It's been distressing to see the race for CDP chair turn from an election into a coronation, with John Burton lining up institutional support, muscling out the grassroots and forcing his competition to the sidelines. Coming off an historic Presidential election, with the demographics squarely on the side of Democrats and a new generation of activists who have boundless ideas to bring a different organizing philosophy to California, the right chairman of the Party could really leverage the energy and activity into something special, to lay the groundwork for a re-imagining of the political structure. Sadly, the best can be said of Burton is that he's an old workhorse, but there are troubling signs that he is unaware of the changes in modern campaiging, unconcerned with reforming the broken institutions both inside and outside the party, and unable to use the new energy and excitement to any decent ends. It appears that the frenetic organizing outside the party structure may be the only hope for progressives in the near term.
But it could be even worse than that. The new site Burton Watch offers a substantive critique of the former State Senator, with information that every delegate and voting member of the Party ought to know before turning over the reins to this guy. The initial post surveys how Democrats could lose California under this version of leadership:
Because the public instinctively knows that when power and money compete with the public interest, we all suffer. If you've ever registered voters or walked precincts for a candidate, you've undoubtedly been greeted with this response: "I'm not going to vote because it doesn't matter. All politicians are the same." And as the cynicism grows, voter turnout declines and the Decline To State registration escalates -- now approximately 20% of all Californians are registered DTS. So how do we combat the innate distrust that drives a large segment of our population to disengage from political parties and even voting? Well, Obama showed us a part of the solution [...]
When previously disenfranchised voters, minorities, and the young are all flocking to the Democratic Party because we represent a new way, a vision of hope and change, why on earth would we want to take a giant step backwards to the bad old days? And yet that's exactly what Democrats in California are poised to do this April. The California Democratic Party, instead of rising to meet the challenges of a new millennium with openness and inclusion, is set to reach back to one of the oldest and most entrenched political machines in California history for its leadership.
Enter John Burton, California's much older version of Rod Blagojevich. There are so many reasons why John Burton is unfit for the role of Party Chair in California, that I'll be doing a series of posts, each one dedicated to a disqualifying aspect of his background. All of the material I'll be using has been obtained through basic use of the google, and the state's Republicans could easily find and use it against California Democrats. And trust me, they will.
At the end of this series, I think you'll agree that John Burton is the wrong person to lead the California Democratic Party in 2009.
The next installment recounts perhaps the most infamous episode in Burton's past - the very public sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former staffer, with excerpts from the complaint filed by Kathleen Driscoll in San Francisco Superior Court:
During DRISCOLL'S employment, BURTON engaged in hostile, demeaning and sexually abusive conduct such that DRISCOLL'S working conditions were significantly altered. His conduct over the past year easily rises to the level of severe or pervasive conduct for a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim both in California and under federal law. The harassing acts started in approximately September 2006. They consisted of numerous events, which took place throughout DRISCOLL'S employment, including but not limited to:
Asking DRISCOLL over the phone, "What are you wearing?" on approximately 10 occasions;
On one occasion, DRISCOLL sent a temporary employee to deliver paperwork to BURTON. BURTON ordered DRISCOLL to never send someone on her behalf again by berating her, "When you drop stuff off, stop in will ya? I mean I'm not getting laid under the fuckin' table."
Singling DRISCOLL out for exorbitant demands and attention, included but not limited to excessive demands for immediate and frequent meetings to go over routine matters, including on weekends after the work week was over in contrast to her co-workers;
There's more at the link, and it's pretty graphic. It goes without saying that women make up an extremely large bloc of the Democratic base.
I don't know what more Burton Watch will trot out, but here are some facts: Californians have little connection to their state government other than knowing that they don't like it. They hear things like how politicians are living high off campaign donations and it's both alienating and corrosive. The rules are already rigged in favor of a conservative wipeout of government and the last thing Democrats need as they seek to make structural changes is the spectre of an old-school pol with a lot of skeletons hanging over their collective heads. John Burton has the potential to take the state backwards and it's a chance that delegates should think long and hard about.
Endorsements for CDP Executive Offices were considered at last night's Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee meeting. As expected, the Committee voted to endorse Eric Bauman for Male Vice-Chair by voice vote; the committee did not take up the issue of Female Vice-Chair, as Alex Rooker was not in attendance and could not make it.
The endorsement for Chair, however, was very interesting. Chris Finnie spoke on behalf of her candidacy, and got quite a loud ovation despite having laryngitis and having practically no voice. After Finnie's speech, someone made a motion from the floor to endorse John Burton for chair. That motion was soundly rejected, with only 50 voting for, and more than 90 voting against.
