Tom Steyer Should End His Negative Campaign

  Candidate Tom Steyer should end his negative, inaccurate, destructive media campaign distorting the reality of Becerra’s work on immigration. It is unfortunate that this campaign has selected this route. Instead, if he hopes to be governor, Steyer should campaign on what he is in favor of.  

The anti Becerra  ads funded by Tom Steyer are endless and deceptive. Becerra is being blamed for Trump  era immigration failures.  The failures  were created by the overcrowding of immigrants detention facilities during the Trump era. 

 

The Truth is Xavier Becerra inherited the failures at HHS caused by the Trump era assault on immigrants and immigrant children.  And he resolved many of the problems.  Now, Trump has done it all again- even more.

See Here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SntyYRugBgY&t=1224s

 

Steyer has gained substantive progressive support in recent weeks including from major unions and political organizations.  He should campaign positively and accept the voters solutions whichever way the votes come in.  If he refuses, progressive groups should reconsider their endorsements which endanger this elections. 

If Steyer continues to misrepresent the issues, here is an alternative for those of us who do not want a November election where we are faced with a choice between two bad Republicans.  ( Proposal Reprinted from another source. )

A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR IN CALIFORNIA?

 NO WAY!

***VOTE STRATEGICALLY IN JUNE 2 PRIMARY*** 

HERE’S THE SITUATION:

California has a “jungle primary,” meaning the two candidates with the highest votes will be on the ballot in November, regardless of party. 

Democrats have at least six candidates competing, while the Republicans have two. Democrats are diluting the vote so much that NONE of them are frontrunners. Tom Steyer, Xavier Becerra and Katie Porter are at 14-10% in polls. 

Both Republicans are MAGA Trump supporters. Steve Hilton is a Fox News commentator. Chad Bianco is a Republican sheriff. Both are round 14 %  in polling.

If we don’t organize and strategize RIGHT NOW, the two Republicans could end up being our only two choices on the ballot in November!

 In spite of Steyers flooding the airways  and our mail boxes with inaccurate campaign ads,,,

We should be strategic to get a candidate on the November that we would be willing to vote for.  

 

WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO DELAY CASTING YOUR VOTE UNTIL 7-10 DAYS BEFORE THE  June 2 primary.  

THEN VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT (OPPONENT OF DONALD TRUMP )  WITH THE HIGHEST POLLING NUMBERS. 

Despite what you may feel about some of the candidates, ANY of these Democrats would be much, much better than either of the two Republicans!!! 

A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR IN CALIFORNIA COULD MEAN:

 - more ICE agents in the streets, deportations, detention facilities

 - subverting, disrupting, hijacking the election in 2028

 - appointing Republican judges and other officials hostile to democratic rule of law

 - dismantling environmental regulations

 - reducing social services and safety net programs 

 - reducing protections for LGBTQ people, racial minorities, immigrants

Further actions to help get an opponent of Trump on the November ballot.

 

SEND THIS INFORMATION TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, so that people understand why they need to hold off voting until a week before the primary.

Post this on your social media.  Spread the word. 

VOTE IN THE PRIMARY! Check to see if your neighbors will vote. 

We recommend that you take your ballot to the nearest Safe Box. 

Thank you for your participation in helping to save our democracy!

Nicky Silver, nickysilver3@icloud.com

Rebecca Silverstein, rebsilver74@gmail.com

Renée Allen, eenera@icloud.com

Ruth Hurvitz, itzruth@mac.com

Further reading:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5848331-california-governor-race-becerra-steyer/

https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/03/california-governor-candidates/

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/voter-guide/article315281369.html

 

 

 

We owe a lot to Jesse Jackson

 We owe a lot to Jesse Jackson

https://jacobin.com/2026/02/jesse-jackson-progressive-rights-obituary

Peter Drier 

'Trump Does Not Own Our Country': Greg Casar Speaks At Bernie Sanders Ra...

