Dellums Running for Oakland Mayor!

They are joined at the hip to Big Money, because that's the choice they made. Matt was so glad when, once he switched to Green when he became a supervisor, he could take a call from PG&E asking where to send the check and tell them not to bother.

Dellums, Lee, etc. will never have that luxury - they prefer to stay in power and 'fight the right-wing' by doing the bidding for the same murderous corporations that own the Rs.

Lesser of two evils is still . . . as good-hearted and as well-meaning and as sweet of a person as he may be, the fact is, he's driving the corporate machine by taking their money, instead of throwing it back in their faces.

Who will challenge him to do that?

The left gave us Jerry Brown, remeber his KPFA show. The left also gave us De la Fuente and Perata as well. Now they are going to give us Dellums.

To all the leftists activists about to get behind Dellums-- you're suckers. The democratic party already runs Oakland!!!

The democratic party brought in neo-liberal Randy Ward to run Oakland schools. State superintendent Jack O'Connell, a democrat, could fire him tomorrow.

i think it's a shame. real bay area progressives support Nancy Nadel - the only candidate who has been working IN OAKLAND tirelessly for decades. it IS time for progressive leadership, but dellums is not the right person for the job. yes, he took on some tough fights in the federal arena, but he hasn't lived or worked in Oakland since, well, before he was a Berkeley City Councilman. Oakland has changed a lot and someone so disconnected can't fix all of the problems Jerry created. http://www.nancynadelformayor.com

As an Oakland resident I'm dissapointed that Nancy, in a comfortable position, hasn't switched to Green OR AT LEAST embraced Green principles, like not taking any corporate donations.

As it is now, Nancy, too, is in the pocket of big money, as is Dellums. Until they renounce their own idiotic corporate-owned party, they are only part of the problem.

Those rah rahing for the team of Nancy need to open their eyes. Nancy stood by and let Walmart in, just like the rest of the Rs and Ds all around her.

Who will challenge Nancy to either switch to Green or declare she will accept no corporate donations?

Democrat Ron Dellums, busy getting rich representing large corporations, has absolutely nothing to offer the workingclass of Oakland. At age 69, the best thing he and anyone else that age can do is retire. It is not the Left, namely socialists, who give reactionary Democrats like Dellums, Jerry Brown and Ignacio de la Fuente to Oakland. It is fellow Democrats. The Left votes for socialists on the Peace & Freedom Party ticket. If there are no socialists running, the Left skips that position. It looks like the people of Oakland are finally going to learn how utterly worthless the Democrats are with Ron Dellums in office. Perhaps then young workingclass activists will receive the support they deserve to run for office. The torch must be passed to young workers now.

they lost their standing in CA not too long ago and only recently got back on the ballot. they might have held promise for aging hippies a while back, but no one is feeling them now

if you want to talk about alt parties (and they all have to raise $$ too without public funding), Green is the way to go

sure except that David Cobb is practically a democrat (he used to campaign for jerry brown) and while he claimed that he wanted to build the green party, instead the green party was decimated in the '04 election and is now struggling to regain ballot status in many states.

I'm a progressive and agree that Nancy Nadel is the only real progressive candidate for Mayor of Oakland. She has taken action on the local level & her results are real not just talk. Dellums is a corporate lobbyist for companies like AT&T & Rolls Royce.

Real progressive? So I guess it's out of the question for 'real progressives' in the BAY AREA to say no to corporate donations.

Give me a break, she is not a REAL progressive because she is part of the Democratic party, which is *not* progressive! It's the war party and she is a part of that. Would you vote for Nancy if she was Republican? What if she were doing everything that she's doing now, but then when Bush came to town, as a Republican, she hosted him? Well, as a Democrat she'll be beholden to the same corporations that the Rs are, playing the same game as the Rs (i.e., pressured never to endorse a local Green or P&F party candidate, belongs to a party that tries to destroy the Greens and anyone else who is trying to run legitimately at every turn, etc.).

Ask Cindy Sheehan, she found out the hard way what the Ds are all about -
Published on Tuesday, October 4, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
War-Hawk Republicans and Anti-War Democrats: What's the Difference?
by Cindy Sheehan
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1004-20.htm

Nancy would do no different than Howard Dean because they are both part of the machine.

what corporations have support Nancy? evidence?

the Peace and Freedom party doesn't really exist outside of CA and barely exists even here

the Greens had a hard time in 2004 because Democratic party lackeys were successful in tagging Greens as being responsible for Bush in 2000. nevermind that over 1 millions gay people voted for Bush then, as well as countless others voting completely against their own interests, or that almost half of the country didn't vote at all (think the rich didn't vote?), and his daddy's appointees selecting him after serious voting corruption. granted, as Nader for a third time was wearing thin on the national level, the Green party is not perfect

