CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be On Feinstein's Campaign

Looks like New York isn't the only place with a problem among its Democratic donors class. Remember Steven Rattner?
"I can't think of a single active Democrat in New York who's supporting Freddy Ferrer. And when I say active Democrats, I mean the people in our world, who help raise money for Presidential candidates and things like that."
Now, via diarist neutron, we have Diane Feinstein's co-chair, Angela Bradstreet:
"Quite frankly, I'm also sick and tired of paying taxes," she said. "And that's Angelides' solution -- raising taxes."(...)

"A number of my Democratic friends, who have raised lots of money for Democrats, have said they cannot support Phil," said Angela Bradstreet, a well known San Francisco attorney and co-chair of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's re-election campaign. "This is the first time I can remember it being so pronounced."

Bradstreet, a Democrat who said she is voting for Schwarzenegger, argued that the governor has re-established himself as a moderate who has shown strong leadership on economic issues.
This is the sort of thing that has damaged Democratic chances to win elections for at least two decades now. Look at Bradstreet's bio (emphasis mine):
Angela M. Bradstreet is the firm wide Managing Partner of Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP and was selected as one of the top 75 female litigators in California in 2005. She defends employers in sexual discrimination, harassment, disability, wrongful termination, and racial discrimination claims. She also conducts sensitive investigations. Angela is a former president of the San Francisco Bar Association, California Women Lawyers and the Queen's Bench Bar Association and is the creator of the No Glass Ceiling Initiative that has been endorsed by over 80 law firms and corporate legal departments. She is a recipient of the California State Bar's Annual Diversity Award and the Anti Defamation League's Jurisprudence Award. She can be reached at abradstreet .(...)

Representative clients include Citibank; National Surgical Hospitals; Northrop Grumman; Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.; Pacific Union; Pebble Beach Company; San Francisco 49ers; USI Insurance Services; VeriSign, Inc.; and Wells Fargo Bank.
Some good things in there, but mostly it appears to be a career built on defending huge companies from discrimination claims. Matt has written extensively about the rich donor class of machine Democrats, most recently yesterday:
Ok, the more serious point is what Atrios points out, which is the deeply elitist and authoritarian streak of the rich and liberalish. Many of them are starfuckers who want to be around big shot Democrats like Hillary Clinton, regardless of policy or ideology (which explains her $40 million warchest). Many of them are just arrogant elitists who might have been activists in their college days, but send their kids to competitive nursery schools on the upper East side while pretending to know what sells 'in the heartland'. David Brooks unwittingly supplies them with talking points, and their wealth insulates them from George Bush's America except on a sort of abstract aesthetic level and on a social level since most of their friends aren't in the White House anymore, though the Hamptons is still really nice so it's not that big a deal. Rattner's wife, for instance, is Maureen White, who used to be DNC finance chair under Terry McAuliffe.

Actually it's interesting how much of this social world revolves around Terry McAuliffe and the Clinton/Gore WH. Gore is partners with Lieberman Steven Rattner in Current TV. And the whole culture of insider Democrats, which overlaps lobbyists like Mike McCurry and Richard Goodstein along with single issue group leaders, is part of it. They think nothing of spitting on Democratic activists, holding them in utter contempt. This machine was created in the early 1980s by Tony Coehlo, who I'll write more about in the next few weeks. The rules for this machine are simple - don't rock the boat, and don't point fingers at anyone but liberals, activists, and politicians like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Maxine Waters who for some strange reason just, you know, make people uncomfortable. Feel free to loot, steal, insult, take money from lobbyist friends, become a lobbyist friend, and/or support the right-wing. Just don't point fingers and don't rock the boat/
Matt was talking about Rattner in that passage, but I could hardly imagine a more apt description of what we are seeing from Bradstreet (except that it is a West Coast version). No matter the coast, to have this person so high up in Diane Feinstein's organization is completely destructive to our chances to win anything in California this year. Her presence undercuts not just Angelides, but the entire Democratic ticket in California.

Please call Diane Feinstein's campaign office about this. The number is (310) 556-8683.



Display:


Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

i support the democratic party, but this is pretty much typical.  a corrupt apparatus that will have to be replaced with something like what ned developed.

by the way, people might like to check out this article from the awesome matt taibbi (it's about hilary):

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story 40185


by island empire on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:10:52 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

Someone please explain to me how it's the progressives of the party and not the Bloombergs/Shrivers/Liebermans/Cookie Roberts/etc. of the party that are destroying the Democrats?


by adamterando on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:12:08 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov (3.00 / 1)

Great question weatherunderground!

After all, whenever any of them win the nomination to something, they're the first ones to call for "party unity" and shame anyone who doesn't comply. Yet they are the first to bail when someone they disagree with wins.


by JackBourassa on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:17:35 PM EST

so very true! (none / 0)

and never have I realized this more then in the Ca-Governor campaign.

seriously.

so hypocritical.

-C.


by neutron on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

It's bidness... making big bucks and holding on to them.  Those with a smattering of conscience call themselves D and feel guilty. Those who feel no guilt about their greed call themselves R.

We need a progressive party which is not about wealth and bidness.  Once these people travel in the country club scene... forget it... they are no longer progressives.

You look at what these people do in bidness and it says it all... defending corporations... developing property (displacing people from their homes).

Did you hear the bit about tom friedman married to the 100 richest family in america... meaning he is in the billionaire club!  hahaha  splains alot about his love of global bidness. eh?


by DefJef on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:32:28 PM EST

Two Points (3.00 / 5)

1.  This woman endorsing Arnold and making such ridiculous and undermining statements is terrible and should not be tolerated.  She definitely needs to be removed from Feinstein's campaign.

2.  Being a lawyer or otherwise representing corporations in some function has NOTHING to do with whether someone is or is not progressive.  I'm a corporate lawyer and am about as economically progressive as anyone can be.  The two things are not mutually exclusive and I think it's a mistake to imply that they are.  


by HSTruman on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:33:26 PM EST

Re: Two Points (none / 0)

Thank you for pointing that point of professionalism out.  I feed my family by doing capital markets transactional work, but I am no Republican.


by Crablaw on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good points. (none / 0)

1. This is a big problem with Dianne, as from what I understand she is actually a friend of Phil's not to mention one of his earliest and most vocal supporters.
(one of the rare times we agree on something)

2. In and of itself her occupation doesn't denote character but that quote about being sick of paying taxes? come on now.
seriously.

-C.


by neutron on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: good points. (none / 0)

Totally agree about the quote, which is terrible.  I just wanted to be clear that not everyone that has corporate clients is somehow lumped together with folks like this.  


by HSTruman on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: good points. (3.00 / 1)

The tax comment by itself is not offensive. Maybe she can't take advantage of deductions as much as othesrs. I do not know. What is more offensive is when people in her profession buy up luxury suites in ballgames and write off those expenses. If she is prepared to see less deductions like those, then there is nothing wrong in that comment. Social services are just too low in the USA to justify the taxation. Way too much money is wasted. Ted Kennedy offends me more when he did nothing to stem the corruption during the Big Dig projects. Or the republicans do on a daily basis with contracts such as Katrina or defense related.


by Pravin on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (3.00 / 2)

In regards to #2, MyDD is actually a corporation, so I'm not plugging a complete anti-corporate line here. It is also wrong to think that everyone within an organization thinks the same way. But when it is combined with what she said about taxes, her endorsemnet of Arnold, and that she was defending these cmpanies against things like discrimination and sexual harrassment claims? I think it paints a picture.
by Chris Bowers on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (3.00 / 2)

Chris - This woman is clearly not a progressive and I agree with your assessment of her individually.  I just worry when anyone makes statements implying that b/c a person defends corporations they necessarily are conservative.  I think that view is problematic both b/c
such a stereotype (1) unfairly associates an attorney with their clients (whether those clients are rapists and murderers, in the case of a criminal defense attorney or corporations); and (2)makes it sounds as if progressive ideas and principles are incompatible with business and bad for the economy.  In point of fact, I FIRMLY believe that progressive economic policies benefit the economy as a whole, such that corporations SHOULD be supporting Democrats.  

