[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers

View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Perata and the Dump Denham Campaign

by: Brian Leubitz

Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 14:22:54 PM PST


Well, it appears, unsurprisingly, that Sen. Don Perata was/is at the center of the "Dump Denham" movement. From Matier and Ross:

Armed with $250,000, Perata launched a recall drive aimed at clipping the Central Valley lawmaker's wings just as he was getting set to run for lieutenant governor.

Now, not only is that run in doubt, but Denham is also fighting just to hold onto his seat - all because of his vote against the state budget. (SF Chron 11/11/07)

Perhaps this gets us one seat closer to 2/3? I know some people will get all upset about using the recall process, but the fact remains that the tool exists. We can't unilaterally disarm; if they use it, so should we.
Brian Leubitz :: Perata and the Dump Denham Campaign
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Perata and the Dump Denham Campaign | 55 comments
No (1.00 / 1)
no means are justified by any good end. Recalling him is wrong on moral grounds

On practical grounds, at least they had a case against Davis. He didn't commit a crime, but he put us in the worst financial situation. Now we're talking about recalling Denham for not voting for an unbalanced budget that likely won't get us through this year! Totally outrageous

And to say "We can't unilaterally disarm; if they use it, so should we," is like saying "if the terrorists use torture against us, we should use it against them." Now I know that torture doesn't work, but if it did, it would be the same logic

The Silent Consensus

Really, are you nuts? (0.00 / 0)
To remind you, Arnold has put us in a worse financial situation, literally from his first day in office. And Denham props him up by buying into the wingnut frame that you so love.

And to think that you compare this to torture really makes me think you've lost it. This is the opposite of totalitarianism, this is democracy. Up is not down, you are not making sense.

Props to Perata!

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
I know he has (0.00 / 0)
I know Arnold has put us in even worse financial situation (and no, not literally from his first day in office. Revenues went UP after the rescinding of the car tax tripling. You can argue whether it's a cause and effect, but the fact that revenues went up after is not an opinion it's a fact), I should have specified "worst until Arnold"

What ass are you pulling the "wingnut frame" argument out of? THE BUDGET ISN'T BALANCED. THE EXPENDITURES ARE HIGHER THAN REVENUES. How much clearer can that be? Not a "wingnut frame" that's a simple fact

Distinguish the circumstances of the analogy and the logic of the analogy. My point was that just because our opponents do it, doesn't mean we should do it

So was the recall of Davis "democracy?" If yes, okay you're consistent, if no, you can't have it both ways

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
pfft (0.00 / 0)
First of all, throwing around philosophical theory like it's inherent fact doesn't help you much.  Beyond that though, your metaphor is flawed.  What you're actually arguing for is the recognition and enforcement of a limited number of the laws and regulations in this state.  "Holier than thou" hasn't ever been a winning political strategy much like it's rarely a productive debate tactic.
[ Parent ]
Given that (0.00 / 0)
I sign my username to everything I say, I don't need to preface my opinions with "I think"

"What you're actually arguing for is the recognition and enforcement of a limited number of the laws and regulations in this state."

On what grounds do you put that on?

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
You're objecting to recall (0.00 / 0)
on principle, or very nearly that, as flawed means to an end.  But if you're really saying that it shouldn't be used as a tool as long as it exists as a legal recourse in this state, here's a better metaphor for you:  It's the same as if the Yankees decided they had an inherent objection to the DH on the grounds that it isn't "real" baseball and thus batted their pitcher instead.

As to you signing your name and thus not having to differentiate between fact and opinion, I'll assume going forward that everything in front of your username is simply opinion.

[ Parent ]
That's your problem (0.00 / 0)
If I'm stating something that's the truth and fact, it's your problem if you perceive it as an opinion

I'm saying it shouldn't be used unless the elected official has violated a law. Has he?

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
That's not what recall was for. That's called impeachment. Voters don't decide when a crime has been committed, that's for prosecutors and the legislature.

Recall is allowed simply because the official is not popular. Recall was an innovation borrowed from parliamentary systems, kinda like a vote of no-confidence.

I think?

[ Parent ]
Do we have (0.00 / 0)
an impeachment process in California? If we do then I was wrong

Hiram Johnson said that the recalls are not the panacea when he created it. Other states have recalls, but they have a standard, meaning signatures are not the only requirement, but the elected official has to have done something that warrants it. I think we should have that as well

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
You can be impeached (0.00 / 0)
for a crime. You can be recalled for being a jerk. There's no legal standard for recall that I'm aware of.
[ Parent ]
In California (0.00 / 0)
can someone be impeached? I don't mean federally. Some states have a legal standard for a recall, I wish California was one of them

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
the CA constitution allows impeachment for misconduct in office.
[ Parent ]
Your wish (0.00 / 0)
is apparently not Hiram Johnson's command. AN official can be impeached for official misconduct, but that's an entirely different process than recall.

