Psst! Between you and me, Lou Correa is Chicken Little.

In the end you cannot hide. Let’s recap here…

Last week, State Senator Lou Correa distinguished himself as the lone Democrat who voted with the Senate Republicans in support of the President’s failed invasion of Iraq and his decision, against the advice of his military advisor’s, to increase troop levels in Iraq.

I don’t really have a problem with Lou voting the way he did. I strongly disagree with his decision, and I am surprised by it. I really thought he was more intelligent than he is acting. Oh well, c’est la vie.

What ticks me off is his belief that it is alright to not publicly state for the record why he voted the way he did. The additional troops that are being committed to action in Iraq had the courage to step forward and sign up to serve their county in the United States military services.

For a moment, let’s forget about the vast majority of the 850,000 people who reside in the 34th Senate District, the least Lou could do is have the courage to publicly stand up and explain his vote to the service men and women in his district and their families.

Sadly, Lou does not have the courage of his convictions on this matter. He would rather talk to residents of his district on the sly, off the record, behind closed doors, kind of in the closet where nobody can see.

Duck and Cover Lou!Well Lou, you can duck, you can cover, you can dodge and weave all you want. You cannot hide.

You need to stand up like a man, and proudly state your position on this issue for all to hear.

We may not all agree with you, but absent an explanation, you will surely lose the respect of many of us who busted our tails to help get you elected to the Senate.

By the way Lou,

I am one of those people.

  19 comments for “Psst! Between you and me, Lou Correa is Chicken Little.

  1. Publius
    February 21, 2007 at 11:26 pm

    Well, Chris, I know Senator Correa well enough to let you know that calling him names (“Chicken Little”) and telling him to “stand up like a man” is a surefire way to insure that he won’t respond. Nor would I.
    And you aren’t even one of his constituents, so his responsibility to respond directly to you is greatly reduced.

  2. February 22, 2007 at 1:50 am

    Well Publius,

    A legislator should be willing to explain his votes. While I did call Senator Correa I do not expect a call back from him for the very reason you cite. However, that does not excuse his failure to provide an answer on the record.

    At this point his calls to Mike and Andrew are simply hearsay. Senator Correa can say that the conversations never occurred, that he recalls a different explanation, or he could do like he did the last time he was the lone Democratic legislator to vote No on a resolution.

    The one I refer to was AJR 85 introduced in 2004 by Assemblyman Mark Leno opposing the efforts of President Bush and Congressional Republicans to introduce a federal Constitutional Amendment to ban same gender marriage. Lou Correa changed his vote two months later to Absent when the resolution came back from the Senate. I guess he could say that he voted against it before he didn’t vote on it.

    Lou didn’t stand up then and explain his vote publicly. He remained quiet and let the public reading the newspapers think he was opposed to the resolution while quietly telling the LGBT community that he would abstain when it came around again. When AJR 85 came back for a final vote, Lou Correa ducked under his desk and pretended he wasn’t there.

    I wonder what he’s doing now on SJR 1?

    To illustrate what I mean by the phrase “stand up like a man” consider the\at after being absent from voting on the first version of Assemblyman Leno’s bill to legalize same gender marriage, Assemblyman Tom Umberg stepped up to the task, made a public statement regarding his reasons and cast his vote in favor of the legislation making the passage of the first voluntary marriage equality bill in any state possible.

  3. Northcountystorm
    February 22, 2007 at 10:27 am

    Chris….I disagree.

    While I support the house measure and would have reluctantly supported the State Senate resolution, its not worth calling out one of our allies for a non-binding resolution supporting another non-binding resolution where the State Senate has ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTION on the measure. These kind of measures, both Migden’s and Leno’s, are really a misuse of the state legislative process. If people in the State legislature want to express their opinion on a bill dealing with foreign policy, sign a petition, go hold a press conference on the Capitol steps, call your congressmember. I don’t believe a single vote got changed as a result of this non-binding resolution in support of another non-binding resolution. Those members of Congress who didn’t ignore it completely got a good laugh and tossed it in the circular file. And mused about how the legislators must have time on their hands given all the pressing state issues too often ignored.

    Therefore I don’t think Lou has any obligation to put out a press release, a press statement or anything like that on these non-binding resolutions or, for that matter, anything else. He has an obligation to respond to constituent inquiries, period. If he wants to do that via press release, that’s his option. I’m ok with getting the word via Mike. Since Lou still has a skeleton staff, communication will be a little difficult for a period of time. Be patient. When he was in the Assembly I found Correa one of the most accessible members that i have dealt with in the unfortunately many years I have dealt with legislators. His staff during that time period was also highly accessible and informative.

    In addition, there is some disagreement (maybe not at memphis but in the District)on whether this resolution is in the best interests of the troops or the United States.Therefore, why expose Lou to potential negative political fallout by having him publicize his vote and reasons therefore? Since you worked so hard for his election you’ll remember it wasn’t a landslide. His rear end will be in the GOP bulls eye in 2010. Resolutions like Lenos and Migden’s have more to do with trying to gain leverage in the 2008 State Senate primary then they do proper public policy advocacy. I don’t like our State Senator being put in harm’s way so San Francisco legislators can make political points with no real-world effect..

  4. Northcountystorm
    February 22, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Chris….one more point. Tom really wasn’t talking much after he didn’t vote for the leno gay marriage bill(calling him absent was charitable of you). He would have preferred to have kept it that way. He made a speech after being guilted into changing his position by his colleagues and some deep relection. That vote didn’t do Tom any favors in the district. Virtually every call of support was from outside of the district. If Tom could have done it all quirely, he would have done so. the vote was politically damaging, but at least it was on a measure that actually had some binding legal effect .

  5. socaltimes
    February 22, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    btw, the term ‘Chicken Little’ is meant to refer to someone who goes around acting as though the worst is going to happen (“the sky is falling, the sky is falling”) not someone who is “a chicken.”

  6. February 22, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Socaltimes:

    You’re right. I found the picture of Chicken Little ducking, to be the best image to represent a ducking chicken. The real “Chicken Little” in OC is John Moorlach, hands down.

  7. Publius
    February 22, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    Chris-
    Your analogy that Umberg “stood up like a man” on the gay marriage bill is an interesting one. As I remember it, Tom didn’t just sit down the first time around, he disappeared entirely. And, continung your analogy, Umberg had to be kicked (pretty hard) in the gonads to stand up briefly the second time around.
    Yep, quite a man.

  8. Alicia
    February 22, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    MEDIA ALERT: Mr. Chris Prevatt does not like Senator Lou Correa. He never has and never will. We get it, Chris. But to quote the T.V. sitcom Friends…

    “It’s time to come out of the bitter barn and play in the hay!” This much hatred for one person, Chris, doesn’t become you. Disagreeing with Lou is one thing, calling him names in a nasty and hostile way is another.

  9. February 22, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    MEDIA ALERT! Alicia is a Correa apologist. You know Alicia, Lou could call Loretta a whore and you would still defend him. Let’s get one thing straight, while I disagreed with Lou’s vote my initial response was to simply say: “Thanks for nothing Lou, again!”
    i think that was pretty tame.

    It wasn’t until Senator Correa thumbed his nose at Mike Lawson when he simply asked for an explanation that I got annoyed. Lou’s antics are vintage Lou. He plays to a base that will never vote for him and pisses off those that do.

    My annoyance this time is that Lou felt he was above publicly answering for his actions. I walked precincts for Lou in the general election of 2006. I monitored polling locations till 10 PM to help ensure that each and every possible vote for Lou was able to be cast.

    I disagree with Lou on many issues, but I agree with him more often than not. I have a right, as do all Californians, to demand that our legislators answer publicly for their acts as our representatives. I may no longer live in the 34th, but as one of his supporters and volunteers, I’m entitled to an answer when I ask why he votes a certain way.

    Publius, I’m sure you and Alicia will be leading the charge to kick Lou where ever it takes to get him to vote in favor of this year’s Marriage Equality bill.

  10. Publius
    February 22, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    Oh yeah, I was just reminded that after Umberg abstained on the first vote (before he “stood up like a man”), when others were trying to persuade him to change his mind before the second vote, Mr. Prevatt was one of the few voices DEFENDING Umberg’s abstention. Claiming that Umberg did not break any promise made to the LGBT community because no promise had been made really undermined the efforts of many.
    Tom’s bad votes are excusable to Chris, but Lou should be held to a higher standard.

  11. February 22, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    Publius

    When asked in the 2004 candidates forum his position he stated that he supported Domestic Partnerships and full Civil Union rights. He added that he felt that the 69th AD would not support same gender marriages and that he would not suppot such legislation if it came up. My recollection of the ECCO endorsement discussions in 2004 reflect that same position.

    Tom Umberg did not make any promise to support full Marriage Equality in 2004 so he could not have broken one.

    For the record, I hold the same position with Correa as I did with Umberg on Marriage Equality. He has never said he supports it and I do not have any expectation or illusion that he will.

    Respectfully,
    Chris

  12. Dan Chmielewski
    February 22, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    Alicia —
    Lou is not my senator, but I wholly agree with Chris on this one. His vote defies logic from a Democrat and his explanation of the vote is weak. I have to conclude he was asleep. He could have abstained if he didn’t like what he heard. And what is also unacceptable is the 9 days it took to respond and the “I don’t want to see this in the Liberal OC” pages. C’mon, we’re not morons here and its time Lou gets that.

    To quote Friends, “he was on a break….”

  13. Alicia
    February 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    Dan,

    I don’t disagree with Mike about how Lou handled his vote and the aftermath. The Senator definitely could have done it better. What I do have an issue with is Chris is using his personal and hateful views against Lou to legitimize his own. Loretta is my boss and Lou is my friend. There are plenty of politicians I don’t agree with, including those in my own party. However, they have been elected to office and deserve to be treated in a professional way. We should hold them accountable, but they should not be subjected to verbal abuse simply because you or I don’t like them personally. Chris can bash Lou and Loretta all he wants, but eventually his posts on them won’t carry any weight. I can’t speak for Lou, but Loretta’s record speaks for itself.

    Chris, I still love you. Hopefully you have a better weekend.

  14. Dan Chmielewski
    February 23, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    All of our views are personal. Hateful? That’s pretty subjective. And Chris is being Chris. Nothing wrong with that.

    Since Lou is yoru friend, you can tell him he can always abstain if he doesn’t like the bill before him. But he voted with the Republicans here and took 9 days to explain himself. And that is unacceptable.

    Tell you what Alicia; perhaps Lou should draft his own measure on the California Senate’s response to the war. Now that Lou is a part of the majority in the Capitol, I expect him to lead. The righty bloghs here are calling him an OC Lieberman and that just ticks me off.

    I only wish Loretta was my congressional rep.

  15. February 23, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    I still love you too Alicia. You have a good weekend as well.

  16. demmother
    February 23, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    Now that we have kissed, cried and made up; can we talk about something else?

  17. Alicia
    February 23, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    Absolutely!

  18. Publius
    February 23, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    What should we discuss next?

  19. Northcountystorm
    February 23, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Anything but a non-binding resolution.

Comments are closed.