At any rate, not trying to nit pick here.  I love your posts and agree with your main points.  I just think it would be a mistake to alienate the good progressives who are out there representing corporations of various types...


by HSTruman on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:34:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (none / 0)

HSTruman has really good points.  I also appreciate Chris's clarification and agree that you do get a certain sense of who she is.  

The comment about paying taxes in an era when the rich have gotten huge tax breaks is really outrageous especially when middle class taxpayers are getting screwed by the Alternative Minimum Tax.  I could care less if people are "starfuckers" as Matt put it but BEING WEALTHY AND NOT WANTING TO PAY TAXES REALLY PISSES ME OFF.  AND YES I AM SHOUTING!!!


by John Mills on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:40:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (3.00 / 1)

I should add the AMT is a real pet peave of mine.  I got married last year and my wife and I got snagged in it.  We live comfortably thank you and neither of us minds paying our fair share.  What angers us is that we get slammed while the richie richs like Angela Bradstreet get tax break after tax break and then complain they pay too much.  Makes my blood boil!!!!


by John Mills on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (3.00 / 1)

This is why I hate the way Deomcrats tend to frame the message as more taxes or no tax reductions. They need to frame it as tax reform. AMT is a perfect example of where the upper middle class can get screwed.


by Pravin on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 09:42:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (none / 0)

Agree 100%.  I have no problem paying my taxes but I have a problem with wealthy people avoiding theirs and then complaining that they pay too much.


by John Mills on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (3.00 / 1)

You do realize, of course, that presumably a significant aspect of her practice is to do internal investigations and help her corporate clients design anti-discrimination policies in order to root out any discrimination before litigation is necessary?  There's no reason that her corporate-side employment law practice necessarily conflicts with Democratic ideals, and it may very well advance them.  


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (none / 0)

Regarding her legal defense work, did you ever think her clients might not ever/only occasionally/usually be guilty?  Also, everyone has a right to an attorney!


by LALaw on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 12:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (none / 0)

Yeah, but the fact that she defends employers probably makes her more likely to favor judges in California's judicial system that would interpret the law to favor employers' rights as much as possible.  Hence, her support of the sexual harrasser.

Btw, I am a lawyer, too.  And I can safely say that not all corporate lawyers are assholes.  However, all the assholes I knew in law school ended up working for corporations in one form or another.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 08:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Points (none / 0)

So a public defender is more likely to be a criminal loving piece of scum???


by Pravin on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 09:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for giving this wider coverage Chris (none / 0)

The mirror over at dailykos is (predictably) a malestrom as well.

From what I understand DiFi's campaign is preparing to issue a statement, less this turn into a multi day story.

wise choice.

I'd also like to point out that I would have never even found this story if not for a commenter on our still brand spanking new site GovernorPhil.com

thanks so much for giving this more attention!

-C.

PS: also, can I say how thrilled I am to have something frontpaged for the first time? and i'm Uid: 359 too!


by neutron on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:41:50 PM EST

i was so excited. (3.00 / 1)

I didn't spell maelstrom correctly.
ok, revoke my n3rd card.

-C.


by neutron on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 2)

When I called, they caller voiced outrage at Bradstreet's comments. My guess is that DiFi realizes this is beyond the pale, the only question is whether she will have the courage to do what must be done. Keep calling.


- John McCain
by Bob Brigham on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:42:28 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

Bradstreet sounds someone the party can do better without (DiFi too for that matter).