As Romney Says Covid Relief Bill 'Not Well-Timed,' Progressives Urge Biden to Abandon GOP Outreach, Move Swiftly on Bold Package

As Romney Says Covid Relief Bill 'Not Well-Timed,' Progressives Urge Biden to Abandon GOP Outreach, Move Swiftly on Bold Package

We Need an Electoral Strategy Now

Why Progressives Need a National Electoral Strategy - and Fast

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-progressives-need-national-electoral-strategy-and-fast

Bill Fletcher 

Every electoral cycle gives me the sense of "Groundhog Day" within progressive circles. It feels as if the same discussion take places over and again. No matter what has transpired in the intervening years; no matter what mass struggles; no matter what theoretical insights; progressives find themselves debating the relative importance of electoral politics and the pros and cons of specific candidates. These debates frequently become nothing short of slugfests as charges are thrown around of reformism, sell-outs and purism. And then, during the next cycle, we are back at it.

 

What has struck me in the current cycle are two related but distinct problems. First, progressives have no national electoral strategy to speak of. Second, elections cannot be viewed simply or even mainly within the context of the pros and cons of specific candidates. In fact, with regard to the latter, there are much bigger matters at stake that are frequently obscured by the candidates themselves.

 

Let's begin in reverse order. In a recent exchange on Facebook I had with a friend, he raised the point that Hillary Clinton holds some positions to the right of Donald Trump. His, apparent, point was that in a final election, should it come down to Clinton vs. Trump, it would actually not make much of a difference who won. Someone I do not know responded to my friend by pointing out that Hitler was to the "left" of certain candidates as well and that the issue of intolerance needed to be the point of focus.

"Better than the Republicans", Not Good Enough

by Jeff Bryant,

A common admonition progressives have gotten used to hearing over the years is to support more conservative Democratic candidates because “Republicans are worse.”

This admonition makes some sense in electoral politics, when, in most cases, progressives face a ballot box decision where they have to choose the “lesser evil” instead of someone who wants to do something really horrible like roll back government policies to what was in favor a hundred years ago. Elections, after all, are societal constructions where you’re forced to make a choice between only two candidates, usually. To not vote at all forfeits your right to have a say-so in the matter. And few Americans get the opportunity to vote for third party candidates who have viable shots at winning.

But “better than the other side” loses any legitimacy in the policy arena, or at least it should. For sure, there are often trade-offs between adversaries in the legislative process. But when there’s not an actual bill facing an up-or-down vote, there’s simply no reason for progressives to accept policy positions from office holders on the basis of those positions being better than what the other side wants.

Yet progressives who push for polices reflecting their values are constantly scolded for exhibiting a “have it all fantasy.” They’re told to give centrist Democrats “credit” for positions where there is some agreement – such as marriage equality or climate change – and understand when those officials have to make deals with the other side. “That’s how the game is played,” goes the refrain.

When it comes to the education policy arena, “the game” has played into a disaster for the nation’s schoolteachers, parents, and students.

Progressives take control of UTLA Teachers Union

For seven years, the 31,000 members of United Teachers Los Angeles, the largest local on the West Coast, have gone without a salary increase. Their contract has been expired for nearly three of those. And the teachers, counselors and school nurses that make up the UTLA can still be sent to so-called “teacher jail”—housed in district offices until they’re either fired or restored to their position, a process that can take months—when they’re accused of misconduct .

All of this, activists say, has left United Teachers Los Angeles disengaged and disillusioned. This was evidenced by the low turnout for the union election in late April, in which only 7,235 members—fewer than 25 percent of the UTLA—participated.

The results of that election, however, are perhaps an even greater indication that the UTLA is ready for a change. On April 29, social studies teacher and longtime union activist Alex Caputo-Pearl was elected as president of UTLA following a run-off with incumbent Warren Fletcher.

Labor Wrestles With Its Future

By Harold Myerson

Celebrate Labor Day. 

