Republicans Kill Liu Nomination; Approve 19 Others

Goodwin Liu

What's that smell? I think it's the stench of "pragmatism" and horse trading. Apparently a deal has been reached between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to kill the nominations of four "controversial" federal judicial candidates in return for getting several other of President Obama's judicial nominations approved. The four judges that were anathema to Republicans just happen to be Goodwin Liu, Edward Chen, Louis B. Butler, Jr. and John J. McConnell, Jr.

MadProfessah has been following the odyssey of Liu's nomination because I met him once at joint State Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8, where the Dean of UC Berkeley's Boalt School of Law. Liu is an unapologetic API LGBT ally and progressive jurist who some consider a likely candidate for a Supreme Court nomination in Obama's second term.

Officials familiar with the deal said Democrats agreed not to seek votes on the nominations of Goodwin Liu, associate dean at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, and three others, while Republicans agreed to confirm at least 19 of President Barack Obama's noncontroversial nominees.

If confirmed, Liu, 40, of Berkeley, would be only the second Asian-American serving on a federal appeals court and the only active Asian-American on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and is seen by some as a potential future U.S. Supreme Court pick. However, his nomination in February was almost immediately met by Republican opposition.

"Professor Liu is an outstanding nominee and it is most unfortunate that my Republican colleagues are blocking an up-or-down vote on his nomination," U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Tuesday. "I will keep fighting until he is confirmed."

The approval of judges means that Democratic-nominated judges are now a majority on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and increased their margin on the 4th Circuit to 9-5. There are 11 federal circuit courts of appeals.

GOP Kills 2 API Federal Judicial Nominations

Edward M. Chen, federal district court nominee

Wow. The GOP must really care about what people of color think about their actions. What they really do care about is the (federal) judiciary. So, it is notable that they have done their best to kill the nominations of two Asian-American men to be federal judges in the 9th Circuit.

Goodwin Liu and Edward Chen were nominated to the federal judiciary by President Obama but blocked by Republicans despite having received 12-7 endorsements from the Senate Judiciary committee.

Under a rarely invoked rule, the Senate must agree to carry over pending nominations when it goes on a 30-day recess. But Republican leaders objected to carrying over several disputed nominees, including Liu and Chen.

"The Republicans are obstructing and, in effect, trying to kill these nominations," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Friday. "It is tragic because these are very worthy nominees who deserve to have their nominations debated and put to a vote."

The San Francisco Chronicle explains why the Republicans are blocking the confirmation of Liu and Chen to the bench.

Liu, a former Rhodes scholar and Supreme Court clerk, has been labeled an extreme liberal by Republican opponents, who cite his support of same-sex marriage and affirmative action.

Chen's opponents point to his background as an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in San Francisco from 1985 until 2001, when federal judges appointed him as a magistrate.

Under procedures requiring unanimous consent, Republicans have regularly objected to holding Senate votes on Obama's judicial candidates.

They agreed to allow a handful of confirmation votes Thursday, the last day before the recess. But they blocked votes on more than 40 other candidates, and returned five who have encountered opposition, including Liu and Chen, to the White House.

If renominated, Liu and Chen will return to the Judiciary Committee for new votes after Congress returns Sept. 13. To force the Senate to consider their confirmation over Republican objections, Senate Democrats would have to muster 60 votes, which would require support from at least one Republican.

As I noted last month, whether Goodwin Liu joins the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a key test to see whether President Obama will actually go to bat for things that progressives believe in.

The 9th Circuit, of course is the appellate court which will be hearing the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the Proposition 8 case.

Q*POC LA Meeting Wed 7/28

Governator Nominates API Woman To Head CA Sup Ct

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has nominated 50-year-old Tani Cantil-Sakauye to replace California Chief Justice Ron George who announced he was retiring recently. Cantil-Sakauye's nomination would mean that the state's highest court would now have a female majority: Carol Corrigan, Kathryn Werdegar, Joyce Kennard and Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

The Los Angeles Times reported her reaction to the nomination:

"I have had the distinct pleasure of being a municipal court judge, a superior court judge and an appellate court justice," she said. "As a jurist, woman and a Filipina, I am extremely grateful for the trust Gov. Schwarzenegger has placed in me. I hope to show young people what they can achieve if they follow their dreams and reach for their full potential."

Cantil-Sakauye is a Republican of Filipino descent and has served as a Court of Appeals judge since 2005. She's married to a Police Lieutenant and has two daughters.

Celebrity Friday: Dan Choi

Dan Choi has been officially discharged from the U.S. Army. He has become a leading voice and face for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

He is in Vegas here for the Netroots Nation conference, in fact I just saw him about an hour ago in the halls of the Rio.

Eye Candy: Peter Le (reprise)

Peter Le has been a featured Eye Candy model before, but since then the fitness model has launched a website called PeterFever.com where you can see even more pictures of this muscular Asian hottie.

AZ Passes Bill To Criminalize Undocumented Status

The Republican-dominated Arizona legislature has passed a bill which would require police officers in the state to issue citations to people whom they have a "reasonable suspicion" is an undocumented immigrant, and determine their immigration status. Gee, I wonder how many blonde haired, blue-eyed Canadian immigrants are going to be cited!

Currently, officers can inquire about someone's immigration status only if the person is a suspect in another crime. The bill allows officers to avoid the immigration issue if it would be impractical or hinder another investigation.

Citizens can sue to compel police agencies to comply with the law, and no city or agency can formulate a policy directing its workers to ignore the law -- a provision that advocates say prevents so-called sanctuary orders that police not inquire about people's immigration status.

The bill cements the position of Arizona, whose border with Mexico is the most popular point of entry for illegal immigrants into this country, as the state most aggressively using its own laws to fight illegal immigration. In 2006 the state passed a law that would dissolve companies with a pattern of hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it made it a crime for a government worker to give improper benefits to an illegal immigrant.

Pity. I really enjoyed visiting Saguaro National Park outside of Tucson, but I will not be going to that state for as long as that state becomes law. Say, bye-bye to tourist dollars, Arizona!

Obama Approval Rating By Race

Courtesy Five Thirty Eight.

Celebrity Friday: Dan Choi

Lt. Dan Choi was arrested on Thursday after he chained himself to the White House gate. Pam's House Blend has pictures and Joe.My.God has the deets.

Openly Gay ( and POC!) Candidates Win in Atlanta

Simone Bell	Alex Wan

Simone Bell and Alex Wan made history on Tuesday night by winning election to the Georgia House of Representatives and Atlanta City Council, respectively, as openly LGBT people of color.

Bell became the first African American lesbian ever elected to a state legislative position in this country be winning 53% of the votes in her runoff race for the 58th District race while Wan won 60% of the vote in the 6th City Council district, becoming the first openly gay man (and Asian-American) to the Atlanta City Council.

Both candidates were supported by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, whose Gay and Lesbian Leadership institute is hosting the 25th Annual International Gay & Lesbian Leadership Conference in San Francisco this weekend. Last year MadProfessah attended the conference as part of the LGBT Bloggers Initiative, but I am unable to make it this year due to a conflict with a board retreat and work commitments.

The Atlanta Mayoral race I blogged about earlier today is currently too close to call, but Kasim Reed is nursing a slim lead of about 800 votes out of more than 80,000 cast.

Eye Candy: JC Sibala

I was flitting around the web looking for smoking hot models and ran into these pictures of Filipino hottie JC Sibala in a sea of hot white boys (not there's anything wrong with that!) at Gay Body Blog. Is it just me, or is it difficult to find pictures of pulchritudinous people of color online? If you have any tips for sources of Eye Candy of a darker flava, drop them in the comments.

LA TIMES Covers POC LGBT Groups 2010 Reluctance

Today's Los Angeles Times covers yesterday's release of the Prepare To Prevail: Why We Must Wait In Order To Win statement in an article entitled "Gay-rights coalition urges measured pace on same-sex marriage amendment."

MadProfessah is quoted at the end, explaining the main reason why several people of color LGBT groups do not feel we will be ready in 2010 to repeal Proposition 8. "Do the math!"

In the days after Proposition 8 banned same-sex marriage in California last fall, many grass-roots activists almost immediately began planning to get the question back on the ballot. In the spring, as states such as Iowa and Vermont legalized gay marriage, gay and lesbian activists said momentum was on their side.

But now many activists say they are trying to make the political calculations necessary to ensure victory -- which means enough money to wage a campaign and enough voter outreach to persuade some who voted against gay and lesbian unions to change their minds.

"We initially said we believe 2010 was the right time to go back to the ballot," said Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California, one of the state's biggest gay rights groups. But he added: "We've also made it very clear we will only move forward if we have a clear road map to victory. . . . The last thing we want to do is go back to the ballot and lose."

He said his group has sought advice from political consultants and polling experts and would present it publicly later this month.