But why, when DLC Gov. Ed Rendell endorsed NeoNut Sen. Rick Santorum, didn't it cause this big of a stink around here?


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:46:33 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

Ummm... are you serioius? That post ended up in the Philly Inquirer and helped get Rendell to retract his comments.
by Chris Bowers on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

I googled and found the "Oy vey, Rendell" entry, but can't find anything about his retraction.

If Bradstreet retracts will that be good enough too?


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (3.00 / 1)

Just out of curiosity, how does someone retract a statement like that? The Mel Gibdson drunk excuse?


by Pravin on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 09:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

To Feinstien's DLC minority wing of the party, such kinds of statements don't need retraction.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

If Feinstein were to disavow these comments and cut political ties with Bradstreet, would that be good enough relative to this issue? If not, what more would you want?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:53:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

I want Feinstein out, period. The fact that her staffer supports the GOP is merely indicative of DiFi's record as a DINO.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 01:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

I do too, but that's not currently an option that's realistically available.  So I'm asking what DiFi would do about this issue in your perfect world.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

In my perfect world? If there was less pragmatism and more idealism in the Democratic Party, Democrats would own the presidency, virtually every seat in Congress, and the courts.

As for DiFi, since she's a faux-Democrat who I only want out of office, and it isn't going to happen this year, I don't really care what she does about having a fellow faux-Democrat in a prominent position on her staff.

BTW, word is just in.....DiFi will do nothing about it but pay lip service and Chris is claiming victory.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 4)

She defends employers in sexual discrimination, harassment, disability, wrongful termination, and racial discrimination claims.

So do I.  

I think you would be surprised to know how many people who fit that job description are liberals. More than half of those I know, and I go to conventions for us evil lawyers at least annually.

It's true this person either shouldn't be on DiFi's committee, or should have just shut up. I have no quarrel with that.

But it's not because of what she does.


by attorney at arms on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 04:53:41 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (1.50 / 2)

Anything for buck.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

Who, DiFi, Broadstreet or attourney?


by Epitome22 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 1)

Trifecta.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 1)

Charming and thoughtful response.  So just to be clear, does that mean that any lawyer that defends any corporation for any purpose is a sell out?  If so, then I commend you for your complete adherence to viewing the world in black and white.  


by HSTruman on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

Don't be silly, Truman.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (2.00 / 2)

Just wanted to remind everyone this charming character is allowed to post News lines here, courtesy of Matt Stoller.


by Epitome22 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

Sarcasm and personal attacks are uncalled for.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 1)

Then how would you characterize your posts above?


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

I would characterize them as widely held opinions.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 1)

Well if broad-based stereotyping is ok in your book, would you mind telling us what you do for a living so we can likewise make witty remarks about your profession?


by rfahey22 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 1)

Jobs are for sell outs & Capitalist suckers.


by Epitome22 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

As one of the front page bloggers pointed out -- what wrong with working in your pajamas?


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 08:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

"what wrong with working in your pajamas?"

Great work if you can get it.  Unfortunately, most of us can't.


by John Mills on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 11:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

Great work if you can get it.  Unfortunately, most of us can't

It's only a matter of time.

STAY FOCUSED ON NOV 7!! WE HAVE TO ELECT OUR CANDIDATES.

Right now it's still primary season and there are a number of good reform Democrats to get into the general elections.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 12:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

Legitimate point although the large majority of the primaries have already passed.  Regardless, the point I am trying to make is if we don't elect our candidates in Nov we won't have accomplished much.  In fact we may hurt what we are trying to do since the ney sayers will point to our inability to win general elections.  We have to win the next leg to really make a difference.


by John Mills on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 01:12:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

he point I am trying to make is if we don't elect our candidates in Nov we won't have accomplished much.

The point I try to make is that if we don't get the right Democrats elected in November, we won't have accomplished much anyway.