At that point, the room was buzzing, and Eric Bauman made a motion from the podium that the issue be allowed to be reconsidered at the next month's meeting when John Burton would have a chance to speak; that motion was accepted unanimously on voice vote. I expect that John Burton will be easily endorsed at the March meeting, provided that he shows up to the meeting. But if last night was any indication, the Los Angeles County Central Committee members aren't going to roll over for Burton and they're going to make him earn their support.
As a side note, the Controller's race, which is hotly contested between current Controller Eric Bradley and Progressive Caucus favorite Hilary Crosby, was much closer than I expected. Eric and Hilary had a very cordial, if brief, forum at the meeting, and I honestly felt that Hilary gave the better answers and showed a knowledge of the inner workings of CDP finances that I would have only expected a party insider to have. Despite it being Eric's home turf, Hilary nearly denied him the endorsement; Eric needed to get 71 of the total votes cast, and ended up getting 72. Forcing the LACDP to go neutral would have been a big coup for Hilary, but the fact that she even got that far is a big testament to the strength of her campaign, and the big support she's getting in the progressive movement.
This is my opinion only, and I have written this in my personal capacity. My endorsement does not necessarily mean it is the endorsement of Calitics or the Editorial Board.
If I were to draw up a list of qualities I want in a chair, I think it would begin and end with the words "grassroots leader." Specifically, I would want somebody who has spent time in the trenches, building a Democratic club, and working to get Democrats elected. Not just from the 20,000 foot level, but from right there on the ground. Knocking on doors and generally doing the things that actually get people elected.
If you asked me a few months ago about the chair's race, the name John Burton would not really be the first name that leapt to mind. Yet, here we are, and John Burton is the best person for the job. He has built Democratic clubs, in fact he helped build a club of whose board I now serve, the San Francisco Young Democrats. He went door to door, not only for votes, but also for any spare change to help Democrats in San Francisco. He understands the hard work that is grassroots politics.And all the while, he understands the other end of politics. He's been there at nearly every level of politics, making the tough decisions. And in terms of politics and policy, you don't get much more progressive than John Burton.
But more than any background, the thing that has impressed me most during my conversations with John has been his ability to seek out the best answers. You think a Congressional candidate has a decent shot at a seat, well, let's run a poll and see if it is worth pursuing. You think we can be doing a better job at our online research, well, let's work together to make it better. It is an attitude of responsiveness an inclusiveness that would be helpful at the CDP.
There is no doubt that John Burton knows how to defend seats. He did that quite well in the past. But, it is becoming painfully clear over the past months that our majority is worthless until it becomes a working majority. In other words, we need to get to 2/3. We need to strike out into areas we thought unnwinable in the past. And come the implementation of Prop 11, who knows what opportunities and challenges we might be facing.
I have faith that John will work to carry out his platform and implement strategies to what he calls turning red areas purple. And, he'll have help on that front. Eric Bauman has been an outstanding advocate of challenging red seats, registering voters and working to give our candidates, and our ideals, a fair hearing across the state. As LA County Chair, he did a whole bunch of work in the red areas in and around LA County. While I am admittedly disappointed to not be endorsing myself, I believe Eric will do a great job as Vice-Chair.
I think these two gentlemen have much to work on. They should work on bringing in greater representation among the young activist crowd that was so motivated by the Obama campaign. They should work to put young Democrats in positions where they can help bring in new blood to the party. But both of them have shown an outsized ability to mentor young Democrats, and I think they will continue to do so.
There is a lot of work to be done to make the party not only more effective in the goal of electing more Democrats, but also making the party itself more relevant to Californians. But I think they have the tools to really help the CDP. I, for one, will be thrilled to work with these two men in the coming months and years.
As one final note, I have not yet taken a position on the female Vice Chair race yet. I don't believe that one has quite shaken out yet, so I'll have to get back to you on that.
A couple weeks ago I took John Burton to task for an email that didn't seem to get it. I didn't think he looked too good for that email when the California Democratic Party needs to think of ourselves as in the minority until we get a working majority in the legislature.
Seeing as damn near everyone other than bloggers have gone out of their way to endorse Burton, the key is what he wants to do with the CDP as he will be the next former state senator to Chair the Party. I have to say, I like what he said in today's email (after the jump).
From an email John Burton sent, I have to wonder what year it is, 2008 or 1968?
The party should also provide the materials for a program to soften up Republican incumbents long before the election, such as draft letters to the editor around current issues, phone scripts for volunteer phone banks, and suggestions for radio call-in shows.
Uh, not to go all Jetsons or anything, but how about starting with a website? Which, ironically is the most efficient way for letters to the editor, volunteer phone calls (beyond banks even) and radio talk shows messaging. However, once you build a website you get into a "post-broadcast" potential where you find there are for more effective arrows in your quiver. Yet the overall return of investment is why for a few cycles now starting with a targeted website has been the most effective method to "soften up" incumbents. An online strategy helps in the following three key areas:
Fundraising While the CDP can't start raising money for Democratic challengers prior to the Party endorsement or nomination, it can raise money for local central committees and clubs in a targeted district through a "dump-so-and-so" or such website. Better yet, for federal races, the CDP can use ActBlue's Democratic Nominee funds to turn candidate recruitment on it's head. Multiply that by re-occurring monthly donations and nominees can leave the primary with more COH than they had going into the final push. I predict this will be the biggest game-changer in the 2010 cycle, but you need an internet organizing program to make it happen. And building this infrastructure in the off year will allow the fundraising for the candidate to be far greater once the Party can leverage the investment early.
Communication For years it has made no sense to focus on the internet as an ATM, so let's look communication. Unfortunately, the CDP went from a leader in online message dissemination in the 2004 cycle to junk in 2006, to constant but not that aggressive against Republicans in 2008. And now we have the expected next Party Chair not even mentioning the internet as a way to soften up Republicans. In short, communication is the biggest potential for setting up 2010 in 2009 and should be used to a degree against all Republicans (especially leadership and marginal districts). Plus, if you want you can easily do letters to the editor and calls to radio shows, but there is so much more to do it only makes sense once you are already using the more effective tactics.
Organizing In 2008, Barack Obama took organizing to a new level while the CDP utterly failed to take advantage of it for campaigns in California. Yet the tool kit is out there (including bankless phone banks), a great number of people of been trained, and the budget mess is the perfect vehicle to translate that energy into organization -- with again the most efficient mechanism being to begin online.
While I totally agree with the goal of softening up Republicans, can we please remember which millennium this is when looking at the tactics to accomplish that goal? And I agree there is a strong role for the party, but it isn't materials, it is organizing and communication infrastructure.
He asked me to take back the Democratic Party. And I agreed to try. I told myself that, if it became clear there was no chance, I would stop.
It has now become clear. John Burton may have a fine legislative record. I don't honestly know. But I only had to meet the man for 2 minutes to know he has nothing to do with change we can believe in. And the whole process of crowning him chair smacks of smoke-filled back rooms and the old-boys network.
I no longer feel there is any opportunity for me to help take back the Democratic Party in California. Rather, I believe Burton is poised to take the party back at least several decades. It appears nobody has noticed the grassroots revolution that put Obama in the White House. Or they don't care. Or, as seems more likely, they are once again saying, "That's nice kids. Thanks for all the money and help. Now go away and let the adults handle things properly."
To put it as delicately as I'm able, they can stick that attitude where the sun don't shine. I was a registered independent before Dean, and I can be one again.
So I have notified the e-board rep for my AD that, despite the fact that I can't find a way to take myself off the cadem.org site, I am no longer running for a delegate slot. I will not ask for re-appointment to another standing committee.
There's an interesting dynamic happening in California. At the national level, the state's power is growing. Californians hold the Speaker of the House and four key committee chairs, including the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and now the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have Californians at the helm. Any energy and environmental policies will have to go through the committees of Californians, and they'll have California allies inside the Administration, with the selection of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Dr. Steven Chu as Energy Secretary and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Nancy Sutley as head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Other Californians are up for possible Administration jobs, like CA-31's Xavier Becerra (US Trade Representative) and CA-36's Jane Harman (CIA Director). It's a good time to be a California politician in Washington.