Ron Buckmire, president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, one of the groups that signed the statement issued Monday, said the need for more time was made clear to him this weekend when his group went door to door to talk to voters about same-sex marriage in South Los Angeles.

"It was a huge success. We had 70 volunteers, working for five hours, knocked on 1,200 doors," he said. But after all that, they identified only 50 voters who moved in their direction.

"We have to move 300,000 voters," he said. "Do the math."

Let me be more specific. If it takes JRC working in coalition with Equality California and Vote for Equality 350 volunteer-hours (not including staff time, or travel time for the volunteers) to change 50 votes (from against marriage equality to undecided, or from undecided to in favor of marriage equality) and we have 6,000 times that many votes to move in 2010, then we will need 2.1 million volunteer-hours of effort to achieve that.

People who say that we can do that by November 2, 2010 (which is exactly 477 days away from today) need to demonstrate a plan for how they intend to pay for, lead and plan this work in that time frame, in the worst economy California and the United States have seen since the Great Depression.

Do the Math.

POC LGBT Groups Issue Statement Opposing 2010 Prop 8 Repeal

Jordan Rustin Coalition, HONOR PAC and API Equality LA released a joint statement today endorsed by several other organizations called "Prepare To Prevail: Why We Must Wait In Order To Win" which counsels caution on rushing to the ballot in 2010 to attempt to repeal Proposition 8 with an affirmative ballot proposition to end the ban on same-sex marriage.

Prepare to Prevail:
Why We Must Wait In Order to Win

A public statement on how to win back marriage equality in California

July 13, 2009

Issued by: API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC, Jordan Rustin Coalition

www.apiequalityla.org | www.honorpac.org | www.jordanrustincoalition.org

Unlike Proposition 8 in 2008, any upcoming electoral campaign for marriage equality would be one of choice, not one of necessity in fending off an attack from religious-right foes. Timing is ours to determine. Going back to the ballot to remove the voter-imposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution in 2010 would be rushed and risky. We should proceed with a costly, demanding, and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win. We should choose to Prepare to Prevail.

We have much work to do before we proceed to the ballot. Many of us, which includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) organizations and progressive allies, have been doing critical educational and organizing work for years, intensified it during the Prop. 8 campaign in 2008, and have continued to communicate with key constituencies after the election. We vow to intensify our efforts until we win back marriage equality in California. We invite all groups and individual leaders to sign on to this statement and join us in building a solid battle plan for equality. We must step up our work, collectively and in concert, as soon as possible.
Prepare to Prevail requires making progress on the following before proceeding to the ballot:

1) Winning requires full LGBT community support and a broad coalition of allies. Only a few segments of the LGBT community have announced their intention to pursue a “vote-yes” campaign next year. Energy and passion are a necessary prerequisite for any effective campaign but are not a sufficient substitute for a broad coalition with a clear strategy backed by ample resources. For California to win back marriage equality, broad segments of the LGBT and progressive community including critically important people- of-color groups, LGBT families, and other allies need to pull together. We should proceed when we have a unified strategy and a massive coalition of progressive non-LGBT allies ready to act in unison. Anything short of a broad coalition of allies would place our campaign in a strategic disadvantage from the onset.

2) We need to build strong majority support before placing the issue before voters. Popular support for marriage equality for same-sex couples has not changed since the last election. Today, California voters’ opinions on a constitutional amendment to overturn the voter-imposed elimination of marriage equality remain evenly split, according to all recent polls. In order to seek major investments of time and money from key stakeholders and allies in an affirmative ballot-measure campaign seeking a “yes” vote from voters, seasoned campaign experts advise against proceeding to the ballot without evidence of a strong majority in favor of the measure. Failure to begin with a sizable majority puts sponsors in a more likely position to lose. More than two-thirds of all ballot initiatives fail to pass on Election Day. Moreover, polls can overstate actual public support for LGBT rights because respondents may be reluctant to reveal their bias to pollsters. In 2008, some polls indicated majority support for marriage equality and against Proposition 8, which was not the result on Election Day. This was also true for Proposition 22, when opponents of the measure thought there was more support for marriage equality than the final vote demonstrated. In Washington State in 1997, some gay-rights activists pushed forward with a pro-active ballot measure aimed at outlawing antigay discrimination in the state. Despite having public opinion narrowly on their side, they lost 60 to 40 at the polls on the measure. It took nine more years for LGBT rights supporters to secure passage of a nondiscrimination law by the Washington state legislature. Proceeding with campaigns seeking a “yes” vote without support from a strong majority of voters holds foreseeable danger.

