COMMENTARY: Confirmation of Secretary of State Takes on Partisan Tone

[Wilms]

Monday, March 21, 2005

COMMENTARY: Confirmation of secretary of state takes on partisan tone

Dan Walters, SacBee Writer

-snip-

But rejecting McPherson at this particular moment would also have a downside. Schwarzenegger has been accusing the Democratic Legislature of being overly partisan and ineffective, and dumping McPherson would have given the governor some additional ammunition as he seeks voter approval of ballot measures aimed at Democratic legislators and their major interest groups, especially unions.

-snip-

The Senate's easy confirmation of McPherson after a brief Rules Committee hearing and an even briefer discussion on the floor was not unexpected. The Senate is a more collegial and somewhat less partisan body than the Assembly, and McPherson is a member of the club by dint of his eight years in the house.
Don Perata, the president pro tem of the Senate, hailed McPherson as "a solid appointment (and) a good man" and he even garnered confirmation votes in the committee and on the floor from Debra Bowen, a Democratic senator who has already declared that she'll run for secretary of state in 2006.

-snip-

Democratic members of the committee put McPherson through his paces with a series of questions about policies on elections -- especially implementation of the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) -- that were more repetitious than hostile. Shelley's questionable handling of HAVA funds was one of several matters that led to his resignation. McPherson answered them with assurances that, as he said at one point, he would continued to be "my own man, an independent, nonpartisan problem-solver."

-snip-

Ever so politely, McPherson and Republican members of the committee also reminded the Democrats of the political risks of blocking confirmation. Until he is confirmed, McPherson told the committee, he couldn't implement HAVA's strict deadlines for improving election procedures, thus jeopardizing upwards of $100 million in federal funds that have been suspended because of investigations into Shelley's actions.

-snip/more-

http://www.desertdispatch.com/2005/111141448417748.html

[glitch]

1. Can these people do anything but racketeer? Just asking.

"thus jeopardizing upwards of $100 million in federal funds that have been suspended because of investigations into Shelley's actions."

[Melodybe]

2. I called today and said for them not to confirm I suggest everyone else do

the same.

[Wilms]

3. I emailed my Assembly Member, then Nunez, then the entire lot.

I complained about some of the transition team members, not McPherson.

Here's help getting to the email addresses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x348215

[Wilms]

4. .

[LatePeriduct]

5. California's in a rocky road

They have an all good-guy senate, which should be evicting Arnold, but instead they have to defend it from one of Diebold's main spokespersons.

I've heard that Diebold wants to expand and maybe make their new voting specials available all over the world soon.

[Helga Scow Stern]

6. Two voting activist groups, whom you'd think would know better,

have also said that questioning the inclusion of Arnold's henchmen on the team that is to oversee a very controversial election is "partisan".

:shrug: The newest dirty word?

[JunkYardDogg]

7. Who's that??

Enquiring Minds want to know
We have gotten some feeble impotent responses
To not offend is so much more important
than
to stand up and fight to protect freedom
The First and most important
value of being Politically Correct

[Wilms]

8. OP

Names?
Links?
:shrug: