This is culled from a comment by rocketman0621 on a diary about the federal court ruling against Jessica’s law.

  Many politicians, especially Republicans, would like all of society to believe that ALL sex offenders are predators lurking in every corner of our communities ready to jump at every opportunity to abduct and assault our children. They try to twist reality by playing on our worst fears as parents by instigating rage in all of us with assistance from the media by sensationalizing child abduction cases as examples why we should banish ALL sex offenders. The truth, however, is that not all sex offenders are like the ones we see on TV. The great majority of them are first offenders who’s offenses are misdemeanors. After all, there is a legal basis why our justice system classifies certain offenses as misdemeanors and that is because they are much less serious than felonies. Check the legal dictionary if you don’t believe me. Now, don’t get me wrong. I hate sexual predators especially those who victimize children. Like most people, I absolutely believe that these sex predators should be monitored closely upon their release from prison or be it as Jessica’s Law put it – sent away to a place where they would not be able to harm children. My beef with this law is that it lumps all people in the registry as a predator and subjects them to a one-size-fits-all punishment.

When someone kills another, our justice system makes every effort to determine the degree and circumstances to which the slaying was carried out. Hence, there is murder one, passion killing, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, etc. Why can’t we apply the same logic when we are dealing with sex offenders? Is it fair to treat sex offenders much worse than murderers, robbers, carjackers, drug dealers and the rest? I don’t think so because each of these other criminals are potential sex offenders also. If they have the will and audacity to commit these non-sex crimes, what makes you think they will never commit a sex crime? In fact, many sex offenders have other criminal records as well. Hence, it makes no sense whatsoever for our society to be cleansed of sex offenders while these other criminals live in our midst without any restrictions. Are our children really any safer?

Jessica’s Law attempts to punish again and again and again and again those who committed thier indiscretions decades ago with no regard to the level of seriousness in each offense. Most of these people have paid their debts to society, regretted their mistakes, and have lived law-abiding lives ever since. It must be difficult enough to find steady employment and to live a normal life when your face and private information are posted all over the Internet.  Had these past offenders known decades ago what their lives would be like under Jessica’s Law today, most of them might not even have the audacity to commit their crimes. It’s plain and simple. You cannot apply today’s rules to those who made an error in judgement in a different time.  It’s changing the rules in the middle (or in this case, in the end) of the game. That is simply not permitted in the Constitution. As a society, we simply cannot allow these twisted politicians who are using our children and playing with our fears to get elected to get away with these constitutional violations. Imagine what’s in store for us if Jessica’s Law becomes the precedent. Next thing we know, we’ll have new punishments for those who were convicted of DUI, theft, drug-offense, white-collar crimes, etc. Is that what we really want? Sex offense is a hot button issue now with all the media attention, but in a few years another crime will be the focus of modern persecution. Watch out illegal immigrants!

I’m not done. These same politicians who author these crazy laws offer children safety as their primary reason why they do it. Why is it then that they don’t try to be just as aggressive in combatting the murder of innocent children in the inner cities of America? Every year, hundreds of children are shot and killed in drug and gang violence in many metropolitan areas, but there doesn’t seem to be as much hysteria and call for crackdowns on these senseless killing compare to when one white suburban child is killed by a sex offender. Are the lives of rich suburban children more precious than those children in impoverished areas? There are just as many minority children that are molested and assaulted as their suburban counterparts. We have Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law, Adam’s Law, but why isn’t there a push to have a law named after any of the minority children killed? Perhaps Michael Richards can explain it to us better.

I’m afraid we are becoming a paranoid society paralyzed by our irrational fears over crimes that have not yet been committed. Our corrupt politicians want to punish offenders for their perceived future crimes based on their past records. There is, however, an alternative motive for these politicians to append their names in these stupid laws. It’s a great platform for them to win people’s admiration and votes come election time. It is something they can brag about to their contituents. Whether these laws actually save lives is questionable. In fact, lawmakers in places like Iowa who pioneered these residency restriction laws are now working to repeal it because it caused more problems rather than provide solutions. Think about it. When you have thousands of offenders who went underground due to the unreasonable provisions of the law, are our children any safer? When you have thousands of deranged, suicidal offenders who’s lives and families have been torn to pieces with nothing to look forward to and nothing to hold them back, are our children any safer?