It's a TERRIBLE time to be a California politician in California, as it dawns on everyone in Sacramento that the state is ungovernable and hurtling toward total chaos. The two parties are miles apart from a budget deal, and even their biggest and boldest efforts would only fill about half the budget gap. The peculiar mechanisms of state government, with its 2/3 rule for budget and tax provisions, and its artificial deadlines for bills to get through the legislature, which causes remarkable bottlenecks and "gut and amend" legislation changed wholesale in a matter of hours, and the failed experiment with direct democracy which has created unsustainable demands and mandates, make the state impossible to reform and even get working semi-coherently. The state's citizens hate their government and hate virtually everyone in it with almost equal fervor, yet find themselves helpless to actually change anything about it, and believe it or not, ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB setting policy through the initiative process, which is simply ignorant (though they paradoxically think that other voters aren't doing a good job on initiatives). The activist base does amazing grassroots work, very little of it in this state. We have a political trade deficit where money and volunteerism leaves the state and nothing returns. And the political media for a state of 38 million consists of a handful of reporters in Sacramento and a couple dudes with blogs.
Many of these problems have accumulated over a number of years and cannot be laid at the feet of anybody in particular. But in general, the reason that we've gotten to this crisis point, the reason that California is a failed state, is because by and large the dominant political parties WANT IT THAT WAY. I'm not saying that the state Democratic Party or its elected officials, for example, wants the state to be flung into the sea, metaphorically speaking, but there's certainly a tendency toward the closed loops of insiders that prefer a predictable and stable status quo, that naturally restricts reform and leads to corruption, gridlock and crisis. I'll give you an example. Last night I was on a conference call where Eric Bauman, Chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, announced that he would drop out of the race for state party Chair and run for Vice-Chair, because when 78 year-old former State Senator John Burton entered the race, all his labor, organizational and elected support dried up. Fitting that he didn't mention his grassroots support, because it clearly doesn't matter who they prefer.
There is little doubt in my mind that John Burton will run the party, or rather delegate it to whatever lieutenant will run the party, in the exact same way it has been run for the last decade or so, characterized by missed opportunities to expand majorities, a lost recall election for Governor, cave-in after cave-in on key budget priorities and a failure to capitalize on the progressive wave of the last two electoral cycles. These are not abstractions, and they have real-world effects, $41.8 billion of them at last count. And honestly, the Special Assistant to Gray Davis didn't represent all that much change, either.
We have an ossified party structure, and a phlegmatic legislative leadership that is unable to get its objectives met because the deck is essentially stacked against them. The times call for a completely new vision, one that can energize a grassroots base and use citizen action to leverage the necessary unraveling of this dysfunctional government to make it work again. The work on Prop. 8 since the election has been tremendous, but ultimately, if public schools are closing and unemployment is above 10% and the uninsured are rising and the pain felt in local communities is acute, then we have a much larger problem, one that requires a bigger movement allied with the civil rights movement to make change.
The key flashpoint is the 2010 Governor's race. There is currently no one in the field with the ability to break the lock that the status quo has on California and deliver a new majority empowered to bring the state back from the brink. In an article published last month, Randy Shaw put it best.
None of the current field appears likely to galvanize a grassroots base, or to be willing to take on the "third rails" of California politics: massive prison spending, Prop 13 funding restrictions, or the need for major new education funding. Dianne Feinstein? She'll be 77 years old on Election Day 2010, and she has long resisted, rather than supported, progressive change.
Jerry Brown just finished campaigning to defeat Proposition 5, which would have saved billions of unnecessary spending on the state's prison industrial complex. This follows Brown's television ads for the 2004 election, which helped narrowly defeat a reform of the draconian and extremely expensive "three strikes" law. Brown's consistent coddling up to the prison guards union is the smoking gun showing that he is not a candidate for change.
Gavin Newsom came out against Prop 5 on the eve of the election, undermining his own "break from the past" image. He also spent another local election cycle opposing the very constituencies who an Obama-style grassroots campaign would need to attract.
With her Senate Intel. Committee post, it is unlikely that Feinstein will run. He forgets John Garamendi, who supported Prop. 2 (!) because of his fealty to farming interests and who first ran for governor in 1982.
Shaw mentions that the state is ready for a Latina governor, and mentions the Sanchez sisters. He's right in part, but has the wrong individual in mind. I am more convinced than ever that the only person with the strength, talent, grassroots appeal and forward-thinking progressive mindset to fundamentally change the electorate and work toward reform is Congresswoman Hilda Solis. She authored the green jobs bill that Barack Obama is using as a national model. She is a national leader on the issue of environmental justice and has the connections to working Californians that can inspire a new set of voters. She beat an 18-year Democratic incumbent, Matthew Martinez, by 38 points to win her first Congressional primary. She has worked tirelessly for progressive candidates across the state and the country. In a state whose demographics are rapidly changing, she could be a powerful symbol of progress that could grab a mandate to finally overhaul this rot at the heart of California's politial system once and for all. This is not about one woman as a magic bullet that can change the system; this is about a woman at the heart of a movement. A movement for justice and equality and dignity and respect. A movement for boldness and progressive principles and inclusiveness and openness. A movement that can spark across the state.
