Meg Whitman's campaign is a juggernaut. She's got famous Republican consultants all over the place, and she's got enough money to blanket TV with more Meg-ifornia spots than you'd ever want to see.
But despite all the "talent", the campaign is going off the rails. Yesterday, there was the whole brouhaha about not taking press questions at a press event, but that wasn't it. Later that evening, her campaign team kicked out Jeremy Thompson from an event. Jeremy had been invited, RSVP'd, and then when he went into the event, they told him that he had to leave or they were going to call the cops. Check out his twitter feed for more details.
But, Steve Poizner's web video to the right here has the best moment (or the worst, depending on where you stand) for Whitman. At a "town hall" Whitman had some of the audience members re-ask questions because eMeg messed up the answer the first time. Apparently it wasn't so much a town hall, as a campaign ad.
Thing is, the Whitman campaign team is trying to run this like a corporate operation. You know, you can call for do-overs when you are shooting with your employees. However, you don't get any Mulligans in a campaign. As tightly as Sarah Pompei would like to run the Whitman ship, that's not how campaigns work.
You'd think with all the experienced people on this staff, they'd have figured out how to run a town hall by now. But apparently, no, not so much. It looks like this is a junior high class president's campaign instead of a campaign for governor of the state of California with all the missteps they've made.
Now that Jerry Brown is a real candidate, perhaps it is time to look back at his first two terms. While Whitman paints Brown as a wild-eyed hippy wanting to spend like crazy, let's take a look back into time. 1974 to be exact. Check out the footage, the relevant clip begins at 1:03.
People always say money. Give us more resources, give us more planning, more experts. Well, I would only say, the Viet Nam War. The other side had less resources, less planning, less experts, less PhDs, and they won.
Now, I think most historians would point out that the North Vietnamese had more local experts, more knowledge of the situation on the ground, but well, they did have less PhDs.
But the point remains. In 1974, Governor Jerry Brown argued for exactly what candidate Meg Whitman is arguing for today. If all she has to offer are statements that Jerry Brown has been making for 35 years, then why exactly should we go with the unknown.
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.
Why won't Jerry Brown just announce that he is running for Governor? Why won't he campaign? Why is he letting Meg Whitman get so far ahead of things in this campaign? Does he just assume he has it "in the bag?"
Not all oil is created equal. It isn't just a matter of buring it and getting so many particulates, and so much CO2 dispersed in the air. Oil of different provenances give off different levels of crap. So, CARB is attempting to regulate. Shockingly, the National Petrochemical Assoc. is suing:
A lobby group that includes BP and Shell in its membership has launched a legal challenge against low-carbon legislation in California that in effect rules out the use of oil from Canadian tar sands. The action by the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) comes amid growing political, investor and consumer pressure on US oil companies not to participate in the carbon-intensive tar sands of Alberta. (Guardian UK)
It's a pretty standard interstate commerce lawsuit. It's something of a longshot case, as California has successfully regulated other products coming into the state. Like, um, say gasoline. We have our own mix here, toxic and pricey as it might be, and that has been allowed to stand for a while now. That profited the oil companies, so no rush to sue on that one. But this one is annoying to them, so they're standing up for their corporate rights.
Of course, the two big oil shale producers, BP and Shell, are hiding behind NPRA on the lawsuit. They each claim that they weren't in on the process to sue on this regulation. Convenient, that.
The case will be handled by the AG, Jerry Brown, we'll be sure to update if there is any news.
Some Republicans, including some legislators, are doing their best to repeal one of California's landmark pieces of legislation: AB 32. The climate change bill is now finally being put into action. Arnold, while getting off to a rough start with the implementation, has allowed Mary Nichols and the team at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to do their jobs.
But, businesses and the right, well, they are apparently a tad bit chilly and would prefer a warmer clime with less water. So, they filed an initiative that would cease implementation until unemployment reaches some arbitrary figure. Here's the title summary from the AG:
SUSPENDS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS REQUIRING MAJOR POLLUTERS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS BELOW SPECIFIED LEVEL FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Suspends State laws requiring reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Requires State to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential positive, short-term impacts on state and local government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain longer-run impacts. Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.
