Former Governor Joins Effort to Overturn Commission's Maps
by Brian Leubitz
While Arnold Schwarzenegger was all over the place in his effort to pass the redistricting measure on the ballot a few years back, his fellow California Republicans were very mixed on the subject. Some supported it out of team jersey loyalty, while others just weren't comfortable with an unknown entity.
It seems that discomfort lingers, as the Republican Senate Caucus, along with some other rich Republicans, is attempting to kill the maps. They now have a brand new, and high profile, ally:
Wilson and other GOP leaders have sent out a fundraising appeal to help finance a referendum drive that would give the state's voters a chance to repeal the maps drawn by a Citizens Redistricting Commission. The GOP leaders say in a five-page memo to several thousand potential donors that the new districts could help give Democrats a two-thirds majority in the Senate. ...
"The state Senate lines drawn by the California Redistricting Commission virtually guarantee a Democrat Super-majority in the California State Senate in 2012," the mailer added. "A successful drive to put a referendum on the June 2012 ballot is the best way to prevent this from happening." (LA Times)
And perhaps they are right, as the maps do put a few additional seats in the toss-up column and make a 2/3 majority in the Legislature possible. It seems more likely in the Senate, and that's why we are seeing the Republican Senate caucus pouring money into the initiative.
But the problem for the Republicans is that even a victory at the ballot doesn't mean that they'll get what they want. If they do get an initiative on the ballot, the district lines will be tossed to the judges. And while there are more Republicans on the Court, they aren't really the idealogues that the Republicans really want. And they are very process-y, which would seem to indicate that they would prefer something similar to the maps as drawn by the commission.
But, right now they are sitting at just $92,500, and they are going to need a lot more money fast to get the referendum on the ballot.
Pete Wilson has a long and sordid past in this state. Casting aside some of his early work in San Diego, his run as Senator left something to be desired, to say the least. He considered himself a "fiscal conservative", going so far as to go by the moniker of "Watchdog of the Treasury." Yet all the while, he was one of the bigger supporters of the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") in the Senate, despite the fact that SDI never showed any glimmer of actually being able to do anything.
And then, as he comes back to California to be governor as some sort of victory lap, where he proceed to well and truly make the situation worse. He never met an insurance reform bill that he wouldn't veto for a bit of campaign cash from the industry, and apparently couldn't find room in his heart from a plea from Mother Theresa on a death penalty case.
Besides his cruel veto of a workplace discrimination protection measure for gay and lesbian Californians, he went on to pass the vile Proposition 187 along with his re-election bid of 1994. He used the measure to beat Kathleen Brown over the head with the issue, despite the fact that the measure was unconstitutional on its face. That it was later ruled as such by federal courts didn't really make a difference for Wilson. After all, he had been re-elected.
Toss in a few anti-labor measures, and there you have a quick summary of Wilson's career. I suppose at this juncture, I should point out the work he did for reparations for Japanese internment victims, but his record is hardly one of a lifelong commitment to civil rights. So, this is where he re-enters the game in a big way. He is now the co-chair of the campaigns of both Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley. And he's doing everything he can for both of them.
To reduce Wilson's role in Whitman's campaign to the immigration issue or to one "tough as nails" radio ad, however, is to miss the significance of his involvement.
Early in the contest, Wilson's support was significant in signaling to GOP insiders that Whitman, with no political experience, could run a credible campaign.
He came with a Rolodex full of donors and consultants, many of whom helped Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger win election. He also had the perspective of being a former two-term governor and U.S. senator. If Whitman cared to talk strategy, he is the the only Republican to have defeated her Democratic opponent in an election.(SacBee)
You think that's some big involvement? How about the fact that Steve Cooley has said on numerous occasions that it was the former Governor that recruited him for the AG's race, rather than the other way around. Wilson has taken to the role of elder statesmen (or Obi-Wan as the article called him) of the GOP.
But this course is not without risks. Californians should not forget his role in Prop 187, and his cynical use of families as a wedge issue. Or his fight against the right to organize through his so-called "paycheck protection" measure. Wilson had it all planned out, and he is still trying to pull the strings on the marionettes. One can only hope we are better at seeing through Whitman than we were cutting through Wilson's bull.
I'm a bit of a cynic, and don't typically fall for the populist rhetoric. Populist action? Yes. Rhetoric? Not as much. I'm all about taking banks to the woodshed, but don't waste my time talking about it, just do it.
