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

Make a New Account



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

Proposition Battle Thread

by: David Dayen

Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:49:47 AM PDT

OK, we're seeing movement on the floor, as the Pro and Con speakers mass at the microphones.  John Hanna and Inola Henry are managing the resolutions at the podium.  I'll update.

According to John Hanna, it takes 60% of the members to pass a ballot measure.  1A will be pulled from the endorsements and dealt with separately.

...Willie Pelote of AFSCME recommends that 1A be pulled from the calendar.  And now, Paul Hogarth is pulling 1D and 1E.  And someone from region 12 (didn't get the name) will be pulling 1F.  Hector de la Torre tried to pull a resolution and was out of order.  He's an elected official.  FAIL.

Susie Shannon cleaned things up by pulling 1E (Paul could only pull one of them).  Dr. Richard Wood pulled 1C.  Paula Bower pulled 1B.  So basically, everything got pulled, and all of them will be dealt with separately.

So now each proposition will be gone through one at a time.  1A is up first, with 60% needed to pass (or opppose), according to John Hanna.  There will be 3 speakers on each side.  Darrell Steinberg kicks it off, with a good bit of his Senate colleagues behind him.  He's talking about how we cannot "turn our backs" on $25 billion in public investment, so we should pass a measure that... would ratchet down public investment by $25 billion just in the first two years and would be permanent????

[Note: rest of the play-by-play moved below the fold. Great work by David Dayen on this, too - some things Twitter just can't handle.]

David Dayen :: Proposition Battle Thread

...Shorter Steinberg: Howard Jarvis opposes, so we should support.  Um, the Chamber of Commerce supports, so... we should oppose?

...Lillian Taiz of the Cal. Faculty Assn is opposing.  Based on the out-of-my-arse judging of the applause on both sides, I don't think either side will get 60%.  "Prop 1A... forces us to live the Republican dream!"

...Sen. Gloria Romero is speaking in support, to "stand and deliver for Prop. 1A, 1B and 1C."  She's saying that schools get none of the money owed to them if 1A fails.  That's just fundamentally not true.  It's owed to K-12 and they can sue for it.  This guilt by association thing, furthermore, that Howard Jarvis is against it.

...Melinda Dart from AD-12, a 4th-grade teacher, is speaking against 1A.  That's pretty cool, she's going against her own union... (UPDATE: she's CFT, not CTA).  "We're already #47 in education spending.  But we'll go down to #50 permanently if we pass 1A."

...Lynette Henley from Vallejo says "(Dart) made all the points I would say in support of 1A"  Much waving the bloody shirt of "think of the children" going on... "You are failing our students" by not supporting the props.  But remember, those OPPOSING are the ones being emotional.

...Willie Pelote of AFSCME is giving a stemwinder speech.  He's preaching.  I can't really understand what he's saying, but I assume he's opposed... wait I got something, "This is the most dangerous thing I've ever thing... it's a Republican approach to governing in the state of California.  Do we want Republicans to be in our house telling us what to do?"

...OK, they're calling the question, but now there's a point of order.  Deana Ingelsrud is trying to extend debate, and she's getting yelled at.  Really, you're not going to change many minds at this point, I would rather just move to vote.  Now we have to have a vote to suspend the rules (which needs a 2/3 vote).  Just drags it out.

...The motion to extend debate failed miserably.  We're on to the vote.

...Looks to me like 1A will go through, actually.  Mediaptera says it needs 1,425 to pass.  I guess the question is if it needs 60% of the total credentials or 60% of those assembled... John Laird just told me that it's 60% of those present and voting.  So we'll see.

...They're counting.  It's going to be close.

...Point of information from Mark Leno, which is smacked down.

...The vote was 758 yes, 542 no.  58% for yes, so the motion fails.  The party takes no position on Prop. 1A.

...Agi Kessler tries to do a motion to reconsider?  Actually, I think she's just saying it rhetorically, while supporting 1A.  Paula Bower doesn't want the body taking a position on any of the props, and she's talking against 1B because she wants the Party not to put its imprimatur on it.

...They're voting on 1B now.  I expect it to pass... and it does.  So the Party takes a position of support on 1B.

...We're up to 1C now.  Mark Leno is speaking on Prop. 1C.  "It may not be the most lovable measure but it gives us $5 billion dollars.  I demand that anyone speaking against to identify $5 billion in cuts.  This is not a time for purist positions."  Um, majority-vote fee increase.