This pretty much exactly describes the measure. Short-term small gains, long-term stupid. But Asm. Dan Logue disagrees, claiming the damned, dirty (or clean, as the case may be) environmentalists are behind this summary:
"I wonder if he's running for governor," Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Marysville), a backer of the initiative, quipped after reading the summary. "This looks like he handed this over to the environmental community and asked them to write this summary for them." (LA Times
Logue says they might sue over the summary, but that happens with pretty much every summary. The AG has wide discretion over title and summary, and the case has to be outside of that discretion to be changed by the courts. In other words, it has to not really address the proposition. In this case, I'm not sure which of the points they would argue is factually incorrect.
The fact is that this measure would actually hurt our long-term economy. AB 32 stands to put California at the front of the green economy, but Logue and his ilk want to push us back to the days of coal and soot.
Jerry Brown sent out a very bland email yesterday trumpeting his financial success to spam boxes across the state. Not that it isn't big news or anything, he's got a fairly large chunk of cash. Apparently, Google's spam filter thought the message was just too boring. The numbers themselves say something quite clearly.
* 4.9 million raised since July 1, 2009
* $8.3 million raised for all 2009
* $12.1 million cash on hand
This says a few things. First, that Brown's burn rate is remarkably low. He's spent just over a third of a million dollars in this campaign. Dude is seriously cheap. You could say that is a good thing, but as Robert pointed out yesterday, Brown needs to start reaching out to younger voters. He can traffic on his fame from the 1970s for only so long. At some point he needs to spend a bit of cash to, you know, let the state know that he's running for something.
These would be very impressive numbers, in any other year. However, given that whichever Republican wins what is looking like a bloody primary will still have plenty of cash. In the likely event of a Whitman victory, she has said that she intends on spending $150 million of her own money to buy the race. Ordinarily, Brown's numbers would be a pretty solid pace.
But this year isn't your ordinary year, and Whitman isn't your ordinary Republican. But, don't worry, Jerry Brown will run an aggressive campaign...for whatever office he's running for.
"Jerry Brown has a broad network of supporters all across the state of California," said Brown Campaign Manager Steve Glazer. "We expect to have the resources to mount an aggressive campaign in 2010."
If you believe "them", Jerry Brown is preparing a populist campaign for governor. By them, I mean the consultants in Sacramento that aren't connected to the "campaign", but do have a history in almost winning gubernatorial campaigns. Darry Sragow, who ran Al Checchi's primary campaign, thinks that Brown will use Whitman's wealth and spending on the campaign against her.
"It's building a trap that allows you to ultimately say, 'There she goes again,' " Sragow said. "If you can say early on you are going to see nothing but Meg Whitman on TV because she thinks she can buy the office, you can say, 'See, here she is again.' It's a smart tactic. He's attempting to take one of her strengths to use it against her." (CCT)
And Bill Carrick, who ran media for Phil Angelides in 2006, agrees 150%:
"Whitman and Poizner will both have to deal with the problem of money," Carrick said. "Can a wealthy person be in touch with the reality of California and the economic anxieties Californians are going through? If Brown's smart, he'll be able to stoke some of that."
But the bigger question is where he will be on the issues:
Brown has a history of riding the wave of popular sentiment, from falling in behind the anti-tax mood of Proposition 13 (after initially opposing it) as governor to embracing the state's anti-crime atmosphere during his mayoral stint in Oakland by opposing an effort to weaken California's Three Strikes Law.
As attorney general, Brown has taken on "the big, bad players - the big banks, the Wall Street executives - with a sharp, angry tone, and it resonates well," said Ben Tulchin, a San Francisco-based Democratic political consultant. "If he can build on that and start going after Whitman, it would be very effective and he'd be a credible messenger."
Taking on Whitman so early also "helps fire up the base" and serves to motivate potential donors, Tulchin said.
Of course, all that is predicated on Brown a) announcing at some point and b) actually going for the populist votes. While Brown has actually done a great job of going after the banks in the last 18 months, he hasn't announced what he would do as governor. And while the AG is a critical position, the issues you face in each position are not identical. So, will Brown run on progressive solutions? It's an open question.
