Yesterday, we endorsed Laurette Healey in the 40th AD. Quite a few readers disagree with the choice of Republican-turned Democrat, Healey. This is an email I received today from Damian Carroll, republished with permission. All three of the candidates we did not endorse have good cases of their own.
[Y]our endorsement of Laurette Healey in the 40th was, shall we say, eye-raising. Are you aware that Laurette is only recently a Democrat, who ran several years back for LA City Controller as a fiscal conservative? Even giving Laurette the benefit of the doubt that she is, now, a real progressive, I think it's quite a stretch to say that she is "the progressive" in a race where all the leading candidates - Stuart Waldman, Dan McCrory, and Bob Blumenfield - have solid progressive credentials.
Briefly, Stuart Waldman was endorsed by the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, which represents 27 Democratic clubs in the region, the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Sherman Oaks Democratic Club, Democrats for Change, AFSCME 3299, and dozens of progressive activists throughout the Valley.
Dan McCrory is a longtime union organizer endorsed by Jo Olson, co-chair of the CDP Progressive Caucus, San Fernando Valley NOW, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1442, United Steelworkers Local 675, etc.
Bob Blumenfield shared the CLCV endorsement with Laurette, and was also endorsed by UTLA, Barney Frank, The Sierra Club, SEIU, and so on.
My point being that as progressives who demand high standards of our elected officials, I think your endorsement process should also hold candidates to high standards. It doesn't cut it to call a couple of progressive friends in Los Angeles, glance at some endorsements, and then declare that only one candidate in the race is "the progressive."
I'm very disappointed with this endorsement and I don't think it speaks highly of Calitics. If this is the best process you can muster, maybe it's not worth endorsing.
(This hit the LA Times today. San Fernando Valley politics are weird and dynastic. Blumenfield is getting money from his dad and his former boss Howard Berman; his campaign manager is Larry Levine, whose son Lloyd is running for state Senate; Lloyd's former chief of staff is Stuart Waldman. This doesn't mean they're bad people at all. But there's a dynastic feel to Valley politics that is unsettling. Also this shows that the IE laws in this state are ridiculous. - promoted by David Dayen)
...for Bob Blumenfield,
With Love from His Dad and Current Employer, Congressman Howard Berman
Ignored by the mainstream media this Wednesday, the Fair Political Practices Commission complaint filed against "Valley Democrats for Change" by attorney, Nicole Kuklok-Waldman, is heating up the race in the 40th Assembly District. It entered cyberspace Thursday through the subscription-only website, Capital Morning Report.
What it appears to be, said an employee at the Secretary of State's office, is another committee set up to circumvent California's legal contribution limits.
Background. California law sets a contribution limit for state candidates for the legislature at $3600 per person. A candidate can use an unlimited amount of his or her PERSONAL funds. But, a relative cannot. Which brings us to the present situation. What's a father to do???
Most Californians are sure that their election is over. All the media coverage is blaring babble from the most recent presidential debate in distant states as well as other inane minutia that denigrates the process.
Yet, if you look closely, really closely, you may find evidence that there is yet another election coming up here in June. Yes, June 3rd to be exact.
This season, in spite of the state being billions of dollars in debt, and the cries of horror about budget cuts, our state legislators gave us the special treat of spending double on TWO elections!!!.
And the citizens who ARE paying attention to the obscure references to the June 3rd primary are again faced with figuring out who is worth voting for, if anyone.
With little information in the mainstream media, many turn to their local Democratic Clubs and special interest groups for guidance. Or, they look to their Democratic party. This guidance most often comes in the form of the last minute slate mailers, the topic of this conversation.
It's not often that the 300 signatures are gathered to actually pull something off of the consent calendar, but it happens. What doesn't happen is getting twice the number of required signatures. A few signatures over 600, in fact.
Tomorrow, Bill Clinton will be speaking to the convention, and Kamala Harris, SF's DA, will be speaking on behalf of Obama. While I have great respect for the 42nd president of the United States, he is not known for being a timely gentleman. What time the platform, the SD-03 race, and the consent calendar will come up are pretty much all dependent upon when President Clinton shows up.
Tomorrow should be an exciting day for the San Francisco folks and the Clinton delegates. Should be fun.
UPDATE: From the comments, AD-40, Lloyd Levine's (termed out, running for state senate) district, was also pulled from the consent calendar. Bob Blumenfield got the 60% required, but it will be going to the floor. Also competitive in that race are Laurette Healey & Stuart Waldman.
Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, who currently represents the 40th Assembly district in the western San Fernando Valley, has made it official: he'll be running for Senate in the 23rd (West L.A., Santa Monica, West San Fernando Valley, southwest Ventura County). This is the seat currently held by Senator Sheila Keuhl, who will be termed out in '08.
Levine's Chief of Staff, Stuart Waldman, has already announced his candidacy for his boss' vacated seat in the 40th.