And the tax returns issue is something of a blend of the two. It's more than mere rhetoric, as the state does have some interest in knowing just exactly how much you are earning, and where it is coming from. These things tend to sway policy makers. Releasing tax returns has sort of become a standard of the least you can get away with. You have to do at least that much. Arnold Schwarzenegger has released his tax records for election purposes, as has Steve Westly, Whitman's colleague at eBay.
But Whitman, she won't really say if she is going to do that:
"We will obviously comport with all the filing requirements for the state of California when you run for governor, and I may release my tax returns," Whitman said in an interview at the Luxe Hotel in Bel Air. "We'll see. But I'll do it on my own timetable and not in response to the unions that are fronting for Jerry Brown."
State campaign rules require candidates to disclose certain general financial interests prior to elections, but tax returns are not among them. Still, many wealthy candidates, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Controller Steve Westly, released their returns in past races. (LA Times blog)
Nice little distraction technique by tossing some red meat to the base and running in the other direction. Of course, Level the Playing Field has been applying some pressure in this area, such as sending a letter to former Gov. Pete Wilson (PDF) asking him to either call on Whitman to release her returns or resign from Whitman's campaign. (Wilson used to use the tax returns issue when he was running.) However, conservatives (including Poizner) have discussed the issue. Poizner says that he definitely will release his returns in order to create the "most open and accessible campaign."
So what is it that Whitman has to hide? Where is it that her money is coming and going to? And why is she trying to hide that information? Thing is, in the age of the internet, what wants to get out, will get out. Whitman can either try to hide her record, and get surprised by it later, or she can just open up now. Still, I'm not holding my breath for openness from the woman who is trying to buy her way into the governor's office.
Last year, Meg Whitman rolled out her "Latino Coalition" at a Mexican restaurant (yes, really) and spoke to the crowd about entrepreneurialism and the spirit it takes to be successful in California. Very heartwarming. yet, even in that heavily Republican room, she still found ways to anger the crowd.
And her opposition to driver's licenses for the undocumented was a flop with the crowd described by the media as "mostly Republicans."
Whitman said she opposes drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, an answer met with silence by the crowd.
It is amazing that Whitman had the temerity to say something like this, too:
"I am a big believer in focus... in business and in life you can only do three things or four things at 100 percent. Let's try this approach in government," she said.
So either she's going to only try real hard at three or four things as governor or just be terrible at many things. Sounds like a winning message. (Matt Ortega)
Another interesting angle to this story is the fact that Pete Wilson is the Chair of Whitman's campaign. You know, Pete Wilson, the power behind Prop 187's demonizing campaign. Fortunately, somebody was kind enough to post some of Wilson's campaign commercials, lest anybody forget just who Pete Wilson is.
So, is Meg Whitman trying to reach out to the Latino community just as a way to sat that she at least tried, or is she going to actually listen to the community? Because with somebody as polarizing as Wilson so heavily involved in the campaign, it just doesn't seem as if she's trying very hard. Wilson might be popular amongst the Minutemen crowd in the primary, but she'll need to reach beyond them to win the general.
Sure, she can spend millions of dollars to plaster her image all over every TV in the state, and perhaps it will be enough to buy the Governor's office. But in order to function as a leader in this state, you actually have to pay more than lip service to all of the state's communities. It's a lesson that Arnold learned on the job, but it doesn't look like Whitman will be getting a head-start.
Last night I attended the advance screening and panel session of Latino in America a CNN produced series that will be airing tomorrow October 21 and 22nd.
"By 2050, the U.S. Latino population is expected to nearly triple. This October, CNN's Soledad O'Brien explores how Latinos are reshaping our communities and culture and forcing a nation of immigrants to rediscover what it means to be an American," is the statement on CNN's website to entice potential viewers. CNN has been working hard to market this four hour series by hosting advance screening parties across the nation. It's obvious that the series is a serious effort to capture a larger share of the Hispanic market.
Despite their efforts, CNN which pledges itself as the 'most trusted name in news' is also the home of Lou Dobbs one of the most vitriolic anti immigrant voices in the media. Presente.org a national online advocacy organization has been running a very strong campaign to highlight the blatant lies Lou Dobbs spreads on his program. He has claimed that "Just about a third of our prison system is made up of illegal aliens." But the Department of Justice reports that immigrants (legal and illegal) make just 6% of the prison population.