Since the emergence of capitalism, workers seeking higher pay and safer workplaces have banded together in guilds and unions to pressure their employers for a better deal. That has been the approach of the American labor movement for the past 200 years.

That approach, however, has begun to change. It’s not because unions think collective bargaining is a bad idea but because workers can’t form unions any more — not in the private sector, not at this time. There are some exceptions: Organizing continues at airlines, for instance, which are governed by different organizing rules than most industries. But employer opposition to organizing has become pervasive in the larger economy, and the penalties for employers who violate workers’ rights as they attempt to unionize are so meager that such violations have become routine. For this and a multitude of other reasons, the share of unionized workers in the private sector dropped from roughly one-third in the mid-20th century to a scant 6.6 percent last year. In consequence, the share of the nation’s economy constituted by wages has sunk to its lowest level since World War II, and U.S. median household income continues to decline.

Unions face an existential problem: If they can’t represent more than a sliver of American workers on the job, what is their mission? Are there other ways they can advance workers’ interests even if those workers aren’t their members?

(Editors note; See also post on labor and the immigration struggles on www.antiracismdsa.blogspot.com)

A strategy for change: Bill Fletcher

 By Bill Fletcher, Jr. , Carl Davidson 

The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record … Which Is Why We Are Voting For Him    August 9, 2012  | 

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember.  It is not just that this will be a close election.  It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance.   Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.  

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.

U.S. Presidential elections are not what progressives want them to be

A large segment  of what we will call the ‘progressive forces’ in US politics approach US elections generally, and Presidential elections in particular, as if: (1) we have more power on the ground than we actually possess, and (2) the elections are about expressing our political outrage at the system. Both get us off on the wrong foot.

The US electoral system is among the most undemocratic on the planet.

Progressive Dems issue warning to Obama.

Progressive Dems Threaten Obama over Inclusion of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in Debt Talks

by Gabriella Schwarz

The liberal advocacy group Progressive Change Campaign Committee delivered 200,000 pledges to President Obama's campaign headquarters Friday, demanding he hold their line in debt ceiling negotiations or lose their support.

The group wants a potential agreement to include tax increases on higher income earners instead of cuts to entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicaid, the committee's co-founder Adam Green said Friday. Members of the group said they will not contribute to or volunteer for the president's reelection campaign unless their conditions are met.

Green said they delivered the pledges, signed by those who supported Obama's candidacy in the 2008 election, to Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago Friday morning.

"Democrats need to support the will of the American people," Green said in a conference call with reporters. "Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid must be off the table."

"Our position is the middle class has sacrificed enough," Green added.

He said the signatories donated $17 million and 2.4 million volunteer hours to then-Sen. Obama's election effort in the 2008 election.

How Do We Respond to Obama?

By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
April 21, 2011

April2011http://www.blackcommentator.com/423/423_ml_bring_obama_home.php

Rather than dwell on the question of whether we can

bring Obama home, whether he ever was home, etc., I

want to refocus on this question of how to respond to

him, particularly as we start to think about 2012.

First, what do we now say about 2008? Contrary to those

who have thrown up their hands and feel betrayed by

what the Obama administration has not done, I start in

a different place. I continue to assert that Obama was

knowable in 2008. He was a charismatic, smart candidate

who made the right call on the Iraq War and stepped out

on the issue when it was necessary. He was also, as I

said at the time, someone who could appear to be

different things to different people. The problem was

that too many of his supporters saw what they wanted to

see rather than what existed.

What existed? Well, from the beginning he was a

corporate candidate. We knew that. The question was not

whether he was one but the extent to which his views

could be shifted in order to take progressive, non-

corporate stands. Second, he was a candidate who was

going to avoid race as you or I would avoid a plague

ship. He went out of his way to prove that he was not

an `angry black man' and that race was not going to be

an issue that he would harp on. Third, he was clear

that he wanted to change the image of the USA around

the world, but it was not clear to what extent he

wanted to change the substance of the relationship of

the USA to the rest of the world.