"never to endorse a local Green or P&F party candidate, belongs to a party that tries to destroy the Greens"

Democrats are afraid of Greens. Greens prevent the only serious alternative to the left of the Dems, all over the country. It is still a very young party in the US, barely over 10 in CA even. Yes, there will be instances of votesplitting whereby Repugs gain power in a single election, but that in itself over time, if Green's can win more smaller elections or at least run strong, will propel the Dems to act in ways more consistent with the values and interests of their voter base (look at some of the leftie moves of Newsome for instance). If Greens can move past the Democratic demagoging of 2004 and continue to reach out and grow and be of value to voters, there are potentials in the future for putting together Green-Dem coalitions that can permanently put the Repugs out of business, or at least relegate them to their rightful minority status as a single party. If repugs losing power leads to a split of business groups and religious fundamentalists, all the better for the majority who disagree with both. Who knows, if a multi-party system could ever evolve in the US, maybe we'd be fortunate enough to see a party to the left of the Greens. Of course, as we are bogged down in a horribly unjust war and seemingly endless dogma and Orwellian pronouncements to mask insane greed, a true multiparty system seems like an unattainable goal. I would argue if that 40-50% of those who never vote actually voted, most wouldn't be voting republican and we could then begin to establish a real democracy in this country, one that has yet to exist, truely for the people and by the people, and all that mushy stuff that all-too-often wrongly gets wrapped up in jingoistic war sloganeering.

Barbera Lee was Dellums hand-picked replacement. he actively campaigned for her when he chose to retire from Congress.

Dellums had a long career as Oakland's Democratic voice in Washington. he should not be confused with Brown or De La Fuente. he would have voted the exact same as Lee did after 9/11 on a number of issues, votes that Oakland voters can be proud of

>Alone on the Hill
Self-described 'Army brat' Barbara Lee explains why she cast Congress' only vote against giving the president a free hand to attack suspected terrorists.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2001/09/lee.html

props must be given to a Democrat for the the amazing foresight and bravery of Dellums protege, Barbara Lee

think about where we are today, neverending war all over the world, and then think about what Oakland's representative said just days after 9/11 in the halls of the US Congress. she wasn't the only one thinking it, but she was the only Congressperson brave enough to say so in front of a national audience. Pelosi and other Dems sided with the warmongering BS for political or who knows what reasons, and still do, and the world suffers with the fallout today



Text of Rep. Barbara Lee's dissent on House floor
-
Saturday, September 15, 2001

(09-15) 15:44 PDT (AP) --

Here is the text of Rep. Barbara Lee's speech Friday in the House of Representatives. Lee, D-Calif., was the only dissenter in the 420-1 vote authorizing President Bush to use force against terror.=

"Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Only the most foolish or the most callous would not understand the grief that has gripped the American people and millions across the world.

This unspeakable attack on the United States has forced me to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction.

September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States.

I know that this use-of-force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage a war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today -- let us more fully understand its consequences.

We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multifaceted.

We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children, and other noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire.

Nor can we let our justified anger over these outrageous acts by vicious murderers inflame prejudice against all Arab Americans, Muslims, Southeast Asians, or any other people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.

Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes.

In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to "take all necessary measures" to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam.

At that time, Sen. Wayne Morse, one of two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declared, "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States ... I believe that within the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake."

Sen. Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences.

I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."

step back in time 20 years

> First, the scale of military action necessary to force a regime change in Iraq (or any relatively stable state) strongly suggests the action would be a “war” as defined by the Constitution. In the most recent judicial opinion on the subject, Dellums v. Bush, a federal district court found “no hesitation in concluding that an offensive entry into Iraq by several hundred thousand United States servicemen . . . could be described as a ‘war’ within the meaning of [the War Powers Clause].” Dellums v. Bush, 725 F, Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990). Congress would more likely acquiesce to unilateral executive decisions involving relatively small forces, but it cannot waive its constitutional war powers.
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/debateoverwar.html


>Representative Dellums offered an amendment to the fiscal 1983 Defense Authorization Bill on July 22, 1982, eliminating $6.9 billion for two aircraft carriers. While his amendment was defeated in the House by a vote of 303 to 83, Democratic Representatives Les AuCoin of Oregon, Don Edwards of California, Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, and Timothy Wirth of Colorado (now a Senator) voted for the amendment. (Congressional Record, July 22, 1982, pp. H4515-H4522.) That year, too, former Senator Hart offered an amendment in the Senate to substitute smaller carriers for a large one. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts led an effort in the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 1987 to delete funds for the initial purchase of components, primarily for nuclear reactors, for two carriers. The Kennedy amendment failed. (Pat Towell, "Critical Showdown Over SDI Under Way on Capitol Hill," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, May 16, 1987, p. 980.)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/BG808.cfm

So Sele, tell me, what did Nancy do to stop Walmart from coming in? I heard there were secret meeting between Walmart and the city and none of the city officials put up a fight or told activists ahead of time, Nancy included.

Tell me what Nancy did to stop Walmart.

>>props must be given to a Democrat

for keeping the illusion that there are actually two parties in this country and thus perpetuating the endless war machine and gradual takeover of the world by corporations, now considered people, thanks to the Democrats keeping the illusion alive.

This is the story of the Democrats.

People think that it's okay to support local Democrats because somehow they are going to change from within, the party as it is. Believe me, if they were going to threaten the party's positions (war, corporate personhood, death penalty) they would be taken out, just as Kucinich was used as bait for the switch with Kerry in the 04 election. THe party will likely dissolve before there can be reform because it DEPENDS on corporate wealth to fund it's wins. This is the party whose members support Bush at every turn, PATRIOT Act, Afghan War, Iraq War, Supreme Court . . .

----------
Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urged President Bush to pick White House counsel Harriet Miers as his nominee to the Supreme Court, RAW STORY can confirm.

In a conference call held with liberal bloggers last week, Reid declared that he had told Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card that Miers was a good choice for the Court.

"I said, 'I think that rather than looking at the people your lawyer's recommending, pick her," the senator remarked. "The reason I like her is that she's the first woman to be president of the very, very large Texas bar association, she was a partner in a law firm, she's actually tried cases, she was a trial lawyer, and she's had experience here. I could accept that. And if that fits into the cronyism argument, I will include everybody as a crony, but not her, when I make my case."

"I personally think that I would like to see someone who has not had judicial experience," he added. "I think that we need somebody to go on that Court in the mold of the people on the Berger court, people who have not spent their lifetime holed up in some office writing opinions and reading briefs."

Reid said the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA), ranking Judiciary Democrat Pat Leahy (D-VT, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) were present at the meeting.

The Democrats' Senate leader is a moderate in his caucus, being pro-life and a Mormon.

He did, however, join 22 Democrats who voted against John Roberts to be Chief Justice, breaking with more liberal members of his caucus -- including Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Russ Feingold (D-WI).

homepage: homepage: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reid_told_Cheney_to_pick_Miers_1003.html

"In one fell swoop, the council gouged a gigantic loophole in Oakland elections law and paved the way for the 3Rs PAC to accept donations in $10,000 chunks from the likes of Tele-Communications Inc., Webvan, and Walmart heir John Walton.

...With virtually no discussion or debate, the council voted 5-1 to delete the spending limits, with two abstentions. De La Fuente, Reid, Chang, Nate Miley, and Jane Brunner voted for the proposal, with only Dick Spees voting against it. Nancy Nadel and John Russo abstained."
http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/27/ogoak.html

Abstaining isn't voting against something and making a statement or blocking it. Abstaining is allowing it to happen.

First of all, the Walmart deal was due almost exclusively to the Port of Oakland leadership allowing a developer to change his mind about the project site.

To be perfectly clear: Walmart was not built on City-owned land or with any City funding. It was a deal with the Port, which is completely separate from (and unaccountable to) the City Council. There's a problem to be angry about.

As soon as Nancy got wind of it, she worked on crafting the anti-big box ordinance. Unfortunately, it was too late. I'm sure there were many "secret meetings" with city officials but I've never seen Nancy sit by and watch something terrible happen without a fight. Maybe there was a closed session meeting about Walmart that she didn't tell activists about - I think it's a good thing to not break confidentiality laws. You're talking like she's part of the machine, when she has been consistently exlcuded from it.

From the time the Walmart campaign became a campaign, it wasn't about shutting it down or keeping it out - the organizing happened too late. The campaign has been about forcing Walmart to contribute to a community fund to help mitigate the negative impacts it has on the community. Tell me what ANYONE did to stop Walmart - that wasn't the focus of the campaign.

Your 5+ year old article doesn't address the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled many of the local campaign finance laws unconstitutional. Doesn't make it right, but it's the law.

Abstention means a lot of things - in this case, if I can remember back that far, I remember there being a discussion of the constitutionality of the existing language and the motion to make changes to it, if there was a lack of clarity, I would support abstention in any case.

The Oakland mayor's race isn't about the party it's about the person. Does the Green party even have any candidates running for Mayor? If not who will Green's support for Mayor? My vote's with Nadel regardless.

>>Abstention means a lot of things

Essentially, that's what the Democrats in congress do when votes for things like the PATRIOT Act, war in Iraq, etc., come up. So yeah, abstention means that they will step aside and allow it.

Allowing it to happen means it happens. Not that hard to figure out, no matter how you try to spin it.

Does someone's record of voting stop having meaning if 5 years have passed? I guess Justice Roberts has a case then . ..

