Repair California, the group trying to put a constitutional convention on the November 2010 ballot, has just announced that it's suspending its work. Repair California was an offshoot of the Bay Area Council, a group of northern California businesspeople.
Many progressives favored last summer's original idea of a constitutional convention. However, the details that emerged caused progressive enthusiasm to wither away. Among them: Proposition 13 would remain the untouchable third rail of California politics.
If you've been watching California politics for a while you may already know this to be true, but for those who ask me why the Republicans are so intransigent and inflexible when it comes to the budget, hear former Assemblyman Ray Haynes (h/t CapAlert) explain to you the reason. It's really really simple and intuitive.
The key problem, I said, was that the Governor and the Democrats were asking Republicans to betray a key principle of a key constituency and get nothing in return. The result to any Republican who voted for that tax increase would be the end of their political career. I know, because, I said, I would do everything in my power to make sure of it for anyone who voted for that tax increase, and I know there are a lot of Republicans who think like me [...]
Democrats are asking Republicans to end their political lives, but are not willing to end their own. Democrat constituency groups are asking Republican constituency groups to sell out their core principles, but are not willing to sell out any of their own.
This is an example of the Iron Law of Institutions, which states: "The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution." It is an expression of self-interest over the greater interests of the state.
You can hardly blame them. Republican primaries in California can get nasty, far worse than their races against Democrats. And the last time Republicans crossed over in any numbers to pass a sensible budget, the far-right fringe of the party punished them - and reinforced the Iron Law.
Democrats and their constituency groups have already made it clear that they are giving up nothing for ending your political career. You had better get a lot personally for it, because once it is done, and you are out of office, they will forget you ever existed. Just ask Mike Briggs, Brian Setencich, Anthony Pescetti, Dave Kelley, Paul Horcher, and Dick Dickerson. They gave the Democrats what they wanted, and they are now enjoying their time in the private sector. You will too.
What's significant here is how Haynes uses this kernel of truth to promote a bigger lie - that Democrats have "given up nothing" in a grand bargain to save the state. This is simply not true. For years and years they have made painful cuts to key programs, have expedited projects by waiving environmental restrictions, and have gone at least halfway on the budget. In Haynes' conception of the Iron Law, Democrats have to be willing to do something that would lose them their seats in office in order to get cooperation. He is asking, in essence, for a suicide pact. The fact that Democrats control the majority and one would think are actually entitled to enact their policies, and subsequently get called to account on the effects of those policies periodicially by the voters, doesn't enter much into Haynes' thinking. He alludes to it here:
Getting a political majority does entitle groups and people to certain policy gains. That is what getting power is all about. Winners get to enact their policy initiatives. They don't get to whine however when the minority has the opportunity to advance their policy initiatives, and the majority has to give up something to get what they want.
Of course, the majority HAS given up plenty to get what they want. But what Haynes calls "whining" is simply pointing out that a democracy with majority rule in elections might want to take the same course in governing, lest a tyranny of the minority take hold and create a hostage situation. I assume he wouldn't see it the same way.
There are only a couple ways to break this. One is to reform the rules that gridlock the state so that every member can continue to vote their conscience without punishing the citizens in the process. The other is to make those members of the Yacht Party institution MORE afraid of their general election than their primary election. We have made small strides toward a 2/3 majority, but essentially have failed in the past two cycles, which were promising for Democrats nationally. Only by growing the party and breaking the working conservative majority in the legislature will the rule of the Iron Law become irrelevant.
The troubles of the GOP in the nation's most populous state - which backers of Sen. John McCain insist could be competitive in the fall presidential election - come at a crucial time. The California party convention is Feb. 22 in San Francisco, and conservatives and moderates will debate the platform and whether independent voters should be allowed to cast ballots in state GOP primaries.
But the most urgent concern for many Republicans is the appalling financial condition of the state party, which is now overdue on repaying a $3 million loan provided in 2005 by Larry Dodge, chief executive of the American Stirling Co.
The surest sign of a party that is deeply divided is when blame gets passed around, instead of folks stepping up to take responsibility (although one wonders when the last time the Yacht Party ever demonstrated responsibility to the state's voters, finances, and basic rights). Sure enough, we have Jon Fleischmann, who runs some website whose name I forget, explaining that it's all Arnold's fault:
"The understanding of the California Republican Party was that the loan would be repaid today - and if it isn't, that's concerning," Jon Fleischman, vice chair of the Southern California GOP, told The Chronicle on Friday.