The Lieberman/Feinstein/Landrieu/Nelson/Clin ton/Bayh/Schumer/DLCorporatist wing of the party will just keep collaborating with Bush and the GOP against ordinary people as they've been doing since 2001 -- and even since the mid 90's -- until such time as they are challenged and replaced in their primaries by RealDems.

And it doesn't bother me at all to see them get knocked off in the fall since it makes it easier for populist Democrats to beat NeoDems in future primaries if they aren't challenging incumbents.

The paramount need for reform now and in the long run within the Democratic Party is the point I try to make. I just wish I was more eloquent and effective at it.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:18:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

I think we are talking in circles.  Why do you think I wrote "our" candidates.  You have to start somewhere and now that people like Tester and Lamont have won the primary we have to win the next leg which is Nov.  You can't change the party structure if you don't get these candidates elected in Nov.  It is that simple.


by John Mills on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 12:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

There are still primary races in progress, Tasini v. Clinton and Mfume v. Cardin to name a couple. When the primary season is over, then it will time to focus exclusively on getting Democrats worthy of support elected.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 01:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

What's inherently wrong with NOT working in your pajamas?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:54:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

What's inherently wrong with NOT working in your pajamas?

Nothing that I can see -- just as there's nothing inherantly wrong with not working (as some try to use as a putdown in lieu of logical disagreement).


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 01:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

I don't post personal information on the internet since it has absolutely nothing to do with stating poilitical facts or opinions. If others want to that's their business.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 08:14:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 1)

We certainly wouldn't want a diverse group of opinions and personalities.  What would that accomplish?


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

I think I fall into that category!


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 08:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

Yes, who are you referring to with this pithy response?


by HSTruman on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

My sister is a trial lawyer, prosecutor, and judge. You should hear the things SHE says about lawyers.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 09:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

all at once?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:55:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

I think so. She works as a defense attoney in one county, a prosecutor in another, and has been a substitute judge. I'm not sure what she's up to right now, but she may be running for a judgeship (A friend of mine was just in Wichita and saw my last name on a sign there -- I've been trying to contact her but haven't been able to.) She ran back in 2004 but lost to some whacko conservative. She's a good liberal Democrat.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 01:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

That's pretty darn impressive.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

I'm a lot prouder of her than I am myself.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (3.00 / 2)

I fail to see why the taxes comment is such a bad thing. And she misrepresents Feinstein , how? Feinstein has done a lot worse than having a cochair who adovcates less taxes.

I find it that democrats have their own blind spots. Taxes should not be an ideology. Taxes should be something on the implementation side of an ideology. Can we use the current revenue to do what we need? YES. Have you ever walked into a government office? It is unbelievable how lazy some of them are. If democrats did not play dead, maybe we wouldn't wsting 300B on Iraq. What if the government had sstronger conflict of interest rules? This way someone like Cheney or AShcroft would not be allowed to work for companies who get overpaid on the value they deliver in their government contracts. What about redirecting some of the tax revenue to liberal projects when we get into power?

My simple rule of thumb is this - I do not have a set level of taxes that I advocate. The better the government, the more inclined I am to let them tax us more. However, to ask for an increase in taxes or maintain the current level, government has to show an ability to spend it wisely. They have not.When they do, they can not only maintain the level of taxation, but then if there are more needs, I will not have a problem if they increase taxes.

If the democrats fought like crazy to redirect  revenue to more deserving projects and fought corruption more  instead of focussing on tax increases, then  they would score more points with the public. However, i do support estate taxes for the flithy rich, but it's too bad DEmocrats dont do a better job spreading the word to the general public about Bush's estate tax cuts affecting mainly the Paris Hiltons instead of some middle class guy.

For those who are self righteous, this is purely anecdotal, but I have seen enough cases where my democratic friends were as keen to take advantage of all kinds of tax loopholes and semi cheat on business deductions as my republican friends.


by Pravin on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:03:47 PM EST

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (3.00 / 2)

Then she should have said something like:

"I'm sick of being taxed to pay for frivolous policies and multi-million dollar special elections that do nothing to make Californians safer, healthier, wealthier or better educated."

