Saturday, March 11, 2006

Pombo sells out our health to do bidding of big food corporations

VPO here. I am following Delta's lead below and "encouraging" the Dem candidates to pump up the volume on attacking Pombo. Pombo served them a softball this week with his vote to override state food labelling laws. This is clearly a vote FOR big corporate campaign donors and AGAINST our health, and the health of our children. See SF Chron article. I have not seen a single press release or comment from Filson or McNerney on this, yet the Republican challenger, Pete McCloskey had one out hours after the vote. Quotes from the Chron article, showing just how outrageous and egregious Pombo's pro-corporate vote was:
"The purpose of this legislation is to keep the public from knowing about the harm they may be exposed to in food," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, a chief critic of the measure.

A major target of the legislation is Prop. 65, which was approved by two-thirds of California voters in 1986 and requires labeling of substances that may cause cancer or birth defects. The law has inspired other states to follow suit with their own rules on food labeling that are more stringent than federal standards.

California officials said the new legislation would reverse the gains made through Prop. 65. Many companies, fearing the warning labels, have changed their food to meet the state's tougher standards. Bottled water companies have cut arsenic levels, and bakers have taken potassium bromate, a potential carcinogen, out of many breads, doughnuts and other bakery goods."We've had a lot of success in getting them to reformulate," said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Pombo clearly ignored the will of the 2/3 of Californians who voted for Prop. 65. The food corps and others, like Monsanto, mounted a vigorous campaign to defeat Prop. 65, but it got 2/3 of the vote anyway, showing just how strongly people here want safer food. Yet Pombo votes for his corporate masters, giving his home state a big fat middle finger.

This is an issue the Dems should be all over, especially since it should resonate with soccer moms and independents, and really anyone concerned with health and well-being. Pombo sold us out on this, but not a peep from Dems so far on this. Dems, where are you? If you want us to elect you, we need to see you out there fighting for us!


Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

It should be a "gimme" issue for Democrats but with 71 Democrats selling out consumers to big money corporate interests and joining the Republicans in approving this disgraceful and outrageous bill, it will be difficult. An independent-minded grassroots candidate like McNerney should have no problem drawing a clear distinction between himself and the kinds of corporate (or, as they prefer to be known, "moderate") Democrats who think they can vote for junk legislation like this, even in an election year, with impunity. But what's someone like Filson gonna do? I mean if he's anything at all, he's a creature of DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel and Emanuel saw nothing wrong with joining the Pombos and Doolittles and Tom DeLays in stabbing consumers in the back by passing this garbage. The reason we want to replace representatives like Pombo is so we have people in DC who represent us, not corporations. We don't need Pombo. And we don't need Rahm Emanuel and his hand-picked candidates.

11:17 PM, March 11, 2006  
Blogger VPO said...

DWT is right, many DCCC Dems went along with this. Here is where McNerney could show a clear difference with the DCCC Dems. There is no reason I can see for him not to make this an issue.

Rep. Ellen Tasucher also voted against this, so I would expect her protege, Filson, to feel sure enough to come out with PR hitting Pombo on this. But maybe he does not want to offend the one who granted his wish to run -- Rahm Emmanuel, who voted for the measure.

Or maybe both of the Dems are asleep at the wheel on this and missing a golden opportunity to hit Pombo.

Across the nation, many Dems sold out, but in the Bay Area, Pombo was the only one voting for it. However, Cardoza (a Dem from Central Valley) also voted for it, but he is practically a clone of Pombo anyway, despite the party difference. I think, if framed correctly, this issue would be big for the regular, ordinary, everyday voter.

Dem candidates, where are you on this?

7:40 AM, March 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

your chasing a loser here. Pombo votes for a national standard, like we advocate for education, environment, drinking water etc... and now we are going to elevate the issue? you make this the issue and he will cram it down our throats.... "Pombo proposes national food safety standard"
drop it.

11:30 PM, March 12, 2006  
Blogger VPO said...

Anon, are you familiar with the issue? Did you read the SF Chron article? Did you read the quotes on it? From your post, it does not sound that way. That's okay, there are many complex issues out there, and Pombo and the Repubs always seek to spin it their way. Just like "Healthy Forests" or "Clear Skies", so it is easy to get confused.

This is not about a "national food safety standard." Instead, it is to overrule California's more protective labelling laws at the request of large food corporations and their lobbyists.

Pombo is giving Californians, who voted 2/3's for Prop 65, a big middle finger. The Food companies' goal in this is to override the wishes of California to have safer food, by requiring better labelling.

This is an obvious issue. Pombo is dead wrong on it, fully on the side of big money over our health.

Please read up on it and see what the vote was really about. It was not about a "national food safety standard", that is for sure.

11:47 AM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. 2% of a buck again, with an aside to VPO and the others who post regularly to this --

I suspect that the anon who told you to "drop it" (this issue of gutting Prop 65, et. al.) is "Ace King" of San Joaquin Blog (SJB) fame or similar ilk -- the syntax, grammar, spelling, word choice and general attitude tend to be similar enough to warrant a possible match.

And I agree with you -- Pombo voted to effectively water down tons of protection that will directly affect the voters of the 11th District -- that's "the best Congressman money can buy" in action.

Perhaps this issue hits so close to the jugular that the SJB gang felt they had to come out and try to do a "head fake" move on your readers.

They would be better served in trying to get more readership and stop having the SJB look like a cobweb -- note how stale the postings are.

$.02 out.

6:23 PM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very perceptive of you Mr 2% - my compliments!

I agree with your diagnosis of the identity of the Anonymous poster/poser as Mr A. King, short for Ass Kissing, as he obviously kisses Pombo's ass better than anyone I've seen (as is obvious from his drivel on the dull, boring San Joachhzzzzzzzz....

He uses the three dots several times in his brief comments to Scott...and quite often in his San Joachin blog posts (go check him out). He's borderline incoherent in his ramblings to Scott (and in his SJ Blog posts too), and often ends sentences with a short, sharp rhetorical question.

Clearly the same guy. Good piece of detective work.

12:18 AM, March 14, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home