Just a précis on budget negotiations today: the Big Five leadership has met over the last couple days, with more heat than light. The Governor remains committed to adding unrelated policy changes into any budget deal, items like changing contributions to public employee pensions, and tightening eligibility and rooting out fraud in programs like in-home supportive services for the disabled, Medi-Cal and Cal-Works. These items will do nothing to affect the current budget numbers, a fact Schwarzenegger has acknowledged, but he continues to leverage the impasse to capture long-sought goals. The Governor also has taken to lying about how these issues suddenly appeared in the negotiations, claiming that "reform issues were very clear" from the start, which is true if you define "reform" as "whatever Arnold wants it to mean." Karen Bass signaled her frustration with the Governor's clear unwillingness to close a deal by inserting unrelated items, boycotting today's meeting and questioning the Governor's figures on what reducing "fraud" would actually reap in savings (and since he's been consistently wrong on this front in the past, it's a good bet). The Governor did concede that suspending the Prop. 98 education funding mechanism would not be viable, but he keeps pushing for the amorphously defined "reform", no doubt because he thinks it plays well with the public (Matier and Ross transcribe that private polls show a jump in Arnold's approval ratings). This speaks more to the Democrats' inability to clearly explain reality than anything else, though Bass gave it a try today:
But Bass said she believes talks have gotten worse, not better. And she publicly blasted the governor for comments he made in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, in which he said he explained why he doesn't go home depressed by budget woes.
"Someone else might walk out of here every day depressed, but I don't walk out of here depressed," Schwarzenegger told the Times. Whatever happens, "I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight," he said. "I'm going to lay back with a stogie."
"He said he's happy to just go home and sit in his Jacuzzi every night," Bass said Monday. "I'm very, very concerned about this. He doesn't seem to be concerned that people are getting IOUs, and all he has to do is go out and blame the Legislature."
With squabbling and posturing like this, you'd think I'd agree with the Calbuzz take of why this crisis has dragged on for so long.
The constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to pass a budget is clearly the single most important reason why the Capitol is in a state of near-permanent political gridlock. But the two-thirds rule has been around since the New Deal and budgets used to get passed. So what's the hang-up?
Power: Nobody's got it.
The governor and the Legislature fulminate and flounder simply because no one in the Capitol in 2009 has the stature, clout or influence to cut a deal like Ronnie and Jesse or Pete and Willie once did.
Actually, the budget has ALREADY been passed once this year, closing a $42 billion dollar deficit. The new $26 billion dollar problem points to the unique nature of the current deep recession. I'd like to see good ol' Ronnie and Jesse and Pete and Willie deal with a $68 billion shortfall in the space of six months.
But beyond that, what is also missing from this analysis is the lengths to which the "big bully" theory of how to manage California government, where Democrats and Republicans get together and "cut a deal," is in a real sense RESPONSIBLE for the problem we now face. Take the assessment of the 1992 budget in the midst of a recession:
Contrast this year's with the budget meltdown of 1992, the last time California issued IOUs. Although many of the same conditions applied, the big difference was that both Gov. Pete Wilson and Speaker Willie Brown wielded enough political authority to sit down in a room and cut a deal: Wilson took responsibility for rounding up Republican votes for tax increases and Brown for putting a lid on Democratic caterwauling over program cuts.
Somehow the inability of these major players to avoid a situation where IOUs had to be issued gets put to the side. But what Willie Brown did not use that clout to do, what no Democrat has done since 1978's Prop. 13 opened the structural revenue gap enforced by the 2/3 requirement for budgets and taxes, is actually solve the real problem. Instead he cut a deal, relying on a future asset bubble to bail him out again and again, and setting the table for today's crisis.
The 1980s saw the construction of the model. Sprawl was used to provide affordable housing. Special tax systems were set up to pay for suburban schools - the 1982 Mello-Roos Act - which were funded as long as there was enough credit to sustain sprawl. The loss of property tax revenue led cities to shift toward retail, further promoting sprawl (big box stores, malls). The jobs and spending created by sprawl provided enough prosperity to keep voters happy and the politicians in power. For those who were left behind - those living in the city centers, people of color, and the poor - 1978 had been partly about their political and economic marginalization, and the majority of Californians embraced it as part of the deal.
The ideal feature of the centrist system, from the view of its practitioners, is that it apparently neutralized the right-wing revolt of 1978. Low taxes could be paired with preservation of core services, albeit at a slightly reduced level, and thereby avoided another Jarvisite outburst. Well-paid consultants could run statewide TV campaigns to force the public to accept the consensus, without having to do the messy work of engaging a grassroots that would challenge the centrist status quo.
When the system came crashing down in 1991-92, the centrists found it possible to cut a deal to keep things going. Pete Wilson and Willie Brown had much in common, and were able to hammer out a package of tax increases and spending cuts that got a 2/3 majority. I don't romanticize that deal, but instead use it to show that it confirmed to the centrists that the system they'd built in 1980s could withstand crisis as long as everyone was willing to sit down and make a deal, damn the consequences.
However, the right-wing wasn't sleeping. In 1990 they managed to convince a bare majority of voters to approve Prop 140, a radical term limits measure that should have fallen afoul of the "revision" rule. But the real moment of change came in 1994, when the far-right in the Republican Party grabbed control of the agenda and launched a massive attack on Latino Californians. Pete Wilson wholeheartedly embraced the attack, and although it brought Republicans gains that year, it was a victory to make Pyrrhus jealous. Latinos registered for citizenship and to vote in massive numbers, and beginning in 1996 what had once been a state whose politics were fairly balanced shifted massively to the Democrats.
As long as Republicans stood a reasonable chance of winning control of California's legislature or its electoral votes, Democratic deal-cutting with Republicans could be sold to the base as a necessary move to stave off the Jarvisite hordes. But after 1996 this became less and less plausible. The California Republican Party became a captive of the extreme right, even more than usual, and in one of its last acts before leaving power in 1998, pushed through a massive and reckless series of tax cuts.
I don't disagree at all that we currently face a lack of leadership and clout to get deals done in Sacramento. Arnold Schwarzenegger has no role inside his own party, and Bass and Steinberg preside over a dysfunctional set of rule requirements and are term-limited out of gathering political capital. My point is that such leadership has ALWAYS been lacking from the Democratic side of the aisle, at least since 1978. When prosperity waned, it was clear that California's political structure would resist responsible governance at every turn. But instead of preparing for that eventuality by changing the rules, those good old boys of the past cut deals that exacerbated the problem. They forced the current crop of non-leaders into ringing up the state credit card and enabled the right-wing faction that holds a veto over economic policies. The center did not hold - but it could never hold. And the centrists who ruled California in the years after Prop. 13, the timid types who ran away from real solutions and put the state in the position to fail, should not be lauded. They should be ashamed.
We haven't written much about the Presidential race here lately because California is largely out of reach - the FiveThirtyEight composite projects a 16-point win for Obama, and even the Stockton Record is endorsing Obama for President. Nevertheless, Vets for Freedom and Pete Wilson are wasting $2.2 million dollars on an ad campaign trumpeting the success of the surge. Way to gauge the public mood, guys. By the way, the California Nurses Association is firing back with a vicious ad about John McCain, and they have the sense to run it in swing states where it might matter.
Which brings us to tonight's VP debate. I wrote a little debate preview over at my site. My take - watch out for the hissy fit! Watch out for Drudge running with some manufactured slight and all the networks going into 24-hour "Biden disrespected Palin" mode and Lynne Cheney walking out and saying "This is a baaaad man!"
Anyway, I'll be trying to sort all of this out tonight with Brad Friedman of BradBlog, who's guest-hosting a special "VP Debate" edition of the Mike Malloy Show immediately following the Biden-Palin matchup. Also appearing:
• Everybody's waiting to see what Sarah Palin will have to say at 7:30PT. I'm on record; she's going to do great, and she'll be feted by the media for it. Very little of it will be true, but she's on home court and is an engaging speaker. Some speech samples here. The speech is going to be tough and straight-up politics of resentment. We'll see if she can channel her anger at being called out for ridicule this week; I think she's up to the task, and this backlash stuff is standard Republican politics when they are put up against the wall. Stoller is asking the right question - will this be the right way to introduce yourself to the whole nation, including independents?
• Turning locally, while Arnold missed the festivities in St. Paul to look very serious about the budget, Pete Wilson made it out there in his stead - and he slammed Schwarzenegger's call for a tax increase, clearly temporarily forgetting the increase of his own. And when he was reminded, he said, "The situation was very different."
• Among the bills about to land on the Governor's desk is an equal pay bill. This has become a big issue in the Presidential race, and I'm glad to see the legislature on the right side of it.
• This is a good Chris Hayes piece from The Nation about union members at the RNC, but the California-specific part about the SEIU-UHW fight I found just right:
The more I talked to the UHW members and heard their grievances, the more I thought about the fact that organized labor has two goals that can often come into tension: power and dignity. We tend to focus on the power aspect in politics: the power to collectively bargain, to make sure labor captures a fair share of profits, to demand higher wages--all of which have been in sharp decline. That's the objective nature of unionization. The subjective nature of unionization, though, is dignity. It is the process by which working people come to believe that their views and their ideas and their demands are important. That they should be listened to. These two values can be in tension, as I suspect might be the case in California. Sometimes maximizing power might (I stress might, because the UHW-SEIU situation is very, very complicated) require people to fall in line, but the prerogative of dignity is to speak out and stand up.
• I'm interested in hearing more about Prop. 5. Anything that rolls back our stupid and shortsighted drug war is positive, in addition to addressing the prison crisis. Martin Sheen, of all people, has joined up with the No on 5 crowd, being run by the people who brought you the pro-Denham team during the aborted recall.
• Just noting the prison guard payoff to Don Perata because nobody else has.
Today's LA Times has an interesting series of op-eds by historians and authors examining how past governors dealt with budget crises. It's an interesting look not only at how those governors all helped build the prosperous state that we're living off of today, but also how the real problem with the budget isn't a lack of pragmatism or deal-making, but ideology. And since the articles were commissioned by California Backward they are particularly important in shaping how we will respond to this crisis.
The profile of Pete Wilson by Greg Lucas and Ronald Reagan by Lou Cannon both argue that pragmatism and a willingness to deal is the key to budget success. Lucas' portrait of the contentious 1991 budget negotiations is designed to make us wistful even for Pete Wilson's leadership (if you forget 1994, that is). Wilson understood that tax increases were going to be necessary to balance the budget AND to get Democratic support, so he outflanked them by proposing his own increases and then spending the summer cutting the deals necessary to get Dems to agree and to turn enough Republicans, one by one, to his view.
Cannon's portrait of Reagan emphasizes similar qualities - that despite their "novice amateur" abilities, Reagan and his advisors knew that a tax increase was necessary to balance the 1967 budget and avoid crippling cuts. Reagan did so, and therefore helped continue California's remarkable 20th century economic expansion by supporting the government services that growth depended on.
What both these portraits miss - alongside Jim Newton's profile of Earl Warren, an unconvincing effort to see Arnold as a latter-day Warren, is the role of ideology in the budget. Warren, Reagan and Wilson were able to negotiate budget solutions because they did not define their Republicanism by a virulent anti-tax conservatism - even in Reagan's case, and Reagan had spent the 1960s leading the right-wing takeover of the California Republican Party.
They also governed at times when Democrats had spines. This was particularly true in 1991, where Democratic intransigence and demands for a better deal were all that forced Pete Wilson to propose and stick to his tax plans. Most of those taxes survived until the late 1990s, when led by Tom McClintock, the state legislature - including Democrats - voted to spend that tax money on foolish and short-sighted tax cuts rather than putting it in a rainy day fund or investing in infrastructure. During Arnold's term Democrats have caved in to his demands so often that Arnold no longer sees Democratic demands as worth taking seriously.
The ascension of Tom McClintockism within the Republican Party goes to the heart of the budget matter, showing that it is about ideology, not deal-making. How can today's Republican cut deals on taxes when the Howard Jarvis Association, CRA, and other right-wing groups are ready to destroy a Republican legislator's career for doing so? The only Republican not in thrall to those folks, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is instead in thrall to Milton Friedman's shock doctrine theories.
So it was very welcome to read Ethan Rarick's profile of Pat Brown. Rarick is the author of the excellent California Rising: The Life and Times of Pat Brown. In his profile Rarick refuses to emphasize Brown's leadership qualities and instead focuses on the underlying ideological and structural contexts. He was the only author to mention the 2/3 requirement. And he understood the importance of ideology:
More important than procedural changes, however, are ideological ones.
In Brown's day, the country remained in the grip of the so-called New Deal consensus, a mood far more receptive to the idea that government played a constructive role in our society and had to be amply funded. Brown used to say of himself, "I'm a big-government man," a phrase that would nowadays be uttered by no politician, left, right or center.
It's true that Republicans tended to be more skeptical of government than Democrats, but they were neither unanimous nor intransigent on the point....
So I'm quite sure I know what Pat Brown would do if he were governor today, or at least what he would want to do and try to do. He would trumpet government's positive role, insist that those who benefit the most from our society should pay the most, and set about enacting policies to create a public sector that was funded both fully and fairly. In short, he would raise taxes, especially on the rich.
