New platform and gearing up for the Presidential election is on tap in San Diego
by Brian Leubitz
I'm about to head down to San Diego for the annual installment of CDP convention madness. Or as I like to call it, a weekend with some fellow political nerds.
As you've probably read on these pages, there are some issues of party endorsements going on. AD-50 (Bloom, Butler, Osborn) has been a very competitive fight, with legislators moving delegates into the district and accusations of club packing. And the bruising battle between the "-ermans", Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, in CD-30 has meant that I've received more mail for a CDP convention than I ever thought possible.
Other notable events include the ratification of the state party platform. The platform committee will be meeting all day today to nail down the wording, and you can drop on by to learn more.
I'll be around all weekend, come find me and say hi! I'll be doing most of my updating 140 characters at a time, so follow my twitter account to get the latest updates.
(Thanks to Fera, the CDP's online specialist - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Step Up and Become a Game Changer to Increase Democratic Turnout in California.
This month the California Democratic Party launched Operation Game Changer in Los Angeles County. The goal of the project is to increase statewide Democratic turnout by increasing the number of Democrats registered to Vote-by-Mail (VBM) in LA County.
"There are more than 2 million Democratic voters in Los Angeles County alone, more than any other County in California. But only 19% of those Democrats are registered to Vote-by-Mail. The statewide average is actually 39%. This is a problem for Democrats. If we can improve our VBM percentage in LA County it will have the effect of boosting statewide Democratic turnout," said Shawnda Westly, executive director for the California Democratic Party.
Voters registered to Vote-by-Mail are more likely to turnout to vote. Our field representatives love VBM because it allows campaign Get Out The Vote operations to target base-voters for turnout weeks before Election Day.
That's why we need more California Democrats to step up and commit to becoming Game Changers and convert as many LA County Democrats over to Vote-by-Mail as possible.
After some nudging from a list of Democratic activists, longtime San Francisco politician aims to increase stability in Democratic Party
by Brian Leubitz
As you may know, I am a regional director for the state Democratic party. As a San Franciscan, I have tremendous respect for the work that Sen. John Burton has done for our community and for the state. He is a progressive that will fight for his beliefs.
But it turns out he knows how to lead a state Democratic party. He knows how to hire a good team and let them run a solid organization. Since he assumed control, the party has been in a much better financial situation, has spoken out on issues that it was too timid to discuss before, and oh, by the way, also managed to sweep statewide during a tough election year.
And as somebody who, as a statewide field director, relied heavily on the state Democratic Party's field operation last year, I know that John Burton and his team know how to mobilize voters and win elections. It was for these reasons I was glad to sign on to a letter asking him to run again, and equally glad to hear that he's running again.
California Democratic party chair John Burton, 78, hasn't officially announced it yet -- but he has made the decision to run for another term to lead the party in 2013, the Chronicle has learned.
The plain-spoken, tough-talking Burton -- one of the most battle-scarred of California political veterans -- was urged earlier this month to run for another term by a host of party activists and insiders. Their efforts were expressed by two party leaders, CDP regional director for San Francisco Brian Leubitz -- who's also the Calitics blog director -- and Alice Huffman, NAACP president, in a letter earlier this month. The group expressed "strong support" of Burton's next term and urged him to announce his decision for another term.(SF Gate)
The day he was elected as chair, Sen. Burton called on President Obama to bring our troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And he has continued to challenge the Democratic Party to dream big. He's done well, and the party will be lucky to have him and the strong team that he's built (and convinced to stick around).
By the way, Burton had some choice words for the Republicans debating in our state right now. Check that out over the flip.
While CDP Executive Board delegates seemed to be on edge about the debt ceiling debate, the meeting also contained a fair bit on the accomplishment side. The big news from the CDP was an effort in Los Angeles County to register far more PAVs for the next round of elections. The PAV numbers in LA are far below other counties, and the associated drops in turnout particularly affects minority turnout. Even if we just get LA County to parity with other counties in the state, we could be looking at an extra half million votes. That sure would have made my life easier in the Kamala Harris race last year. Kudos to the CDP for their work on the project, we'll be anxiously watching the results in the coming months.
But that certainly wasn't the only news. As I explained yesterday, there were a few issues of controversy at the CDP e-board this weekend. First, the death penalty resolution that called for the conversion of all sentences to permanent incarceration was passed without much dissent at all. While there was resistance at the April convention for political reasons, that seems to have melted away with the prominent support of CDP chair John Burton.
On the other hand, the fight over bylaws changes was not so easy. The easy cases for the handling of endorsements in the 2012 were handled quickly. Endorsements for the 2012 election will be made at the Feb 10-12, 2012 CDP convention. If the endorsed candidate does not proceed to the general election, there will be another endorsing caucus in the district. The big issue was if the party wanted to endorse somebody who did not express a Democratic preference.
There were quite a few speeches back and forth on the subject, including CYD VP Hillary Blackerby who strongly opposed allowing non-Democrats to get the state party's endorsement. This opinion ultimately carried the day, but only just. Because amending the bylaws of the state party requires a 2/3 vote, the majority that supported the change was not able to succeed.
The other controversial issue was the change of the "convention pull" process for endorsements. Under the current rules, Democrats who did not get the endorsement in the regional caucus at the convention could bring the endorsement to the floor by getting 300 signatures. After verification, these endorsements then went to the floor for debate. The Mark Leno/Carole Migden episode was one of these events. But this is problematic for a couple for reasons.
First, the verification process requires an excessive amount of staff time. On the leniency side, getting 300 signatures at an event of approximately 2000 isn't really all that high of a barrier to entry. There should be more respect for the opinion of the local delegates, but no so much as to allow the Democratic brand to be carried into the gutter. A corollary of this issue is that legislative caucuses are known to pack the local caucuses with delegates in their region. In fact, in that Leno/Migden race, about 15% of all delegates were in the 3rd Senate district. Obviously that was unacceptable, and legislators are now only allowed to appoint half of their delegates outside of the district they represent.
The solution presented over the weekend was to allow appeal to a board composed of the regional director and Chair appointed members of standing committees. The main concern with this process was that it would essentially be a yes-man for the earlier decision to avoid controversy. Whether that would have been true won't be known, as after all the speeches from both sides the rule failed to gain the necessary votes.
However, I think there is a lot of room to build a process that reduces the load on CDP staff while still preserving the convention pull process. I think you'll hear more about that in the next few months, but the contours seem anything but clear now. These issues certainly need to be addressed as soon as feasible.
These issues will eventually be settled. And with that being said, the executive board was an overall success as we head into another election season.
General session will feature debates over the death penalty and some controversial rules changes
By Brian Leubitz
CDP executive board meetings tend to be sedate affairs featuring more schmoozing than anything else. But on occasion the closing general sessions feature a few fireworks, and today may be such a day.
First, a death penalty resolution that called for the commutation of all death penalty sentences to Permanent Incarceration passed through the Resolutions committee with only a minor tweak. The resolution originally called for all sentences to be changed to life without parole, but it has been changed to permanent incarceration. With Chairman Burton's support, it seems likely to pass.
On the other hand, as I discussed in an earlier post, there are a few potential rules changes to be discussed today. First, there is that possibility of endorsing Dts voters in the top 2 primary system. That change has dominated the conversation, but another change just might end up creating quite the stir as well.
Under the current endorsement rules, a Democratic candidate that loses the endorsement in the regional caucus at the convention can gather signatures to bring the endorsement to the floor. The change would instead allow the candidate to appeal to a board that would then decide whether the endorsement should proceed to a floor debate. This would end the gathering of signatures, (as happened in the case of Mark Leno against Carole Migden) and the processing and the associated resource questions. On the other hand, questions of stacking may still arise. Whether this board would be as responsive remains to be seen.
The general session runs from 10 until noon this morning.
Washington, D.C. insider and anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist was recently quoted by conservative columnist Debra Saunders in the SF Chronicle as saying "I think golf and cocaine would be more constructive ways to spend one's free time than negotiating with Democrats on spending restraint."
I have always considered golf a good walk spoiled. As a recovering cocaine addict, I am surprised that anyone would think that it is at all constructive to spend one's free time using that drug.
Having been a 2008 Obama National Delegate and attended recent California State Conventions first as an observer in San Jose and then as an alternate, in Sacramento, I can tell you that there is nothing quite like being in a convention center or, in my case, a National Democratic Convention at Mile High Stadium in Denver with "50 Thousand" or so like minded folks. You CAN be the change, you really can make a difference, on your street, zip code, town, city, State and National levels. Plus make many new friends in the process. The following notice showed up in my inbox and I am passing along. Good Luck! California Democratic Party needs as many Progressive Voices as can possibly be elected. TAG, as Thom Hartmann would say, YOU ARE IT.
In 2010 California Democrats bucked a national trend and won eight of nine statewide offices, with the race for Attorney General still being counted.
A huge part of our success was because California Democrats from up and down the state volunteered their time, made phone calls, donated money, knocked on doors, and participated in our biggest Get out the Vote effort ever.
If you were part of our team and you want to stay involved, a great way to do that is by running to be a delegate to our 2011 and 2012 state conventions
The California Democratic Party will hold elections in each of California's 80 Assembly Districts on January 8 & 9, 2011. At these meetings, registered Democrats will elect 12 delegates from each Assembly District to be members of the California Democratic Party State Central Committee.
Now is your opportunity to help direct the future of Democrats in California! Delegates approve the platform of the Party, elect Party officers and endorse candidates for congress, state legislature, and executive office.
Since members of the CDP's Budget Rescue Team started picking up their phones to ask Republican legislators where they stand on the Democrats' sensible budget proposals last month, we've started getting some interesting responses.
Volunteer dbunn contacted Senator Jeff Denham (R-Merced-Modesto-Salinas)'s office, where a staffer reportedly said, "Sen. Denham is opposed to the Dem budget proposals" -- and went on to defend this anti-democratic "superminority" rule!
This kind of statement shows what we've been saying all along: that Republicans would rather hold the state hostage than work with Democrats to govern effectively, We have to continue to put the pressure on budget extremists like Jeff Denham and get all of his colleagues on the record to make sure they know people are watching them if they try to hold the state hostage again.
See our easy instructions, and our progress, below and get started today!
Will you call a Republican legislator today and urge them to tell us where they stand on the Democratic budget proposals? You can call any Republican in any district -- see below for a grid of our progress and instructions for how to make your call. When you have their statement, report it by leaving a message in the comments to this thread or emailing cdpeditor@cadem.org
There's a lot working against us getting a fair budget deal, like the rule that lets a "superminority" of 1/3 plus one legislators veto any budget the majority approves. But there are some very concrete ways these calls help:
1. Maybe California can end up with a better budget. By getting Republicans on the record early, Democrats can be proactive in building our budget strategy and get Democrats and progressives the negotiating leverage we need.
With Democratic budget proposals that add revenue to avoid cuts to poverty protections, and a Schwarzenegger cuts-only budget that would put an additional 430,000 people out of work, the more progress we can make here the better.
2. We can definitely build a strong case against Republicans. The past few years, Republicans have held our state hostage to their extreme anti-revenue ideology by holding up the budget. But right now, many Californians just think "the legislature" is to blame for our annual budget problems: They don't realize the central role Republicans play
That's not an accurate picture, and these statements will help us make the case that the budget is late again because Republicans are holding us hostage, not "because both sides couldn't agree."
3. We can definitely change things this fall. If we can educate the public on the reason our budget problems get worse every year (Republicans) and the conditions that enable it (a minority can veto the majority's budget), we can take a Republican seat or two and pass Proposition 25 -- the majority vote budget initiative.
See our easy instructions, and our progress, below and get started today!
In the month of June, with the Constitutional Deadline to pass a budget, the CDP did one move on the budget. And it was pathetic. There was no Theory of Change, no path for what they were doing to result in passing a budget quicker, or passing a more just budget. It was quite honestly one of the most pathetic online moves I have ever seen by a state party -- anywhere in the country.
And then they got defensive. They started censoring comments at Calitics, giving a '0' rating to disappear any criticism. They censored, again and again and again and again.
I'm trying to figure out how the California Democratic Party could have failed so completely, I think it might have gone something like this:
After the preparations had been made, the tally sheets from our phone calls completed, the carpools worked out, and the volunteers scheduled, I headed to Los Angeles with the hope that after the weekend was complete, there would be no question in the minds of the CDP delegates that Gavin Newsom has the grassroots support necessary to win the Lt. Governor's race against whatever the GOP throws at us in November.
In the weeks prior to the convention, our team of students from all across the state had been talking to delegates, volunteers, and fellow young voters about Mayor Newsom's candidacy and about his bold, new ideas that will be required to dig California out of our seemingly never ending state of economic misery.
The pitch was not hard to make. Young people are drawn to Newsom's campaign. We see public higher education becoming unaffordable to more and more Californians. We fear that in five or ten years our state won't be able to compete in an evolving global economy, and we worry that the living wage jobs that we will need in order to support our families will be harder and harder to find. While we are confident that our state will come to its senses when it comes to Gay Marriage and LGBT rights, we are concerned that the relentless beat of the status quo won't provide the framework necessary to drastically change the way we look at issues like immigration, the environment, and budget & tax reform. We have watched the forces of regressiveness drag our state (and our futures) under the surface, and we are ready and eager to support Gavin Newsom, who has proven time and time again in San Francisco that tangible change is not only possible, but it is also necessary.
The general buzz leading up to last week's California Democratic Party Convention was mostly about the need to energize and motivate the party faithful for the 2010 midterm election. The conventional wisdom is that the party faces an uphill battle in the midterms due to historical trends (the president's party generally loses seats in the midterms), and political ones (the teapartiers bring nothing if not enthusiasm). There is also the general ennui that has set in since President Obama's inauguration in January, 2009. The reality of governance has created tension within the party, and there is general concern that liberals and progressives will stay home on election night. All of these factors set the stakes very high for John Burton's first convention as Chair of the party. I wish I could say that he was able to answer the call.
From all appearances, it looked like the Chair was barely able to answer the call to get out of bed. Sporting a red bowling shirt (Note to John: the party color is blue. The other guys are red) with an uncooperative white t-shirt underneath on Saturday, Chair Burton stumbled and grumbled around on the dais as if nursing a very bad hangover. Apparently there is some charm in his preferred demeanor, but I was unable to grasp it. I realize that the Chair should not be the source for words of inspiration, but is some enthusiasm too much to ask? From handwaving through the votes by acclamation to searching for the next item on the agenda, there was the appearance that the Chair was winging it. For Saturday's agenda this was not such a serious problem, since the general session was primarily a series of speeches, including very good ones from Senator Boxer and Governor/Mayor/Attorney General Jerry Brown.
On Sunday, however, the Chair's inability to adhere to procedure had some very detrimental effects on the proceedings, and, at least for this delegate, on the enthusiasm of the audience. Sunday is the day for business at the convention. We vote on endorsements, platform issues, rules, etc. We also find out the results of the endorsement votes that were held Saturday afternoon. The Chair gave the results between speeches as if he had something better to do. Then it came time to vote on the endorsement for the 36th Congressional District. Jane Harman is the CA36 incumbent and is being challenged by Marcy Winograd. An endorsement caucus had been held on Saturday, which Harman had won. Winograd was able to gather enough signatures, however, to force a final vote on the floor on Sunday. It almost didn't happen.
Our apologies for being a little quiet here on Calitics this weekend. The convention has been a wee bit hectic for all of us. We'll get you a more detailed recap soon, but there were a few details that were worth sharing.
In the Insurance Commissioners race, Dave Jones was able to squeak out the endorsement. It was certainly a dramatic race, with both campaigns doing a really good job of rallying support. But in the end, Dave Jones' progressive base was simply too much for Hector de la Torre to overcome. The endorsement won't necessarily bring a big windfall, Chair Burton has said that they won't be spending any money in primaries. But, hey, Jones will now get that lower postage rate that everybody was seeking. Of course, the cache of the Democratic Party endorsement will be quite powerful on the mail that we will likely be seeing coming out of Jones' campaign very shortly. I like both of these guys, but in the interest of full disclosure, I did end up voting for Dave Jones. Either will make a much better insurance commissioner than Steve Poizner, that's for sure.
In the LG race, Gavin Newsom won the outright vote, but didn't get the endorsement. I know the Hahn folks were trying to spin this as a win, but I just don't get it. Newsom had already declined to seek the endorsement a while back, and it was Janice Hahn's campaign who forced the issue. If I recall correctly, the vote was about 57-43 52-42 in favor of Newsom. Which, considering Newsom's past, is fairly respectable. But, again, I'm not entirely sure why we went through the process. Perhaps Garry South figured it would make Gavin work and might cause some sort of game-changing drama. That clearly didn't happen, and Hahn is still looking for some way of overcoming Newsom's advantage in name ID.
On the Props, the resolutions committee went the right way on all the props, and we'll approve them. They supported Prop 15, the fair elections initiative, and Prop 13, a measure that would change the way seismic retrofits are taxed. They opposed Prop 14 ("open" primaries), Prop 16 (PG&E Power Grab), and Prop 17 (Mercury Insurance power grab).
General session is about to start, and we'll wrap up the festivities, approve reports of the committees, and perhaps get a chance to vote on a few endorsements. I know at least one campaign was trying to get signatures, but I don't know what came of it. A full recap to come soon.
What am I talking about? Well, let's start from the fact that John Myers is all over this California politics stuff. He went through the most recent finance filings and found that the CDP had received $10,000 from Anthem Blue Cross?
Really? John Burton, as chair of the CDP, thought it was cool to solicit and take money from Anthem Blue Cross? One of the groups he was railing against during the waning days of the health care fight?
I was sort of amazed by that and needed to get to the bottom of this. So, I called up the CDP and said "What you talking about CDP?"
Turns out, the check arrived, unsolicited, from Anthem Blue Cross late in the work day. The staff, being a bit hesitant about a $10K check from a big health insurer, set the check aside for Chairman Burton's approval. However, this being 24-hour reporting days, the staff, in constant reporting mode, wrote it up right away and filed it.
I've been told, and have no reason to doubt it, that the check was never cashed, and will not be cashed. It will be returned promptly.
But, this brings up a good question. Should the party return such unsolicited funds? Certainly, we should not be courting these companies, that much should be in no question at all. But, if they are dropping off checks, couldn't the party use that money against the insurer? Spend it sending mail into swing districts to support representatives that will support single payer health care?
Yeah, they wouldn't send any more checks, but so what? Anthem knew who they were sending the check to, John Burton, who wrote and got passed SB 2, one of the most progressive health care reform packages ever passed in America. Of course, ABC didn't like that, and spent heavily to repeal the measure. (Correction: Anthem Blue Cross didn't actually get involved in SB 2, but have been involved on the wrong side in pretty much every other health care fight in California)
What say you, Calitics folks? Would you have cashed that check?
(For identification purposes only, I'm the Executive Director at Netroots Nation)
Last week yet another poorly crafted Jerry Brown email went out to his email universe. That's not news, I've been cringing at their emails since they first started sending them. Most cringe worthy so far? Jerry Brown's ring tone.
The subject line was decent, "You wouldn't believe..." works for me. But the rest of the email violated about every best practice that's been written for emails. Here's some simple ones from Blue State Digital for starters.
There's this weird screen capture of a YouTube video that actually goes to YouTube instead of their donate page (you just lost anyone that intended to donate with that link). Instead of highlighting specific text 2-3 times in the email they opted to use these weird huge contribute images. The email is rambling and without focus. The type is small, nothing is bolded to catch your attention. There's all sorts of other links to distract you like facebook, etc.
And at the time it was originally sent the lowest contribution you could make without entering something in the "other" box was $100 even though they asked for $10, $25, whatever you can give in the email. And the highest donation was $51,800--now where's my credit card that's got that much spare room on it?
Epic FAIL, the conversion rates have to be terrible.
More on the flip about how Jerry Brown's email "best practices" are infecting the California Democratic Party and Alberto Torrico's campaign for Attorney General...
Some events to watch at the CDP E-Board from San Diego.
Caucuses: The rules committee is reviewing the definition of a caucus. There are 19 caucuses right now, three more pending, with several more being discussed. the total amount spent on the caucuses now exceeds the amount brought into the CDP by the state central committee. The question going forward is how the party can support the caucuses and define them, rather than their existence.
Legislative committee: In the past, the leg cmmte has been fairly toothless. The members and supporters of the cmte are looking to be able to specifically endorse bills at the federal and state levels. A rules cmte subcommittee has been looking into this matter and should have some sort of recommendation either at this meeting or before the convention next spring.
The DNC races: One male and one female spot are up for election. We'll be sure to let you know the results as soon as we hear.
I made a post earlier about the CDP Legislative Action Committee that I refuse to link to because it was that shoddy. Essentially, the piece implied that there was a subcommittee meeting in Sacramento this upcoming Tuesday because John Hanna was unhappy with the way the Committee currently functions.