Meanwhile, as we pointed out in the Open Thread, there is one candidate running for governor that is taking both progressive and populist positions. He's "Prince" Frederic van Anhalt, Zsa Zsa Gabor's 9th husband. But you needn't make those jokes that you are thinking about the sanctity of marriage, Prince Frederic supports marriage equality. According to his very Homer Simpson website, Prince Freddy wants to overturn Prop 8, believing it unconstitutional.
Throw the Divorce Lawyers a Bone and quiet the Gays. I believe in marriage between men and women, but I am also a defender of the constitution which says equal rights for all. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us.
Aww...how sweet. But, the rest of his platform is really quite progressive. He wants to legalize and tax marijuana, add a ten cent tax on every booze-y drink sold in restaurants, and add a dollar to the taxes on liquor and cigarettes. He supports a oil severance tax, mandatory solar panels on all new buildings and a revised DMV fee structure that charges speeders and drunk drivers a lot more and reduces basic fees. All in all, a pretty populist system he has going on there.
Now, maybe Freddy and Jerry can get together for a cup of coffee or something, and connect the dots somehow.
Field Poll released its polling data on the governor's race (PDF), and it is about what you would expect. Whitman leading Poizner, Brown leading both. But the numbers themselves are worthy of note. First, with Campbell out of the race, Poizner's made it out of the single digits!
Of course, he's only made it out of single digits with the help of Tom Campbell's exit. And Campbell's support seems to have pretty evenly split between Whitman and Poizner. With or without Campbell in the race, Poizner has a long way to go to catch Whitman.
And that's made tougher by the fact that Whitman just dropped another $20 million in the race, likely breaking the all-time record for self-funding. This brings her total to $39 million, but is only the beginning. She has said in the past that she could imagine spending $150 million in the race, much of that coming from her own bank account.
And while it has pretty much buried Poizner's petty self-spending, there's a long way to go to run Jerry Brown under. Brown holds sizable leads over both Whitman (10%) and Poizner (17%).
However, both these figures are down markedly from the last poll in October, when Brown held a 21% lead over Whitman. Of course, this should be expected as Whitman is running media up and down the state, and you know, campaigning.
If you want to see something that should send a shiver up and down any progressive's spine, watch this Whitman campaign video. It's not remarkable so much for the content, I mean, campaigns frequently try to appeal to women. Rather, it is the overwhelming campaign organization that they tangentially discuss. They have paid field staff up and down the state. They have several communications staff. In short, they have an enviable campaign operation that is prepared to wage a campaign for the the 21st century.
This is what you can do when you know you have pretty much unlimited resources. Jerry Brown is doing fine on the fundraising front. He's raised a lot of cash, and his burn rate is stunningly low. Yet, when you are going against a candidate with no real spending restraints, how much money is enough? And when does the campaign begin?
One of my many amusements is to try and figure out the logic behind various organizations polls on any topic. Regarding the CA Gubernatorial Race, I would never have expected a site called Calguns to run a poll and have it come up favoring Jerry Brown, but that is the case. The numbers are so low as to be basically meaningless, but when Jerry Brown (66) leads Constitution Party's Chelene Nightingale (28) by a significant margin, then it is worth exploring. In fact, Brown polled higher than Whitman, Poizner and Campbell combined.
Some of the comments on Jerry:
Jerry. Reward pro-RKBA actions.
I like what Chelene stands for, but at the end of the day Brown has stood up for RKBA. He'll be getting my vote.
After researching Brown extensively, he favors both sides of many issues. I trust him in the manner I trusted Arnold which is why I voted for Art Olivier.
Well, options are nearly up in the prison litigation, so the Schwarzenegger administration and the state legal krew (ie Jerry Brown's firm) are now begging the Supreme Court to muscle up against the 9th Circuit prison litigation panel.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration has made one last plea to the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the legality of a federal court's unprecedented order requiring California to shed nearly 40,000 inmates from its prison system over the next two years.