"The governor made a commitment to resolve the debt. It was incurred re-electing him - and he stood before our convention and said he would take care of resolving it," Fleischman said. "If we're still dealing with the debt from Gov. Schwarzenegger's last campaign, it makes it difficult for us to move forward on the McCain campaign."
(The second in an occasional series of articles highlighting California legislative districts and candidates that could provide Democrats with a vital 2/3 majority.)
On the drive out from Santa Monica to Simi Valley, there's a moment when you know that you've left Los Angeles County and ventured into Ventura. Suddenly, the greenery recedes away, the canyon walls rise, and the scene becomes positively dramatic. If you let your mind wander, you could picture yourself in the middle of a John Ford movie backdrop or a national monument somewhere in Utah, despite being just 35 miles from downtown LA.
I was headed out to a fundraiser, driving along the 118 Freeway, which area transportation poohbahs see fit to remind you is named the "Ronald Reagan Freeway" about every 8/10th of a mile. Astonishingly enough, this was a Democratic fundraiser. For a candidate seeking a seat held by Tom McClintock, arguably the most rock-ribbed conservative in the entire state. And it's a seat Democrats can win. Things are changing along the Ronald Reagan Freeway.
Let me just say that I think this resolutions thing is a much ado about nothing. More than anything it is instructive for how the party responds to its rank-and-file. Nevertheless, I'm here, and so your intrepid blogger will follow it for you.
But first of all, let me make a couple remarks about Art Torres' comments in the general session. I'm disappointed and annoyed that he resorted to blaming "the blogs" for criticism that the Party received after the last convention, as part of some comments that he made justifying the CDP’s efforts to compete statewide. It's an unfair and deliberately vague characterization. What blogs? Which bloggers? Is there anything specific? And can you say with a straight face that the ONLY or even the main people to take issue with various matters that happened at the convention are bloggers? The rank-and-file grassroots wrote those resolutions. The rank-and-file grassroots had the problems with how they were handled in the resolutions committee. They had the issues with the quorum call. They led the fight to create an Audit Committee and the resultant fallout.
We REPORTED it. And I stand behind my belief that reporting the facts and making opinions on policies and events are NOT personal attacks. It's a convenient excuse to blame "mean dirty hippie bloggers" for every criticism ever leveled at the Party. People have substantive questions, and blogs are one way, and really one of the smaller ways, for people to express those questions. I think that, at least on this site, there was an extremely healthy debate about the convention fallout, and it's simply unfair for Torres to lash out in that way.
I will add that the fact that Torres felt the need to defend himself, and defend the Party's goal of electing Democrats statewide and implementing a 58-county strategy, is a win in itself. I think we all want to work to that end; it's certainly a major part of what we do here at Calitics. You can quote me on that, Art. By name.
I'll toss some notes about the Resolutions Committee in the extended entry.
Hi, the morning session was spirited. A few notes:
• Art Torres did an incredibly quick and brief motion to push the agenda of the convention forward, essentially affirming all of the work of the Resolutions Committee. It passed without incident. Now the hard work begind of collecting signatures from the delegates on all the motions that people want to force to the floor. I'm collecting for the Audit Committee, and I think that having the signatures presented is an end in itself. It mandates that the shareholders of this party want some financial accountability and transparency, that they don't want it shunted off to some task force where they can kick the idea down the road. I think it's crucial for structural party reform and ensuring that we reach all districts.
• Hillary's speech was going fine, IMO, until she got to Iraq. Then she lost the crowd (and she had them earlier). It was interesting to see Art Torres and Fabian Nunez shooting daggers with their eyes from the podium at those delegates hissing and shouting about Hillary's Iraq policy, particularly when Nunez motioned to have people ejected from the hall (nobody was AFAIK). Still, I do believe that Hillary was fairly wide support. I can't tell you how many delegates I saw yelling "Impeach Bush! Impeach Cheney!" and then holding up their Hillary signs. I don't think her support is as soft as the netroots think.
I'm slightly skeptical, but pleased, at Art Torres' answer to this question.
CMR: What is the 58-County Strategy and how is it going to help us be successful in 2008?
AT: Howard Dean and I worked together on the 50-State Strategy when he was running for Chair of the Democratic National Committee. I was part of an effort to make sure he was elected chair because I felt he would be the most progressive and effective chair, which has proven to be right. It's taken a little time for us here in California to establish a 58-County Strategy, which I announced in December of 2006, and we're going to be more incremental given the resources that we have available. But the most important priority for me is a Jerry McNerney seat, the Charlie Brown seat - which will be his seat once he defeats Doolittle - and Gary Miller in Southern California. We're going to reach out to those communities where we can coordinate with counties with the resources we have available for voter registration and finally to make a mark on those counties that were up to this point considered red, that are now purple or turning blue.