3) Campaign donors will be constrained given the current unprecedented economic downturn. Over $81 million was raised and spent by both sides in the Proposition 8 campaign, more than in any previous anti-gay ballot initiative. Many of the LGBT nonprofit organizations doing critical work for our communities have suffered layoffs and cutbacks in services. The current economic downturn has also reduced the capacity of campaigns both educational and electoral to amass multi-million-dollar war chests from small, large, and institutional donors. The scope of anxiety and human need in California means that individual donors are making hard choices about charitable dollars. Major donors, including foundations that provided funding for critical educational campaigns, have endured hits to their portfolios, and many are exercising caution. Any successful “vote-yes” campaign will require generous support from pro-LGBT institutional donors. These donors give=2 0based on evidence of likely success, which for 2010 is filled with grave doubts. It is unlikely that we will be able to raise the necessary funds to undertake an effective electoral campaign until after 2010.

4) Educational, voter-ID (not electoral) campaigns with specific goals should begin immediately. To reach a threshold of support for marriage equality suitable to begin an electoral campaign, supporters need a voter-ID campaign aimed at moving an identifiable subset of California voters. Vote-no campaigns typically seek to plant doubts and promote confusion among voters about measures. Several arguments used to pass Proposition 8 have not been widely rebutted and thus retain their appeal as attack strategies with particular currency as part of a vote-no campaign. A campaign of changing hearts and minds of selected groups of voters requires time, diligent research, and targeting of specific communities. The worst time to attempt to educate voters is in the midst of a heated campaign, which makes it difficult to rebut lies and fear-mongering. The voter-ID campaign should precede the electoral campaign aimed at mobilizing support to remove from the state constitution the discriminatory language already approved by voters.

5) We need time to build a coordinated data infrastructure that can support a winning campaign. We need time to establish robust get-out-the-vote (GOTV) data systems and a statewide online voter contact database to make and measure contacts with California voters in a coordinated fashion with participation from the many pro-marriage stakeholder groups across the state. Unlike narrow special interests, our cause is a broad-based movement that will require coordinated data collection among multiple groups working in concert. Many individual groups have started this work, but winning will require buy-in and participation in a singular statewide and coordinated data system. Agreements and accountabilities need to be worked out and trust needs to be rebuilt. Time and true collaboration are vital to developing organizational partnerships and the data systems needed to tap and deploy our grassroots network and measure our progress toward specific voter-contacts goals.

6) Time and greater effort is needed to build trust and relationships in communities that represent the full diversity of California voters, including limited-English-speaking voters and voters of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. The 2008 campaign against Prop 8 did not adequately reach non-English-speaking vot ers and failed to engage or empower allied groups poised to communicate with millions of such voters. The Yes-on-8 campaign, in taking its victory laps, bragged about the many tongues into which it translated its materials and the diverse congregations whom it mobilized. This lapse must be overcome in a future campaign to win back marriage equality. We must learn from our mistakes made during the last campaign and not repeat them. Doing so will require deepened relationships with partner organizations and leaders who can reach diverse racial, ethnic, and non-English-speaking communities. It will require working to increase the ability of LGBT parents and caregivers with children across these communities to effectively communicate the impact of marriage equality on their children. We must establish the communications capacity needed to achieve cultural competency as well as fluency in persuading immigrant, people-of-color, an d non-English-speaking communities to support marriage equality. Most of all, it requires time to build trust and relationships in targeted communities in order to succeed.

7) Labor, religious allies and communities of color are indispensable to winning. More time is needed to convert general support into full organizational backing to secure increased grassroots engagement, resources, and votes. Coordinate d outreach with labor and religious institutions remains crucial to building a strong majority for marriage equality in California. Forging lasting collaboration with and among these organizations must be a top priority for both the education and electoral campaigns. In addition to traditional civil-rights and community groups, as well as entertainment and sports celebrities, the same labor and religious organizations already highlighted will be critical in mobilizing people of color voters to support marriage equality. Rather than simply asking for support from allies, a winning campaign must be prepared to welcome these entities to the planning table and demonstrate reciprocity with them in the course of the long campaign to regain marriage equality. Winning a majority of “yes” votes on a future ballot measure will not be easy. But it will be impossible if we work in isolation or avoid competent and fluent communication with California’s diverse voters.

8) More time means more “yes” votes for marriage equality. The demographics of opinion on marriage equality indicate that natural changes in the state electorate, with new and younger voters replacing older voters, contributes over time to increased support for marriage equality. In weighing the options of presenting a ballot measure on statewide ballots either next year, in 2010, or in a future year, the latterp ortends a much greater capacity by marriage equality supporters to leverage and benefit from the natural shift in voter opinion.

