(Another no to the 2/5 primary. I think we’re running about even. By the by, welcome to Paul, who does a great job at Beyond Chron, one of the best sites on SF politics around. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily.

As Ben Franklin said, the definition of “insanity” is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Once again, California politicians complain that our state never gets to choose a presidential nominee because the race is over by the time it gets here. Now the state legislature wants to push up our presidential primary even earlier than before – in the vain hope that we will decide from a wide-open field in 2008. But other states have the same idea too and we may end up having a national primary on February 5th – only one week after New Hampshire. While a February primary could be seen as a boon for progressive activists, the subsequent low-turnout June election poses grave risks, particularly given the attempt to qualify a statewide initiative to ban rent control.

The February primary is a bad idea for many reasons, and California should not fuel the madness. First, it is unlikely that California will get to decide the outcome of the presidential race, even with an earlier primary. Second, a front-loaded schedule puts insurgent candidates at an insurmountable disadvantage, virtually guaranteeing that the establishment candidate (i.e., Hillary Clinton) will win. Third, pushing the whole primary schedule further back forces candidates to campaign even earlier and raise even more money. Fourth, having two California primaries (the presidential one in February and the legislative one in June) will help right-wing propositions sail through in a low-turnout election.

It’s unfair that Iowa and New Hampshire — two rural, predominantly white states — have an unreasonable say in picking presidential nominees and that California repeatedly gets left out. But 47 other states feel the same way, and we’re not the only ones who want to move up our primary to “maximize” influence. If California moves its primary to February 5th, it will join Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey – and probably Florida and Michigan as well. To say that we will somehow have comparable influence in selecting the nominee as Iowa or New Hampshire is absurd, because candidates will have to split their time between here and eight states (some on the East Coast) within the short span of one week.

California has repeatedly pushed up its primary in the past – and it still didn’t maximize our influence. In 1996, the state legislature moved it from June to March 26th – but with Bob Dole having beaten back Pat Buchanan’s challenge a few weeks earlier, the race was effectively over by then. So in 2000, the legislature pushed it back to March 7th – putting California on the same day as Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. The result? Al Gore already had the Democratic nomination in the bag, and George Bush finished off John McCain with an avalanche of campaign spending. In 2004, we saw the same result happen again.

The effect of moving California’s primary is that it so front-loads the schedule that under-funded insurgent candidates have no chance of winning, and the establishment candidate quickly gets the nomination. In 2000, John McCain upset George Bush in New Hampshire, only to get overwhelmed within a month in other states. In 2004, John Kerry’s early victories in Iowa and New Hampshire allowed him to solidify his establishment status, and he went on to win the nomination without much trouble.

The problem isn’t that Iowa and New Hampshire go first – it’s that so many states follow them right afterwards. If an insurgent wins one of the early states, they simply get overwhelmed later due to lack of resources. If an establishment type wins an early state, the insurgents have no chance later on because it gives the front-runner an insurmountable lead. Either way, the establishment candidate always wins.

In 2004, Howard Dean pursued the only strategy that an insurgent candidate could be expected to do. Because Iowa and New Hampshire were immediately followed by a series of front-loaded primaries, he spent resources ahead of time in Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma — which had primaries one week later. It could have worked, if Dean had won Iowa. But with his third-place finish in the Hawkeye State and his infamous “scream,” Howard Dean had no money, no time and no momentum left to score a comeback and win the nomination.

A front-loaded primary season effectively ends the nomination process in early February. It’s insane that in January 2007 we already have so many declared presidential candidates, but they’re just facing reality – the nomination will be over in a year. That doesn’t give much time to raise gobs of money to spend it at lightning speed when the front-loaded primaries start hitting next January. No campaign manager would tell a candidate not to declare right away.

It didn’t use to be that way. In 1992, the primary schedule was more drawn out and allowed more states to have a say in the Democratic nomination. After Tom Harkin won the Iowa caucus on February 10th, Paul Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary on February 18th. Bob Kerrey won South Dakota on February 25th and Jerry Brown won Colorado on March 3rd. Bill Clinton started racking up victories in the coming weeks, but on March 24th Brown stalled his momentum by winning Connecticut. Finally, Clinton sewed up the nomination on April 7th with the New York primary.

Of course, California didn’t have a say in 1992 because its primary was in June. But a two-month marathon – rather than a one-week sprint -allows for a more dynamic process where more states can have their vote really matter. A longer nomination process allows candidates to hone their skills and get battle-tested. It would also generate more interest and excitement among voters.

But why does New Hampshire always get to be first? New Hampshire law requires that its presidential primary be first-in-the-nation. As other states try to get an early seat in the action, New Hampshire has pushed its primary further and further back — from March 12th in 1968 to February 1st in 2000 to January 27th in 2004. That’s not healthy for anyone because it forces campaigns to start earlier.

I think it’s better to have a state like New Hampshire go first. New Hampshire is small enough that a presidential candidate can run a grass-roots campaign and talk to voters – rather than raise tons of money and throw it on commercials. New Hampshire allows insurgent candidates to get their foot in the door and expand the scope of debate. The problem is that they later get clobbered when the nomination shifts to a media war of mega-state after front-loaded mega-state.

So what’s the solution? The national parties should sit down with their state parties and forge a compromise. They probably can’t do anything about Iowa and New Hampshire – but they can prevent the leap-frogging and front-loading that happens every time. Establish a firm schedule stretching out over several months, so that each week you only have one or two state primaries.

This will allow each state to have a real voice in the nomination process. States that are unfortunately placed last will get a higher placement four years later, and states like California that have always been shut out would get a priority placement. It won’t be perfect, but it will be better than what we have now.

Furthermore, California progressives should be alarmed at how a presidential primary in February could have a derivative effect on state politics. Speaker Fabian Nunez wants to place a proposition in February to relax the state’s term-limits law (a good idea), followed by a legislative primary in June. But this will pose the danger of a low voter turnout in June, giving the right-wing an opening to pass dangerous propositions.

Already, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is gathering signatures to place a “son” of Proposition 90 on the ballot – probably for June 2008. While its language makes it sound less extreme than Prop 90, it is actually worse because of its retroactive effect and would eliminate rent control in California. The religious right will also try to place an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot – it would also likely be voted on in June 2008.

California’s a very blue state – but past elections have shown that a low turnout can pass right-wing propositions. In March 2000, California had a low statewide turnout — the average voter’s age was fifty – and the state passed a legislative ban on gay marriage (Proposition 22) and a drastic juvenile justice initiative (Proposition 21) by healthy margins.

The same thing could happen again – if the state legislature foolishly pushes the presidential primary up to February, in the virtually nonexistent hope that California will better influence the next presidential nominee.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth actively supported Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Send feedback to [email protected]

(cross-posted from Working Californians)

I will have more later, but we took a step forward today towards ensuring a living wage for the LAX hotel workers.  Here is the initial LAT article.

This is the main piece:

Chief among those elements would be a three-part “phase-in” of a living wage over the next year. Workers at the hotels would get a small raise upon passage of new legislation, a second raise in July that would bring them to $10.64 per hour, and finally a cost of living increase on Jan. 1, 2008.

Our poll indicates that we can do way more towards ensuring all workers earn a living wage, but this is encouraging news.

(After a really rough day today, here’s a good story with a happy ending. : ) – promoted by atdleft)

Finally, a happy ending is near for a quintessential Orange County tale of rustic beauty and development run amok! Not so long ago, a few developers wanted to turn this historic beachside community into a mega-resort. Today, the city of Newport Beach is agreeing to help out in saving this little beach of dreams for all to enjoy.