...The speaker against calls the supporters "false and misleading."  He's, um, not a good speaker.  He should say the words "majority vote fee increase."  Someone should, at least.

...Richard Boylan, a speaker against 1C because "it is funny money" and "a bad gamble."  These speakers against are a bit wooden.  I suspect a yes recommendation.

...David Cohen from San Jose is speaking yes on 1C.  "Russian roulette with our students," blah blah blah.

...Derrick Cassidy from San Diego county Central Committee.  He finally mentions the majority vote fee increase.  He's not saying it that well, but he just answered Leno to his face.  "Balancing the budget on the backs of the lottery is shameful."

...Vote is happening now.  It looks like Yes carried.  And John Hannah made a ruling from the floor without counting.  But someone called for a division.  Now there will be a hard count.  Let me just say that this is as it should be.  We should have democracy, and an airing of differences, and there ought to be a vote of the delegates on each measure.  60% is a fine threshold for something as valuable as a party endorsement, it's the standard for candidate endorsements as well.

...John Hanna is doing a pretty good job up there, by the way.

...Prop. 1C gets 67%, so the yes vote is adopted.  The Party endorses 1B and 1C so far, no position on Prop. 1A.

...Prop. 1D debate is up.  Asm. Bob Blumenfield is speaking in favor... Bob Blumenfield's right, reserve funds SUCK!  That talking point, that 1D is well-funded and ready for cigarette sales to go down, so we should raid its reserve, in the light of wanting to build a reserve in 1A, is utterly nonsensical.

...A woman who works for First 5 gave a speech against, Mary Rose Ortega is speaking in favor.  Shorter Ortega: "Won't you think of the children when you make program cuts for children!"

...Carole Lutness talks about the slippery slope of taking less than 1/2 of 1% from voter-approved funds.  Essentially every fund will be raided in the future, and if the legislature won't take a stand for the voiceless, the voters must be allowed to.

...a CTA member talks for transferring the money and voting for 1D.

...Susie Shannon: "Do you want to robocall the 7.7 million Democrats and tell them we're cutting programs for poor kids?... my child will not be able to go to pre-school (if this passes).

...The vote is up, and there's going to be another count on Prop. 1D.  I think it's close.

...OK, 1D didn't pass, it only got 52% of the vote.  So the party goes no position on 1D.

...We're on to 1E, the raid of Prop. 63.  The thing about these two measures (1D and 1E) is, they are a fraction of the overall budget, but they mean a hell of a lot for the poor and at-risk communities that they affect.

...No on 1E speaker asks "what else are we going to capitulate on?"

...Speaker for 1E says "We have framed this position wrong."  I cannot argue with that.

...Friend of Calitics Paul Hogarth is speaking against 1E.  Notes that Reagan shut down the mental hospitals and that Schwarzenegger has been undermining Prop. 63 ever since it passed.  This is a great speech.  Cindy Asner gets some time as well.

...We're up to the vote for 1E.  I don't think it will pass, and in fact, we may have a majority for no.

...1E doesn't pass.  623 yes, 619 no.  The Party takes no position on Prop. 1E.

...We're now going into Prop. 1F, the "waste of time" proposition.  Speakers on this coming up.  Abel Maldonado has his fingers crossed!  The No speaker sez, "Show your intelligence for once!"

...Yes speaker says 1F will "help us reach out to independent voters."  Because everyone makes their vote based on COLA increases for legislators in down budget years.

...Speaker for 1F "It's disappointing that the lawmakers who supported all the other initiatives won't come up here and speak for getting their money cut."

...Looks like Prop. 1F will get a Yes endorsement.  It's official.

The final numbers: The CDP endorses Yes on 1B, 1C and 1F; no position on 1A, 1D and 1E.

The final CDP endorsements show what the leadership ought to have supported all along. I oppose these measures, but looking at the politics, Yes on 1B, 1C, and 1F is a position that could get significant public support. Instead the legislators backed a "yes on everything" position.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

chairman de la torre out of order (0.00 / 0)

The resolution he wants pulled (4.00 / 1)
Would have the party support universal single-payer care.

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

[ Parent ]
assemblymember (4.00 / 1)
and candidate for insurance commissioner.

[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
didn't mean "chairman". lol.  self-pwn fail.