I know that Solis is interested in the Vice Chair of the Democratic caucus if Becerra takes the job in the Obama Administration. Congresswoman, your state needs you desperately. Please consider running for Governor and leaving a legacy of progress in California.
When Josh Richman, the fine reporter for the Oakland Tribune, called me for comment yesterday on the breaking news that Don Perata transferred $1.5 million dollars the day after the election from an IE account intended to elect Democrats to the State Senate and wage initiative campaigns into his personal legal defense fund, my initial reaction was "I'm not surprised." My slightly longer reaction is captured in the article:
David Dayen, an elected Democratic State Central Committee member from Santa Monica, blogged angrily this summer about his party's contribution to Perata's legal defense fund, contending the money would've been better spent on legislative races. The same goes for Leadership California's money, he said Wednesday; despite a Democratic presidential candidate carrying California by the largest margin since 1936, Democrats netted only three more Assembly seats and none in the state Senate.
"Every time I asked the California Democratic Party about getting more active and involved in local elections, they said the state Senate and the Assembly control those races "... and we don't have a lot of flexibility. So Perata, at that time, and Nunez or Bass had the authority to run those elections," Dayen said. "Now we see what happens when you vest power in these closed loops - suddenly self-interest becomes more important than the good of the party."
He believes this is why Perata didn't step aside as Pro Tem earlier, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez relinquished his post to Karen Bass in May: "Darrell Steinberg was sitting there ready to go "... and we were all like, 'What the hell is going on?'
"We speculated it had to be that he still needed the leverage to make the calls to raise money for himself."
I want to expand on that. The behavior of Don Perata can be directly tied to the continuance of a status quo that has failed and is failing California families. At no time is the way elections are run - without transparency, without accountability, without meaningful checks on the potential for corruption - questioned by the powers that be. It is enabled through a shrug of the shoulders and the words "that's the way things are." What Perata did was perfectly legal, although that is subject to change, as the state Fair Political Practices Commission votes today on making such transfers illegal. But as Michael Kinsley famously said, "The scandal isn't what's illegal; it's what's legal." The bigger scandal is that there's no desire or even interest at the top to see that change. And why not - it suits them just fine.
California has 63% majorities in both chambers of the legislature, has just seen a 61% share of the vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate - and yet this state is completely, inescapably and hopelessly beholden to right-wing interests, as a function of a backwards set of governing rules that have climbed the budget hole over $40 billion dollars, without any reasonable hope of getting out of it. It's been beyond clear for several years now that the ultimate solution will come at the ballot box, and yet the state party has entrusted the most crucial elections, the ones that could net a working 2/3 majority in the Senate, to someone more concerned with saving his political hide. And so Hannah-Beth Jackson, who came within 1,200 votes of flipping a Republican seat, reads a story like this in shock and anger. And the citizens in SD-12, promised a recall of Jeff Denham; and those in SD-15, expecting a candidate in their majority-Democratic district to take on Abel Maldonado; they are similarly angry. Money they had every right to expect would go to help them now goes to help one man.
(By the way, the alibi from the defenders of Perata on this doesn't scan at all. First of all, nobody begrudges him from raising money in his own defense - the problem lies in taking that money from an account intended for campaign work. And second, if this is a "political witch hunt," as they say, why would he need this lump sum of money 75 days from the time when a Democratic Administration with no inclination to prosecute Democrats on allegedly bogus charges is about to be installed? It's either a witch hunt about to end or a going concern. The alibi is pathetic.)
But the larger point is that the status quo, the closed systems at the top of the Democratic leadership, the lack of transparency and accountability, create the crises we see in our state, or at least disable anyone from reacting to them. And this is not likely to change. John Burton is going to be the next state CDP Chair. He's been in politics for 205 years, and he's basically muscled out the competition for the job. Does anyone think that a lifelong pol, with a long history of backroom deals, the guy who was Arnold Schwarzenegger's cigar-smoking buddy (that seems like a good profile for the opposition party chair), gives a damn about urgently needed reform? He's making sweet little noises about turning red areas blue, but there's absolutely no hope that he will provide any change from the insular, chummy, mutual backscratching society that exists in Sacramento. Grassroots activists should be furious that, in the wake of seeing countless opportunities wasted and crises lengthened, we're boldly taking off into the future with a Party Chair who was first elected in 1965.
