Comments
ACCORDING TO LIZ - Barbara Lee, Katie Porter, Adam Schiff, and wildcard Republican Steve Garvey of baseball fame debated each other at USC in late January. They are just four of the thirty names listed by Ballotpedia as running in the March 6, 2024 special election to fill the Senate seat vacancy created by doyenne Dianne Feinstein’s death last September.
Laphonza Butler, who was appointed by Gavin Newsom as a temporary replacement to represent California’s interests in D.C. and the Democratic balance of power in the Senate, will not be running.
After viewing both the USC debate and the one from San Francisco that aired on KTLA on Monday...
My rating of the candidates? Barbara Lee 8, Katie Porter 6, Adam Schiff 4, Steve Garvey 2.
Barbara Lee over-talked too much at USC, yes, but a powerful voice is not necessarily a drawback in these days of partisan politics. She was more self-controlled in San Francisco, and made the key point that Trump is both a threat to democracy and to national security.
Adam Schiff was really good on Trump and immigration, but he holds the short-sighted view that California can build, build, build its way out of homelessness – when we already have more than enough units but lack affordability. While emphasizing the role monopolies play on this and other challenges to the American economy, he never justified how building more housing would actually bring costs down.
He attracted polarizing national recognition from his participation on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, but is also the recipient of largess from AIPAC, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc..
Katie Porter’s preparedness was evident in both debates and she spoke confidently and articulately – hallmarks of a great politician – from a position of caring for Californians. And, in Los Angeles, she promoted some interesting ideas on regenerative sustainable agriculture and other game-changing concepts for social equality, healthcare and healing our planet.
In the first debate she pushed build, build without addressing affordability; in the second she referred to her ten point Housing for All Plan which, while listing tools to address some problems, essentially continues to push rapid expansion of construction. Which does not curb the Wall Street greed, her tenth point, the prime cause of spiraling housing costs. Developer and investor funding and profits are diametrically opposed to affordable housing.
Steve Garvey, the Republican celebrity candidate, came across as an earnest George W. Bush clone. He made my skin crawl with his compassionate conservatism repetition, an eerie echo of Bush Jr.’s brainless adherence to talking points with limited substantive understanding of the issues.
In interviews since, he has doubled down on the lack of affordable housing being a result of over-regulation of development and construction. And somehow due to the addictions of people living on the street.
Reality check: There is far more vacant housing than there are homeless Californians; escalating costs are primarily driven up due to house-flipping and rentals being profit centers for real estate investors and Wall Street.
In contrast, Lee showed a depth of knowledge and experience on the issues that put the others to shame. She was eloquent and passionate, so much so that at USC she consistently over-talked the time limits brokered by the organizers.
Beyond her political acumen, she would bring a fresh perspective to Senate deliberations based on her lived experiences as a woman, having had a back-ally abortion as a teen, as a single mother living in poverty, as a member of ghettoized communities, having experienced racism and homelessness... and risen above it all while maintaining her compassion for people facing difficult circumstances.
In contrast, Garvey’s down in the gutter advocacy for the homeless seems more than a tad icky.
Lee is an avowed anti-war progressive dating back to her solitary vote in Congress against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force granting Bush, Jr. war powers after 9/11, and setting a dangerous and very expensive direction for American policy.
Lee has said the US “must lead the way forward” by supporting humanitarian and reconstruction aid, including food, medicine and water, to the region. No-one who can’t get behind that should be running for office in California today.
In contrast to Lee, and in lockstep with the Biden hawks and Garvey, Schiff has rejected a ceasefire and urges continued support for the Israeli military and its extermination of Hamas regardless of civilian deaths and destruction. His razor focus is on protecting Israeli interests no matter the human cost. Possibly because AIPAC is one of his deep-pocket funders.
Schiff has emphasized that “there are no both sides to the attack” by Hamas. “Israel has a right to defend itself, and the US must do all it can to assist Israel as it protects its citizens and takes all necessary steps to recover the hostages taken,” he said after the group staged its offensive last month. “Hamas is a terrorist group mass-murdering hundreds of innocent Israelis and taking women and children hostage.”