[ Parent ]
He chairs a committee in the Assembly. You weren't wrong... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Thankfully, he has an opponent ... (8.00 / 1)
Assemblyman Dave Jones is running for Insurance Commissioner, and I got to spend a good amount of time with him this weekend.  He is very progressive, and I was very impressed.  Bloggers should really get behind him ...

[ Parent ]
Dave Jones (0.00 / 0)
Yes, Sacramento is very lucky to be represented by Dave Jones. He will make a fine Insurance Commissioner.

[ Parent ]
60% is going to be difficult to get for Prop 1A (3.00 / 1)
I would be surprised if that occurred, but we'll see.

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

Si se puede (4.00 / 1)
for proposition 1A? You can't be serious.

the rhetoric on both sides for this (5.00 / 1)
is really asinine.

As is the vote-counting process.  

[ Parent ]
Applause seems pretty equally divided (5.00 / 1)
Also, Steinberg's comments were so offensive!

Nothing but shouting from the proponents (4.00 / 1)
Steinberg and Romero both just shouting -- they must be in shock that it's harder to intimidate rank-and-file Democrats than their fellow senators and assemblymembers.

[ Parent ]
Because.... (0.00 / 0)
there was no shouting on the opposition side.  lol!

[ Parent ]
They were indeed (5.00 / 3)
He asked if Democrats would join Republicans like the Howard Jarvis Association in opposing Prop 1A. Would it be fair to ask in return if Democrats should join Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chevon in backing it?

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

[ Parent ]
Yes! (0.00 / 0)
That was as bad as calling the supporters of 1A Republicans.

[ Parent ]
The Assembly talking points CLEARLY say to use hot button... (5.00 / 1)
names like Jarvis and Meg Whitman to try to scare Dems they consider their sheep to follow once again....and we saw a NEW SPINE emerging at this convention. Wasn't that a relief!!!

And, YES, it is VERY FAIR to associate the YES side with Arnold...especially because 1A is a reincarnation of his old failed Prop 76 from '05.


[ Parent ]
are people going to be able to hold their arms up (0.00 / 0)
for this long without all the blood rushing out?

We all practiced (5.00 / 1)
at the Wyclef Jean concert last night.

We raised our hands in the air...raised them like we just don't care...

[ Parent ]
"58% for yes, so the motion fails" (0.00 / 0)
That is... incredibly dramatic.

Thanks for these liveblog updates!

Funny (0.00 / 0)
...how those on here who oppose the supermajority for tax and budget approval support it for their own convenience in CDP rules!

Also funny how the alternative is "go back to the drawing board."

With what? Pitchforks?

[ Parent ]
get a wahhhmbulance (6.50 / 2)
If you don't like the rules, change the rules, the way we have sought.

[ Parent ]
Then write the change yourself, Steve (8.00 / 1)
that's exactly what I did to change the endorsement process.  Surely you have more authority with the CDP than a 26-year-old blogger-delegate from the 42nd AD.

[ Parent ]
battle for the soul of the party (8.00 / 1)
if you don't like the rules, work to change them.

Surely you get this.

In the meantime, this is what happens when the party ignores its grassroots.

[ Parent ]
Funny (0.00 / 0)
about turnabout and fair play.

[ Parent ]
Or maybe (0.00 / 0)
this is more of a goose/gander goodness equation? Or pot/kettle? Too many choices.

[ Parent ]
looks like you have a lot more democrats to yell at, steve (0.00 / 0)
apparently the inherent rightness of whatever position you're being paid to flack at the moment isn't as apparent to the folks at the convention. perhaps a reflection on the way you and your buddies tried to strongarm this thing through scolds and belittling is due.

after all, the voters in the election aren't going to respond much better to being lectured by an insider that they don't know anything about state politics and should do what they're told.

friendly tip.

[ Parent ]
I... what? (0.00 / 0)
Not sure where that cane from, but it doesn't seem to me to follow that just because something is appropriate for rules in adopting nonbinding endorsements by a political party that meets once a year, that that would mean it is equally appropriate for use in passing a state budget...

[ Parent ]
Oppose? Support? (0.00 / 0)
Isn't this just a matter of "recognizing that it exists?"  What's your (ostensible) beef?

As for what's next: something that isn't embedded into the state Constitution like a deer tick, I hope.

[ Parent ]
most delegates appointed (5.00 / 2)
Considering that 2/3 of delegates are appointed, and that almost all legislators directed their appointees to vote yes, along with the establishment county appointees, simple arithmetic would seem to dictate that most elected delegates opposed 1A, 1D and 1E, if not 1C, too. So which is more undemocratic, the supermajority vote requirement or the supermajority of appointed delegates?  

[ Parent ]
wow, leno's offensive too (0.00 / 0)
he gave us a false choice between 1c or identifying equivalent cuts.

They're getting desperate. (0.00 / 0)
When your argument for a proposition is reduced to "OK so what's YOUR answer?" then you know they've lost.

That being said, I think the problem here is that the leadership backed a Yes on everything position, when they should have instead backed 1C alone. Prop 1C is the only one of these that meaningfully impacts the budget situation on May 20. The leadership would have done much better to zero in on Prop 1C and ignored the rest.

They didn't, and even though this convention endorsed Prop 1C, they're all going down.

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

[ Parent ]
yep (0.00 / 0)
lots of other possibilities.

None of which are, "let's capitulate to Republican obstruction and keep this sclerotic system going for another year."

[ Parent ]
I'd say the same, but for 1B (0.00 / 0)
Supporting 1B is fine with me: it's good insurance if 1A does pass.  As for 1C -- I'll support something that has to do with the lottery once all publicly funded advertising for the lottery (beyond noting the mere fact of its existence) is banned, and not a moment before.

[ Parent ]
Many delegates are leaving (0.00 / 0)
Not sure how that will effect the endorsement votes.

Paul Hogarth: two words: RONALD REAGAN (6.50 / 2)
Paul Hogarth is on FIRE. Shame on convention-goers if they support 1E.

He nailed it (8.00 / 1)
And so did the prior speaker for no, Victor (didn't catch his last name), who asked why we aren't demanding our Democratic legislators stop capitulating to Republican demands.

I think that's really at the heart of the grassroots opposition to these initiatives. There's a sense that not enough was done to fight the conservatives, and that view is being reinforced by the arguments from legislators who say "omg we'll have cuts!" if these don't pass.

Had they given an indication of "we will fight hard against the cuts, but you need to give us help" then there would be more support for the legislators and propositions.

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

[ Parent ]
yep (0.00 / 0)
the "screw you.  whaddaya gonna do?" argument isn't exactly the most persuasive.

[ Parent ]
Hogarth's speech was truly fantastic (0.00 / 0)
It may have been the best one given on any of the propositions.

[ Parent ]
I'm sad about 1C (5.00 / 1)
1C being the only relevant prop on the ballot, it is extremely sad that we have created a market in lottery futures. Haven't we seen the dangers of rampant, criminal securities trading already. The irony that the casino capitalism and our bubble economy have created this budget short fall that we are now going to try and "fix" with more casino capitalism is too much. By the way, I've been live blogging with pics, etc:  http://venturacountydemocrats....

quick "easy": revenue (0.00 / 0)
seems to be too good to pass up, no matter how STUPID it is.

[ Parent ]
1C is really bad (5.00 / 1)
Unless you think of playing the lottery as pure entertainment, you should not be approving it as a monetary source... The lottery is not a way for people to make money, one has a better chance of being hit by lightning than winning the lottery.

As a mathematician I am opposed to any expansion of the CA Lottery, since it is basically a regressive tax on the mathematically illiterate!


The Mad Professah Lectures

[ Parent ]
Here's a piece of irony (5.00 / 1)
We had a supporter of the leadership position upthread complaining about the 60% requirement to pass a resolution.  Now I don't actually know this history, but I bet if we checked we'd find that the reason that 60% requirement is there is to prevent rank and file activists from passing resolutions the leadership would consider "too radical" or "ill advised" or some such thing.  They likely put it there to limit democracy and now it's coming back to bite them.

Like I said earlier (0.00 / 0)
More than two-thirds of delegates are appointed.  Since most of the Democratic electeds directed their appointees to vote for all the measures, along with, presumably, most of the establishment county-appointed delegates, simple math would suggest that elected delegates would have had to overwhelmingly oppose the measures to prevent an endorsement.

Would it really have been more democratic to allow the appointed delegates to decide these measures on their own?

[ Parent ]
I suggest you learn more before you lump us all together (0.00 / 0)
I for one am not an "establishment county-appointed delegate", nor are my colleagues in my county.  We are elected by our fellow central committee members to act on behalf of the local party and Democratic voters.  We take our responsibilities to represent the grassroots seriously; party leaders and elected officials who attend our meetings face rigorous grilling.  