THE UNDERSIGNED COMMIT to PREPARE to PREVAIL. Evidence and data should guide political strategy. Running and winning a statewide ballot-measure for a “yes” vote on marriage equality depends not on haste, but on preparation. Expanding public support and developing the infrastructure to mobilize our communities should be our top priorities. We commit to continuing the hard work of identifying the partnerships, commitments, and resources to launch necessary public education campaigns and setting the foundation for a solid and winning campaign. We call on all interested organizations to join in a collective body to coordinate the critical educational work that we must do. When we go back to the ballot, we intend to be active players to ensure its success just as we have always participated i n the fight for marriage equality. Please join us in winning back marriage equality in California.

WE CHOOSE to PREPARE to PREVAIL

ACLU of Northern California

ACLU of San Diego and Imperial County

ACLU of Southern California

API Equality-LA

API Equality-Northern California

Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team

Asian Pacific American Legal Center

Asian/Pacific Islander Queer Women/Transgender Activists (AQWA)

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation

Chinese Rainbow Association

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA)

Elections Committee of the County of Orange (ECCO-PAC)

Equality Action Project (Santa Cruz)

Gamba Adisa Quilombo

Gay-Straight Alliance Network

Harvey Milk Stonewall Democrats of Orange County

HONOR PAC

Imperial Court of Los Angeles and Hollywood

Inland Counties Stonewall Democrats

Jordan Rustin Coalition

Martin-Lyon Leadership Institute

Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO

Our Family Coalition

SATRANG, South Asian LGBT Organization

Robert Chacanaca, President, Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO*

Kerry Chaplin, Interfaith Organizing Director, California Faith For Equality*

Rev. Dr. Jonipher Kwong, Interfaith Organizer, California Faith For Equality *

Jerry Sloan, President Emeritus, Lambda Community Fund, Sacramento*

-list in formation-
*affiliation listed for identification purposes only.

India Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Sodomy Appeal

Joe.My.God is reporting that the India Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the recent landmark decision by the New Delhi High Court which decriminalized homosexuality in the Country.

While there was no major outcry against the ruling, some conservative religious groups made it clear they would fight it. Among those was Kaushal, a Hindu astrologer, who filed the first petition with the Supreme Court. Leaders of religious groups are also contemplating filing petitions.

The Supreme Court said it will hear Kaushal’s petition on July 20 to decide whether it has merit, said Anand Grover, the lawyer for Naz Foundation, a gay rights group that filed the original petition against Section 377 eight years ago.

The Supreme Court also asked the Indian government and the Naz Foundation to appear before it to hear their views.

After listening to all parties, the court will decide whether to temporarily suspend the Delhi High Court order while Kaushal’s petition is heard. The Supreme Court ruling will be binding nationally.

The person appealing the ruling is an astrologer named Sushil Kumar Kaushal who said that "If such abnormality is permitted, then tomorrow people might seek permission for having sex with animals.”

India High Court Ruling On Sodomy Law Tomorrow

Intrepid gay reporter Rex Wockner is reporting that the New Delhi High Court will issue a ruling on the fate of India's sodomy law at 10:30am Thursday July 2nd, local time.

Keep your fingers crossed. As Rex puts it, "India is the world second-most-populous nation: 17.22% of all humans live there. That's 1,165,760,000 people. You should care about them and this."

Agreed.

Eye Candy: Rishi Idnani (reprise)

Rishi Idnani caught my eye on Queerty.com awhile ago and was a featured Eye Candy model here at MadProfessah.com way back in January. The South Asian hottie is a New York-based model. In honor of Gay pride in India being celebrated throughout that country yesterday (despite the existence of an archaic anti-sodomy law) I thought we should feature him again. Enjoy!

Poll Shows Racial Divide On Support For Marriage Equality

The Los Angeles Times has a new poll out which shows that a majority of voters in Los Angeles County support marriage equality.

In the state's continuing political battles over gay marriage, both sides are targeting Latino voters, and a new Los Angeles Times poll illustrates why. Overall, the poll showed, a substantial majority of voters in Los Angeles support the right of same-sex couples to legally marry, with 56% in favor and 37% opposed.

That finding closely tracked the results of November's election in which Proposition 8, which limited marriage to unions of a man and a woman, won statewide but lost in Los Angeles. [MadProfessah Note, this is factually incorrect! Proposition 8 passed by less than 3,000 votes out of more than 3 million cast.] But the poll also showed that within the city, views on the issue differed widely among racial and ethnic groups.