The future of California is a mystery right now, because there is a crisis of leadership and an unwillingness to reform. At the very least, activists should look to electing Hillary Crosby as State Party Controller so that someone in the room will have a reform message that can spark a modicum of change. But until the fundamentals are altered, we will lurch from one disaster to the next.
On the first day of the legislative session there was an irrational burst of optimism that the roadblocks put forward by the Yacht Party on the budget and taxation would somehow be hurdled. It's true that Democrats have three more seats in the Assembly (though currently one less in the Senate, pending the filling of Mark Ridley-Thomas' vacant seat), lowering the amount of Yacht Party members they'd have to bring aboard for any solution. But the idea that these new Republicans represent any kind of fresh thinking or newfound moderation is a fantasy.
Though Democrats picked up an aggregate of three seats in the Assembly, Niello said, they still need at least three Republicans to cross over and vote for any legislation that requires a two-thirds vote, such as a state budget.
Because the GOP caucus is united around opposition to any new taxes and wanting to see reforms such as a state spending cap and improving the state's regulatory environment on businesses, Niello said, Democrats will have to give to get any of those crossover votes.
"We're still solid, still firm on the things that are priorities," Niello said.
Newly sworn-in Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Linda) sounded a similar note.
"We've got to create wealth, and we've got to grow our way out of trouble, not tax our way out of trouble," Logue said. "Raising taxes will drive more jobs to Nevada."
Some of this could be bravado, and there are a couple legislators who were in close races - Steve Knight in AD-36, Bill Berryhill in AD-36, Tony Strickland in SD-19 - who would, in theory, do well to part ways with ideology and compromise to enhance their chances in the next election. But this would contradict the Iron Law of Institutions - "the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself." Republicans who give in on the budget will be primaried and feel far more fear from that internal challenge than from the opposition.
The only way to counteract this is to make the challenge from without more vital than the challenge from within, and to make the power inside the institution line up with the power of the institution. It means getting 2/3 and making anyone who rejects the will of the people pay. SEIU has the right idea with their new ad campaign about the budget, playing off of Obama's popularity in the state, and John Burton's curt response to Yacht Party efforts to roll back labor and environmental regulations as payment for a budget solution - "The Republicans are full of crap" - ought to be said a bit more often, maybe in less colorful language, to make clear who is causing this crisis.
I'm not sure any of it will be enough, though. The Yacht Party is still the Yacht Party.
I was only able to attend the Saturday session of this weekend's e-board meeting, under the strange and foreboding Anaheim skies - the fire in Chino Hills nearby blotted out the sun during the midday, you could actually stare right into it - but there were some interesting happenings:
• The Progressive Caucus meeting featured a debate between two candidates for party controller, Eric Bradley (the incumbent) and progressive challenger Hillary Crosby. It was good of both of them to come to the caucus and express their views, but Bradley's contentions (some would call them alibis) for why the party didn't do quite as well in downballot races this year were kind of preposterous. First, he claimed that money moved into some races late because nobody knew Barack Obama would do as well as he did. This is insulting on a variety of levels. First of all, Obama was leading by as much as 28 points in some polls as far back as June, and was never seriously threatened in any polling. Second of all, I don't see how it matters, in terms of who you spend money on, how a race that is out of your control is faring. The next thing that Bradley said, echoing something I hear a lot at these CDP meetings, is that we cannot disclose information to the membership of the party on financing because "we cannot let the Republicans know what we're doing." We might as well let them know, considering that hiding the information hasn't brought us much good. Also, the entirety of the information that Crosby and progressives like her are seeking is a) already readily available in FPPC and FEC reports and b) sought AFTER THE FACT so we can make intelligent decisions about what worked and what didn't. There is a bias toward secrecy there that is quite disconcerting.
• In the general session, there was a continued set of numbers given to prove that the CDP did everything it could to win downballot races. Art Torres mentioned 1 million live GOTV calls and $12.5 million spent. These are all nice numbers (although Obama's California campaign made 1 million calls a day in the week leading up to the election), but if the results are essentially nothing, recapturing seats that were gerrymandered to benefit Democrats to begin with, then the question of effectiveness must be asked. We had a very good session about that with a group of committed activists who ran phonebank operations and local headquarters and state campaigns, and the information was very illuminating. First of all, we have got to end the practice of being one of the only two states in the country not using the DNC Voter File and VAN software. The data is supposedly better in the current set we use, but that can be bought out and integrated into the VAN. I heard about numerous problems with the statewide Neighbor-to-Neighbor tool that made it essentially useless.
Second, there needs to be more empowerment at the local level. The stories I heard from the organizers at DP-SFV (the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley) on how they funded their headquarters and made the best use of volunteer time, for example, was great. In the last week, however, the folks running the campaigns from Sacramento got very top-down in their approach and made all kinds of mistakes that the locals had to fix. It discouraged volunteers and organizers at the local level.
Finally, there has to be off-cycle organizing so that prospective volunteers are brought up with a culture of impacting their own communities instead of driving off to Nevada every four years. This includes finding and capturing the local groups who worked so tirelessly for Obama this year. They need to have it explained and drilled into them why staying local and effecting change inside California is so important. And organizers need to be paid year-round to help bring that about. Finally, they need to be in EVERY county, not just the populous ones or the most contested ones, to impact those statewide races for 2010. For his part, Chairman Torres said he is committed to finding organizers and capitalizing on all the energy we see now, and I think we need to hold him to that.
• The above steps make a good criteria for the next party chair, and that race was the buzz of the session. Right now we have three candidates: Eric Bauman, chair of the LA County Democratic Party; Alex Rooker, current first Vice-Chair; and the legendary John Burton, former State Senate leader and Congressman. At first I figured that Burton would have locked up so many endorsements from legislators who he's known forever that this might not be much of a race; however, Rooker won the endorsement of the CDP Labor Caucus, which is very significant (if not totally surprising, as Rooker has longstanding ties to labor). I don't know if you're aware of who pays for campaigns in California, but the labor community could have a lot to say about who's the next state party chair. In addition, a tough three-way fight with two candidates from the North and one from the South could give the Southern California candidate an advantage. (CORRECTION: Rooker is from LA County, which would give the advantage to the northern candidate)
I'm inviting all of the candidates to visit us at Calitics and offer their vision of where they want to take the party.
Bill Hedrick, CA-44 Democratic candidate, stopped by the Rural Caucus to talk about his run and the aftermath. The votes are still being tabulated, but Hedrick ran a very solid campaign in a very Republican district. Even if he's not able to pull it out this year, Hedrick vows to run again and pull off the upset of Ken Calvert.
They also had many of the party officer candidates talking to the group. Some nerd spoke about the male vice-chair race. All three chair candidates stopped by, and the event was pretty well attended.
Check the flip for photos of chair candidates John Burton and Alex Rooker. I apologize to Eric Bauman, as his photo didn't come out.
The LA Times Blog has some word from the always exciting former Sen. Dem. Leader John Burton (D-SF):
"I'm probably going to do it,'' said Burton, 75, whose political portfolio spans more than four decades. Toppled by term limits, Burton left the state Senate in 2004 as the state's most powerful Democrat and at a time when the election of a movie star governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, had put California government in the national spotlight.
Interesting. I had been expecting a former legislator or two to consider the CDP Chair, so keep an eye out. There's a long time left before the votes are cast, so keep an eye out for further entrants.
I'm currently at the Leo J Ryan memorial park for Jackie Speier's official congressional campaign kickoff. Wow. Not only is it the nicest day imaginable, but the crowd is amazingly huge (I'll have pics up later). I'm told the number is 812 signed in with over 40 of her 92 endorsed elected officials on hand. Anna Eshoo. Mike Thompson. John Burton. Scores of volunteers. Hot dogs and a cotton candy machine. The operation is top notch.
If it is possible to win a campaign with one event, the Speier campaign may have pulled it off today. The overwhelming show of support and organization is going to make anyone think long and hard about getting in the race. Speier's popularity in the district is legendary, but today was a powerful reminder of how deep that support runs. There's a poll after the jump asking your predictions as to whether you think Leland Yee gets in. I'm voting no.
Updated with pictures and speech exerts and news coverage and videos.
Wilson, a two-term Republican governor from 1991 to 1999, said the Legislature is dysfunctional when it gets too partisan. He blamed discord on a lack of the kind of collegiality that existed when he was in the Assembly in the late 1960s.
"It may have something to do with the fact that when John, Willie and I were all in the Assembly, there was a great deal more drinking in the Legislature," Wilson said to laughter and applause. "These guys, the teetotalers, need to lighten up a bit." (SacBee 12.05.07)
The remarks came at Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) event in Sacramento yesterday. Other speakers suggested other concepts. John Burton's was hanging out in strip clubs, or well, just collegiality in general. Term limits came up, with unsurprising results: the law makers didn't like them and remarked about the negative effects. Fabian Nunez pointed out the problems surrounding the 2/3 requirements.
All in all, an interesting read. I'm kinda bummed I missed the event. UPDATE: Here's another take on the event from the comments at the SacBee:
I was at this presentation - and as usual, this coverage is so distorted as to be meaningless. The five people in past and present leadership did, in fact, make some delicious jokes, but those were the asides, NOT the substance of the discussion. The loss of knowledge, the loss of accountability, the skewing of voter understanding (evidence here by comments), the media's lack of substantive reporting (evidenced here by this vapid story) all were seriously discussed. Were there jokes and funny zingers? Yes. And for anyone to think booze, backroom deals, and other funny things were what was recommended is wrong. You've been punked by this reporter's superficiality and lack of understanding at how important this discussion really was. If you want to understand the problems of the Legislature, do NOT turn to the Bee; talk to your legislator or, better, one who used to be there. We can fix the system, but not if we believe only the Bee's superficial point of view.
Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle had a lengthy Ed Epstein piece on Speaker Pelosi marking 20 years in the house following her contentious special election victory over Harry Britt. Over the years, San Francisco politics have proven an effective training ground to allow the people we elect to excel. Feinstein is a powerhouse, Willie Brown was Da Speaker, the Burton brothers were titans in Sacramento and DC, Migden chairs the senate Caucus, Leno chairs Appropriations. If you can make here politically, you really can make it anywhere.
And if you want to see what I'm talking about, read Chris Daly's op-ed at the Fog City Journal on the current budget battle. Making great use of the medium with literally dozens of links (going back to 1998), the Supervisor shows how San Francisco politics is fought in the trenches. And remember, all of this is over one half of one percent of the SF budget.
Do you think Burton liked Edwards's first name? Nah... Anyway, John Burton endorsed Edwards in 2004, and has done so again this year. From the Edwards campaign site:
The John Edwards for President campaign announced today that California Democratic leader John Burton endorsed Senator John Edwards for President and will help lead Edwards' campaign in California.
"John has spent his life fighting for those without a voice-our children, people struggling with illness and people living in poverty," said Edwards. "I am honored to have his support and look forward to working with him change our country, so every America has the opportunity to succeed."
Burton still carries a lot of weight in the state, not only for his own career, but also for the fact that he was part of a political dynasty that launched the current Speaker of the House.
The San Francisco Sentinel has a great number of photos from Gavin Newsom's HQ open house, including pics of Assemblymember Mark Leno, Supervisor Beavan Dufty, and John Burton.
In other campaign news, Newsom strategist Eric Jaye turns to blogging for his thoughts on Alex Tourk. While a touchy subject, I thought it was a classy post that paid a well deserved tribute to Tourk as a person and operative.
In tomorrow's issue of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Tim Redmond sums up the field on the left, suggesting the CW at the Guardian's birthday bash was Matt Gonzalez has first shot, Ross Mirkarimi if Gonzalez declines and everyone if Newsom bows out. Redmond concludes, "Throw in public financing and ranked-choice voting, and the election's going to be like nothing there ever was in this town. I can't wait." He isn't alone.
Some say the feud between Nancy Pelosi and Ellen Tauscher has always existed. Some say that it that it is a Hatfield-McCoy stories that goes back generations in east coast politics. But one thing is clear, it erupted in the press during the summer of 2001:
The story nonetheless laid bare a dispute that belies the solidarity of Bay Area delegation, arguably the most liberal in the nation. Its origins are a matter of dispute. Some believe Tauscher sees Pelosi as competition. Some believe Pelosi feels betrayed after helping Tauscher first get elected in 1996.
The rift has isolated Tauscher to a certain degree from her California colleagues, who almost universally are behind Pelosi.
"I've searched my heart why Ellen Tauscher would not support Nancy Pelosi for whip," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a firm Pelosi backer who was appalled at Tauscher's assertions. "I cannot figure out in my wildest imagination as to why she is not excited at this history-making prospect. Her doing this says to me she is a very bitter person."
Boxer wasn't the only California Democrat who was "appalled" at Tauscher not supporting a fellow woman of the delegation, the move infuriated John Burton (who many people at the time viewed as almost as powerful than the governor and overly protective of Pelosi.
It wasn't just the fact Tauscher abandoned Pelosi that made the situation so controversial, it was also the manner in which the story exploded:
