Abel Maldonado celebrated his birthday Tuesday with Speaker of the House John Boehner, who was in Santa Barbara for a Maldonado fundraiser.
The event, held at a Hope Ranch residence and chaired by vintners Geoff and Alison Rusack, was closed to the media, and Boehner did not participate in any public events while in town. But his presence is a sign of Republican support rallying around Maldonado, despite a stumble out of the starting blocks for the former lieutenant governor, who turned 45 Tuesday, with members of the GOP claiming Maldonado is a Republican in name only, many noting his 2009 tax vote while a member of the State Legislature.
Boehner’s visit Tuesday also allowed Representative Lois Capps, facing her stiffest competition since taking office in 1998, to tie Maldonado to people whom she called “extreme politicians” in Washington, D.C., waging a war on women’s rights. Mentioned was Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, whose comments on rape over the weekend caused a stir and led many, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, to suggest Akin drop out of his Senate race. Maldonado called Akin’s statements “outrageous, offensive, and flat-out ignorant,” while Capps also condemned Akin’s claim that female victims of “legitimate rape” have the ability to passively prevent their own pregnancy.
Kurt Bardella
Maldonado was visited by Speaker of the House John Boehner the same day for a fundraiser on his behalf.
Capps staffers passed out pink fliers with Maldonado’s photo on it that read “NOT PRO CHOICE,” while she and others spoke in front of the Planned Parenthood offices off Haley Street about some of Maldonato’s stances. “I will always protect a woman’s right to choose,” Capps said, detailing how the Republicans’ quest to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood would attack an “organization that plays a very vital role in our community.” From routine health exams and breast cancer and cervical screenings to HIV testing, “they provide basic care for men, for women, and for their families,” she said. Boehner, other speakers said, wants to pick up another right-wing vote in Maldonado.
Off to the side of the press conference, Maldonado spokesperson Kurt Bardella looked on. After the press conference, Bardella said Maldonado has struggled with the issue of abortion his whole life. Maldonado believes Congress needs to work to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and he would oppose efforts to weaken Roe v. Wade and would support health care for women, Bardella said.
Last week, the Capps campaign held another press conference, taking a different route to attack Maldonado and his ongoing dispute with the IRS over what could total up to $4.2 million in tax deductions reported by the family’s farming business. The Capps campaign rolled out several college students who rely on Pell Grants — federal need-based grants for low-income undergraduate and some graduate students to attend college — as well as a City College professor, UCSB professor, and City College Trustee and former Santa Barbara mayor Marty Blum; the group equated the $4.2-million amount as enough to potentially fund 760 Pell Grants.
While the connection was perhaps a bit of a stretch, more interesting is that, while the battle over Medicare rages on, Democrats are trying to push the idea that Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s budget plan has become the de facto Republican plan, and under that plan, Pell Grants would take a major hit. Maldonado said at a forum in San Luis Obispo last week that he would have voted against Ryan’s budget if he had been a member of Congress. (Capps did vote against it.) If that had been the case, Maldonado would have been the only House Republican to do so.
Bardella, in response to last week’s City College press conference, noted several failed energy projects subsidized by federal tax credits and grants. “Solyndra was a $535-million boondoggle that went bankrupt,” he said, going on to note several other bankrupt investments. “How many Pell Grants would that money have generated?”
At the Tuesday Capps event, Bardella was armed with a chart, detailing many of the projects subsidized by the federal government, like the infamous Solyndra solar facility in Fremont, a facility which went bankrupt after receiving more than $500 million in federal loans. Maldonado’s team questioned Capps’s recent votes against the “No More Solyndras Act” at a House committee and subcommittee level. Capps sided with Democratic members of both the committee and subcommittee against the act, which would effectively end the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program.
Capps said Tuesday the Solyndra investment was a mistake, but on the other hand, in a quest to become energy self-sufficient, society needs to take risks on companies working on new energy, like solar. “It is very much a part of what we do here,” she said. For every success, there are many failures along the way.”
The newly drawn 24th Congressional District — which encompasses all of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, as well as a tiny part of Ventura County — eliminated Capps’s comfortable hold on her district, with a Democratic advantage in voter registration sitting at 3 or so percent. A recent poll from Maldonado’s camp showed the former Santa Maria mayor within two points of Capps. Boehner’s presence in Santa Barbara reinforced just how close of a race Republicans think this can be as they look to pick up another California House seat.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
And while the Dem's are whining on about the Repub's "War on Women" they have Bill Clinton, famous among other things for being a predator against women and losing his right to practice law in Arkansas for five years and voluntarily paying a $25k fine for his sexual harassment of Monica Lewinsky, providing the keynote address at their convention.
And again, I thought he was a very good president despite his propensity to continually wage his own personal war on women...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 5:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course, if Republicans has their way as far as laws regarding sexual harrasment go, Clinton would have been entirely off the hook. But it is cute, your 15 year old red herring in the face of an insanely inspid Replublican comment about the legitimacy of rape - proving yet again, that nothing, no matter how offensive, really offends you.
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yup, an asinine comment, which the nut from Missouri immediately apologized for, is equivalent to a recidivist pattern of actively harassing women. Where is the red herring with Clinton? In private business any boss who did that to one of his underlings would have been fired and the woman would have most likely received a settlement. Was his losing the ability to practice law in his home state, predicated on a factual finding of sexual harassment, also a red herring?
And yet the Dem defenders of women make him their keynote speaker?
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not exactly, italiansurg:
On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeac...
In April 1999 Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case but did not press for any criminal charge. Rather than undergo a review by the Arkansas Supreme Court, Clinton voluntarily surrendered his Arkansas law license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewat...
The day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. Clinton's resignation was mostly symbolic and will have little practical effect. He has never practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to in the future. Clinton also was assessed a $90,000 fine by federal judge Susan Webber Wright for contempt of court. The Paula Jones lawsuit was settled out of court for $850,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cli...
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Desperate rightwingers are free to comment here about how they REALLY, deep-down, and honestly believe that Maldonado really would oppose whatever Boehner and the majority Repubs in the House would want him to do.
Then they can follow through with a sales pitch for the Brooklyn Bridge.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with voting for Maldonado, even if the following is true:
"After the press conference, Bardella said Maldonado has struggled with the issue of abortion his whole life. Maldonado believes Congress needs to work to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and he would oppose efforts to weaken Roe v. Wade and would support health care for women, Bardella said."
the problem is that if he is elected his party will not honor that pledge and he is unlikely to buck his own party in congess.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good research blues man.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How does Maldonado feel about the National Defense Authorization Act?...which allows the U.S. government to imprison people indefinitely without trial? I know that Romney, Obama, Capps, Feinstein, Boxer, and the majority of the House and Senate are for it. Can anybody answer this?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CAB-Good research but I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that Lewinsky had his DNA on her dress and HE DID have sex with an underling while President.
Are you claiming that Clinton agreed to the suspension of his license because he was innocent? They were going to fry him with the facts and he settled like a coward.
AGAIN, I think he was the best president during my tenure in the United States but if the Repubs put someone like him at their convention every Progressive would be apoplectic.
FInally, I'm with BC as I still feel the continued support of the NDAA is far more important than the marketing of a supposed war on women.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2012 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We could use more centrists like Maldonado, but the bulk of the Republican party has moved so far right that I just can't see voting for him and reinforcing the Republican control of the House.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2012 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@billclausen (and italiansurg)
Have you researched the NDAA for 2012/13--in particular, the section 1021 (1031) that relates to detention under the Act?
You can either Google and read the text (House Resolution 4130), or get the short answer at Snopes, but there's nothing new about that section, compared to 2001, when the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution was signed by Bush Jr. on September 18--following the 9/11 attacks.
It's an *affirmation* of that authority, and not any kind of extenstion. It's nothing new, yet apparently is only an issue when the Obama Administration is connected--much like everything else that is part of the W/Republican Legacy, actually.
By the way, Snopes also includes a quote of a signing statement by President Obama:
"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
While the interpretation of "suspected terrorist" may be open, I think that it might include "U.S. citizens", who actually provides evidence to *be* one. (Hopefully, we're past the days of Bolsheviks, and Japanese internment camps....)
equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2012 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rest assured EP that my interest in this did not start with Obama.
I did NOT vote for Bush and I DID vote for Obama.
And yes, I have read the section of the NDAA you mentioned.
It is a HUGE issue when a supposed protector of the common man and our personal rights affirms something as nefarious as this act.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)