Not only did the venerable Mr. Dellums work for Rolls and AT&T, but saavy voters should take a look at the people who are really pushing his candidacy. It is the same group of booj-wah African Americans who had the Oakland power for nearly TWENTY years yet failed to end poverty, as Mr. Dellums has pledged to do. These people are capitalists, developers and others who had their hand in the money pot and got dismissed when Jerry showed up with his own crew.

Think about it: the guy didn't know what he was going to say when he got on the stage, then he decided to run for Mayor and end poverty after an hour of rambling. Sounds like senility to me. Mayors don't end poverty, they manage it. And that won't happen in four years or even eight years.

That's not to say Dellums has not inspired a lot of hope for a lot of people. So did Jerry Brown, and he wasn't what people expected.

If you want the Green progressive, Nancy has been here working with the sleeves rolled up and the heart bleeding.

If you want bare knuckles and no-nonsense machinework, it's Ignacio.

But if you want someone who is going to disband capitalism, abolish the police and preside over an urban shambhala, you're living in a dream world and will find disappointment at the end of the rainbow.

Don't be confused... I'm going to vote for Ron. I don't think he'll gamble his epitaph for chump change. But it's important to be realistic.

If you want bare knuckles and no-nonsense

we love this

...HE AIN'T NO MORE.

Now he's nothing but a high-priced corporate advisor and blowhard shaking his supposed laurels from 30-35 years ago.

If he were in the Congress now, he'd be just like all those other Democrats voting to fund the continuance of this war.

Dellums will be a warmed over Jerry Brown.

The best way that Oakland can show its contempt -- since the only choices are likely to be tweedle dum and tweedle dee -- is to BOYCOTT THE MAYORAL ELECTION: GIVE IT A NO CONFIDENCE VOTE (THE FINGER) AND STAY AT HOME (unless the Greens or Peace & Freedom Party come up with a good candidate).

SHOW DELLUMS THAT NOBODY CARES ABOUT HIM ANYMORE -- BESIDES THE CORPORATE REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS.

Dellums is still a leader. It is time for those who want change to realize that the machine has control of our city government. Nadel hasn't got a chance if she is the only voice on the council. Ignacio has the backing of big money developers, business interest, the Chamber, Clear Channel, and even some black church leaders that should not sell out the community for access to the greedy politicians.

Work for change and be willing to fight for something. Talking is easy, working on the problems require sacrifice. Do you want change of just want to be critical of others? Make the change happen, work for dellums and end the machine control.

The machine that controls Oakland is the Democratic party. Last I checked SEIU is part of the democratic party appartus Just cause you guys got a beef with Ignacio don't expect the rest of us to join Dellums camp. Like JA said above Dellums is warmed over Jerry Brown.

And I'd like to hear one of the democratic party supporters explain away neo-liberal Randy Ward who's trying to privatize Oakland schools while assaulting Oakland teachers. How many local democrat party leaders have stood up to this guy? I can't think of any.

>>>First of all, the Walmart deal was due almost exclusively to the Port of Oakland leadership allowing a developer to change his mind about the project site. To be perfectly clear: Walmart was not built on City-owned land or with any City funding. It was a deal with the Port, which is completely separate from (and unaccountable to) the City Council. There's a problem to be angry about. As soon as Nancy got wind of it, she worked on crafting the anti-big box ordinance. Unfortunately, it was too late. I'm sure there were many "secret meetings" with city officials but I've never seen Nancy sit by and watch something terrible happen without a fight. Maybe there was a closed session meeting about Walmart that she didn't tell activists about - I think it's a good thing to not break confidentiality laws. You're talking like she's part of the machine, when she has been consistently exlcuded from it.


Nancy sits on the City Council subcommittee that works directly with the Port, along with Wan/Kernighan, de la Fuente, and Reid. Reid and de la Fuente were nursing the WalMart deal along. She may have not seen this coming, but my question is why did she not raise the alarm, at least in the progressive community? She could have easily given a heads up to, say, Just Cause, EBASE, or the East Bay Law group (Margaret Lim), or the unions, without compromising any confidentiality. (By the way, to whom would she owe confidentiality on a matter that would affect her community like this one?).

Nancy also turned on the Greens after the special election. When the Greens spoke against Jerry Brown's ordinance to arrest spectators at sideshows (on which she abstained), she took the opportunity to complain publicly about "Greens abandoning the environmental problem of car exhaust" in order to keep black youth from suffering one more heavyhanded police restriction on any recreational activity not sponsored by a church. To some Greens, this was a simply ploy to curry favor with her new colleague Kernighan, whom Greens had 'insulted' by questioning the validity of a seat won with 30% of the vote.

Nancy seems to be going the way of all Democrats once they get a taste for elected office. Her campaign for mayor made her endorse the loser Justin Horner over war resistor and Oakland resident Aimee Allison, and now she is proving that she does not have what it takes any longer to stand up to the Democrat money people or machines.

Sadly, this is a story we all know too well