It’s time to stop the persecution and allow those who are rehabitable to get their second chance to prove their humanity. After all, we all make mistakes. Some of us are just lucky enough to not have been caught with our indiscretions. Ironically, many of the lawmakers who work so diligently – and hypocritically – to pass these laws are themselves guilty of the very same offenses they are warning us about. I wonder how many more Mark Foleys are out there. Let us concentrate on the most dangerous and deserving of society’s wrath and remove these unconstitutional barriers on the minor offenders who have learned their lessons and are trying hard to re-integrate themselves into the society.

The transcript is now available on MSNBC. (h/t to Shane).  Also on that show was our very own crazy Duncan Hunter.  You know, he’s running for President.  Hey! Stop laughing!

Some highlights? Well, Schwarzenegger says he wants a timeline in Iraq, he’s conservative, moderate, and progressive (you choose the categories)…ah well, I guess you can read the transcript.  I put the Arnold part in the extended.

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: One year ago the Republican governor of California had an approval rating of just 32 percent. His disapproval: sky-high at 58 percent. And yet, two weeks ago, in the midst of a national Democratic landslide, he was overwhelmingly re-elected.

(Videotape):

GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R-CA): I love doing sequels, I tell you. But this, without any doubt, is my favorite sequel.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: How did he do it? What can politicians and the Republican Party learn from his victory? This morning, an exclusive interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California.

Then, Iraq. Pentagon insiders say the U.S. has three options: go big, go long, or go home. What should we do? With us: the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Republican Duncan Hunter and Democrat Ike Skelton; and the former commander in chief, U.S. Special Operations, retired General Wayne Downing; and the former commander in chief, U.S. Southern Command, retired General Barry McCaffrey. Hunter, Skelton, Downing and McCaffrey on Iraq. Where do we go from here?

But first, joining us now is the newly re-elected Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Governor, congratulations and welcome.

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you very much. Thank you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me again show you and our viewers these numbers, because they are amazing. A year ago, here you were, 32 percent approval, 58 disapproval. And here are the election results from just about two weeks ago:

Schwarzenegger, 56 percent; your Democratic opponent, 39 percent.

TEXT:CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR

[photo shown]  Arnold Schwarzenegger  R

INCUMBENT  56%

[photo shown] Phil Angelides  D

39%

MR. RUSSERT: Joel Kotkin in The Wall Street Journal did a little analysis of your race, and this is what he concluded: “Amidst the Republican rout, some important political lessons can be drawn from the results in California. Oft dismissed by conservatives as `the left coast’ and written off as hopelessly blue, the state election revealed some critical trends that may prove decisive – for both parties – in 2008 and beyond.

“Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 17-point victory alone commands some attention, since it is easily the most impressive score by any Republican in a Democratic-leaning state this year – and it suggests a future for pro-environment, pro-business, fiscally conservative and socially moderate politics. …

“The key to Mr. Schwarzenegger’s victory lay not in seducing the left, but through his mastery of the state’s rising independent center.” Do you agree with that?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Yeah, I agree with that, but I think that the key thing is is that, you know, if you forget about the Republicans, Democrats, independents and all this, I think that we did the people’s work. And we did what the people wanted us to do. And so it doesn’t really matter what party you come from. I think the people appreciate that and they know that you’re working together, that you can provide the kind of leadership to bring both of the parties together, and do the kind of things that need to be done for the state. And I think that’s what we have done.

And it was really miraculous in a way, for California, because it was election year, like every other state, and Democrats and Republicans came together in a very unique way, and we have accomplished more than in decades. It was one of the most productive legislative sessions in decades. And I think that was really terrific, and I have to congratulate, you know, both Democrats and Republicans, because both of them made that happen.