Katie Porter also takes a hawkish stand that clashes with her progressive creds. “There are lost lives in Gaza and Israel and it is because the United States has allowed terrorism to flourish and has refused to take a strong enough stance against Iran who is backing Hamas and Hezbollah.”
While it is true that the US bears a significant responsibility for the problems in the Middle East, two wrongs have never made a right.
Lee criticized Porter over the meeting she engineered with Netanyahu on a J Street-sponsored trip to Israel a year ago. In response, Porter emphasized the importance of the region and the United States relationship with Israel – a bond that has been sorely stressed in recent months.
Porter may be one of the rising stars of the party’s progressive wing, a top fundraiser who has the backing of Democratic movers and shakers for her support of progressive congressional candidates around the country through her Truth to Power PAC.
She is inspirational and will be a power in progressive politics but Lee has the experience of fighting MAGA extremists and working with Republicans to deliver important bipartisan wins for all Americans, and has earned the credibility of voters across generations.
Both women confronted the challenges Californians face in today’s economy when costs in our state are 50% above the national average, Porter attacking the disproportionately favorable treatment of big business and billionaires; Lee for the need for a living wage in California, and the need for companies to take care of their employees.
While everyone emphasized the importance of safety to our communities, diverging from Garvey, the three Democrats supported progressive crime reforms. The perceived surge in crime (it has been dropping since the pandemic high) is not due to ballot measures but be being spotlighted by the media, and enhanced sentencing has failed as a deterrent. Schiff called for a data-driven approach to curb underlying causes, and Porter pointed out that the federal government needs to surge resources to address transnational and organized crime.
Going back to Garvey, he continues to waffle upon whether he might vote for Trump – really none of anyone’s business – but he also continues to waffle about whether even the most outrageous of Trump’s diatribes are beyond the pale. Something every voter should take under consideration.
Garvey sees himself as the wind beneath the wings of California, but puts God and his wife before the people.
He called the deconstruction of Constitution the biggest threat to democracy but dodged like crazy on Trump’s packing of the Supreme Court: someone who cherry picks facts can never be a responsible Senator.
Furthermore, he consistently engaged in the despicable Trumpian behavior of blaming Biden and the other candidates – and drug use – for all that is wrong with the world. Rampant deregulation and the more draconian protection policies he espouses might benefit a few at the top, but not most Americans.
Someone who won’t stand up for all people, will never act in the interest of Californians – only for what benefits his own self-image; his avowed support for deregulation is all about profit for a select few at the expense of everyone else.
Age limits – how well did Feinstein represent us in her dotage? – was raised with Garvey “sad about Biden’s state.” Given that Biden has delivered, and Trump is clearly unfit for office at any age, perhaps the focus should be on the need to reflect the views of every generation. In watching these candidates all aged north of 50, Lee, the oldest, appeared the most passionate and youngest at heart, more representative of younger Californians.
Be careful about what you read and hear – the establishment media too often skews issues to reflect the positions of those who want to maintain the status quo. Which may not benefit ordinary Americans.
To protect democracy, to ensure climate and environmental justice, California and the country need change.
Change that is not happening because everywhere money rules. How can Adam Schiff truly stand up for the people when saddled with the demands of his deep donor base?
To effect change, a country must call out its friends along with its enemies or it will betray its own values. The United States should have imposed strong sanctions on Israel decades ago.
Decision-makers face many policy choices and their choices must be as fair as possible and as inclusive as possible. Lee condemned Hamas attacks AND called for a ceasefire. And policies that benefit all.
When you vote, be careful. You will need to vote twice for who you wish to send to Washington as California’s newest Senator – once to complete Dianne Feinstein’s term, and once for the six years starting in 2024.
(Liz Amsden is a contributor to CityWatch and an activist from Northeast Los Angeles with opinions on much of what goes on in our lives. She has written extensively on the City's budget and services as well as her many other interests and passions. In her real life she works on budgets for film and television where fiction can rarely be as strange as the truth of living in today's world.)
