILLA
THE WRONG PERSON AT THE WRONG TIME
Those who forecasted the expectations of Gov. Newsom’s senate pick were correct. It was and is Alex Padilla. For the reasons I have stated above, I believe Padilla is the wrong person at the wrong time for the senator position, at least for the one and only senate position open at this time. But, at least, we know where Newsom stands now. Before now, at least for me, there had never been an issue before Newsom that directly impacted the Black community specifically. This matter involved Black representation by a Black person for the Black communities of California and the United States. And Newsom’s appointment of a Black woman to the Secretary of State position makes no difference. Again, at least now we know where he stands.
Gov. Newsom’s decision also provides support for my assertions regarding the homelessness issue in California, i.e, California officials don’t really care, where there is a disproportionate number of Black people among the homeless in Los Angeles city and county, in particular, and probably statewide in general.
Nonetheless, I’m in the process of writing Newsom a letter regarding a civil case that involves racial and gender bias and/or discrimination. I’m still going to send him that letter.
UPDATE—March 8, 2021
NEWSOM’S RECALL : IF A FORMIDABLE DEMOCRAT RUNS FOR GOVERNOR DURING A NEWSOM RECALL ELECTION, NEWSOM MAY BE IN TROUBLE ; OR, TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, NEWSOM’S ONLY HOPE OF CLEARLY AVOIDING A RECALL IS FOR NO DEMOCRAT TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR
If the recallers gather enough signatures to cause a recall election for Gov. Gavin Newsom, and another Democrat who would otherwise be a qualified candidate for governor runs for governor, Newsom might get recalled. Especially, if there are many democratic voters who are dismayed with Newsom for the reasons I am. At the outset, I voted for Newsom at the last governor’s election. But, if a qualified democratic challenger ran for governor during a recall election, I would consider voting for that candidate. Gov. Newsom has disappointed me in two major ways, and neither of them has to do with the pandemic or decisions Newsom has made during the pandemic. While others have a problem with Newsom’s pandemic decisions, his pandemic decisions are not my main concern with Newsom, although I do believe his indoor attendance at the restaurant during the pandemic was poor judgment and hypocritical.
My reasons for possibly recalling Newsom and selecting another democrat are Newsom’s selection of Alex Padilla as a senator and Newsom’s failure to respond to a letter I wrote to him regarding the dismissal of a civil appellate case by the 2nd District Court of Appeal that I believe was based on racial and gender bias, see the December 23rd update above. For me, Newsom has now shown his true colors.
First, as I stated in the December 22nd blogpost above, when Newsom chose Padilla over Reps. Karen Bass or Barbara Lee as senator, he acted against the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and, at the same time , he DISRESPECTED the will of the people (for him to appoint a Black woman). And, at this recall election, or, at the next general election for governor, THE PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER.
Second, I wrote Newsom a letter regarding the dismissal of a civil case by Division 7 of the Second District Court of Appeal that I know was infected with racial and gender discrimination or racism. I, as a Black male, received no response from Newsom, not even a courtesy letter, which is usually assigned to a specific person in a politician’s office for responding to citizens’ or constituents’ letters.
However, my voting for another democrat during the recall election would have to be under ideal circumstances. That is, no more than 2 democratic candidates running; ideally, only one. Therefore, if there is a multitude of candidates running, both democrats and republicans—like the Gray Davis recall election—I will vote against the recall, and hope that Newsom is challenged by another Democrat in the next general election for governor.
If NO DEMOCRAT runs for the office in the recall election, I will absolutely vote against the recall, and place my hopes on Newsom being challenged by a democratic challenger in the next governor’s election.
UPDATE—March 22, 2021
THE BEST THING FOR DEMOCRATS TO DO TO ASSURE A DEMOCRAT REMAIN IN OFFICE IS SIMPLY TO VOTE AGAINST THE RECALL, REGARDLESS.
After further consideration, the best way for Democrats to assure a Democratic Governor remain in office until the next gubernatorial election , is to vote against the recall, regardless of one’s disappointment with, *or being disappointed by, Gov. Gavin Newsom at this time—as I am, and regardless of whether another Democrat, ANY Democrat, places his name on the recall ballot. Any Democrat interested in challenging Newsom, for the sake of the party, should wait until the next governor’s election. And, if a Democrat decides to place his name on the ballot anyway, Democratic voters should not vote for him or her at the recall election. Rather, they should wait and make the candidate wait until the next governor’s election.
UPDATE—April 14, 2021
ADMISSION : MY STATED OPINION ABOVE WAS BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STRUCTURE OR MAKEUP OF THE RECALL BALLOT. WITH INFORMATION ABOUT A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE, IT CAUSES ME TO PAUSE. BUT, IN THE END, I BELIEVE THE OPINION SHOULD REMAIN THE SAME.
When I provided the opinion above, it was based on the understanding that the recall ballot would be structured as follows : Do you vote to recall Gov. Newsom ? Yes or No. And on the second ballot, or, the second question is : If you voted yes, who do you wish to be Governor (from the list of candidates) ?
But, after reading a newspaper article, I’ve discovered that the recall ballot will allow people to vote for a candidate EVEN IF THEY VOTE NO to a recall. Pursuant to this fact, the article suggests a Democrat should run and Democrats should vote for a democrat (since they can vote no and vote for a candidate) to help assure a democrat remain governor. I admit, it’s food for thought. On the face of it, you can’t lose. Vote no AND vote for a candidate. But somehow, it appears too good for comfort.
First, I personally believe that the ballot should be structured as I initially believed it was, i.e., IF you vote yes to recall, then vote for a candidate But, if the ballot allows you to vote twice, I believe my opinion expressed above still stands. Vote no and ignore the selection of candidates. But, if a Democrat feels compelled to take advantage of voting twice, only vote for a democrat if one is on the ballot.
If the recallers gather enough votes to cause an election, the Secretary of State should produce a sample ballot so the public will know how the ballot is really structured.
UPDATE—August 15, 2021
THE RECALL ELECTION : THE ONLY WAY NEWSOM CAN BE RECALLED IS FOR DEMOCRATS NOT TO TURN OUT AT THE POLLS (OR MAIL-IN THEIR BALLOTS) OR FOR SOME DEMOCRATS TO VOTE REPUBLICAN. IN ANY EVENT, IF NEWSOM IS RECALLED, IT WILL BE THE DEMOCRATS OWN FAULT.
The ballot has now been produced , and one can vote twice. I maintain my position, just vote “no”. Disregard the second question. If Newsom is recalled, it will be the Democrats own fault. In California, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2 to 1.
UPDATE—September 21, 2021
POST-RECALL ELECTION : NEWSOM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WON ; HOWEVER, NEWSOM SHOULD FACE REALITY : THE VAST MAJORITY OF VOTERS WHO VOTED AGAINST THE RECALL LIKELY VOTED FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RATHER THAN FOR NEWSOM HIMSELF. THEREFORE, IN THE 2022 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION, DEMOCRATIC VOTERS WILL THEN VOTE FOR THE RIGHT DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR
Governor Gavin Newsom has now prevailed in the recall election and continues to retain his governorship. But, a word to the wise, Newsom should not get comfortable and believe that his re-election is a foregone conclusion, as some of the recent propaganda produced by some recent L.A. Times articles has tried to depict, e.g., “Big win sets up Newsom for reelection Romp”, and “Newsom would squash his possible ’22 rivals, poll finds”. I know I voted for the Democratic Party, to maintain a democratic governor. Thus, between now and the 2022 election, Gov. Newsom must earn the right to be re-elected. He must show that he is the “right” democratic governor for the People. And, there will be tests.
Remember, Newsom went against the will of the People in selecting Alex Padilla for the senate position, instead of a Black woman. I believe THE PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER. Most of these People , like me, probably voted for the Democratic Party rather than for Newsom. So Newsom , between now and the 2022 election, will have to demonstrate to the People that he still deserves their vote, notwithstanding his proceeding against their will in the Padilla matter.
One major test for me will be :
NEWSOM SHOULD FIRE THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, GREGORY DRESSER; THE CJP, UNDER DRESSER’S DIRECTION, IS CORRUPT AND RACIST. SO, THE TEST IS : WILL NEWSOM FIRE DRESSER ?
I, as a Black male and lawyer, filed multiple misconduct complaints against multiple judges, most of whom were white or non-Black, and not one of the Complaints was investigated, and according to the CJP’s website, “The Director-Chief Counsel oversees the intake and investigation of complaints and the commission examiner’s handling of formal proceedings.” Therefore, Dresser is directly responsible for the refusal of the CJP to investigate my complaints. And, because I charge that the SOLE reason for the complaints not being investigated is because I am a Black male, I charge that Dresser’s decision was racially-motivated, and therefore, racist. Which means that as long as he remains at the helm, the CJP is a racist organization.
Moreover, the impact of Dresser not investigating my Complaints does not just affect me, but it also affects other litigants whom likely would be prejudiced by the refusal to investigate and prosecute because it means that these judges , if they were found to be guilty of the offenses charged, and removable, remain on the bench harming other people, e.g., causing homelessness, unjust incarceration, and property loss, when they otherwise should not be able to do so, if they are removed from the bench.
Further, my car and my storage facility were burglarized or otherwise entered into without my consent or permission, where evidentiary matter, e.g., letters of communication between me and the CJP regarding my complaints (that would have been used for a selective prosecution defense for the former judge Jeffrey W. Johnson, who is Black , of the Second District Court of Appeal), was taken. The stolen information would have helped create a strong defense for Johnson (who, cowardly, has refused to assert the defense in his own behalf—more on Johnson in another blog at a later time). All of the items taken were connected to the CJP in some way, e.g., copies of the complaints that were filed. So, whoever took the items did so on direction of the CJP or did so on behalf of the CJP, that is , to support the CJP, even if they were not formerly directed to do so. In any event, it was the CJP who benefitted from the thefts, whatever the circumstance. And that points to corruption.
Therefore, Dresser should be fired. And, Gov. Newsom should appoint an outside and independent prosecutor to investigate my Complaints, on behalf of the People of California.
I will forward a copy of this blogpost to Gov. Newsom, so that he is made aware of it.
UPDATE—February 20, 2023
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S ANTICIPATED RETIREMENT AND CHOICE OF NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION : IF FEINSTEIN WISHES TO LEAVE ANY KIND OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEGACY, ESPECIALLY FOR HELPING OR SUPPORTING BLACK PEOPLE; OR FOR SUPPORTING THE 2020 RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT; OR FOR REPLACING THE ONLY AND LAST BLACK FEMALE SENATOR IN THE U.S. SENATE, SHE WOULD RESIGN AND GIVE CALIFORNIA , THE UNITED STATES, AND THE U.S. SENATE THEIR ONLY BLACK FEMALE U.S. SENATOR
Sen. Dianne Feinstein has now announced that she will not run for re-election for another term in the U.S. Senate, while indicating that “she plans to remain in office through the end of her term”. That is, “I am announcing today I will not run for re-election in 2024, but intend to accomplish as much for California as I can through the end of next year when my term ends.” And, “she hopes to build on that work before leaving Washington.”
But I suggest that Feinstein should resign in the near future, in order to make way for the appointment of a Black woman by Governor Gavin Newsom. As most Californians know or should know by now, Gov. Newsom, pursuant to my blogposts here, see above (Dec. 5-22, 2020 entries), whereby I pointed out that he would defy the WILL OF THE PEOPLE of the State of California in not appointing a Black woman to fill the Black Kamala Harris’s seat, VOWED to appoint a Black woman if Sen. Feinstein’s seat became available (after appointing Alex Padilla to a seat against the WILL OF THE PEOPLE of the State of California). The seat is now available or is going to be available for the second time (for Newsom to appoint a Black woman to the Senate), and I believe Newsom, notwithstanding his supporting covert racism, would keep his word.
The L.A. Times reports that “Feinstein will leave behind a Senate legacy that includes key roles in enacting the nation’s only assault weapons ban, releasing documentation of the CIA’s use of torture despite strong pushback from the intelligence community and blazing a trail for female senators.” And, by Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), “She was a leader on so many different issues : assault weapons, the environment, women’s rights.” Finally, “As a senator in Washington, she was an important voice on issues such as crime, national defense and intelligence. . . .”
However, NOWHERE among the identified issues above that Feinstein is said to have addressed, and are included in her legacy, is the issue of civil rights for Black people. And, I know of no such civil rights issue or issues that she has addressed. So, this is Feinstein’s last opportunity to leave the Senate with a legacy of having addressed and taken action on at least ONE significant matter involving the civil rights of Black people in this country. Because, the appointment of a Black woman as a U.S. Senator will not only be on behalf of Black citizens of the State of California, but it will also be on behalf of Black people of the United States of America. And, further, it will support the 2020 Racial Justice Movement.
I suggest that whatever Feinstein hopes to accomplish for California “through the end of next year when my term ends”, CANNOT be as important as seating the ONLY BLACK female as a member of the U.S. Senate. This may be the last opportunity to do so, by anyone from any state, for a very long time, if past history is any indication.
So , Senator Feinstein, when you leave the U.S. Senate, and have been gone awhile, why not have Black Californians , and Californians in general, as well as Black people in the United States of America, and Americans in general, REMEMBER YOU as being THAT SENATOR WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SEATING OF THE ONLY BLACK FEMALE MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
UPDATE—February 23, 2023
FEINSTEIN’S RETIREMENT : ON THE OTHER HAND, IF FEINSTEIN DOES NOT RESIGN EARLY TO ALLOW FOR A BLACK FEMALE APPOINTMENT TO THE SENATE, THE MOST MEMORABLE LEGACY SHE WILL LEAVE IS AS : THE WHITE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA WHO REFUSED TO HAVE A BLACK WOMAN APPOINTED TO THE U.S. SENATE
So after Senator Dianne Feinstein have left office for a while, and when there’s a discussion among ordinary people who may know very little about Feinstein’s career in the Senate, if the question comes up in discussion, who is Dianne Feinstein? The most prominent response will probably be : “Oh, she’s that white Senator from California who refused to have a Black female appointed to the U.S. Senate”. I don’t care what other things Feinstein might have done as a U.S. Senator from California, her refusal to cause the seating of a Black woman in the U.S. Senate when she had the sole power to do so (*at a time when there were NO Black women in the U.S. Senate), will be the most prominent thing a lot of people will remember about her as a U.S. Senator. That will be her most prominent legacy , especially among those that keep up with California politics. *Put another way, Feinstein’s greatest legacy as a U.S. Senator that will be remembered by many will be her keeping a Black woman out of the U.S. Senate.
So, it’s entirely in Feinstein’s hands as to HOW she wishes to be remembered .
UPDATE—April 18, 2023
FEINSTEIN’S LEGACY IS NO LONGER HER BIGGEST CONCERN : NOW, THE CONCERN IS HER DAMAGE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s greatest concern is no longer what kind of legacy she will leave when she leaves office, rather, it is will she put her party before herself. That is, the issue now is not just will she keep a Black woman out of the U.S. Senate, but also, will she help damage the Democratic Party in the process. Clearly, Feinstein’s absence is damaging the appointment of judges to the bench, and Democrats need more democratic appointments to help gain some ground on former President Trump’s appointments. So, Feinstein’s decision to not retire immediately so that the process of replacing her can move along, so that the judicial appointment process can be speeded up, comes down to a decision of selfishness. Will she put the Party‘s needs over her own ?
TIMES’ REPORTER BARABAK’S NONSENSE : IF FEINSTEIN RETIRES, NEWSOM HAS NO CHOICE, HE MUST APPOINT A BLACK WOMAN, IF HE HAS ANY INTEGRITY
L.A. Times reporter Mark Barabak, *in an April 18, 2023 article, suggests, “Gov. Gavin Newsom. . . should . . .resist efforts on the left to hijack the Senate seat by appointing Lee (Rep. Barbara)(who is Black) or some other uber-liberal.” Sounds anti-Black or racist to me, i.e., the fine line between conservatism and racism. And, he continues “He should appoint a caretaker who agrees to finish out Feinstein’s term. . . and leave it to voters to sort among several candidates bidding to be her long-term successor.” Finally, “The Governor shouldn’t be substituting his judgment for that of voters by giving an advantage to Lee or any other candidate with the primary election less than a year off.” Emphasis added. BUT, it is the VOTERS who want a Black woman appointed, which is why Newsom made the promise (after he had substituted his judgment for that of the voters when he appointed Alex Padilla, rather than a Black woman). Barabak is basically suggesting that Newsom break his promise to Californians to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein’s seat becomes available. Anti-Black nonsense! Barabak probably made the same suggestion to President Joe Biden after Biden promised to appoint a Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court, i.e., Biden should have considered a woman of any color for the appointment, notwithstanding his promise to appoint a Black woman. And who did Biden appoint? And who do you think Newsom will appoint ? He has no political choice; not to mention maintaining any integrity he might have. And, Feinstein knows it too.
Lastly, Barabak provides some insight as to why Feinstein is so resistant to retiring and having a Black woman replace her. “Feinstein never found favor with the far left. Too conservative, relatively speaking. Too proper and prim.” The fine line.
*TIMES’ WRITER/REPORTER GEORGE SKELTON ECHOES THE SAME ANTI-BLACK RHETORIC AS BARABAK, AND MY RESPONSE IS THE SAME FOR HIM
Times’ writer/reporter George Skelton, like Mark Barabak, spews the same arguments against Newsom keeping his promise to appoint a Black woman : Newsom could appoint a Black woman “as a caretaker senator” and “Newsom might consider it unfair to the front-runners —Reps. Adam B.Schiff, 62, of Burbank and Katie Porter, 49, of Irvine (both of whom are white) — to give Lee a boost.” And my response to this anti-Black rhetoric is the same : If Feinstein resigns, who do you think Newsom, like Biden, will appoint ? Ans.: A Black woman; and not as a caretaker (which would be insulting). And, why ? As I stated above, “he has no political choice”, which is supported by Skelton, in his today’s (April 24, 2023) article, “It now would be politically untenable for Newsom to go back on his word, especially if he has national ambitions. Black politicians and voters may be relatively small in numbers, but they punch above their weight. Ask Biden which voting bloc rescued his presidential campaign in the 2020 primaries.”
Finally, Skelton provides more insight into Newsom’s conservatism (and/or racism, where he supports covert racism) as Barabak did for Feinstein, “She’s (Rep. Barbara Lee, who is Black) a bit more liberal than Newsom and most Californians.” Emphasis added. And what have I consistently said about Californians’ liberalism when it comes to Black people : California ain’t that liberal. It’s a thin line.
*ANOTHER TIMES’ ARTICLE TRYING TO CONVINCE GOV. NEWSOM TO BREAK HIS PROMISE TO APPOINT A BLACK WOMAN IF FEINSTEIN RESIGNS
The Times, in its anti-Black propaganda, has produced another article today, April 27, 2023, which suggests that Gov. Newsom should adopt another alternative to appointing a Black woman to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat should she resign before the end of her term. This time the Times suggests that there should be a “special election”, which, among other things, would be wasting taxpayers money. In the meantime, if a special election method was adopted, that would mean that Newsom’s appointment would necessarily be only a caretaker senator until the special election. The Times’ propaganda just keeps on coming, all in an effort to avoid having a Black woman appointed senator. I hope everyone can see the Times for what it is : schizophrenic, half-liberal and half-racist. This is the racist half that is trying to persuade Gov. Newsom to break his promise to appoint a Black woman. And the evidence of its racism is its persistence. In view of the fact that there’s no Black women in the senate currently, there’s no non-racist justification for the Times’ persistent advocacy of Newsom breaking his promise. It’s white racism, pure and simple.
If an appointment becomes available, Newsom should and will appoint a Black woman, and not as a caretaker.
Did UPDATE—May 2, 2023
THE L.A. TIMES KEEPS THESE ANTI-BLACK ARTICLES COMING; BUT, THEY WON’T CHANGE THE END RESULT
The Times has now produced another article, trying to convince Gov. Newsom to break his promise. This time it is more analytical regarding the disposition of Feinstein’s senate seat pending her leaving office. But, in the end, the Sunday, 4/30/2023, article has the same objective as the others : convince Gov. Newsom to abandon his promise to appoint a Black woman, so that a white senatorial candidate, either Rep. Adam Schiff or Katie Porter, would have a chance of being elected (and, hopefully, for the anti-Black or racist people, would be elected).
Here’s the attempted persuasive methodology of the article : (1) “The pledge (Newsom’s promise) has created a dilemma for the two-term governor.” There is no dilemma. Newsom must keep his promise. (2) “Newsom has declined to weigh in on the (Senate) race”, suggesting that he is entertaining the idea of breaking his promise. Nonsense! Newsom will keep his promise. (3) “When Newsom pledged to name a Black woman to Feinstein’s seat if she resigned before her term was over, (Senator Barbara) Lee was one of the likely choices. However, with an active Senate race underway, such an appointment would be viewed as the governor putting a thumb on the scale in the 2024 election and could irk the others in the race (Schiff and Porter) who are popular with Democratic voters across the nation” (suggesting that Barbara Lee is NOT popular with Democratic voters across the nation). Emphasis in bold and italics script added. None of this racist propaganda will work. If an appointment becomes available for Newsom, he, like President Joe Biden, will keep his promise and appoint a Black woman.
UPDATE—May 14, 2023 Happy Mother’s Day!
SEN. FEINSTEIN IS BACK IN THE SENATE, SO NOW, A MAJOR CONCERN ONCE MORE IS HER LEGACY
Sen. Dianne Feinstein has returned to the U.S. Senate, so for however long she is able to withstand the “heat” in her Washington and Senate environments, a major concern will now flip back to her legacy, in addition to her ongoing health concerns. Her doctor has, appropriately, told her to take it easy. That is, she should not try to perform at full capacity. So that places an even greater burden on her to make a decision about her legacy. Since I can’t operate at full capacity in performing my Senate duties, should I leave a legacy of bowing out to help my party and a Black woman, or should I continue to hang in there until my doctors suggest that working even at half capacity is detrimental to my health, causing me to be forced out, thereby leaving a legacy of me, myself, and I over party, constituents, and a Black woman ?