MR. RUSSERT: George Lewis, who works for NBC News, did an analysis, and he talked about the specific issues that you focused on. And let’s look at that.  “Schwarzenegger did something that is unheard of in politics these days, he said, `I messed up. I was wrong.’ And he made a hard turn to the center politically and started working with the Democrats, who control the state legislature. … The new Schwarzenegger backs stem cell research. … He also favors a measure, that was written by Democrats, to increase the minimum wage here in California and to combat global warming. So the new Schwarzenegger is a moderate.” Is that fair?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, no, because I have always been a moderate. When I came into office three years ago, you and I talked about it then. I, I was, you know, promoting and pushing stem cell research then already, literally.  Like, I was not even in office when I was already out there campaigning for stem cell research. I think this is just a very important issue.

And we shouldn’t look at those issues as Republican issues or-vs. Democratic issues, or conservative vs. liberal. It is just-these are people’s issues.  We need to address those issues because I think that if we really promote stem cell research and fund stem cell research, I think we can find cures for very, very important-illnesses that so many millions of people are suffering from.  And I think that if it is-has to do with global warming, or if it has to do with raising the minimum wage, or if it has to do with lowering prescription drugs for vulnerable citizens-all of those things are people issues, not Democratic issues or Republican issues, and I think we were able to bring both of the parties together and accomplish all of those things.

MR. RUSSERT: But it is unusual, governor. Most politicians come on MEET THE PRESS, and they’ll say, “I am consistent, I’ve never changed my mind. I still do the same things.”

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: And when you went to the people on four different voter initiatives and lost them all, and you took on the unions, you took on the Democrats, you said, “I made a mistake.”

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, the mistake was not on what we were trying to do, because we need the reforms, and I think slowly we are seeing reforms happening in California. But what was wrong in-was the approach. To go and to say to the legislators, “I give you two months, and if you don’t agree with all of those things that I put on the table here in my State of the State address, then I will go to the people.” Well, the people really, you know, rejected that. They basically have said to us, “Don’t come to us with every initiative and with every idea. You fix it in the capital. That’s why we elect you, to go to the capital, and Democrats and Republicans work together.” And that’s exactly-we all got the message.

Last November, the Democrats and the Republicans got the message that the people want us to work together at the capital. And this is what we did. We sat down and we looked at each other and said, “Let us do this year the work of the people that the people really want us to do,” and that’s exactly what we have done. And both of the parties worked together, and I think we have accomplished so much because of that. And I think it just-I think if there’s any lesson in there is that we have to look-nationwide, we have to look at it much more like what is it that the people need, rather than what is good for our party. You know, that is, I think, the key thing here.

MR. RUSSERT: The last time you were on, I said, “Are you going to run as a Bush Republican?” You said, “No, I’m going to run as an Arnold Republican.”

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: What’s an Arnold Republican?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, it’s basically being fiscally conservative, being socially moderate and you know, being environmentally progressive. I think that’s what it basically means. And you know, Tim, one of the most important things, I think, that this nation is facing is that we-while we must see economic progress-and I think we have had great progress economically and I think the Bush administration hasn’t gotten enough credit for that, the jobs are coming back, we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years or so, the economy’s booming-But we also have to protect the environment at the same time, and that’s what we are doing in California. And I think this is something that this country has to do. We have to show leadership in protecting our environment so that we have a future for our children and grandchildren.

MR. RUSSERT: It’s interesting how you have stepped out on the green movement, on global warming. I, I’ll show you something about a fellow Republican, Jim Inhofe, he’s chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and he says this back in August of `03: “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.” What will those kinds of statements do to the Republican Party in the future, in your mind?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I don’t think it does-it does much to the Republican Party. I think it is just, you know, there’s always in history been people that are back with their thinking in the Stone Age. And I think that the key thing for us is, is to not pay any attention to those things, because as I said, the science is in, we know the facts, there’s not any more debate as to global warming or not. We have global warming and the fact also is that we can do something about it. We can slow it down or we can stop it, but only if everyone is working together.

The United States is, you know, 5 percent of the world population but we’re using 25 percent of the oil. So I mean, you know, we are creating 25 percent of the pollution of the greenhouse gas emissions with a 5 percent population.  So of course, the rest of the world is looking at us kind of, you know, in an odd way, saying, “Why are they preaching to us and why are they trying to be, you know, so righteous about all of this?” Let us all work together on this.  And I think that’s what we have to do.

California-the states in the United States are not waiting anymore for the federal government to provide leadership. We are going off on our own. We are providing leadership. The Northeastern states, Pataki and all of those guys, are providing leadership in the Northeastern states. I think that you will see more and more states joining to show leadership in protecting the environment, or showing leadership in lowering the prescription drugs, or showing leadership in increasing the minimum wage. All of those kind of things-oh, and solar energy-and all those kind of things. I think that the states are providing this leadership and working together with other states and doing regional partnerships rather than waiting for the, for the United States, for the, for the federal government to do those things.

MR. RUSSERT: As you chart this independent course, a lot of conservative Republicans get upset with you. The National Review wrote this about Arnold Schwarzenegger: “Behold the new Arnold, a man bearing little resemblance to the revolutionary who toppled Governor Gray Davis just three years ago. He’s politically compliant, eager to please, and anxious to avoid a fight. One might say … a girlie man.” That’s the National Review. How do you deal with those kinds of words?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: They’re absolutely correct that I’m eager to please the people. I’m eager to please the voters because I’m a public servant. I don’t see myself as a politician. I see myself as a public servant. I serve the people of California. I serve Democrats and Republicans, and if someone says that, that I’m eager to please, yes, I am. I’m there to please the people.  That’s what this is all about. People send us to our capital to represent them and to work for them. That’s what we are going to do.

And let me tell you something. I think that the key thing is that when I came into office in California, we had really no vision at that point what the future of California is. No one knew where we were going to go. Now, we know. We’ve just passed a $37 billion infrastructure bond package. We’re going to rebuild California. And you know something? We’re going to clean our environment and we’re going to contribute and do our share.

And I think that that is the question of this presidential race that’s coming up in 2008. Are those issues addressed? Is-are the other candidates talking about, where’s America going to be in 2020? Where are we going to be environmentally? Where we going to be with our dependence on fossil fuel?  Are we going to get off fossil fuel? Is there a goal where we say, “We’re going to be 50 percent more self-sufficient and to go-and to rely more on hydrogen fuel or on, on biofuel?” All of those kind of alternative fuels, I think this is what we have to look at. Are we going to be a nation that’s going to rebuild our infrastructure? Because our infrastructure nationwide is, is falling apart, it’s aging right now. We in California have made a commitment to rebuild our infrastructure, to rebuild our roads, our schools, our levees, and all of those kind of things.

But those are the questions for the future. Will we-are we going to fix the problems that we have the unfunded liabilities with our pensions all over the United States, which is by the billions and billions and billions of dollars.  Are we really going to create accountability in education so we really produce the smartest kids possible? So all-those are the issues that we have to address.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the issues that are confronting you is the continuing deficit in California and also the six million uninsured, without health insurance. The San Jose Mercury wrote an editorial on Friday and said this, “While other states have been racking up surpluses and squirreling away money, California has run up deficits and piled on debt. That can’t continue. In the latest five-year forecast, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projects a $5 billion deficit in the coming year and a $4 billion deficit the year after. … Now, something’s got to give – either Gov. Schwarzenegger’s vow not to raise taxes or his campaign pledges to fix health care and reform education. The latter should be the priority. He shouldn’t abandon promises on behalf of students and the [6 million] uninsured. … Schwarzenegger should swallow hard and consider taxes: either a dedicated tax, like raising the tobacco tax, or a temporary tax. … [Another] option worth exploring: expanding the sales tax to include some professional services in exchange for reducing the sales tax rate.” How do you juggle that?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, Tim, when I came into office, they said exactly the same thing: I got to raise taxes, I got to raise taxes, please raise taxes by at least 5 billion or $8 billion a year. And I said, “No. We’re going to stimulate the economy,” and that’s exactly what we’ve done, we’ve stimulated the economy. Now our revenues went up by $20 billion, first from 76 billion to $96 billion without raising taxes. That is the way to go. I think what we have to do in the future is, is we’ve got to go and pay down our debt, which we have been doing. And we have done a tremendous job of bringing down the structural deficit from $16 ½ billion when I took office to now $4 ½ billion. And we’re going to come down further this year and we’re going to eliminate it by next year or the year after that. I think that’s what we need to do. Never raise taxes, it wouldn’t happen. The people of California have voted “no” on all the tax increases this year, if it is the tobacco tax, if it is any kind of additional tax, everything was voted no on, including the nurses, as you remember, the nurses’ association, they have had a proposition on there to raise taxes, everything was voted no, including, including the oil tax.

MR. RUSSERT: And you’ll still take-you’ll still take care of the uninsured and education?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: No, absolutely, because we are-this year is the year where we go-this coming year-where Democrats and Republicans are going to work together to fix our health care problem. First of all, we have to bring down the health care costs, we have to make it more affordable to provide health care. Number two, we’ve got to insure everybody, because we have 6.7 million people that are uninsured, and we’re working right now on the various different ideas, we’re going to bring those ideas together, I’m going to present this in my State of the State address. But this is the next big challenge. Look, if we could face the challenge and fix our infrastructure problem and approve a $37 billion infrastructure package, we can also solve the health care problem. We’re going to solve all of those things. Democrats and Republicans are very determined in California to say, “We have certain problems that have been problems for decades, and we’re going to go out now and fix it.” And that is what is so wonderful about it, bringing both of the parties together.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re a Republican winning in California, a blue state, in a Democratic year. People would have you on the short list for the Republican nomination in 2008. But they can’t for one reason: You were not born in the United States. Is that fair?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I concentrate on the things that I as an immigrant was able to do in, in California and America. I mean, the things that I was able to do, I mean, look at me, I’m governor of California, I have been the highest-paid actor, action star, bodybuilding champion, made millions of dollars, I have the most unbelievable family, the most fantastic wife, the greatest children-look at all the things that I was able to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’ve been a, you’ve been a citizen…

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I concentrate on those things, what I was able to do as an immigrant…

MR. RUSSERT: But you’ve been a citizen…

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: …not what I was not able to do.

MR. RUSSERT: You’ve been a citizen for 23 years, shouldn’t you have an opportunity to run for president?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, you’re talking now about complete and total immigration reform, right?

MR. RUSSERT: The Arnold Amendment.

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: The Arnold-exactly. No. No, no. But I think that, you know, I think that it will never happen in my lifetime. I think that it’s something that the people of America can debate over in the, in the future.  And this is a debate worth happening. You know, let the debate go on, but I mean, it’s not for me. I’m happy where I am; I’m happy to be a public servant and to serve the people of California. And I will go around, and-around the country, and I will be talking in the future about the issues that are important for the country because I love America. And I think that if we all work together, Democrats and Republicans, we can solve all of those problems, because after all, let’s face it, we are the greatest nation in the world, and we are the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. And, you know, I think that we can do it all, including fix our problem with Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you stay a Republican?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Oh, absolutely. Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Who you going to support in `08?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I don’t know yet, but I’m going to look at the candidates, and I’m going to look at, “Are those candidates, you know, are they really able to look at and create a great vision for the future?” I think this is the most important thing. We got to look at where would America be in 2020? What would this country be like, you know? Because the key thing is, did we get off our reliance on fossil fuel. The key thing is that we are cleaning our environment, that we contribute to really slow down the global warming, and that we continue with our economic stimulation and creating jobs, and really helping our most vulnerable citizens. We, we got to concentrate on those things, and also rebuild our infrastructure. Candidates that talk about those issues are the candidates that I will be looking seriously at.

MR. RUSSERT: Is anybody doing that now?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that all of our candidates that’re out there are talking about this, but I will see as time goes on when they really zero in on those subjects.

MR. RUSSERT: How about in 2010 when your term is over? Would you consider running for the U.S. Senate against Barbara Boxer?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: You know, I’m not really thinking about what I’m doing in 2010. I’m not ruling anything out, but I’m not really thinking about any of that. I’m thinking about, now, moving California forward, making sure that we create more accountability in education in California, fixing our health care problems to insure everybody that is uninsured. I mean, those are the kind of-and how we build California. I think those are the very important issues.