I think?
[ Parent ]
Doesn't make it right (0.00 / 0)
and I ask, what has Jeff Denham done that's worthy of unseating him in the middle of his term? Hell, it's not even the middle of his term, it's the beginning of his term

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
$$$$$ (0.00 / 0)
"what has Jeff Denham done that's worthy of unseating him"

Apparently, if he pissed off enough of his constituents because he chose to block the budget (or cause he looked at them funny) that's worthy of unseating him.

Of course the real issue here ISN'T weather or not he deserves to be recalled or even if the recall rules should be changed.  The issue here, once again, is that MONEY is being used to leverage the rules created to make democracy work - and being used, possibly, in a way that makes it not work. 

It makes for great sport however!

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
If his constituents knew the TRUTH that he was voting against an UNBALANCED budget, they'd be all for him and you know that. It's the hype from the other side that's making them mad at him, not what he actually did

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
That's your myopic and incomplete version of the truth. And regardless, it's you dictating to voters what they should want or expect from their elected officials.  If people in the district want something other than what he's delivering to them, it's up to them and not you.  I mean hell, if people in his district decide that they demand for their state senator to make it rain up, they get to decide that because whatever their reasons, they get to decide who represents them.
[ Parent ]
No it's not (0.00 / 0)
The expenditures > the revenues. That's an unbalanced budget, numbers don't lie. You can call the budget anything else you'd like, but for them to claim it's balanced is a LIE

I can have morality about it, just as one could be against the Davis recall and not live in California

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
There are stricter standards (0.00 / 0)
In Washington, which has had the same progressive instruments of initiative, referendum, and recall as long as we have in CA, there is a higher standard for a recall - there has to be some evidence of misconduct in office for a recall to proceed to the petition stage. That decision is made by a judge. It helped block a right-wing effort to recall Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed, a moderate who saw no reason to intervene in the 2004 gubernatorial election.

It might be worth using a similar standard here in CA. But until we decide whether we want that, and as long as the current "recall for anything" rules remain in place, we should not hesitate from using it when we feel it is appropriate and useful.

Recalls, like impeachments, are inherently political acts. They don't carry much meaning outside their actual use on specific people.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
I'd be happy to recall Denham over the budget vote (8.00 / 1)
But I don't think the recall is going to have any steam behind it.  I've already heard that many of the local groups don't see it as a fight they can win, and they don't want to put themselves into the middle of a grudge match between Perata and Denham.
It is a bit unstrategic to pour money into that district in 2007.  In 2006, Wiley Nickel got no real help from Perata in his campaign against Denham, although Denham's seat is gerrymandered to be Democratic.  Nickel did pretty decently on his own -- raising $300K without much in the way of support from Sacramento.  That $250K would have gone a lot further then, especially if it was given early when it could have been used to leverage donations.
Instead the money went to promoting the passage of the bond measures -- not a bad expenditure, but not looking forward to the huge budget fights that are coming in California.
Seriously... (0.00 / 0)
you want to recall someone for not voting for an unbalanced budget?

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
While I'm for the recall (0.00 / 0)
I think you make several good points here. We had a great opportunity to take out Denham in '06 and it wasn't done, and winning a general election campaign is far less difficult than winning a recall, especially when there's no evidence of misconduct in office.

I'd also hope that Perata is planning to sink some money into SD-15. There's no good reason that Denham or Maldonado should be representing Democratic districts. Hopefully it has dawned on Perata that to get anything done in the Senate, a 2/3 majority is a necessity.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
And I ask (0.00 / 0)
according to you, what has he done that makes him so worthy of being unseated in the beginning of his term?

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
I don't think Perata will help run anyone against Maldonado (0.00 / 0)
After Maldonado came over to our side on the budget vote, Perata was effusive in his praise.  He was practically willing to go walk precincts for Maldonado in '08.  Not much of a chance there.
SD 19 is at least an open seat -- tougher, but possible in a very Democratic year, which is what 2008 is shaping up to be.
We've got to figure out how to do better in these state races.  Not only are we not taking seats with a small advantage in Republican registration, we're losing seats with a big advantage in Democratic registration and being unable to re-take them.
[ Parent ]
GO TEAM PERATA!!! (0.00 / 0)
It's nice to have leadership with balls!  Kick Denham's ass out of office and let's get a good Dem in there that will better serve his/her constituents. 

Of course that would get us one step closer to the magical 2/3! 

The race that could put us over the top would be Senate District 19, where Jim Dantona is raising money, and out campaigning hard.  He's ready to take on Hannah Beth Jackson in the primary, if necessary.  He's all fired up to take on Tony Strickland in the General.