UPDATE—May 17, 2023
MORE PROPAGANDA FROM THE TIMES
This time, the Times in a May 17, article, states, “If he (Gov. Newsom) appoints an African American caretaker — which is probably his best and safest bet (emphasis added) — he will anger (Rep. Barbara) Lee and no doubt other African American leaders who will feel it betrays the spirit of his promise.” Appointing a caretaker is NOT Newsom’s BEST bet (although for some white people, it is probably his safest bet). NEWSOM’S BEST bet is to KEEP HIS PROMISE, and appoint a Black woman, if an appointment becomes available. Besides, any Black woman with any dignity wouldn’t even accept a caretaker appointment.
UPDATE—July 26, 2023
NOW, THE L.A. TIMES, SUPPORTED BY THE BROADCAST MEDIA, HAS TURNED TO SIMPLY PROMOTING ADAM SCHIFF FOR THE SENATE POSITION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A BLACK FEMALE SENATOR IN THE SENATE
A week or so ago, the local broadcast media and the L.A. Times provided coverage of Rep. Adam Schiff joining in with writers and actors union strikers, which demonstrated that they have shifted from simply advocating that Gov. Gavin Newsom open up the senate position to all senate candidates rather than to a Black woman, if the appointment becomes available, to promoting Schiff, who is a white male, as opposed to Reps. Katie Porter, who is also white, or Barbara Lee, who is Black. And, the L.A. Times went even further by publishing a portion of Barbara Lee’s e-mails to her supporters, which tends to reflect a defeatist attitude. Lee, in one e-mail, purports to restate a portion of comments she has purportedly received from her supporters : “We love you, Barbara. We think you would make a great senator. But Adam Schiff, he just looks like a senator.” And, Lee purportedly states, “I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard this on the campaign trail. And I’ll be honest, it breaks my heart.” L.A. Times, “Schiff leads U.S. Senate race”, July 17, 2023.
Is that racist propaganda or what ? While knowing that there are no Black women in the U.S. Senate presently, but, on the other hand, a whole lot of white males.
UPDATE—September 10, 2023
THE L.A. TIMES IS BACK TO ITS SENATE RACE PROPAGANDA, SUPPORTING ADAM SCHIFF AND KATIE PORTER, WHILE ASSAULTING AND INSULTING BARBARA LEE
The L.A. Times has now produced its latest article promoting Rep. Adam Schiff , mostly, and Rep. Katie Porter, secondarily, for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat, while assaulting and insulting Rep. Barbara Lee, who is Black. First, the Times state “two Democrats appear likely to face off next year to decide who will replace longtime Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Times (emphasis added)” and “Reps. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank and Katie Porter of Irvine are neck and neck, with support from 20 % and 17% of likely voters, respectively, the poll found. The two have opened up sizable leads over their other prominent Democratic opponent, Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, who sits at 7%.” Emphasis added.
Next, the assault and insult of Lee, “Despite several months of campaigning, Lee remains less well-known than Schiff and Porter, with half of likely voters having no opinion of her.” Emphasis added. Then, the real insult, “Although she is the only Black candidate in the race, she trails among likely Black voters with 16% support, behind Schiff’s 30% and Porter’s 21%”. Emphasis added. So, both Schiff and Porter, who are white, are receiving greater support from Black voters than Lee, who is Black. Any Black person who believes this poll result at face value is either naive or stupid. That is, even if the poll outcome is true, and there is serious question about that, coming from the L.A. Times (who is a co-sponsor of the poll), the outcome would clearly be based on what Black persons were polled and who—actually selected the individuals for questioning—did the polling. If you pick the right people to pick the right Black people, then you can assure the outcome. I bet most of the Black people polled weren’t from South Central Los Angeles or Oakland. Moreover, only an uninformed white person would believe this poll result at face value. An informed one would likely not.
Finally, “Asked what Newsom should do if Feinstein steps down, . . . . A quarter of likely voters said he should appoint someone who is willing to serve as an interim appointee and not run for a full term.” That means this quarter of likely voters said that Newsom should not appoint Barbara Lee if Feinstein steps down, even though Newsom has promised to appoint a Black woman (and Barbara Lee is Black), because Barbara Lee is running for a full term. A final assault. The quotes are from the Times article entitled, “Schiff, Porter build on support”, September 7, 2023.
This is nothing but the Times usual racist propaganda that may, in the end, backfire on it and its supporters. If Feinstein serves out her term, the People of the State of California (the real People) may more decidedly vote for Barbara Lee for the same reasons that they voted for Vice President Kamala Harris (over Loretta Sanchez) in her run for the Senate in 2016, that is, they believed that the qualified Black woman (Harris) was best suited for the U.S. Senate at that time. And, I believe that the People will believe that a qualified and proven Black woman is best suited for the U.S. Senate at this time, e.g., because both California and the U.S. Senate currently do not have a Black female senator. And, the Times’ racist propaganda will only bolster that notion.
UPDATE—September 19, 2023
NEWSOM’S ANTICIPATORY BREAKING OF HIS PROMISE TO “THE PEOPLE” : THE SECOND TIME NEWSOM HAVE ACTED AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE; AND, AGAIN, THE PEOPLE SHOULD REMEMBER (WHO NEWSOM REALLY IS, AND WHAT HE REALLY STANDS FOR).
Gov. Gavin Newsom, during an interview on “Meet the Press”, is now attempting to break his promise to the People of the State of California, especially Black people. After promising to appoint a Black woman as Senator should Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat become available, Newsom, in his Meet the Press interview with Chuck Todd, asserted that his intention is not to appoint a Black woman as senator, rather, his intention is to appoint a Black woman as a temporary caretaker . That would be a direct break of his promise to appoint a Black woman as Senator, not caretaker.
Newsom, through a clearly false or misleading statement, stated that, although he hoped he wouldn’t have to make the appointment decision, that “I abide by what I’ve said very publicly on a consistent basis”. If Newsom stated to a national audience that he said “very publicly on a consistent basis” that he would appoint a Black woman as a caretaker, and not a Senator, he lied or made a false statement. And Californians know so. Newsom, publicly and on a consistent basis has promised to appoint a Black woman as a Senator, not a caretaker, if an appointment becomes available. But, to the national audience, the statement is misleading, because they are misled into believing that Newsom’s promise was to appoint a Black woman as a temporary caretaker, and not a senator.
Newsom apparently has succumb to the racist propaganda of the L.A. Times or other similar ideological sources , and now intends to break his promise to the People of California, especially Black people, and proceed against their will a second time. The first time was in appointing Alex Padilla rather than a Black woman as Senator. An example of that propaganda comes from the Times writer Mark Z. Barabak, who states, “Politicians are often criticized for breaching their promises, or going back on their word. Newsom didn’t exactly retract his pledge. He simply modified it to reflect changing circumstances. It was the right thing to do.” Bullshit. The right thing to do is to keep his promise.
So Newsom, unlike President Biden, intends to break his promise to appoint a Black woman (as Senator), and he apparently believes he can do it without recourse from the People, and even though, according to Barabak, when he “was asked by host Joy Reid (of MSNBC) if he’d ‘restore’ Harris’ seat by appointing a Black woman, Newsom leaped at the question. ‘We have multiple names in mind”, he said, ‘and the answer is yes.’ ” Newsom simply has no respect for the will of the People, and no integrity. Moreover, it supports my notion, based on several actions by Newsom, that Newsom has racism in his blood.
It is likely that President Joe Biden received the same type of racist propaganda as received by Newsom regarding Biden's promise to appoint a Black woman as a Supreme Court Justice, e.g., people suggesting other, white or non-Black women, who would be better suited or qualified than Justice Katanji Brown Jackson. But, Biden had integrity, and he kept his promise. The People, especially Black people, should remember Newsom’s intentions (even if they don’t ripen because Feinstein finishes her term), and their anger should be reflected not only at the 2024 election, but in any future election that Newsom himself is involved in.
I continue to believe that no informed Black woman with any dignity or self-respect would accept a temporary caretaker position, knowing that Newsom promised to appoint a Black woman as a Senator, not a caretaker.
Finally, I give credit to Rep. Barbara Lee, who is Black, for finally speaking up, “ ‘The idea that a Black woman should be appointed only as a caretaker to simply check a box is insulting to countless Black women across this country who have carried the Democratic Party to victory election after election.’ ‘Black women deserve more than a participation trophy. We need a seat at the table.’ ” It’s sad that other Black women are not speaking up as well.
*Now, after my blogpost here, it appears that some Black women have written to Newsom and ask him to appoint Rep. Lee as Senator.
UPDATE—October 2, 2023
SEN. FEINSTEIN HAS NOW DIED : AND NOW NEWSOM HAS OFFICIALLY TWICE DEFIED THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ; AND, HE DID SO DISGRACEFULLY : BY SELECTING A WOMAN WHO IS A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE ; THE PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER !
Sen. Dianne Feinstein has now passed on, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has now selected a Black woman, Laphonza Butler, to fill in for her until next year’s election. But, because he did not select Butler as a senator, instead as a caretaker, Newsom has now broken his promise to the People of the State of California, especially to Black people, and has acted against the will of the People twice (first by appointing Alex Padilla instead of a Black woman, and now by appointing a Black woman as a caretaker instead of a senator). The People will remember .
Newsom likely believed he could defy the People and get away with it because he overcame his recall election, where there was no formidable democratic challenger. But, a large portion of that recall vote was for the Democratic Party, that is, to avoid a Republican from capturing the office. But, if or when Newsom attempts to run for any other political office and is challenged by a comparable and/or credible democratic foe, he will be in trouble.
Newsom probably had to go out of state to find a Black woman who would accept a caretaker position, with most Black California women knowing about his promise to the People of the State of California to appoint a Black woman as senator, not caretaker. And Newsom’s decision to go out of state for a Black woman was disgraceful and an affront to Black women and the People of the State of California. The People will remember.
I do not know Butler or her background at all (she is said to be a Democratic strategist and former labor leader), and while I must give consideration to the fact that she is not a Californian at this time, I maintain my belief that no informed Black woman with any dignity or self-respect, knowing that Newsom promised that he would appoint a Black woman as senator, not caretaker, would accept a caretaker position. Was Butler informed when she accepted the caretaker position ? If she was a Californian, I would assume that she was informed. But, because she is from Maryland, at this time, I can’t fairly assume as much. Only Butler knows for sure. However, my position stands. *And, if the shoe fits, Butler would lack dignity or self-respect.
Let’s be clear, Newsom’s decision is not based on his wanting to maintain a fair and objective position regarding the senatorial race. His decision is directed towards helping Rep. Adam Schiff, a white male, win the senatorial election. Newsom is well aware, or should be, of the UC Berkeley/LA Times poll declaring that Adam Schiff is leading all candidates in anticipated votes, including Black votes. And Schiff leads all candidates in fundraising results. So, while Newsom says that he wants to stay clear of the senatorial race, we all know that staying clear of the race can only help Schiff, and to a lesser extent, Rep. Katie Porter, a white female. Contrastly, Newsom’s purported “objectivity” can only hurt Rep. Barbara Lee, who is Black. According to polling or investigative results, Lee trails both Schiff and Porter in fundraising and votes. So, Newsom’s appointment of Lee as Senator could only help Lee reduce the gap between her and Schiff and Porter. And, both Schiff and Porter knew, or should have known, when they “entered the race”, that Newsom had promised to appoint a Black woman as Senator if an opportunity arose to do so. But, with Newsom’s purported objectivity, and a reliance on poll results, Lee is destined to lose “the race”.
Unless, the real People, not the poll people, decide otherwise . And, I believe, on behalf of Rep. Barbara Lee, and on their own behalf, they may do so. Because Newsom broke his promise to the People, because Rep. Lee is immensely qualified (and clearly more qualified than Butler—Butler has never held an elective office), because California and the United States Senate deserves and need a Black female senator, and because Newsom, in breaking his promise to the People, is merely using Butler to help Adam Schiff win the election.
UPDATE—October 4, 2023.
THE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE CLEARLY POINTS TO NEWSOM APPOINTING BUTLER TO HELP ADAM SCHIFF WIN THE SENATORIAL ELECTION
As much as Gov. Gavin Newsom and the L.A. Times might try and pull the wool over the public’s eyes, as far as Newsom’s good faith intent in appointing Laphonza Butler as interim senator, the contradictory evidence proves otherwise.
First, in breaking his promise to the People of the State of California, Newsom “announced that if there is a vacancy, he’ll make only an ‘interim appointment’ of someone who won’t run for a full term.” The Times (emphasis added). But, this position of Newsom is contradicted by his position that “he appointed a Black woman highly respected in Democratic circles and left it entirely up to her whether to run for a full term next year.” The Times (emphasis added). And, “Newsom clarified his stipulation, saying that the new senator could be a candidate, fueling speculation that Butler might throw her hat into the ring to remain in the seat”. The Times (emphasis added). And, if Butler decides to enter the race, who would that help ? Rep. Adam Schiff. And who would it hurt ? Rep. Barbara Lee (that is, 2 Black women competing against each other and spitting the Black vote, and other votes).
Finally, the contradiction from Butler herself : “Butler said Newsom didn’t ask whether she planned to run if selected. ‘He said to me that whoever he appointed, he intended to make it clear that he would expect them to do whatever they wanted to do regarding that’.” The Times (emphasis added). I rest my case.
People of the State of California don’t be fooled. Newsom’s selection of the out-of-state Laphonza Butler as a temporary appointment was for the specific purpose of aiding Adam Schiff in winning the election next year. And, DO REMEMBER at election time that your will from the outset of Kamala Harris’s departure from the Senate was to replace Harris with an equally qualified Black woman. And, for next year’s election, that woman is Rep. Barbara Lee, who is a California citizen and resident. And, DO REMEMBER, Gov. Newsom has broken his promise to appoint a Black woman as a permanent senator, and has defied your will for him to do so TWICE.
So, the time has come, and that time will be election time next year, for YOU, the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA to place things into your own hands, and CARRY OUT YOUR WILL.
That will should be Rep. Barbara Lee.