In fact, maybe I'll just say it instead.


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (3.00 / 2)

Fair enough. If you take Bradstreet's actions in their totality, one may have cause to be suspicious of her anti tax statements. But I have seen a tendency in democrats to view taxes from an ideological perspective as bad as the republicans, just from a different angle.

My main point is this - it is not virtuous by itself to wish for more taxes and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person pissed about taxes unless you show that person is the beneficiary of a lot of deductions and is just being plain greedy. I think chris's argument has a point, but the way it was worded could have been a little bit more elegant. But you couple that with  the way neutron frames his diary and comments gives you the impressions that an anti tax person is a selfish person.  It is the people's money and government has to prove that it can spend it wisely. What is more troubling are tax deductions for extravagant memberships, tax shelters, etc.

While I dont care for a flat tax as some conservatives do, I do think democrats need to spend more time making executive pay more transparent than just raising the tax rate for the rich as an easy solution. I wish they would spend more time making it tougher for lawyer to strike it rich in class action lawsuits and contingency lawsuits with a lot of punitive damages.


by Pravin on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (none / 0)

I see where you're coming from Pravin.

My concern is that this comment by Bradstreet plays to that lowest common denominator GOP Talking Point (i.e. taxes = evil). Also, it's a blatant attempt to squeeze Angelides' fundraising. (Yes, I know I'm being this simple)

As much as I'd love to have a high minded debate in this society about taxes and government efficency...we have a lot of selfishness to get past before we can do that.


by Danno11 on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 02:10:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (none / 0)

Bradford's comment, to again fall back on the West Wing, is a cookie cutter response.  It's a prepackaged, empty answer.  You don't want to pay taxes? Well fuck my mother, nobody wants to pay taxes in and of itself.  The implication of this statement is the she doesn't think taxes accomplish anything which is true under this governorship, which is exactly why it's FUCKING IDIOTIC for her to vote for the same governor that we've already got.  It goes way deeper than just "taxes are bad" and gets at the fact that our government is run terribly.  Yeah, I don't want my tax dollars going to this governor or this president either, but the problem isn't taxes, the problem is grossly incompetent management of those taxes.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 03:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (none / 0)

Also most state government is for "liberal" projects. Half of california's budget isn't set aside for the military. In fact, almost none of it is. Most of it goes to education and medicaid.

So yes we do need to raise taxes. And yes it needs to be on the people that can afford it the most. The top tax bracket is what 7% in california? Come on, I think Ms. Bloomberg can handle that.


by adamterando on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (3.00 / 6)

Here's what's wrong with this.  California has serious sturctural problems with its finances.  Prop 13 in 1978 limited property taxes so that commercial property is taxed at very low rates and residential at high rates as it turns over. We also have huge educational and infrastructure needs and a massive, corrupt prison system that drains resources from the state.  

In 1996 or so Pete Wilson and the legislature lowered the top income tax rates.  Every year in his first term Bush lowered federal income tax rates, plus dividend and capital gains rates.

People like Angela Bradstreet have had their taxes lowered by double digits over the last 10 years.  They are no longer paying their fair share to maintain the political, economic and legal system from which they are profitting so handsomely.  After all, who needs their property protected?  People like Angela Bradstreet are just selfish.  They are self-centered and feel no sense of community with others in society.  She has no children, so feels she should not contribute to the schools, for example.

I actually knew Angela bradstreet when she was gettign her political start.  She is not progressive on anything but maybe gay rights.


by Mimikatz on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (3.00 / 2)

I wasnt limiting my argument to state taxes. It was more about federal taxes. It was also not about reducing taxes per se. It was more about the right of anyone, even a rich person, to be pissed about their taxes if the government has shown no ability to spend it wisely.

Your comment does not contradict what I say. If the state government has shown that it cannot support the social needs you mention despite spedning the EXISTING REVENUE wisely, then  will support a tax increase.

For whatever it's worth, Bradstreet may be a greedy person. But I wouldnt make that case based on a generic antitax statement. I would make that case based on the deductions enjoyed by lawyers for entertaining clients in style(what is it - 50% or something like that?). I have some prejudice towards rich lawyers , but I would have to start up a whole new diary stating why.


by Pravin on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (3.00 / 2)

"She has no children, so feels she should not contribute to the schools, for example."

Great point.  She and her law firm no doubt profit handsomely from assocaites who got high school and maybe college educations at public schools (big firms like this hire almost exclusively from top private law schools) but she doesn't make the connection!


by John Mills on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 12:17:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually democrats are wrong on taxes too (none / 0)

I totally agree we need comprehensive tax reform and that we should make government use the money it takes in effectively.  Dems do need to approach this issue differently and we need to get rid a lot of the individual and corporate tax breaks that now exist.  

My problem with people like this complaining about their tax rates is a partner in a prominent SF law firm is pulling in megabucks.  I know people who are partners at NY law firms and I'd bet the money they make is pretty similar.  I have no problem with that - she probably works insane hours to earn her big salary and that's fine.  She earns it.

My problem is Bush has embarked on a tax cutting program that benefits people in her tax bracket and she is still complaining.  Meanwhile, every other level of the economic spectrum gets screwed by this guy's policies.  That is what irritates me.  She doesn't realize how good she has it.


by John Mills on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (2.50 / 2)

Yeah I mean, the fact that she's an anti-tax populist bothered me but my jaw hit the floor when I read that she WORKS FOR CORPORATIONS!! and defends them in dsicrimination suits! I don't think I'm ready for a party that allows people who work for corpoations to be sitting next to me at the party table.


by Epitome22 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:07:18 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

How about ones endorsing Republicans?


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and how about one endorsing a Republican... (none / 0)

that is running AGAINST a campaign heavilly supported by the one that they are the co-chair of?

-C.


by neutron on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I find particularly vile (3.00 / 4)

Is that Angelides supports marriage equality, while Arnold does not.  If Angelides is elected, he'll sign marriage equality into law, and millions upon millions of gay Californians will finally be equal to their straight neighbors.

But Bradstreet would rather have a fat tax cut for herself and her rich friends than see that happen.

That's just plain shitty, and I hope a few of her queer friends tell her so.


by Drew on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:20:06 PM EST

Re: What I find particularly vile (none / 0)

its not that she wants a tax - cut, but i would say that the sentiment that certain areas and strangled by taxes is a fair one. i dont know about california specifically, but i know that in massachusets many people are fleeing to NH and this hurts competitiveness. I dont know about Angiledes plan, and i dont know if what this woman is saying is fair/unfair, but saying that the idea that just keep on hiking taxes as if that will cure the economic woes is just plain wrong.


by yomoma2424 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I find particularly vile (3.00 / 1)

I fail to see why the taxes comment is such a bad thing. And she misrepresents Feinstein , how?

You're right about Bradstreet representing Feinstein, who voted for Bush's 2001 tax scam and continues to be one his chief Democratic enablers. JoMo's got nothing over on DiFi in that regard.

But Democrats in her and Rendell's positions shouldn't go around praising the opposition -- especially in an election year.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I find particularly vile (3.00 / 1)

Actually the Taxachussets comments are completely false. You know what the tax rate is in MA? 5.3% Oh and that's a flat tax so someone making $10,000,000 and $10,000 dollars pay the same rate.

North Carolina has a much more progressive tax rate then MA, where the top rate is 8% on those making 200,000 or more a year.

California has a somewhat progressive tax code, but it could and needs to be a lot better.


by adamterando on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the situation is California is this. (3.00 / 4)

we have this massive budget deficit.

