There are a few people I disdain in California politics: Susan Kennedy, Garry South, Randy Thomasson.  I’m typically pretty reserved about casting my vitriol on the ignorant.  This is one story of the ignorant:

Some of Hollywood’s most influential Democrats are throwing their support behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reelection bid, following the lead of Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and media mogul Haim Saban.

Schwarzenegger’s campaign sent out hundreds of invitations this week to an event — hosted by Sherry Lansing, Casey Wasserman, Danny DeVito and wife Rhea Perlman, director James Cameron and more than two dozen others — asking the Hollywood glitterati to donate up to $22,300 each to attend a fundraiser for the Republican governor at Saban’s Beverly Hills estate on Sept. 30. (LA Times 9/15/06)

You see, it’s not that the Hollywood types really support Arnold’s agenda.  Rather it’s a matter of ignorance and starf$%*ing.  Most of the Hollywood types that are coming out to support Arnold a) don’t really know what Arnold’s true agenda really is b) know Arnold as a friend. 

Part of the blame must lie at our own feet.  We have not given many liberals a reason to support us.  I met Gary Hart yesterday, the former Senator and presidential candidate.  He recenty wrote a a book entitled Courage of Our Convictions, that lays out the importance of a pole.  If Dems aim for the middle and the GOP aims for the right, where does the true political center move?  To the right of course.  We need to annunciate a national vision that gives voters and donors our values.  When we consistenly give voters a reason to support the party, we will consistently get voters to support our candidates. 

(Hmmm…sounds fishy – promoted by SFBrianCL)

We all make mistakes. Even me. However, very few of us make mistakes this big.

First, a little background. Some state and local government employees (iclunding myself) are required, under California law, to disclose any real estate, stock or other financial interests that may present a potential conflict of interest. I’m sure many emplyees might forget a few shares of stock, or if a spouse’s parent company may do business in a given locale. But $6 million?

San Francisco Board of Supervisors candidate Jaynry Mak failed to disclose her ownership interest in real estate valued at more than $6 million and the income she received from it while working as a city legislative aide, public records show.

As an aide to Supervisor Fiona Ma, Mak was one of hundreds of city employees and elected officials required to annually report real estate and stock holdings, income and other financial information to comply with government conflict of interest laws.

Mak, a 29-year-old lawyer who quit her city job earlier this year to run for the Board of Supervisors seat being vacated by her former boss, said her failure to disclose the information was a mistake and an innocent oversight — one she corrected this summer as she began her campaign.

Sure, innocent like Paris Hilton is “innocent”. And this isn’t even the first time she had to explain herself.

Earlier this summer, Mak was forced to explain her involvement with a real estate partnership that paid $5 million for property near the future home of a proposed 49ers football stadium development.

The acquisition took place while Mak was still a legislative aide and before an announcement by the football team about its plans for a stadium and residential project at Candlestick Point. Though Mak was listed only as an agent for the real estate partnership, her involvement raised questions about whether members of the partnership had access to inside information from City Hall before buying the land.

Then last month, Mak’s campaign also faced questions about whether it reported the true source of several political donations from people in low-wage jobs — maids, handymen, garment workers and line cooks — who gave her $500, the maximum amount allowed by law.

Mak has said the donations simply reflect friends of hers and her family and others whom she has helped over the years digging deep to show their support and gratitude. Still, the city attorney has opened an investigation in the matter at the request of the Ethics Commission, which enforces local campaign finance laws, sources familiar with the investigation said…..

Public records show that in 2004 Mak became joint owner with her mother of a property on Noriega Street in the Inner Sunset District valued at $811,486. For two years, she did not declare her stake in the single-family home on annual economic interest disclosures as she was required as an aide to Ma.

In 2005, Mak, along with her husband or parents, spent nearly $5.7 million to buy four separate west-side San Francisco properties, records show. She didn’t declare those homes on disclosure forms for that year either.

Mak eventually reported them — and the fact that she collects at least $40,000 a year in rent from the properties — on disclosure she filed in August, as she left City Hall and began her campaign for supervisor.

The contributions may be a little shady, but it looks more like business as usual than anything else. However, to fail to report million in holdings is not an innocent slip-up, and tell me that she is either incredibly dumb, incredibly corrupt……or both.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

PPIC came out with an interesting study of the electorate yesterday.  It’s really rather interesting, and somewhat depressing for progressives in this state. A quick summary: whites are rapidly becoming a reducing minority in the population as a whole, but will maintain their voting majority for some years to come.  Why? Because minorities have been negligent in exercising their voting priviliges.  Frank has a great post at CPR:

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has released a report today based on interviews with thousands of our state’s residents—voting and nonvoting adults—which shows that if nonvoters made their voices heard at the ballot box, political realities that are taken for given and policies that appear to be set in stone would change by 180 degrees.

California would provide more services and pay higher taxes. Nonvoters prefer higher taxes with more services to lower taxes and fewer services 66% to 26%, but likely voters are in favor only 49 to 44%.

Even Proposition 13, limiting property taxes, might be changed—or at least a dialogue started. Nonvoters think this has been a bad policy by 47 to 29%, but likely voters think it has been good by 56 to 33%. CPR 9/13/06

Now, these are all interesting remarks.  Robert Salladay, at the LA Times Blog Political Muscle posted about it too.  However, Bob got a little sloppy with his wording:

Some good news for pessimists today: California is headed toward a political system dominated by a white minority which votes and sets public policy at the ballot box, while Latinos and other ethnic groups that make up the majority of California’s population sit on the sidelines.(Political Muscle 9/14/06)

You see, that’s some sloppy blogging right there. And Kos called him out on it  in one of his famous fly-by one liners. That’s some language that would have gotten filtered out in your typical LA Times editorial process.  But he left all that behind.  Now, he’s just blogging, and he’s learning that it’s not so easy after all.  If you read the sentence a couple of times, it’s not really racist.  Rather, he’s saying it’s really a bad thing.  I.e., good news for pessimists: you got some bad news.

So, no I don’t think Bob Salladay was trying to be racist, but he’ll learn that he’ll have to be his own editor now.