But the real question is not what Pat Brown would do. Given the differences in ideological climate between his day and ours, the real question is: Would we let him?
It's an excellent set of points he makes. I wonder though if California Backward will even listen to him. A group composed of centrist high Broderists is much more likely to prefer a call for more deal-making that will nevertheless produce conservative solutions to a rousing defense of the policies that made California great, and an attack on the conservative policies that have produced this budget crisis.
Being called an unreliable and somewhat treacherous partisan might be cool in a general election, but it won't do Tom McClintock much good in the primary against former Rep. Doug Ose in the 4th District. McClintock, a former Gov and Lt. Gov. candidate, does not have a fan in former Republican Governor Pete Wilson.
Wilson is holding a press conference today to talk about McClintock. The press notice about the conference says Wilson will share at least one opinion about the man:
"I could never count on McClintock. He was always the first to criticize, but the last to help his team."
Ouch! Either way, Charlie Brown keeps chugging along in the Democratic race. He'll face whichever bruised victor emerges from the GOP primary. You can find Charlie on the Calitics ActBlue page.
(We're having some problems with our database. But this needed to be seen ASAP. I hope we can get it back up to speed soon, but if you have any questions, email me. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
In 1991, California faced a severe budget shortfall. The LAO's documentation of how it was addressed can be found in its "State Spending Plan for 1991-92" [pdf], a 54-page document. But to spare you the suspense (and me the time I don't have to read the whole thing), the entire story is neatly summarized in this chart:
What?!?!? Almost three times as much in increased revenues compared to cost cuts??? Signed by Pete Wilson? And herr Gropenator is a post-partisan?
Not so much.
An excerpt from the top of the LAO's document can be found on the flip
The LA Times launched a cute little interactive primary calendar along with a presidential primary blog. Oh, and a message to Rudy. If there's a story about how you're arguing with Alan-freaking-Keyes, well, you might as well fold up shop.
Anthony Wright is one of the most astute observers of the health care industry. The dude just understands it in ways that I'm pretty sure I never will. Well, yesterday he had a great post on the topic of the individual mandate at the national level. Edwards and Clinton include one in their health care plans, and Obama has recently indicated that he'd be willing to include one. Although I suggest you mosey on over there to read the whole thing in its entirety, the post centers around the concept of a mandate as a challenge not to just the citizenry but also to the government to ensure affordability. But if the government fails, as is happening in Massachusetts, what then?
Wright sums the argument up concisely: "The mandate muddle masks the real question: how much actual help does the health plan provide people?"
For the time being, the Arnold Prison Papers are being held back from our prying eyes. The 3 judge panel stayed the order to the Governator to relase the papers pending a hearing tomorrow. These papers could be quite interesting.
You want more words from smart people? Well, Peter Schrag fits that mold. In his column today he talks about the real story behind the PPIC forum in Sacramento with Willie Brown, Pete Wilson, Jim Brulte, and Fabian Nunez. Read it. He's smart.
Somehow I forgot to mention that Warren Furutani won the special election to replace Laura Richardson in the Assembly. However he missed the 50% by 134 votes. That's actually a bigger number than it sounds as only 17507 votes were cast. That's just about 10% turnout. He'll face the American Independent Party winner and the Libertarian winner in the February 5 runoff whereupon he will become the next Assemblyman from the 55th District.
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.
Here are some notes from a few stories I'd been meaning to get to all week.
• Frank Russo had a good recap of the initial hearing from the three-judge panel charged with finding a solution to California's prison crisis. This panel may result in the early release of thousands of prisoners to reduce overcrowding. The panel does not appear to be able to be swayed by political expediency (unlike the Legislature for the past 30 years), saying "This is a judicial and not a political process." It is clear that the torturous conditions in California jails and the inability to deliver even basic medical care violates the Constitution and will be dealt with swiftly. Even the Correctional Officers union has come around to the point of view that reductions in the prison population are needed. Only a cowardly, leadership-challenged political class refuses to face reality.
Ah, so you thought Proposition 187 was dead? So you thought all the madness of the 1990s was over? So you thought we forgot about Pete Wilson?
Well, think again! While GOP candidate for OC Supervisor Carlos Bustamante has been tricking us into believing that he's a Democrat who cares about his fellow Latinos, he has also been pandering to anti-immigrant wingnuts. So should it really surprise him that after sending out that deceptive "Independent Democrat" mailer, that the REAL DEMOCRATS would send out a little clarification?
Follow me after the flip to see the mailer, and go back in time...