In fact, contrary to your ad hominem assertion, in our region the AD delegates (elected by the Burton machine) supported party leadership down the line.  It was the "establishment county-appointed delegates" from the central committee who took the lead in opposing the propositions.

[ Parent ]
Are you talking AD-08 or AD-07? (0.00 / 0)
Because I'm an elected delegate from AD-07, which includes part of Solano, and I'm here to tell you that I didn't support these propositions.

These opinions are my own, and are not representative of those of any of my employers.

[ Parent ]
Glad to hear that about Solano's 14 county delegates, what about the other 1,017? (0.00 / 0)
I admit that my assertion was overly general, to keep the math simple.  However, considering that most county-appointed delegates are appointed in larger counties where more establishment support is needed to get on the central committee, I think my conclusion (that most county-appointed delegates probably supported the measures) is fair.

If it turns out that a large number of counties were not persuaded by the parade of state legislators, or that most county-appointed delegates simply left early, then I'll gladly revise my statement.

I also recognize that the Burton campaign dominated the election caucuses.  However, at least in my experience, most delegates agreed to support Burton because they figure he'd already won.  Perhaps I missed a statement from Burton in the frenzy of paper and emails, but I don't recall the Burton campaign pleading with their delegates to support the ballot measures (or anything else for that matter).

I further admit that any analysis of the vote is inherently flawed because only 2,375 delegates got their credentials and, of those, only 1300 voted on 1A.  It is impossible to tell what percentage of what kinds of delegates actually voted.

Even if we assume that 1/2 of each category of delegates voted, and that only 60 percent of delegates appointed by elected officials supported 1A and that 55 percent of county-appointed delegates opposed it, the elected delegates would still have had to have broken against for the vote total we saw 1A.  My point was not to trash county-appointed delegates, but to highlight that the elected delegates most likely broke against the measures and imply that the supermajority requirement can hardly be considered undemocratic if only a tiny minority of delegates are actually elected.

Moreover, considering that less than half of total delegates were even voting, a simple plurality of those voting can hardly be considered majority rule.  Need I remind everyone here that less than 30 percent of eligible voters voted to re-elect George W. Bush?

In the interest of intelectual transparency, here is the table of delegates per county (four per county plus one more for each 10,000 registered Democrats, rounded up.  I believe they used the 15-day close numbers).  Note that the top 9 counties control well over half the delegates.  If you exclude Los Angeles, the next 17 counties also control an outright majority of county-appointed delegates.

County Democrats Delegates County Democrats Delegates County Democrats Delegates County Democrats Delegates
Alameda 462,445 51 Kings 18,626 6 Placer 59,076 10 Shasta 28,894 7
Alpine 306 5 Lake 15,292 6 Plumas 4,621 5 Sierra 724 5
Amador 7,501 5 Lassen 4,040 5 Riverside 307,593 35 Siskiyou 9,435 5
Butte 44,808 9 Los Angeles 2,226,641 227 Sacramento 305,682 35 Solano 96,621 14
Calaveras 9,632 5 Madera 19,033 6 San Benito 11,764 6 Sonoma 129,942 17
Colusa 2,825 5 Marin 84,605 13 San Bernardino 331,097 38 Stanislaus 95,928 14
Contra Costa 263,853 31 Mariposa 3,767 5 San Diego 539,560 58 Sutter 14,086 6
Del Norte 4,782 5 Mendocino 24,114 7 San Francisco 269,664 31 Tehama 10,289 6
El Dorado 34,592 8 Merced 44,704 9 San Joaquin 115,571 16 Trinity 3,065 5
Fresno 153,434 20 Modoc 1,601 5 San Luis Obispo 57,855 10 Tulare 51,855 10
Glenn 4,047 5 Mono 2,197 5 San Mateo 199,569 24 Tuolumne 11,863 6
Humboldt 34,098 8 Monterey 79,803 12 Santa Barbara 88,293 13 Ventura 170,429 22
Imperial 30,564 8 Napa 34,073 8 Santa Clara 366,590 41 Yolo 51,402 10
Inyo 3,406 5 Nevada 21,716 7 Santa Cruz 81,484 13 Yuba 10,313 6
Kern 112,084 16 Orange 511,641 56

[ Parent ]
Following on the Other Comment (0.00 / 0)
The AD-08 Delegates definitely were not backed by the "burton machine" in fact they ran against the burton slate and won a majority of the seats they competed for. How they voted, however, I honestly don't know, because I was counting the votes for regions 2 / 11 / 21 instead of being in Region 3.