Why?
Because Enron and their like blackmailed the state government out of billions... literally with the whole "rolling blackmail" thing, thanks to our ridiculous energy market rules (or lack thereof)

Arnold is good buddies with all of those big energy types... and it's what led to the recall election.

(well that and because Davis was an unlikable ass, who was good at getting elected and little else)

Arnold's solution to every problem is to borrow, borrow, borrow... and then borrow some more.

That and to cut the hell out of any and all social programs.

All Phil wants to do is put taxes on the wealthiest Californians back to where they were under Bush I and Reagan... that's it!

And in return we get a balanced budget, secure infrastructure, great schools, public services etc.

it's really a no brainer.
-C.


by neutron on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be Listened To (3.00 / 5)

I found the tax comment deeply offensive. This sort of utter bullshit is a ReThug meme and needs to be shown for what it is whenever it comes up.

It's criminal.

Criminal in the sense that the person making it is saying that they do not want to pay their share.

Their fair share.

You make a lot of money you are supposed to pay a lot of taxes. Let me repeat that: You make a large amount of income from whatever source, you are obligated to pay a lot of taxes.

Why?

Because as Aristotle showed over 2500 years ago: You can.

I wonder how much money Bradstreet would be making if there were:

No court system....

No electronic communications...

No roads...

No public educational system....

Not very much I'd warrant. That's the side the idiots who want to 'drown the government in the bathtub' always 'forget' to mention.

Without the government it's far more likely Ms. Bradstreet would be the one who drowned.

The residents of New Orleans found out. The hard way.

DiFi?

Every meeting of D/L, every single one, folks are gnashing their teeth at having a fat, self-serving member of the plutocracy such as her as their Senator.

She's a lousy Senator and a lousy human being my book.

Whether she fires the selfish bitch Bradstreet or not.


by Pericles on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:35:02 PM EST

Re: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be Listened To (none / 0)

Fucking A well-told, bro!!!!!!!!!!


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 08:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feinstein better respond. (3.00 / 1)

Saw this at dkos and did my duty.  I sent an e-mail to Feingold and quoted the diary and provided a link to it.   Netroots, arrrgh!


by oakland on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 06:45:42 PM EST

dianne2006.com (none / 0)

Take a look at http://www.dianne2006.com/

Apparently she's "An independent voice for California"

Independent in that "makes no mention of the Democratic party" kinda way.

Sadly we've already had the primary here in CA so it looks like we'll be stuck with her another 4-5 years.


Start Running Better Polls
by bolson on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:00:00 PM EST

Re: dianne2006.com (none / 0)

duh, a senate term is 6 years. Stuck with her 4-5 years until it's time to start campaigning for a replacement.


Start Running Better Polls
by bolson on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (3.00 / 1)

Well I had to call Dianne's campaign again to get an official answer back, (so much for that call back eh?) but this time the guy I talked to was prepared with a statement.

The official word is that Angela Bradstreet speaking in a personal capacity and not for the campaign. That Dianne Feinstein was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Phil Angelides and continues to be so.

No word on if there is going to be a press release, public repudiation or other atonement on the part of DiFi, yet. Or for that matter of Bradstreet will continue to be involved with the campaign.

-C.


by neutron on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:02:16 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

Is that even possible? Wouldn't that be like if in 2004 Karl Rove, independent of Bush and just as a private citizen, started endorsing Democrats?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 04:00:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

incidentally (none / 0)

the people at the offices are pretty much aghast and are definitely paying attention.

we're making a difference here people!

-C.
GovernorPhil.com


by neutron on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:16:28 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet Should Not Be O (none / 0)

If Feinstein wasn't so old I would suggest a primary challenger. She's too conservative for California.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 08:53:42 PM EST

Re: CA-Gov, Sen: Angela Bradstreet (none / 0)

If Feinstein wasn't so old I would suggest a primary challenger

Thurmond hung on until he was over a hundred. She's young enough to be around for another quarter century if power isn't torn from her grasp.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 09:32:06 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.