Join me after the flip for a little bit of history, and a full illustration of this coastal beauty that I’d like to share with you! : )

Who said that there are never happy endings? I guess whoever said that never heard about the story of Crystal Cove, and its little village of historic cottages. Once upon a time, this was a place where people would go to get away from it all. This was a place where filmmakers came when they needed an exotic backdrop for their stories. This was a place that still inspires artists to create masterpieces…

But it was all threatened when a few greedy developers decided to turn this bucolic paradise into yet another elite mega-resort along Orange County’s “Gold Coast”. All around this once rural oceanfront setting, new cookie-cutter McMansions were popping up. It seemed like the one last undeveloped stretch of coastline in Orange County would be gone forever…

Until local environmentalists and old time Crystal Cove residents united to stop this new fit of OC development madness… And offer their own alternative! Fortunately the state finally listened, and agreed to restore the cottages instead of build a resort. Last year, many of the cottages were reopened to the public…
And so far the public has been loving the historic charm of the cottages, as well as the pristine shores nearby.

But still, the work is not over quite yet. There are still about twenty-four cottages that are still in shambles. However, it now looks like they won’t be in disrepair for long! (From OC Register)

The demand is there. The money – that’s another matter.

But things could be looking up for two dozen highly coveted but vacant beachside cottages at Crystal Cove. To shore up the costly second phase of restoration in the historic bluff-side village, Newport Beach might hand over tax proceeds to a nonprofit that manages the vintage huts.

The roughly $80,000 annual payout – money from taxes on stays at previously restored cottages – would be nominal compared with the estimated $20 million needed to restore the remaining 24 bungalows.

So far the city of Newport Beach (which annexed this entire area some years back) has been collecting fees from the cottage guests, and everyone was wondering what Newport would be doing with all this money. Well, I guess we got our answer: The city will be chipping in to save this little stretch of heaven along the California coast! And already, we’re getting a good idea as to what this money will be going toward:

While officials have raised $650,000 for a marine research station at Crystal Cove and $90,000 for an outdoor educational area, Newport’s money would be the first devoted to refurbishing the remaining cottages.

Seventeen of those will be converted for overnight stays. One will house a museum, two will be used for park operations and the rest will accommodate the education area.

Newport City Manager Homer Bludau, mindful of the eight-figure restoration cost, called the city’s proposed contribution a “goodwill gesture.”

City officials hope the money, to be paid annually for at least five years, will add kindling to a fundraising campaign expected to kick off after final cost estimates come out in March. “There’s a real (demand for the cottages), and we just think it’s the right thing to do,” Bludau said.

Well, I’m glad to see that this restoration project is near completion…
Heck, I’m glad just to see the one last unspoiled stretch of shore in Orange County remain unspoiled! Hopefully once this last phas of restoration is completed, we will all be able to enjoy the magical dream of Crystal Cove for many years to come. Finally, we have a happy ending for a uniquely Orange County story!

(This is cross-posted at my blog. For more info on what’s being done to preserve this California dream for future generations, see what the Crystal Cove Allinace is up to. And yes, all these photos are MINE… To share with you!)

: )

(Now cross-posted at dKos and MyDD. Also, Check out Shum’s single payer update for more on the $3.7 billion. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Today is going to be a busy day.  But let’s start with some health care talk in the morning.  I just got off a call with Harry Reid, where much of the talk focused, with good reason, on the mess in Iraq and the President’s posturing on Iran.  However, I’ll leave that to the national bloggers.  I highly recommend Bob Geiger for coverage of all things Senate. Oh and check out the MoveOn.org ad they are trying to get aired in DC during the Super Bowl.

I, however, wanted to address Arnold Schwarzenegger’s health care plan.  This is relevant primarily because Schwarzenegger plans on asking for $3.7 billion in new federal funds for the plan.  So, I asked the majority leader, what he thinks of California’s plan, if the Governor will get his money, and where we should go from here.

Unfortunately, I’m not a great transcriber, but he is certainly up on the issues.  However, he pointed out something that I also addressed in my post entitled “Health Insurance Sucks”, namely that the insurance industry, well, sucks:

The problem is that the insurance industry is the enemy of most everything we do today.  They have an anti-trust exemption from the Depression era that was supposed to last only a few years (the McCarran-Ferguson Act) but is still with us today.  This exemption allows the industry to do harmful things to the country. They are fixing prices, which would ordinarily be a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but there is nothing we can do. 