[ Parent ]
Clarification please (0.00 / 0)
Where do you get the figure that more than 2/3 of delegates are appointed? I helped rewrite the Rules log ago and my understanding is that 1/3 are electeds,nominees and their appointees, 1/3 are elected at ADEMs and 1/3 are from County Committees where in most cases they are elected by their peers to fill the delegate slots. How can over 2/3 be appointed?
I would also point out that directed voting by the electeds and the establishment did not beat the grassroots Progressive wave that Hilary Crosby rode into the Controller's office. This gives me hope that the iron grip of the legislature on the CDP is beginning to recede.

"Be yourself, everyone else is taken."Oscar Wilde

[ Parent ]
Well.... (0.00 / 0)
If you consider a vote by 20 or so central committee members an "election," then you are correct: only one-third of delegates are "appointed."  I consider such a vote an "appointment," and therefore consider two-thirds of delegates to be "appointed."

On another note, the exact numbers of delegates in each category doesn't actually work out to perfect thirds.  There are exactly 960 ADEM-elected delegates.  Then the delegates appointed by elected officials or most-recent nominees varies depending on how many Democrats are elected at any given time.  The number of county-appointed delegates increases as the number of Democrats in each district increases.  As more Democrats are getting elected, and more voters are registering to vote, we will see the proportion of ADEM-elected delegates shrink over the next few years.

[ Parent ]
And a question (0.00 / 0)
I had to leave before the resolutions - did any of them get pulled and actually fail to pass?

They all got pulled (5.00 / 1)
Not even 1B and 1F were left on the consent calendar.  1A, 1D and 1E all failed to get endorsed.  The rest got more than 60.

In order of support:
1F (only a handful of delegates stood up to knee-jerk populism)
1B (a little more than 3-1; I'm worried that it might be used as an end-run around the 1A vote.  How hard is it to put the blurb "1B only takes effect if 1A passes" in the corner of a mailer?)
1C (2-1)
1A (failed by 22 votes)
1E (623-619 in favor).

[ Parent ]
Delegates who left before the resolution votes... (5.00 / 1)
Ok...this is an observation.

People who ARE delegates have a responsibility, and that is to STAY on SUNDAY through the end of the convention and do the serious voting on the resolutions that are meant to be a guide for the direction of our party.

I'm not talking about those who have a serious emergency. But, just about everyone else who leaves early.

If you are an elected delegate, it's really important to clear your schedule and follow-through with this commitment. Several of the votes today were VERY CLOSE.  

I usually agree (0.00 / 0)
However, Sunday floor sessions are usually a mind-numbing, life-draining experience.  We get one or two good speakers (this year Howard Dean & Debra Bowen) mixed in with the dregs of state politics.  We get an hour of regional director awards that nobody hears.  When we finally get to the resolutions, we get hours of arcane parliamentary maneuvering, mass confusion, and (most of the time) passage of the resolutions as presented.  If the leadership wants resolutions passed, quorum calls are ignored; if they oppose them, quorum calls are promptly and rigorously enforced.  Top it all off, we spend half an hour counting each vote by a show of cards??  Even if we discount those who catch a plane home, Sunday sessions are designed to be low-interest events.

[ Parent ]
Really sad that you feel so little responsibility on these (0.00 / 0)
OF COURSE they put the mind-numbers up front, but we are NOT at the convention for continual entertainment...and certainly not for the nonexistent food. We're there to help SHAPE the policy of our party.

THIS YEAR was extremely IMPORTANT and THOSE WHO STAYED really made a significant difference in the outcome of the vote, particularly for the initiatives.

And, YES, I would agree that the actual MEAT of the day is served quite late. We learned that last time around when a quorum call caused some of the most important issued we had worked on to be tossed out. Everyone there was enraged. Thus, you saw (if you stayed this time) the chair get the quorum calls retracted so that all the resolutions could be considered.

What is it that you come to the convention to do???

[ Parent ]
You could construe it that way (0.00 / 0)
Or you could construe it, as I do, as a chance to sleep in after two late nights of hospitality suites and, at least in my case, a loud 3 a.m. barfight across the street.

[ Parent ]
KUDOS for David.... (0.00 / 0)
on actually being able to keep track of each of the speaker's names!!!  I'm in awe!!!

Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads

blog advertising is good for you

Support Calitics:

Buy on Amazon through us.


Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary

Powered by: SoapBlox