That's not at all true, and I apologize for the implication. After further discussions with more of the people involved, I have come to realize that there are plenty of issues with the Legislative Action committee as it currently stands that need resolution, including, but not limited to:
Message consistency. The Party already has two policy committees--platform and resolutions. Should the Legislative Action committee be a third policy committee, or a legislative action "branch" of the other policy committees? Should the Legislative Action committee only support bills for which it can find a precedent for party support in a resolution or in the Party Platform?
What types of bills? Should the committee consider federal, state and local bills, or just state bills?
Gut-and-amend. If the committee supports a bill that then gets gutted and amended in a legislative session, how can the Party's support of the bill be rescinded?
Propositions. Should the LAEOC consider ballot measures? Technically, props are legislation, but currently those decisions are handled by the Resolutions Committee. There's some inconsistency there.
Those are some of the key issues, though there are plenty of other logistical issues involved as well--and in this, we haven't even discussed the "action" portion of the Legislative Action Committee's responsibility. Bear in mind that I still stand by everything I wrote about John Hanna's solution to these problems--his emails do speak for themselves, after all--but it was severely wrong of me to imply that that's the only reason the Rules Committee was meeting on this topic.
If it were up to me, the Legislative Action committee would convene to decide a slate of key California bills (including propositions) the Party should support, in conjunction with the Resolutions and Rules Committee, and should then be tasked with developing a Legislative Action Plan to promote the passage of those bills. If any of these bills were to be substantially gutted and amended, the Chair would have the discretion to rescind the Party's support.
Maybe I'll submit that as written testimony--even though I'm not any committees any more.
In my previous post about the Wally Herger (R-Redding) incident wherein he praised a self-described "right-wing terrorist" as a "great American", I lamented that there was no good video to really put the incident in perspective.
Fortunately, the CDP has corrected that: they've found the full video. I got this from the CDP communications team just a little bit ago. Enjoy. You know, it's sad. Congressman Herger spends the entire time watching the guy rant with a wry smile. And given the fact that most of the crowd appears to be terrorist sympathizers, there's nothing he can really do without incurring the wrath of his constituency. Just watch as Congressman Herger--who no longer deserves that title, if he ever did--chooses demagoguery over loyalty to American values and ideals:
Pathetic.
Incidentally--if you're interested in helping the CDP publicize Wally Herger's despicable actions to his constituents, just click here.
While there are whiffs of deal in Sacramento this weekend, via John Myers, I'm at the CDP E-board meeting. You can catch my tweets here.
The CDP released a new training program, focused on changing some of the red disticts into blue. You can find information about the training here. While we have majorities pretty much everywhere, the 2/3 rules pretty much dictate that we need more seats.
Meanwhile, the Progressive Caucus is having some break out sessions. The first is about the budget with Sen. Hancock and Asm. Torrico. Later Sen. Mark Leno will talk about single payer healthcare, he has inherited the bill from termed out Sen. Shiela Keuhl.
A few days ago, we mentioned Arnold's TV ad. It was rather sketchy, considering it drew a bizarre line in the sand. However, it turns out there is something else sketchy about the ad. Namely, that it violates regulations laid down by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Specifically, the money for the ad came from Arnold's ballot measure account "Governor Schwarzenegger's Dream Team California" Under FPPC regulations (Title 2 of the California Code of Regs, Sec. 18521.5), such ballot measure committees must only spend money on ACTUAL ballot measures, whether to gather signatures or what not. But while that is a bit murky, the one thing that is clear is that spending has to be in the furtherance of a ballot measure.
If you recall, the ad said nothing whatsoever about any ballot measure. In fact, the only thing it does mention is the budget negotiation process. Thus, Arnold will have to find some other slush fund to run this ad. The CDP is asking for the FPPC to seek an injunction to block the airing of the ad or of its continued existence on a website paid for by the "Dream Team" Committee.
The special election to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10 is taking an ugly turn. The CDP has announced that its endorsement caucus will take place on August 1, and I'm already having flashbacks to Migden-Leno and the 2008 CDP convention.
You see, even though major flaws in the endorsement process were exposed over a year ago, nothing has changed; nor is there, at least to date, any apparent desire on the part of the CDP to address a situation where powerful outsiders are invited to skew the outcome of endorsements in local races.
A bit of controversy at the General Session