More over the flip…

Well, I couldn’t agree more with the statement that the insurance industry is the enemy of good health care.  While Sen. Reid is just looking to eliminate McCarran-Ferguson, I’d like to eliminate it all together, but Reid’s strong language is a great start.  By the way, the words in bold were a direct, and accurate, quote. I was sure to get that sentence perfect because it was such a thrill to hear that from the mouth of the Senate’s Leader.

We moved on to the issues relating to Arnold’s plan:

The insurance industry is broken, there are 47 million uninsured Americans, and there all sorts of hidden costs. I’m glad that the Governor is at least taking health care on. He’s the Termainator, and that could bring attention to the issue.  But we have to see how Massachusetts works first.

There was an article by the syndicated columnist Mike Samuelson (spelling?) that said the cost of insurance in Massachusetts with their plan was twice what the state expected, or about $4600 per person. They are having problems with the costs. I think that we everybody should have the same kind of care that I have, that Congress has.

We need to first look at McCarran-Ferguson and what we can do to stop the insurance industry from hurting us.  The Gulf Coast situation is an example of that.  Even some Republicans are beginning to talk about how the insurance industry has failed us. So we could see some movement on these issues soon. 

So, I guess the big question that stands out here is whether we can afford Arnold’s plan if the Congress doesn’t plan on providing the additional federal funds. Is this plan DOA? The debate is certainly worthwhile, but don’t we need to deal with the insurance industry as well? Do we really need to give them a huge windfall that would require everybody to pay them for their overpriced  services?

I am honored to be serving as a delegate to the CDP along with Ellis Perlman, a Professor Emeritus in political science from the University of Michigan-Flint.  He has been a keen observer of grassroots politics as it relates to this state for the past 100 years, and I asked him to put together some information on it, to serve as a historical perspective for those of us who don’t quite remember the days of Hiram Johnson and Earl Warren.  There’s some very good information here, and it all speaks to the fact that this “people-powered” movement is nothing new, it’s just being adapted for the 21st century.

The report, on the flip…

Grass Roots and Political Change in California  Jan. 21, 2007

Progressivism, building on earlier populist movements, has spurred a variety of grass roots movements during the past hundred years in California.  The state’s political history is encouraging.  It demonstrates that progressive grass roots movements can achieve power and influence public policy.  The examples below illustrate such achievements and influence.

Two factors should be noted.  One is that the movements typically have been rooted in the middle and upper middle class.  The second is that conservatives have had similar successes, especially in the 1960 and beyond.  -Ellis Perlman  January 24, 2007 

The Progressive movement in California was founded by Chester Rowell and Edward Dickson, two journalists who had become disgusted with the Southern Pacific Railroad’s control of the state legislature.  Their efforts ultimately led to formation of the Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican League, with clubs forming throughout the state.  This was a grass roots movement, largely from within the Republican Party, to clean up California government, and make it more responsive to Progressive ideals.
Source:  Joseph P. Harris, California Politics (Chandler:  1967), pp. 1-13

Another form of grass roots action and accomplishment in California involved the response of women when they first gained the right to vote.  Women’s suffrage was opposed by the elite in Los Angeles, and especially by the Los Angeles Times.  It was approved by 2000 votes in Los Angeles, and by 3587 votes statewide in a special election on October 10, 1911.  By December, more than 82,000 women had registered in Los Angeles, and more than 90% voted in the mayoral election.  Ironically, the Times, having opposed the women’s vote, congratulated women for their “intelligent voting” in defeating the Socialist mayoral candidate, John Harriman. 
Source:  Jane Apostal, “Why Women Should Not Have the Vote:  Anti-Suffrage Views in the Southland in 1911,”  Southern California Quarterly  70:29-42 (Spring, 1988)

A group of Republicans, mainly liberals, met in August, 1923, to organize a campaign to secure a liberal state legislature, and to oppose Friend W. Richardson, the conservative Republican governor.  They created the Progressive Voters League to contest the 1924 and 1926 elections.  The very conservative Richardson followed two progressive governors, Hiram Johnson and William Stephens.  The Democratic Party was weak, commonly winning no more than a third of the gubernatorial vote.  When Richardson was elected in 1922, conservative Republicans had a majority in the Assembly, and almost a majority in the Senate.  The Voters League was instrumental in electing a Progressive, Clement Young, as Governor.  The League then disbanded, and Conservative James Rolfe was elected governor in 1930.  As with most revolts against dominant political authority in 20th century California, grass roots organization played a major role, and the revolt came from within the  Republican Party.

Source:  Russell Posner, “The Progressive Voters League, 1923-1926,” California Historical Society Quarterly  36:251-261 (September, 1957)

Progressivism is generally considered to have faded as a force in California and nationally by the 1920s-1930s period.  Rosanne  M. Barker demonstrated that Progressivism continued as an active movement during this period, sustained by women’s organizations, particularly in small towns.  She highlights the activity of Pearl Chase and other women activists in Santa Barbara, and notes that progressive women activists were achieving success in other towns, as well.  The types of activities and accomplishments described by Barker did not draw much attention, at the time or later.  It represented, however, substantial grass roots effort and achievement of progressive goals.
Source:  Rosanne M. Barker, “Small Town Progressivism:  Pearl Chase and Female Activism in Santa Barbara,” Southern California Quarterly  79:47-100 (Spring, 1997)

The California Republican Assembly was organized in 1934 as a response to Republican losses in 1932.  Clubs were formed throughout the state.  By 1938, Earl Warren had become the key figure in bringing moderate/progressive Republican leadership to power, to control the state for the next twenty years.  Subsequent grass root movements, beginning with United Republicans of California and the John Birch Society regained conservative control of the Republican Party by the 1960s.
Source:  Richard Harvey, Dynamics of  California Government and Politics  (Wadsworth, 1970) ch. 2

The California Democratic Council, with chapters throughout the state and a peak membership of 66,000, grew out of Adlai Stevenson’s unsuccessful 1952 campaign for President.  The political leader most associated with the CDC was Alan Cranston, State Controller and later U. S. Senator.  The CDC was a grass roots movement, one generated from within the Democratic Party.  Its membership tended to be middle class and suburban, as were the several Republican grass roots movements that fostered progressive reform.
Source:  Clyde E. Jacobs and John F. Gallagher, California Government:  One Among Fifty  (Macmillan, 1966), pp. 102-106

I hope you all enjoyed that as much as I did (or perhaps not; I’m a history nerd).  It’s interesting that grassroots movements in this state have traditionally started in the middle and upper-middle classes; not surprising, certainly on the basis of leisure time.  I think our challenge in the netroots is to ensure a multiplicity of voices, to understand and hear from the concerns of the poor and those typically not present in the larger political debate.

The other factor is that our opposition is just as equipped to pull this off, so we must be smarter, and grow larger, and continue to innovate to maintain any kind of advantage.  We also must keep an eye on our legislators in Sacramento, as the “clean up government” mantra has bounced back and forth between the parties over the years.

I’m going to try and get Ellis to write a little more for the site, if you have any specific areas of interest, please put them in the comments.

Assemblyman Jim Beall is trying to get pre-paid tuition rolling in California, joining nearly 20 other states who have some sort of program to lock in tuition costs years before a child actually attends college.

Beall has packaged this as tuition relief, and with costs increasing nearly 400% in 20 years, it’s a pretty good way to package it.  It also is nicely timed with Governor Schwarzenegger raising statewide tuition levels in his new budget.

Here’s how AB 152 would work:

Each year of UC tuition would be broken up into 100 pieces, or “units,” which would be priced based on existing tuition plus an additional amount for fund administration and stability.

In Washington, each unit currently costs $70 — $11 more than if it were based solely on tuition.

Parents or grandparents would be the likeliest adults to register a child — of any age — for the California program by buying one unit. Subsequent contributions of any amount could be made by anyone.

Participants would be required to hold their units for at least two years, after which they could be used if the student were accepted into a public or private college in California or outside the state.