I'm willing to give Torres a chance to live up to this. Miller didn't have an opponent in 2006, but if the CDP says they want to devote resources there, let's see it. Same with Brown in CA-04, and to be fair Torres has previously admitted mistakenly not making this a priority last year. What bothers me is that this 58-county strategy is being discussed on the federal electoral level instead of about local and state legislative races; that's where party-building really begins. As a delegate, I want to work with those leaders in the party who talk about reaching out to all counties. I also want to ensure that they actually go about doing it. That's why I'm supporting the creation of an Audit Committee and a resolution expressing support for a 58-county strategy.
(It's hard living in a "red district". Hopefully, this will make things easier for our great blue candidates here. : ) - promoted by atdleft)
I have read all of your thoughtful comments and I think a little background information would be helpful. Especially for our brothers and sisters from more comfortable "Blue" districts who may not know what its really like campaigning in the "Scarlet Districts".
I live in the 77th Assembly District, 52nd Congressional and the 36th State Senatorial District. Duncan Hunter is our Congressman, Joel Anderson in the Assembly and Dennis Hollingsworth in the State Senate. Gives you a little idea of what we are up against.
There's obviously been a lot of chatter about what resolutions to support at the CDP Convention this weekend (incidentally, the Resolutions Committee will only allow about 10 to get to the floor, and unless you get a buttload of signatures, that's all that will be voted upon, so choose wisely). I'm going to make a plea for one that would actually change the way that the Party conducts its business. I don't think there can be any more important a proposal, one that would demand accountability from the CDP and move us on a course to a 58-county strategy, than the resolution to form a standing Audit Committee as a change in CDP Bylaws.
(Wow, I couldn't have said it better! : ) - promoted by atdleft)
First category of responses that really pisses me off is typified by an aquaintance of mine, currently interning in Sacramento, let's call him CHET, who writes, "Let's just say it's dead on arrival. The odds of that resolution getting through the committee and to the convention floor are pretty slim. With all the presidentials in town, they're not going to want anything too controversial distracting the press/delegates, and making the CA Dems look any less unified than they already appear."
A lot of other responses we've had here, rather than debate the merits of what this resolution aims to accomplish, focus solely on how "the party won't let us do it."
For distasteful, dysfunctional-family analogies, follow me to the flip.
So what can we do about it? Well, if you're a delegate to the State Democratic Convention in San Diego this weekend, then you can find out what to do after the flip...
Secretary of State Debra Bowen said today that nearly one million fewer people are registered to vote in the state than two years ago. In February 2005 there were 16,628,673 registered. This year's figure is down to 15,682,358 [...]
"The percentage of people who have regsitered to vote vesus the total number of people eligible to register has dropped 5 percentage points in the past two years. This means fewer people are making the critical decisions that affect the lives of 37 million Californians,'' Bowen said in a statement accompanying the newest Report of Registration.
This email just hit my inbox, from Democracy for America:
If you're like me, on November 8 you were left both overjoyed with the successes nationwide and wondering what happened in California. Or I should say, what DIDN'T happen in California.
And then came the news of the CDP's November 7 donation of $4,000,000 to Fabian Nunez. Which left many wondering, why the CDP had that much of cash left over after such a hard fought election? And since they did, why the weren't immediately plowing it into field organizing on the ground in preparation for 2008, which is decending on us with a vengence?
If you're like me, you're more than a bit annoyed with the CDP right now, you're looking for ways to set a new agenda and map out a new direction for the CDP in time for the 2008 campaign season. Look no further!
DSCC delegates within the Democrats of Greater Riverside are advancing the resolutuon below, and we are seeking compatriots around California to join in co-sponsoring and endorsing this resolution.
The April CDP convention is going to have some major issues that will send a clear signal as to the direction the CDP wants to go. So far we have this reform and the common sense support for net neutrality. Reso after the jump for people to introduce in local Democratic Party clubs.
(bumped by juls. The media is ignoring this story, but it crucial for us to pay attention to our party's decision making. - promoted by juls)
I know there has already been a great deal of attention to the California Democratic Party's $4 million "refund" check to Speaker Fabian Nunez (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7). But to-date, most of the discussion about the money has focused upon whether it was proper (with Nunez team refusing to discuss, instead insisting that it doesn't matter because the transfer was technically legal).
I would prefer to focus on whether the transaction was strategic. Below I offer various other scenarios laying out rough budgets for ideas on how the CDP could have invested the $4 million dollars. Please take the poll, and if you have an idea that isn't on there, please drop it in the comments.