In court papers filed Tuesday night, state officials urged the Supreme Court to intervene in the case, following up on an appeal filed this past fall seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's orders requiring swift action to relieve prison overcrowding. The Supreme Court will consider the request at its Jan. 15 conference. (SJ Merc)
So, in theory, we should know a lot more when the Court announces its next batch of writs of certiorari. If the Court denies cert, we pretty much know what happens. The Schwarzenegger "Plan B" goes into effect, and the release process is substantially sped up. If the Court accepts the case, expect the legal fight to drag on for another few years.
California may soon experience a deja vu all over again of sorts. The 2010 election cycle may take us back to more than just bellbottoms, platform shoes, and disco. Jerry Brown, former governor of California (1975-1983), has established a 2010 Exploratory Committee for a run for governor.
For those living underneath a rock for the last 40 years, it is worth underscoring that Brown has developed a lengthy political resume. He's served terms on the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees (1969-1971), as California Secretary of State (1971-1975), as Governor of California (1975-1983), as chair of the California Democratic Party (1989-1991), the Mayor of Oakland (1998-2006), and the Attorney General of California (2007-present). He unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nominations for president in 1976, 1980, and 1992, and was an unsuccessful Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in 1982. Since Brown's terms in office are not covered by the term limits that came into effect in 1990, he is not barred from running for Governor again, and has indicated that he plans to run for the office again in 2010.
What was 1970s Governor Brown about? He was opposed to the Vietnam War, supported environmental protection (repealed a tax break for the state's big oil companies while passing tax-breaks for homeowner installation of solar panels), and appointed more women and minorities to office than any other previous California governor. As Governor, he passed landmark legislation to force full disclosure of finance and interest charges by credit card companies, allowed consumers to purchase generic drugs and created the nation's first affordable "life-line" utility rates for seniors and needy residential customers. Brown signed landmark legislation adding public members to regulatory boards that previously had been controlled by industry representatives.
What might the Governor Brown of today be about?
Brown may be a supporter of marriage equality: The State Attorney General normally argues in support of laws that have been passed by the electorate. Brown took an unusual step by declining to defend Proposition 8, a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage.
He will continue to protect the environment: As Attorney General, Brown has led the fight against George Bush's EPA, defended California's landmark tailpipe emission laws and actively promoted local land use policies that reduce oil dependency and global warming.
Brown will fight mortgage fraud and real estate scams: As Attorney General, Brown has pursued companies and individuals who perpetrated massive mortgage fraud, including an $8.6 Billion settlement with Countrywide, and claims that he will also go after those who would further exploit the mortgage crisis by offering fraudulent "rescue" services.
He will support labor: As Attorney General, Brown has sued unscrupulous employers for denying workers wages and benefits required by state law, shut down companies that have jeopardized worker safety and prosecuted businesses that have bilked California's workers' compensation system or otherwise circumvented state tax and employment laws.
Brown will continue protecting consumers: As Attorney General, Brown has made consumer fraud prevention a top priority. In addition to vigorous pursuit of the mortgage scam artists, he has gone after price gouging, false advertising, and contaminated and unsafe products.
He will fight fraud and abuse in California's health care system: As Attorney General, Brown has sued medical laboratories for massive overcharges, stopped rip-offs in the Medi-Cal Program, cracked down on unlawful abuse of prescription drugs, fought misleading ad campaigns by major drug companies and arrested nursing home operators for forcibly drugging elderly patients.
Brown refused to endorse any changes to Prop 13, saying he did not think it was "needed" and that "we've got to downsize government to the maximum degree." He also voiced support for the three-strikes law, and would not take a stance on a "public option" for health care. He did support scrapping the "two-thirds" rule for passing a state budget (but not taxes), and endorsed a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants - but with no candidate running to his left, this was the best that progressives can hope from Jerry Brown. Given California's mammoth problems that need immediate attention, that's depressing.
It will be interesting to see what the new year brings as Brown faces formidable Republican candidates Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, and Tom Campbell.
In a new PPIC poll, Attorney General Jerry Brown narrowly leads Meg Whitman for the governor's race.
Whitman dominates with 32 percent support among Republican voters, leading former South Bay Rep. Tom Campbell by 20 points and state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner by 24 points, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's first survey on the 2010 governor's race.