UPDATE—October 29, 2023
SURPRISE! SURPRISE! BUTLER IS NOT RUNNING FOR THE SENATE SEAT
Temporary Senator Laphonza Butler has “decided” to not run for the permanent Senate seat replacing Sen. Dianne Feinstein. So that leaves the state of the campaign as it was before Butler was selected by Gov. Gavin Newsom as a temporary replacement for Sen. Feinstein. I doubt if Butler had any serious intention of running for the permanent office in the first place; especially at this late date in the race. Her purported deliberations about running for the seat certainly supported Newsom’s assertion that she could do what she wished, run or not run, and added an element of “suspense“ to the Senate campaign, especially for those who believe that Newsom appointed Butler in good faith after breaking his promise to appoint a Black woman as a permanent Senator. Of course, I’m not one of them.
Butler is said to have stated, “Knowing you can win a campaign doesn’t always mean you should run a campaign. I know this will be a surprise to many because traditionally we don’t see those who have power let it go. It may not be the decision people expected but it’s the right one for me.” Is that propaganda or what ?
So Butler’s “decision“ leaves the campaign in the same state it was and is before her decision, with the leading senate candidates being democratic Reps. Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee, with Schiff leading in the polls and fundraising, and in the expectation of winning the race, which is the plan.
UPDATE—January 21, 2024
THE L.A. TIMES PROPAGANDA MACHINE HAS MADE IT OFFICIAL : * THE TIMES ENDORSES ADAM SCHIFF FOR SENATOR; NOTWITHSTANDING THE PEOPLE’S WILL
The L.A. Times begins with its usual propaganda, and ends with an official endorsement of Adam Schiff for Senator. First, the Times state (Rep. Barbara) “Lee, who is one of three Black members of Congress from California, had been leading among Black voters statewide but now is essentially tied with Schiff— who leads with Asian American Pacific Islanders voters and white voters. Schiff and Porter are essentially tied among Latino voters.” Emphasis added. Now, how many of you readers believe that ? Especially regarding Black voters.
The propaganda ends with “Adam Schiff for the U.S. Senate”, and “Schiff is a proven leader and a natural choice (NOT the PEOPLE’S CHOICE) to represent California in the U.S. Senate.” Emphasis added.
On election day in the State of California in two months, the People of the State of California should vote for the PEOPLE’S choice, not a natural choice. And, based on what the People wanted when they voted for Vice President Kamala Harris for the U.S. Senate in 2016, that choice should be Rep. Barbara Lee.
*The election is now about a month away.
UPDATE—February 6, 2024
BOTH ADAM SCHIFF AND KATIE PORTER HAS WRITTEN OFF BARBARA LEE AS A COMPETITOR FOR THE MARCH PRIMARY FOR U.S. SENATOR : WE’LL SEE WHAT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
Reps. Adam B. Schiff and Katie Porter have both excluded Rep. Barbara Lee as a competitor for the U.S. Senate seat in the March primary. Schiff, in his new campaign ad , identifies former baseball player Steve Garvey, a Republican, and himself, as the “Two leading candidates for Senate”, with no mention of Katie Porter or Barbara Lee. And Porter states, “Adam Schiff knows he will lose to me in November.” Again, with no mention of Lee.
Therefore, both Schiff and Porter somehow believe the People of the State of California will forget or overlook Gov. Gavin Newsom’s broken promise to appoint a Black woman as senator and, more importantly, Newsom acting against THE WILL of the People TWICE. That will being for a Black woman to replace the departed Black senator Kamala Harris, who THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA voted into office in 2016.
I believe THE PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER. We shall see.
UPDATE—February 20, 2024.
THE DEBATE : BARBARA LEE SHOWED THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ESPECIALLY THE WOMEN, WHY SHE SHOULD BE THEIR WILL
For all who didn’t know, there was a debate tonight, the last debate before the March 5th election among the top four candidates running for the U.S. Senate. Although Reps. Adam Schiff and Katie Porter clearly are writing Rep. Barbara Lee off as a challenge (with Steve Garvey discounting all Democratic candidates), Lee showed the People during the debate why she deserves to be the People’s will, especially the women People. She was the only one to address the issue of reproductive rights for women, and the only one to mention people of color. But, she didn’t stop there. She was the first to raise the issue of Pentagon spending when a question was asked about the military . Finally, Lee demonstrated that if the People select her as their will , she will not just be a Black woman, but she will be a strong, independent, *and caring Black woman, who will stand on her principles. Thus, she was the only candidate who admitted that both Hamas and Israel were wrong in the Hamas-Israeli war, i.e., what Hamas did was grossly wrong, but what Israel is doing is worse, and she would call for an immediate cease-fire to stop the killing of over 29,000 Palestinian people, mostly women, children, and babies, who likely had nothing to do with Hamas’s actions. The cease-fire is not to support Hamas, but to hit the pause button in killing and starving innocent people until a more rational or human solution can be reached or achieved. Palestinians are human beings; they are not animals.
The People of the State of California will decide who will be California’s next Senator , NOT the polls, and I continue to believe that on Election Day, the People will choose Barbara Lee, because she is their
* (our) choice. And, remember, a large number of we the People in California are women, and “Women dominate the Democratic voter base.” The L.A. Times. Don’t be surprised if the top two are Lee and Porter. And, what if the People really put their foot down and make a statement to those disrespecting their will by taking Lee over the 50 % threshold, avoiding a November contest altogether. *Wouldn’t that be something? It would send shockwaves throughout California, and the United States.
UPDATE—March 3, 2024
A PERHAPS FINAL ANTI-BLACK, ANTI-BARABARA LEE PROPAGANDA MESSAGE FROM THE MEDIA; THIS TIME IT’S THE BROADCAST MEDIA, CHANNEL 4 : STEVE GARVEY, A REPUBLICAN, IS LEADING IN THE POLLS
Channel 4, in the last few days, has broadcast an announcement that states Steve Garvey is leading in the polls in the U.S. Senate race. That is, by-passing Reps. Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee. Clearly, it can be interpreted as being representative of Californians overall, and clearly, it is meant to appeal to the naive and stupid.
First of all, even if the polling results are true, and I will assume they are (even though I am quite skeptical), the results are merely a product of who did the polling, who were polled, and where did the polling take place. So, apparently, the polling was done in a way to produce a Steve Garvey lead. But, only the naive and stupid would believe that this reflects the votes of Californian citizens as a whole; especially where California is a majority Democratic state. Moreover, if the Garvey is leading in the polls represented Californians overall, then Gov. Newsom would have been RECALLED, and we would likely have a REPUBLICAN Governor now. But, we DON’T. And, we won’t have a Republican U.S. senator. Thus, the Garvey is leading in the polls is PURE propaganda , offered for the specific purpose of trying to get Schiff elected as senator, see infra.
Second, as stated above, the Garvey is leading in the polls message is intended to help Adam Schiff win the election by producing a Schiff v. Garvey general election outcome. Where, of course, Schiff would easily win.
Finally, the Garvey is leading in the polls is anti-Black and anti-Barbara Lee propaganda because Barbara Lee, who is Black, stands to be the biggest loser by the propaganda, since she is behind Schiff and Porter in fundraising, television ads, and most of the so-called polls; but, she is the one that the People of the State of California has indicated they want to be the next U.S. Senator. And, I believe that Channel 4 knows that Gov. Newsom broke his promise to appoint a Black woman as a full senator, and went against the will of the People twice in not appointing a Black woman as a full senator.
The only real poll will be conducted on March 5, 2024. And, in that poll, Steve Garvey will not lead, and it is doubtful that he will come in second (the doubt arises because of the number of Senate candidates, and, in particular, the number of Democratic candidates, which may allow him to come in second).
On March 5, 2024, I believe the People of the State of California will remember what Newsom did, and what they want, Rep. Barbara Lee. And, if that’s the case, Garvey may come in last, rather than first, in the real polling.
UPDATE—March 10, 2024
ELECTION RESULT : SCHIFF “WINS” : BUT, I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN THE VOTING OUTCOME FOR THE SENATE SEAT. I DON’T BELIEVE THE OUTCOME IS LEGITIMATE, BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY QUESTIONABLE MATTERS THAT DO NOT ADD UP TO A WIN FOR SCHIFF. THUS, I AGREE WITH KATIE PORTER : I BELIEVE THE OUTCOME WAS RIGGED IN SOME WAY.
To me, the election result does not pass the “smell” test, because of questionable or contradictory matters, of which I will identify a few, infra. Of all the elections that I have voted in since college, I believe this may be the first time that I have characterized an election as being rigged. And that’s been through election of both democratic and republican leaders, including the election of former President Trump. I was surprised by the election of Trump, but I did not believe the presidential election was rigged. The same thing applied to the election of Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, Rep. Adam Schiff’s election, with Steve Garvey coming in second, is a different story. I just do not have any confidence that the election of Schiff and Garvey as general election candidates is legitimate. To me, their selection does not pass the believability “smell” test. Therefore, I agree with Katie Porter, I think the U.S. Senate voting outcome was rigged in some way. And, that’s based on Porter’s reported definition of “rigged” : “ ‘Rigged’ means manipulated by dishonest means”. Here are a few reasons why I believe the voting outcome for California’s U.S. Senate seat is suspect :
1. Prior to the primary and the selection of Alex Padilla as Senator by Gov. Newsom, a group of women of color took out a full-page ad in the L.A. Times asking Newsom to select a woman of color for the senate appointment (Newsom selected Padilla). Next, after another vacancy became available, the women of color did not have to place another full-page ad, because Newsom announced, and promised, that he would appoint a woman of color as a full senator (and he broke that promise, of course). So, now with a primary election which includes a woman of color and a white woman, and with Democrats out-numbering Republicans 2 to 1, and with “Women dominat(ing) the Democratic voter base”, Californians are lead to believe that all or most of the women of color who took out the full-page ad and other women of color who supported them, and other Californian women in general, suddenly, in the primary election decided to no longer desire to have a woman of color or a woman as a US. Senator, rather, now, they prefer two white males as senator. It strains believability, and has an unbelievable odor.
2. Most Californians probably know about Newsom’s twice going against the will of the People of the State of California which called for a Black woman to be named senator at the earliest opportunity. Yet, throughout the campaigning for the primary NOTHING was said or mentioned about that fact or circumstance. The campaigning was carried on as if that fact or circumstance never occurred, so for the Californians who had not known of the Newsom disregard, it was a clean slate, as if Newsom’s violation of the People’s will had never occurred, and as if the People of California had not made it known that they wanted a Black woman as Senator. Therefore, this was deception at its best. And this deception was carried out by both the candidates and the media, both broadcast and print. For instance, even in the final televised debate, nothing was mentioned about Newsom’s breach and the People’s desire for a Black woman senator, not by the questioners or the candidates. The viewing public was deceived into believing that the breach and the People’s desire did not occur. But, they did occur. And, in my opinion, Lee won the debate, which adds to my reservations or reluctance to accept the voting outcome at face value.
3. The reporting of the outcome of the election. Most of the people probably obtained the results of the election through the broadcast media, and mostly television. Yet, the television stations, to my knowledge, did not provide a map of California, dissected into counties and cities, showing where the votes were coming from for the candidates, especially Schiff and Garvey. The L.A. Times had produced at least one article where it stated that polls indicated that Schiff was receiving as many Black votes as Barbara Lee. I don’t believe it, or, that it’s true. If the media had produced a map of California showing the counties and cities where the votes are coming from, then perhaps I and other Californians would have more confidence that the results are true and accurate. For example, show the city of Los Angeles and indicate where the votes for the candidates are coming from, especially South Los Angeles. I know that I don’t have an expansive circle of Black southern Californians, but, all of the Black people I know or have spoken to voted for Barbara Lee. A major Black newspaper, the Sentinel, endorsed Barbara Lee. Rep. Maxine Waters endorsed Barbara Lee. So, where did Schiff’s Black voters come from in South L.A., if any came from there ? I don’t believe they came from South L.A. But, if they did, how many came from there?
However, the news media, and perhaps the Secretary of State, only provided percentage numbers, not even the actual vote numbers, which would be more specific than percentage numbers. So, we don’t know who voted for Schiff and Garvey and how it was geographically and racially distributed.
4. There are a lot of Palestinians and other Middle-easterners living in Southern California, and many of them are against the Israeli continued bombing of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Schiff stated that he opposes a cease-fire. And, there were protestors protesting during Schiff’s victory speech; so much so that Schiff had to cut his speech short. And, I thank the protestors because if they had not been caught on television where everybody could see, the People of California probably would have been lead to believe that Schiff had full support, or, at least considerable support, of the Palestinian voters, even though most of them may be against him, and voted against him. But, there is a serious question as to how many, if any, Palestinians voted for Schiff. And, if there were only a few, if any, the public do not know that.
So, who gave Schiff the votes he is supposed to have obtained in order to lead in the voting ?
And, who gave Garvey the votes that he received to come in second place ?
Finally, because of my reservations, I do not accept or support either Schiff or Garvey as my U.S. Senator; for neither is the People’s choice, based on the People’s Kamala Harris vote, and their supportive actions thereafter.
*(info deleted)
UPDATE—March 16, 2024
THE LEGACIES OF FEINSTEIN AND NEWSOM WILL BE THAT BOTH OF THEM ACTED TO KEEP A BLACK WOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA OUT OF THE U.S. SENATE
Whatever other things that history may record about ex U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of the things that it will record is that both of them acted to keep a Black woman from California out of the U.S. Senate. Feinstein by refusing to resign during periods of failing health (knowing that Newsom had promised to appoint a Black woman with his next available opportunity) and Newsom by breaking his promise to appoint a Black woman as full senator if Feinstein resigned, or, otherwise, at his first opportunity to do so.
The purpose of this short blogpost is to try and assure that when Feinstein and Newsom’s legacies are developed, that the whole picture is revealed, because I know that most of the historians will have a tendency to omit the above aspect of Feinstein’s and Newsom’s histories. That is, historians might attempt to do what was done during the primary election period immediately preceding Election Day, that is, nothing was said about Newsom’s promise to appoint a Black woman as full senator upon resignation (or death) of Feinstein, or that Feinstein died in office rather than resign early and allow the appointment of a Black woman to the U.S. Senate. This is my small contribution to history.
UPDATE—April 14, 2024.
PART OF THE REASON WHY REP. BARBARA LEE LOST THE SENATE ELECTION
I’ve had an article written by the purportedly Black L.A. Times reporter Erica D. Smith, “Barbara Lee didn’t win Senate race, but she’s still laughing”, on my desk for awhile, but have had more pressing things to do than respond to the article. Most of the article is simply B.S., but the one part I will comment on here is what I believe contributed in large part to Rep. Barbara Lee losing the election. Smith states, “I doubt Lee will ever admit it, but she had to know she was probably going to lose.” This defeatist attitude coming from a so-called Black woman is shameful. But, she is a L.A. Times reporter, and her comment supports the rest of the propaganda the L.A. Times put out during the election.
If one did not know Smith was Black, I assure you, most readers perusing the article would assume she was white.
UPDATE—July 13, 2024
DUMB DEMOCRATS : WHAT DO THEY INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH BY PUBLICLY CRITICIZING BIDEN, ASKING BIDEN TO STEP DOWN, AND WITHHOLDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, BECAUSE OF BIDEN’S DEBATE PERFORMANCE ? THE ONLY ONE WHO STANDS TO GAIN FROM THIS DEMOCRATIC INFIGHTING IS TRUMP. TRUMP DOESN’T HAVE TO DO ANY BIDEN BASHING, BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IT FOR HIM.
Recently, after the Biden-Trump debate, multiple Democrats have publicly blasted Biden about his performance at the debate, called for Biden to step aside, and announced that they will withhold all future contributions until Biden step aside. All of this because Biden had a few stumbles at the debate. So what? How many people voted for Biden for his debate skills? A very few, if any, because no one knew for sure if there would be a debate. I’m for Biden because of his philosophy, his ideology, *his actions, and his projections for the future for the country. For example, Biden has fought for the cancellation of student loans (and attempted to secure a massive program of student loan forgiveness) and he has placed more minorities and women (and women of color) on the federal bench than any modern-day president. And what has Trump done: Per Vice President Kamala Harris, “Do you know that of the 50 people who President Trump appointed to the court of appeals for lifetime appointments, not one is Black.” This is why I’m for Biden and why I will continue to be for him and NOT Trump. Therefore, I am not moved at all by Biden’s debate mishaps. I don’t support him for his debate skills, and his debate skills do not alter his student loan forgiveness efforts, his judicial appointment efforts, his Supreme Court appointment of a Black woman, or his Black woman Vice President selection.
To the contrary, the ONLY thing that Democratic bashing of Biden over the debate can do is help assure that former President Trump win the election. I guarantee you that if Biden and the Democratic Party lose the election in November, it will be in LARGE part due to Democrats bashing their own leader. Trump doesn’t need to campaign anymore, because the Democrats are campaigning for him. Even if some Democrats are disappointed with Biden’s debate performance, why PUBLICLY criticize your own party, if you hope to win the election. It’s an exercise in sheer stupidity. Trump doesn’t have to state that Biden did a bad job at the debate, because the Democrats are doing it for him. And, it is especially harmful with regard to the recruitment of undecided voters. How can they be convinced to vote for Biden and the Democratic Party when the Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, and are not sure of their own leadership? If the Democrats have a problem with Biden’s debate skills, *or his debate performance at the last debate, then it should have been discussed among Democrats, and the only way the public would know is through a leak. How is publicly arguing and stressing that Biden should step down, *e.g., Rep. Adam Schiff, going to help the Democratic Party win the election? The Democrats act as if Biden’s debate performance erased his philosophy, ideology, and political efforts on behalf of the citizens of the country. But, IT DIDN’T. Joe Biden is the same Joe Biden as he was before the debate. That’s why I am unfazed by Biden’s debate performance. Thus, Joe Biden does not need to step down. It’s the dumb Democrats who need to STEP UP and SUPPORT Joe Biden, and, in turn, support the Democratic Party. Even if something happens to Biden during his re-election, VP Harris will automatically take over, so she doesn’t need to replace Biden at this point. *President Biden will do what he thinks is best for the country, and if he thinks it is best for him to step down, he will do so. But, right now, he thinks it is best for him to continue to lead the country, because the People voted for him to do so, and because he CAN do so, notwithstanding the debate. The debate has not changed Joe Biden or what he stands for.
DEMOCRATS : YOU HAD BETTER WAKE UP, *BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE, AND SUPPORT JOE BIDEN, OTHERWISE, YOU WILL HAND THE ELECTION TO FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP ON A SILVER PLATTER
UPDATE—July 23, 2024
PRESIDENT BIDEN WITHDRAWS FROM RE-ELECTION AND ENDORSES VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS
Well, now President Joe Biden has decided it is best for the country for him to step down from running for re-election and allow another Democrat to run. By doing so, it will eliminate the counter-productive and destructive in-fighting, and that elimination is better for the Democratic Party and the country, which shows Biden’s high level of integrity and dignity. He has endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to continue the re-election/election efforts. And VP Harris has accepted the challenge and has already vigorously began her campaigning. Thanks, Joe.
UPDATE—November 5, 2024 Election Day
A FEW OF MY VOTES
For President : Kamala Harris (this Black man has no problem voting for a woman)
For D.A. (Gascon-Hochman): No vote
For U.S. Senate (Schiff-Garvey) : No vote
For State Senate : Michelle Chambers
For Proposition 33 : Yes
**UPDATE—November 6, 2024
NOT SURPRISINGLY: TRUMP WINS THE ELECTION
I TOLD YOU SO. See above, at July 13, 2024 Update.
THE DEMOCRATS LOST THE ELECTION BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO BACK AND STAND BEHIND JOE BIDEN. I DON’T BLAME KAMALA HARRIS, I BLAME THOSE THAT PRESSURED JOE BIDEN INTO STEPPING DOWN, INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING HIM. IT WAS UNFAIR TO JOE BIDEN AND KAMALA HARRIS
The news media has steadily stated or announced that Joe Biden stepped down, as if he voluntarily stepped down. Let’s be clear, Joe Biden was abandoned, the Democrats, after their uncalled for private and PUBLIC bickering, forced Biden to step down, and it has now costs them. While the American people was ready for a Black man as President when they voted for Barack Obama, they apparently wasn’t ready for a Black woman as President at this time, and under the circumstances of this election. Many of the people, especially males, who voted for Trump, likely was not prepared for or encouraged to vote for a woman or, especially, a Black woman, at this time. They probably felt a Black woman was being forced on them, whether they liked it or not. They wanted Joe Biden, because he was the one they had voted into office. Of course, most Democrats voted for Harris anyway, like I did, but many, in protest, probably decided not to vote. And, of course, many or most undecideds, especially white males, went straight to Trump’s camp.
Vice President Kamala Harris is in no way responsible for the outcome, she was forced into the position, and I believe she did well under the circumstances. In a way, it was unfair to Harris, but, she had no choice. She was thrust into the position. So, what is she going to say, “I refuse to run”. She could have, but it probably would have ruined her future career, if made public. But, now, people are looking at her for the lost. It’s NOT her fault. Blame the influential pressurers, such as George Clooney, who should have supported Biden rather than publicly calling for him to step down. But now, it’s too late.
Now, it is what it is.
1 comment:
With the homicidal insanity seen conducted by USA law enforcement officers now at a pillory, and of great enormity exhibiting moral skepticism on the behaviour of a certain type of humans behaving animalistic and threatening being recruited. Without lollygogging or givining in to inaniloquenc, it would seem that selecting Sen. Kamala Harris as vice President is our prayers being answered, to get USA back on the right paths, and for both Joe and her to fix things firmly for the American people.
Trump already started pothering, mewling and cowing, hoping American males would help silent her. But hopefully they would see through his intractable and illogical statements, including the years he spent at the helm, disrespecting the American woman, and his failure not to excogitate, the American women have to share the American dreams too.
Post a Comment