White voters were most emphatic in their support for same-sex marriage, with 68% supporting it and 27% opposing. African American voters were strongly against it, with 54% opposing same-sex marriage and 37% supporting it.

Opposition to gay marriage by African Americans was widely seen as a major factor contributing to the passage of Proposition 8. Latinos in the current poll were split, with 45% supporting same-sex marriage and 46% opposing.

Oy vey. Black opposition to marriage equality "was widely seen as a major factor contibuting to the passage of Proposition 8"? Really? Only by people who believe in the zombie meme, which apparently includes Cathleen Decker of the Los Angeles Times.

However, the important result here is hard data on the majority opposition to marriage equality among African Americans, which MadProfessah and others are fighting to change. Additionally, the knowledge that Latinos are basically evenly split on the question (the margin of error was given 2.6 percentage points) is also useful information.

What's left out? It's odd that the Times didn't include information of how Asian Pacific Islanders feel about marriage equality, especially in light of the success of API Equality in moving their community on this issue.

Eye Candy: Peter Le

Peter Le is not the first Asian model to be featured as MadProfessah's Eye Candy but he may be the hottest! As usual, I found pictures of this hottie at Queerty.com, which has even more shots of Mr. Le.

CA-32: Race Starts Heating Up

The election for the 32nd Congressional district seat is exactly two weeks away but the race between State Board of Equalization Member Judy Chu and State Senator Gil Cedillo is heating up.

The Los Angeles Times covered the back and forth between the two camps:

Among Judy Chu's slew of mostly positive mailers was one that featured a front-page Los Angeles Times article on state Sen. Gil Cedillo's spending more than $125,000 of his legislative campaign money on expensive dinners, hotels and gifts. The mailer reprinted the April 11 article in full and highlighted two paragraphs contrasting Chu's "frugal record" with a summary of Cedillo's spending.

Cedillo, in two separate pieces that arrived in mailboxes in recent days, used newspaper articles to try to bolster his charge that Chu, a state Board of Equalization member, gave "tax breaks and contracts" to her corporate campaign contributors.

The language used as headlines on the Cedillo mailers, however, came from articles having nothing to do with Chu. One, "This Is an Outrage!" appeared as a quote in a March 16 Los Angeles Times article about anger over bonuses given to executives of AIG, one of the struggling corporations given federal financial aid. Another, "Political Malfeasance and the Financial Meltdown," ran above a syndicated George Will column March 25 in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

Good job of the Times to make it clear that although there are charges and cross-charges from both camps, it does not mean that both parties are equally responsible. Clearly, as the picture above makes clear, Cedillo is not telling the truth.

CA-32: Chu Endorsed By Antonio, Leads $$ Race

Multiple good news stories recently for congressional candidate Judy Chu (who has been endorsed by MadProfessah) in her attempt to win the now-vacant seat representing California's 32nd District in a May 19th special election.

Last Wednesday, financial reports were released which showed Chu outraised her nearest rival, State Senator Gil Cedillo by over $200, 000:

The breadth and strength of Judy Chu’s campaign for Congress was demonstrated again today as candidates reported their first fundraising numbers for this May 19 special election.

In the first three months of 2009, Judy Chu collected an impressive $770,167, over $200,000 more than her nearest rival, State Senator Gil Cedillo.

Judy Chu, Vice-Chair of the California State Board of Equalization, reported a strong $577,609 cash-on-hand figure at the end of the period.

Chu’s consultant, Parke Skelton, stated, “Judy Chu is well on the way towards surpassing $1 million for this race. Her fundraising reflects the enthusiastic and broad support she has attracted from throughout the 32nd District. Just over 83% of her contributions have come from individuals, not PACS. An impressive 1,567 individuals contributed to Dr. Chu’s campaign in this filing period.

But, wait, there's more!

EL SERENO - The Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, will be joined by his counterparts from Azusa, West Covina, South El Monte, Duarte and scores of other San Gabriel Valley elected officials on Wednesday as he officially announces his endorsement of Judy Chu in the race for the 32nd Congressional District seat recently vacated by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

The event, which will include just a fraction of the more than 75 elected officials from the San Gabriel Valley who have already endorsed Judy Chu, will feature statements from Mayor Villaraigosa and other mayors and mayors pro tem from the San Gabriel Valley.

There is video of the endorsement available on YouTube.