*** *** ***
Brown, a former mayor of Oakland, leads Whitman, who has never run for public office, by just six points, 43 to 37 percent. He holds more robust leads over Campbell, the former state finance director and dean of UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, 46 to 34 percent, and wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur Poizner, 47 to 31 percent.(SF Chronicle)
The numbers are solidifying a bit, as the Republicans get to know their three candidates. The right-wing grassroots activists still aren't all that excited with their candidates, but a consensus seems to be settling around Meg Whitman.
As for Jerry Brown, I still feel that despite Brown's protestations, he should have announced his candidacy by now. I understand his desire to just do his job, but in the here and now of campaigning for such a high profile position, a robust campaign operation is nearly mandatory. I have faith that Brown can build a team to win as he starts spending money in the new year, but I would prefer to see a lot more groundwork being laid now. This race is a bit too close for comfort.
UPDATE by Robert: The crosstabs are even more damning about Brown's weak standing with what should be his base. His favorability among Democrats is 52% favorable, 19% unfavorable, with 29% undecided. That's actually pretty low for such a high-profile Dem. Among independents it's much worse: 34-39, with 23% undecided.
Brown also has potentially big problems with younger voters. Voters under age 35 - who, ironically enough, were either born in the year Brown was first elected governor, 1974, or later - have a whopping 69% "no opinion" of the once and future governor.
This all proves the point I've been making often this fall, which is that unless Brown can excite progressives and younger voters, he is going to have an extremely difficult time winning this election. The canoe theory appears to have sprung a leak.
In last week's post progressive voters on strike? Santa Barbara blogger Retired UC Santa Barbara Professor of sociology and renowned social activist, Richard Flacks looks at recent polls showing Democratic voters to be unenthusiastic about voting while Republican voters are highly motivated. Professor Flacks writes,
Attorney General Jerry Brown responds to the festering scandal surrounding the sale of the OC Fair Ground with a stunning move in a letter dated December 1st to the Chair of the OC Fair Board.
The AG's initial response was as an attorney representing a state agency, with the the 32nd Agricultural District Fair Board as a client. But he put the staff to work, found the relevant section of the law, and has left the eight Fair Board members and Orange County Republican insiders on their own.
In the letter from Matt Rodriguez, the ranking staff attorney in the AG's office, there's one killer sentence.
"Given the seemingly intertwined and potentially conflicting interests of the District, the District Board members and the nonprofit, we have determined that we should withdraw from providing legal services."
This may read like a simple bureaucratic letter, but in fact it's a stunning rebuke to the political appointees at the Orange County Fair Board. When you're a state agency, the Attorney General is your attorney. In general, when your attorney quits you, it's a devastating sign that you've really screwed the pooch. When your attorney is the Attorney General of the State of California, and he quits, it's probably time for a bunch of folks to be looking for criminal attorneys.
Jerry Brown acted decisively and quickly here, given the necessity of acting in the best interest of the state.
Rasmussen polls always skew a bit to the right. As long as you know to take that grain of salt, they retain some meaning. And so while you'd toss a few points towards Jerry Brown, this is still a discomforting poll:
With nearly a year until the general election, a new Rasmussen Reports poll puts GOP gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman and still-undeclared Democratic contender Jerry Brown locked in a tie with41 percent support a piece.
The results show Whitman gaining traction since a September Rasmussen survey, in which Brown outpolled Whitman 44 percent to 35 percent.(SacBee)
Putting aside any substantive issues that any of us may have wit Brown, the dithering in announcing his candidacy is hurting the Democratic hopes of recapturing the governor's seat. Whitman and Poizner are now dictating the conversation of this election, and whether Brown wants to admit that he's a candidate or not, he is the Democratic standard bearer. And right now, there is no Democrat articulating the values and ideas that the party stands for.
Whatever else you can say about Gavin Newsom, at least he bothered to notify the press that he was running for governor. With his exit from the race, the press simply defines the story on Republican terms.
Enough of this dithering from Brown already. If he wants to run for governor, great, fantastic, let's do it. But Brown needs to realize that he just can't skate through without bothering to announce that he's running.