And then we have also a huge crisis with our prisons in California. We got to have prison reform so we don’t have a almost-70-percent recidivism rate in California. We got to, you know, bring that number down. And we got to go and rehabilitate our inmates so when they go out that they’re capable of dealing with society and getting a job and get going again in life and not come back in, in the other door and become part of the prison system again.

MR. RUSSERT: Before we go, you mentioned Iraq. When you were last on, you said you thought the war was the right thing to do. Right before the election, you said we should start consider to get out. What advice would you give the president about Iraq today?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I would not give him any advice, because I would not, not-never be that presumptuous. I think that he has a lot of, you know, smart people around that study the subject, and especially now, since they have the Baker-Hamilton Commission, a bipartisan commission. I think that’s a very good idea to have that commission where you have five Democrats, five Republicans, study this subject very thoroughly. Those are all very, very smart people and they have a great reputation. There’ll be great substance to the-that part of the commission. So I think we should look at that.

But I think that we all know that we’ve got to get out of there, but we’ve got to get out of there the right way, not just to turn our back on Iraqis and leave and just think about ourselves. Because we’ve got to always remember, what was the reason why we went there: We thought this was the springboard of terrorism, international terrorism. So we, we cannot just turn back and let the place be that springboard of terrorism. We also have to make sure that we create the democracy that we wanted to create, and also we wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, which we did.

So I think we got to get out of there. We have to have a time, a timeline. I totally believe that there has to be a timeline there. But we got to get out of there with a victory rather than with a defeat.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, we thank you for joining us.  Congratulations, and we hope you come back and talk about the issues confronting your state and our country soon.

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you very much, Tim. Thank you.

(oops, forgot that checkbox – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Most of us around here are fairly comfortable with the notion that the CDP is not a source of help for progressives and/or the netroots.  It seems that it may now be an actual impediment for at least the netroots and better democracy.

The Foundation for Taxypayer & Consumer Rights has done an excellent push on investigating a possible pay for play for Fabian Nunez. As of my last Google News Search, no major news services have picked up on this story, but Matt Stoller of MyDD noticed it yesterday.  I saw it a few days ago, but I was hesitant about drawing more attention to the issue. It’s definitely a thorny one.  It’s a complicated story, but I’ll try to give a simple version.

So, AT&T and the telcos wanted to get into the cable TV business. The only problem is that currently municipalities have the right to offer an exclusive franchise to one terrestrial cable company. It annoys Comcast and TimeWarner, but they deal with it.  Or at least it did annoy them until they were bribed by Nunez and the telcos.  How did they bribe them? They dropped the franchise agreement requirements, which required them to provide such pesky services as public access channels and government access.

How did this affect us? Well, the franchise agreements were also another firewall in the net neutrality war. The franchise agreements could have required the service providers to provide a neutral internet.  That is gone. The cable companies win, the telcos win.  We lose.

But don’t worry, Fabian got his too. Nunez raised over $1.7 million from the telcos for the CDP.  The CDP, in turn, passed along a $4 million check to Nunez for all his fundraising efforts.  According to the letter that the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (PDF) , the check was sent on election day.  Why election day? Well, it was in time to place in his 2006 election fund and too late to come into question.

I will leave it to you to draw conclusions about whether this check is fishy. Did Nunez sell out the netroots?  Does the money go in and do the favors go out? Is this a quid pro quo?  It certainly raises some troubling questions.

(To go along with my story on Nunez… – promoted by SFBrianCL)

$3,000,000:

The Republicans spent a massive amount, estimated at $22 million, on their microtargeting and get out the vote drive. The Democratic Party in California, by contrast, spent around $3 million.

$4,000,000:

(AP) LOS ANGELES State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez’s political committee has received an election-day windfall — to the tune of $4 million. Officials say the Nov. 7 check from the state Democratic Party amounted to a refund of unspent funds that Nunez, one of the most powerful Democrats in Sacramento, raised to benefit the party and its candidates.

Why is Nunez getting a larger check than GOTV?