Team Dantona is ready to turn SD19 blue!

So to you (0.00 / 0)
good ends justify the means? If that's how our party feels, then it demonstrates exactly why we don't deserve absolute power

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
If you learn one thing (0.00 / 0)
from the Constitution, it should be that nobody deserves absolute power. And even if one PARTY controls all the elected branches, that hardly means they hold absolute power. In our system of government, it is nearly impossible to get "absolute" power.

I think?
[ Parent ]
Let's see (0.00 / 0)
if we get 2/3 in both houses, we can pass a budget without compromising (that's fine though, leaving tax increases out), and we can override any veto (and line item veto), push any baby tax and constitutional amendment onto the ballot without compromise. The 2/3 is there for a reason on these important matters: minority rights

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Umm, in a democracy (8.00 / 4)
Minorities do not have a right to hijack budgeting. I'm not sure if you really understand what minority rights mean. They do not mean you have a right to set the tone or tenor of policy. They mean you have a right to tell the world that you object, and that's about it.

The minority rights that the Constitution seeks to protect are those pointed out in the Bill of Rights: The Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Religion. And also under the 14th Amendment: due process.

Minorities have NO rights with respect to policies that do not violate the state or federal constitutions. Of course, that's not true in California, where we have the stupid 2/3 rules.

I think?

[ Parent ]
So should we (0.00 / 0)
get rid of the filibuster at the federal level?

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Well, it's a House rule (0.00 / 0)
And is granted only as tradition. If the majority party wants to eliminate it, that's their perogative. I think they haven't for political reasons, but there are no "rights" there.

I think?
[ Parent ]
by House (0.00 / 0)
I mean "house of Congress" not "House of Representatives" and that it's a procedural rule that isn't mandated by the Constitution.

I think?
[ Parent ]
Fine, bad example (0.00 / 0)
But the minority has rights in making policy. Can't pass a constitutional amendment without 2/3, and can't override a veto without 2/3. Minority rights were taken into account then, ensuring the majority would not just steamroll over the constitution

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
In addition to Brian (8.00 / 2)
From where do you derive the apparent impression that a budget passed by a Democratic caucus would not include compromise in the first place?  That's a perplexing analysis of the process of drafting a budget.
[ Parent ]
It wouldn't have to (0.00 / 0)
since it would just need the Democrats to sign off on it.

I'd like for us to get back to the constitutional process of drafting a budget, and do away with the Big 5

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
You're right, it wouldn't have to (0.00 / 0)
But bipartisan budgeting doesn't inherently have to include compromise either.  Again, I find it to be a perplexing analysis of the budgetary process if you believe that compromise and negotiation only goes on between the two parties as distinct units and that nothing goes on within either caucus or on the basis of individual goals.  Your point thus far seems to be that in the context of budgeting, if not all of government, compromise by its very nature can only exist as a function of party vs. party negotiation which is simply a flawed premise from which to extrapolate any further commentary.
[ Parent ]
I am aware (0.00 / 0)
but which is bigger: the differences the two parties have with each other, or within themselves?

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Another flawed premise (5.00 / 1)
I could just as fairly ask you which is bigger: the differences between the two ends of each party or the difference between the two closest reprsentatives of opposing parties.  And I could use the United States House of Representatives as one convenient, if imperfect, example via Progressive Punch scores.  Lifetime scores for Democrats range from 98 to 51 percent, and for Republicans the range is roughly 31.5 to 0.7.  You can look at that a number of ways.  That the spread within both caucuses is larger than the space between the most centrist members.  You could also break down means and medians to find different numbers with different reflections on the nature of achieving bipartisan-based success.  None of them will, by themselves, tell you how to get a consensus or reach some measure of compromise.  And while the current makeup of the respective delegations may produce one answer or the other, that does not make it inherently or forever so.

The eventual positions of the two parties with respect to negotiation are the result of pre-negotiation and compromise within the caucus, with various factions of those caucuses rising or falling in influence all the time.  Presuming that there is ever a static balance of ideological power within an entire legislative body or within a legislative caucus is foolish and counterproductive to any reasonable discussion on this subject.

[ Parent ]
you know (0.00 / 0)
we actually have a de facto veto moratorium in this state.  Since 99% of all bills are sent at the close of the session, and the Governor vetoes after the session is over, there's never any thought to calling the session back into order to override vetoes.  Therefore, it doesn't happen, and the veto override option is rendered irrelevant. 
[ Parent ]
They can't (0.00 / 0)
override it the next session?

But regardless, what makes you think they won't start to call sessions back to do that once they have a 2/3

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
The thing about absolute power (8.00 / 2)
Is that we schedule these things called elections every so often.
[ Parent ]
So therefore (2.00 / 1)
should we have no term limits, even for the president?

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Strawman burning (6.00 / 2)
It's worth pointing out that the Founders did not put term limits in even for the Executive.  But in any case...

a legislature has a different function.  If you care about limiting executive power, you really don't want term limits on legislators.

[ Parent ]
Not the case at all (0.00 / 0)
"If you care about limiting executive power, you really don't want term limits on legislators."

Totally disagree. I reject the notion that because seniority determines how powerful they are now, that it's the only way to determine. We will always have those more powerful in the legislature than others, regardless of whether we have term limits. And actually, I don't want seniority to be the way to determine

Second, to my original point, I was asking about the logic that elections prevent absolute power

Third, why didn't they put them in? The AOC had term limits, and had problems of some Rhode Island officials refusing to vacate after their term was up. So they figured instead of holding up all the work they did over that, they'd leave it for another day. Madison and Hamilton opposed term limits, while Jefferson and Washington supported them

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Of course we are way off topic (0.00 / 0)
But the number one reason term Limits are a bad idea is that thehy removes the ONE incentive that politicians have to serve their constituents - getting re-elected.  Of course that system got high-jacked, mostly because of the voting publics apathy, and term limits seemed like an easy out.  But I think it has made the government less responsive.

As it stands now, the main incentive to get into politics is to pad your resume and make the contacts you need to land you that great consulting or lobbying job you've always dreamed of.

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
As long as they have the incentive to think of the next election instead of the next generation, that's what they're going to do, especially when it can be a convenient career

Back in the beginning, it took a horse and buggy to get to work, it didn't pay so great, and didn't have as great of benefits. It was treated as a brief civic duty, and we had statesman, not politicians.

That's what it should be, a brief civic duty, not a career. Making a convenient career out of it causes them to care more about keeping their job than about doing their job

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
By that logic (0.00 / 0)
are you advocating for an overall limit on total years in government?
[ Parent ]
Wouldn't mind it (0.00 / 0)
though that's not what I'm shooting for

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
the president is special (0.00 / 0)
because of the enormous bully pulpit.

But why do we need term limits? And why can't we just allow people to elect those whom they choose to elect. The problem isn't politicians themselves, so much as it is the money involved in getting elected.

I think?

[ Parent ]
Totally disagree (0.00 / 0)
"The problem isn't politicians themselves, so much as it is the money involved in getting elected."

The politicians are the problem. If they can't take lobbyists' money and vote against them the next day, they don't belong in office. I support optional public financing, but my point remains

Now, as for why we need term limits. As long as the incentive is for them to think about the next election and not the next generation, that's exactly what we'll get. Incumbents have an inherent advantage (name recognition, voter apathy, pork, and gerrymandering) unless they've done something really over the line. The more they get re-elected, the easier it is to get re-elected, because they get committee spots and less good people are willing to challenge them, because running for office is a big time and energy commitment

So now, does my logic say they should only have single terms? It could, but here's why I don't say that: given the big commitment taken to run, if they know they'll only be able to serve one term, they might not even bother to run. Need to find a balance, and I feel we have that

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Strawman indeed (0.00 / 0)
Plus it undermines your own point.  Either an incumbent enjoys an unfair advantage in holding the office (which it seems you are trying to equate here to absolute power by conflating the issue with term limits) or the incumbent does not.

If the incumbent DOES have an unfair advantage in holding a seat, then it's a strong argument for term limits and in favor of the recall mechanism which is essentially a referendum on the incumbent and a more direct opportunity for voters to remove a representative from office if they so choose.

If the incumbent DOES NOT have an unfair advantage in holding a seat, then term limits are not relevant and there is no absolute power.  An incumbent is judged on his/her merits to a degree that gives a challenger an appropriate chance everytime there is an election.

Can't have it both ways.

[ Parent ]
No comparison (0.00 / 0)
No inconsistency whatsoever. I believe incumbents have an unfair advantage, and believe they should be allowed to complete their term unless they commit a serious offense. Apples and oranges.

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Serious is subjective (0.00 / 0)
You don't get to decide.

Regardless of that, it's a huge leap to go from me saying that holding open elections preempts absolute power to bringing term limits into it in any way unless you think that incumbency undermines the ability of an election to be open.

[ Parent ]
It does (0.00 / 0)
for reasons I said before

Let's go over this a little. You said elections preempt absolute power, and one of the reasons for term limits, especially for the president, is to prevent absolute power

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
This just seems like another perversion... (0.00 / 0)
...of the recall, referendum and initiative.  If the esteemed Mr. Johnson were around now, he'd be a little shocked to see what had become of them.
Perata and the Dump Denham Campaign | 55 comments
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary
Powered by: SoapBlox