In response to formal requests from legal counsel from the OC Board of Supervisors, the Attorney General's office has responded by advising that the blatant violations of the law be prosecuted by the local DA, who stood silent as Sheriff Carona became such a cancer that federal prosecutors intervened.
Is Jerry Brown out of touch? How does he think he'll get the votes of over half a million Democrats in Orange County if he continues to blow off the scandal surrounding the sale of the Orange County Fairgrounds?
The story is simple yet complex. Eight patronage appointees of the Governor run a state agency, the 32nd Agricultural district, which runs the Orange County Fair. Until scandals erupted, they gave themselves and their friends hundreds of thousand of dollars a year in free passes and front-row concert tickets. Sheriff Mike Carona's wife Debbie was a Fair Board Director, and there are reports of a concert where 300 of her friends had free tickets to a sold-out concert.
Earlier this year, the Fair Board lobbied to have the state sell the Fairgrounds as part of a budget package and simultaneously created a corporation to buy the Fairgrounds.
The details have trickled out, but it's an ugly story where the rule of law was a victim.
And the legal representative for the Fair Board has been a Deputy Attorney General, somehow silent or complicit while there was an open conspiracy to violate public meeting laws, as well as clear conflicts of interests, and failure to comply with laws regarding lobbyists.
Does Jerry know about the scandal himself?
Yep, I cornered him at the E-Board meeting, where he admitted he was aware of the issue. He can't deny that he is protecting his inept Deputy AG's, while ignoring a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayers of the state, with blatant conflicts of interests, a conspiracy to violate open meeting laws and illegal lobbying by Dick Ackerman.
The story started with coverage of the Fair Board by one local blog, where activists alerted us the stench and we've been writing about this since February. This OC Progressive post that was cross-posted at Calitics lays out the story.
The Attorney General's office is the legal representative for the 32nd Agricultural district, which controls the Fairgrounds, and the Deputy AG who has been at the meetings has been disappeared, with an email address that bounces back and a disconnected voice mail.
Democrats now have a candidate with a knit hat and a red and white striped sweater, hiding in the background of the picture.
It is a rare day that every major candidate for the California governor's race is from Northern California, but that's they way it is today. And specifically, all three Republicans are from the Silicon Valley. It's generally a Democratic leaning area, as it is hard to find a Republican in the Bay Area at all. But in the Valley, Republicans tend to be the less dogmatic type than you'd find in the Central Valley. They'll focus less on social issues and more on their own pocket books. They want a generally functional government, but would like to get it on the cheap.
And that's why despite the fact that all three candidates are from the area, Tom Campbell's wonky campaign carries some sway. In a poll by San Jose State's Survey & Public Research Institute (PDF, Campbell was shown with a pretty hefty lead in Silicon Valley. While the poll was quite small and the margin of error was huge (6.9%), the size of the lead means there is something to this data. Campbell is at 39%, Whitman 11%, Poizner 7, and the famous "Undecided" at 41.
Campbell is a wonk and a bit of a nerd. And perhaps that is what is playing so well down there. Or perhaps it is the fact that he has represented much of the region when he was in Congress. But for whatever reason, Silicon Valley Republicans are leaning hard for Campbell. The question with Campbell in this race is always the money question. Can he come up with enough cash to really compete with Whitman and Poizner. He can't self finance, and he'll need to spend a hefty chunk of change to really make any headway with the right-wing base of the party.
However, if Campbell does manage to squeak out, he probably makes for a very tough campaign for the Democratic nominee, whether it be Jerry Brown or some other late announcing candidate. While his "solutions" tend to be pretty much the same as his former boss, Arnold Schwarzenegger, he is still able to talk the moderate talk.
Former AG spokesman Scott Gerber's secret recording of 6 phone calls is still haunting AG Jerry Brown. Over the last week, various Republican elected officials, candidates, and organizations have called on Brown to appoint an independent investigator. Most recently, the California Republican Lawyer's Association asked the San Francisco and Alameda District Attorneys to look into the matter. A large chunk of the AG's offices are in fact in those two counties.