Students attending a campus charging less than UC could use any surplus funds for other college-related expenses, while students attending the nation’s highest-priced campuses must bankroll any difference.

Donors would not receive a tax write-off, but money invested could appreciate, and gains would not be subject to state or federal income taxes if used for college attendance.

Tuition invested for one sibling could be transferred to another, but units could not be bartered or sold as property.

Families opting to close their child’s account prematurely would be subject to tax and program penalties — unless the student had died, become disabled or earned a scholarship.

I’ve had a bit of experience with this in Virginia, where my parents prepaid my brother’s tuition.  Sure, he promptly attended a private school and then went out of state, making it kindof a moot point, but it was pretty clear talking with my parents over the years that it was a huge load off of their minds to have it taken care of to such a degree.

Granted, there are important details to sort through- whether you have to be a resident, whether there’s a time limit to redeem it, and so forth.  There’s the question of how the state will invest the money brought in, both from moral and financial perspectives.

But ultimately, I’d imagine, the biggest concern is undermining either the education system or the state’s budget at some point down the line.  There was a guest spot on NPR the other day in defense of college costs, essentially saying that you get more for your money than if you sent your kid to stay at an Embassy Suites for 9 months, which I suppose is technically accurate if not much else.  Beall insists that, if instituted properly, this is self-sustaining financially, and it certainly seems like it could be.  But fit it into the larger picture.  If the government offers (but doesn’t force upon anyone) programs for education through a BA and health insurance, and if a living wage can be hammered through, and if we can take a stand against Super WalMarts and myriad other things we’re after, all of a sudden we’ve got a generation that’s pretty well taken care of by the time they’re 22 and hitting the world.  And that ain’t so bad.

p.s. I have a silly little blog of my own now, and it’s cross-posted.

Dan Walters makes a hell of a lot of sense about the real reason why the Governor is pushing this plan to move up the California primary.  He seems to think it has nothing to do with the primary itself, but about the other proposal being tossed about for that February 2008 ballot.

Schwarzenegger could legally seek a third term only if the term limits were to be modified, and lo and behold, he and legislators are talking about doing exactly that. While the public discussion of changing term limits has centered on legislators, there’s no particular reason why loosening the limits on constitutional officers couldn’t be part of any deal.

I think that Arnold’s outsized ego just makes him want to be in the thick of the Presidential race, but this is an absolute side effect.  You can bet that if the term limits change for the legislators, they’ll similarly change for the constitutional officers, and we won’t get the opportunity to pick one but not the other.  It’ll all get tied up in one big redistricting/term limit ball. 

Plus, this would give Republicans in the Congress until 2014 to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to ascend to the Oval Office.  And I don’t see Arnold wanting to be anywhere else but the Governor’s mansion or the White House.

Walters ends the piece by calling this idea “possible but not probable,” but I think he convinced me that it’s actually likely.  Are you all ready for 8 more years of math-challenged budgets and more attempts to break up unions and universal health care plans that aren’t universal or even health care?

Well, enjoy getting to see part of Barack Obama’s head at some rally in late January!  That seems like a fair trade-off!

I’ll throw a few tidbits out there.  First, check out the Garry South diary I wrote a few days ago.  Mr. South has graced us with his presence to inform our readers that I have a home page (from the pre-MySpace days) and that I have no right to say anything to him or to our candidates.  Oh, and I assume by his comment that Mr. South has no pets, no friends, and no favorite sports teams.

Speaking of sports teams, I’m going with the Bears.  I used to be a huge Bears fan back in the day…when I was 6 and they were doing the Super Bowl Shuffle. I even had the music video of that great performance.  So, I say Manning can’t bring it all together and the Bears D is able to hold him long enough for the 2 headed running combo of Jones and Benson to wear down the Colts.

Oh, and one more tidbit from the world of sports, this time more local.  The Giants resigned Bonds.  WTF? Do they really need a $15 Million slow moving outfielder. Whatever.

So, any thoughts, sports related, California related, or whatever?