Today, Brown asked the Alameda DA's office to review the matter. Gerber had been working out of the AG's Oakland office, so it seems to make the most sense.
In an apparent attempt to head off Republican criticism of its internal inquiry into a secret audio taping controversy, Attorney General Jerry Brown has asked the Alameda County District Attorney's office to look into the matter.
"They've invited our office to review it, so that's what we're doing," said Kevin Dunleavy, chief assistant district attorney at the Alameda County office. "It will be assigned to somebody in the office who will review the circumstances."
The Attorney General's office made the request on Friday, two days after the California Republican Lawyers Association asked the district attorney's offices in Alameda and San Francisco counties for an independent investigation into the secret recording conducted by Brown's former communication director, Scott Gerber. (CoCo Times 11/16/09)
Of course, there is another side of this story that brings the right-wing boogyman, ACORN. The "filmmakers" who secretly recorded the ACORN incidents down in Southern California are, of course, subject to the same laws. Joe Garofoli in today's chronicle highlights the perilous position that Brown is now in because of these two situations occurring at the same time.
If he charges the filmmakers, he'll be accused of hypocrisy because he chose not to bring charges against his own spokesman, who has admitted secretly recording journalists. If he doesn't bring charges against the filmmakers, he faces criticism from grassroots liberals and supporters of ACORN, which Republicans have also accused of voter fraud. (SF Cronicle)
As of right now, the right has made much of the Gerber situation, while the Left hasn't really pressured Brown too far on the ACORN issue. How long that remains the case likely depends on how long the ACORN probe lingers and what we get in results.
In the article, Steve Maviglio, questions whether now might be the time for Brown to consider actually building an actual campaign instead of the one man Steve Glazer operation. Whatever he elects to do, it is clear that Brown is now in the right-wing cross hairs.
At the (CYD Caucus) CDP poolside shindig last night, the big news was that I missed the tamales on the buffet. I was enraged! I was more enraged by the fact that Jerry Brown took the last one.
Ok, Ok, I kid. The real big news was the converstaion between Brown and CDP Chair John Burton. As Brown and Burton were engaged in small talk, Calitics reader lindasutton came up and brought up the question of single payer.
Brown responded by saying it was never going to happen. That it wasn't going to happen at the federal level, and that he wasn't sure about it at the state level. Burton then interjected saying that it would, and should, happen. After Brown hemmed and hawed for a while, saying that it wouldn't happen, Burton responded with this remark: "I thought you were supposed to reach beyond the stars."
I'm not quite sure what Brown's response was, as it was a bit mumbled. I think it was something to the effect of it's not going to happen. A remarkable evening, all in all.
UPDATE by Robert: I too was standing there, tamale-less, watching this fascinating exchange between two of the leading California politicians of the 1960s and 1970s. It was an interesting contrast in basic political approaches. Burton emphasizes progressive principles - his older brother Phil created the Medi-Cal program in the early 1960s and he believes that single-payer is the right solution to the health care crisis. Brown emphasizes a pragmatic approach, one that will never embrace a progressive solution on its merits unless it is already popular with voters.
Interestingly, Brown's statement on single-payer - "it'll never happen" - is the same position President Barack Obama has. The difference of course is that Obama was able to create a campaign based on a clear message of hope and change that was able to generate high levels of enthusiasm among progressives to help him win. Brown, on the other hand, hasn't yet offered any larger vision for progressives to embrace, so his dismissal of single-payer is going to be more of an obstacle.
Marcy Winograd, who is again challenging Jane Harman for the Democratic nomination in CA-36, suggested an interesting approach to this: progressives should tell Brown if/when he wins that "we celebrate your victory and look forward to you singing the single-payer bill."
California may soon experience a deja vu all over again of sorts. The 2010 election cycle may take us back to more than just bellbottoms, platform shoes, and disco. Jerry Brown, former governor of California (1975-1983), has established a 2010 Exploratory Committee for a run for governor.
Brown may be a supporter of marriage equality: The State Attorney General normally argues in support of laws that have been passed by the electorate. Brown took an unusual step by declining to defend Proposition 8, a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage.