Dena Bunis at The OC Register spoke with CDP chair Art Torres in DC during the DNC winter meeting and shared a few nuggets.

The most notable, although perhaps not terribly surprising, revelation, is that Rep. Gary Miller (CA-42) is on the CDP’s hit list in 2008 (h/t CMR.)

I asked Torres if he thought the party had any chance to get Sanchez any Democratic company in the Orange County congressional delegation.

The chairman does have one possibility.

He mentioned the recent FBI probe of Rep. Gary Miller’s land deals, and said that depending on the outcome, it could make the Diamond Bar Republican vulnerable in the 42nd District.

We already knew this race is on the DCCC’s radar. Good to know they’re on the same page.

And who does Torres cite as his dream challenger to Miller? Joe Dunn.

More on what Torres had to say over the flip…

On the importance of the latino vote:

Torres said the main problem is registration; he said Latinos who are registered vote as often as non-Latinos. The trouble is, so many Hispanics are not registered and so many of the new Latinos living in California are not yet citizens and therefore ineligible to vote.

But voter registration is on the top of his list, he says.

On moving up the primary:

He believes moving the presidential primary to Feb. 3 will sail through the state Legislature and that it will make the presidential hopefuls pay more attention to the Golden State.

Torres pointed out that about $182 million in contributions went out of the state in the last presidential election and not a penny of it came back to be spent there.

On recent scandalous events:

In a nutshell he said Newsom apologized and we should move on and that he’d like to get Sanchez and Baca in a room together and make them iron out their differences.

(Warning:  The rest of the post is long, and we apologize in
particular to our RSS subscribers for the unfortunate necessity.)

Mr. Bradley is, to my knowledge, the first non-spammer we have have
banned. Given Mr. Bradley’s profile, and what we take to be his
ideological
differences with Calitics, we don’t want there to be any confusion as
to the reasons for our actions, so we feel compelled to lay those
reasons out in detail.

Mr. Bradley has been involved in California politics for a long time,
and we would have thought that he could have used his experience to
participate here in an informative and interesting way. 
Instead
Mr. Bradley has chosen to be consistently and repeatedly nasty to those
of us who operate Calitics and (more important) our community — an
internet troll in the classic sense.  He has rejected with
contempt our requests, both public and private, that he moderate his
behavior.  In some cases, Mr. Bradley has responded to members
of
our community with what we reluctantly interpret as veiled
threats. 

We have to confess, we don’t really understand this behavior by a
man who prides himself on his long experience in politics
(interestingly, experience on which he bases his contempt and criticism
of us).  Perhaps he wants us to take this step.
 Still, Mr.
Bradley has been almost entirely disruptive without substantive or
constructive commentary, and so after a great deal of thought, we are
making him persona non
grata here at Calitics.  

To explain our decision, we think Mr. Bradley’s behavior speaks best for itself.  We have placed Mr. Bradley’s entire Calitics comment
history below the fold.  For the context of the conversations in
which he participated, you may click here:  https://calitics.com/userDiary/comments.do?personId=110.  
This comment history includes all of the comments which were previously
troll-rated by our community — they are now visible.  It seems
apparent that Mr. Bradley came to Calitics looking for fights.
 He
occasionally found them, and we will not pretend otherwise.
 But
we are not sure what other response would have been expected by Mr.
Bradley given his consistent failure to be even remotely courteous, or
to actually provide feedback other than brief unsupported assertions
laced
with insults.

Last, we have also seen this behavior in the comments in at least one
other forum, which lends support to our belief that Mr. Bradley does
not have an interest in engaging with our community in a positive
way: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/5/19148/98341

We have no doubt that Mr. Bradley will tell his side of the story, with
the same contempt for us and our community that he has shown here.
 And he is both free to do so and privileged enough to have a
platform to do so.

He is, however, no longer welcome to our platform.

My “Nativist” Streak and Your Lack of Realism

Sorry, folks, calling me a “nativist” because I simply state a couple of politically inconvenient realities is, to put it diplomatically, silly. Take the rose-colored PC glasses off and read what I actually wrote. Meanwhile, in the world of real politics  … As you will see in my report tomorrow, the games are already underway on this issue in the governor’s race. We may not like how it turns out.

by: Bill Bradley @ Sun Mar 26, 2006 at 16:55:48 PM PST

Seriously, now …

…  Grow up. You didn’t “get under my skin,” as if that would be an achievement for you, I’m simply correcting things on links into my site so that the vast number of people who read this have something other than a distortion of what I said. Standard political practice, nothing more.

by: Bill Bradley @ Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 23:06:29 PM PST

Thank you, J King

For identifying yourself as a spammer. This same exact screed  —  and incidentally, campaigns carry operating “debt” all the time, I don’t think Westly is anywhere near running out of money, obviously  —  was posted on my web site. Here is the deal, friend. If you want to participate on my site and say whatever you want, within obvious boundaries, that is fine. It is not fine for you to spam my site. The next time you post on my site, make sure it is not spam.

by: Bill Bradley @ Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 23:14:44 PM PST

“Tees up the attacks on hyper-partisanship”

Uh-huh. Reporting fact is not teeing up the attacks. I spent about one sentence on that point. Then I revealed the historical impact of the state party endorsement on statewide races. Very little, and there, only on a down ballot race. It helps to have been to a couple dozen state Democratic conventions as activist, operative, and journalist. Sorry you don’t like the facts.

by: Bill Bradley @ Mon May 01, 2006 at 19:54:29 PM PDT

Real time blogging

Incidentally, I published several thousand words of real time blogging during the convention. I’m the only one who uses a wireless handheld so I don’t have to go off somewhere to write about what happened.

by: Bill Bradley @ Mon May 01, 2006 at 19:56:37 PM PDT

More distortion

Look, you don’t get to distort what I write. You should read what is actually written before making sophomoric comments about it. Don’t add to the current distortion by distorting what I wrote before, either.

by: Bill Bradley @ Mon May 01, 2006 at 22:52:29 PM PDT

a lawyer?

Funny, you don’t write like a lawyer. Winning a case sometimes requires getting the facts straight. Or so I’m told. Don’t rely on cheap attitude.

by: Bill Bradley @ Mon May 01, 2006 at 22:55:02 PM PDT

Your “interactive media” spin

Gimme a break, pal. A sentence noting the nature of the convention does not constitute  “tees up the attacks on Angelides for “hyper-partisanship.” “What you call distortion I call discussion.” How about what you call discussion I call BS? LOL

by: Bill Bradley @ Tue May 02, 2006 at 07:23:21 AM PDT

No other poll, private or public, reflects this, including Arnold’s

But you guys hope against hope for Phil against Arnold. (As does Arnold.) Actually, that is a poor bet. But what do I know, right? ROTFL

by: Bill Bradley @ Mon May 08, 2006 at 17:55:23 PM PDT

And aren’t we soooo bored?

eom

by: Bill Bradley @ Tue May 16, 2006 at 19:57:26 PM PDT

Angelides IE TV Ad On My Site

By the way, I have the Angelo(ides) IE TV ad available through my site. www.newwestnotes.com

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:55:02 AM PDT

3 strikes myth

And what percentage of the prison population is there because of 3 strikes? FAR fewer than I used to think. Before I bothered to become informed, which you are determinedly not.

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:59:01 AM PDT

That is a fact …

…  I just gave you a fact. You don’t seem to like it.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 09:40:55 AM PDT

Reality, you want reality? Doubt that.

It’s a little under 5 percent. Not that you have cited anything to back up your assertion, of course. This is the difference between opinion journalism and partisan propaganda.

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 13:00:05 PM PDT

Actually, it’s been on Rough & Tumble four times this year …

…  Because I have referred to Schwarzenegger’s reversal on 187, which happened years ago, in four columns this year alone. He said it back in 2002, in a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. I reminded the Democratic spinners who e-mailed me about it this morning.

by: Bill Bradley @ Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 17:10:48 PM PDT

Fake Poll Good, Real Poll Not So Good …

Real poll really not so good. Schwarz up 13 in PPIC. If you want to know what is really going on, come to www.newwestnotes.com.

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 22:38:19 PM PDT

Oh, Your Latest Distortion

You were wrong about the governor’s race from start to finish. Now you are distorting reality once again in your latest tantrum. Let’s see if you can follow along. The robopolls were wrong about the governor’s race throughout the campaign, showing a much closer race than was actually taking place. They were completely out of phase with the respected California polls  —  Field, PPIC, LA Times. They were also out of phase with the PRIVATE DEMOCRATIC POLLS Including Phill Angelides’ own polls. And the labor union polls. At the end, they somewhat suspiciously reflected what the real polls were showing. Or do you believe the race was really close until the end? And that all the other evidence was wrong? In which case, you are quite delusional.

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:22:24 AM PST

Ask Your Late Angelides Friends About Their Polls

Now that they no longer have to lie, you will learn the truth. Which I already told you. But you are impervious to the truth, which you obviously can’t handle. The robopolls and Internet polls were wrong during the campaign. The real polls  —  Field, PPIC, LA Times, and the Democratic tracking polls  —  were right. Have a nice day, chump.

by: Bill Bradley @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:25:12 AM PST

You still have an Internet connection?

You should be so lucky as to be so unemployed.

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:51:38 AM PST

You still don’t get it

Irrational boosters of the disastrous Phil Angelides like yourself were blind to the danger of a total blowout for Democrats. You were still claiming the guy was doing well, ferchrissakes. The Dems had to rally behind the down ballot candidates who couldn’t really take care of themselves, ie, not Jerry and Lockyer. They finally stopped wasting millions on Angelides and did it, barely in a couple of cases, such as LG and SOS, 3 and 4 point wins that should have been much more

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:56:18 AM PST

Still have me in your little web site banner, “D-Day?”

ROTFL. Get a life.

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:12:44 AM PST

A stalker wannabe like you should learn what GOTV is

eom Keep telling your “audience” how great Angelides is doing. ROTFL

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:20:05 AM PST

You guys are fairly pathetic, you know

This is a very small blog. It usually has few to no comments. Your history of lying, like you’re doing again, and sophomoric delusions  —  generally you delude yourselves  PHIL WILL WIN!!!!  —  probably accounts for much of it.

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 17:38:31 PM PST

BTW, why do you still have a Phil ad playing here?

eom

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 17:40:37 PM PST

You children are amusing

You obviously have no idea what I do. I love cyber journalism. It’s going better than ever. I have too much work. For one thing, I leave the “outrageous” comments to folks like you. Absent facts, you do hysterical cheerleading for lousy campaigns and imagine that you are taken seriously. But that only happens when you try to “blogswarm” grownups. As some of your little friends learned to their chagrin. So, I see a whole six comments there about the big crusade againstg Ellen Tauscher. She probably should be taken on. But you boys don’t have the chops to do it. Go finish your homework. For one thing, learn what GOTV is. ROTFL

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 19:45:32 PM PST

Boys, boys, really …

…  Get some sources.

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 15:23:20 PM PST

Well, your reading skills are poor as usual …

…  I have repeatedly debunked the neoncon “associate” from PJM. If you can read, which evidence does not suggest you can, I’ve run over half a dozen stories about the very much alive Ayatollah Khamenei. So, kiddie boys, get out of high school, get a remedial reading lesson. Oh, and get some sources. I have sources in the Middle East. You should be able to meet SOMEBODY in Hollywood. LOL

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 17:00:22 PM PST

And again, childish reading on your part …

…  As I use Morris to promote the idea that the most left-wing major candidate is a serious contender. You may have heard of him. I’m sure you’ve never met him. John Edwards. Jerking knees do not serious analysts make, boys.

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 17:02:07 PM PST

See if you can grasp the concept …

…  You use a CONSERVATIVE source, i.e., Dick Morris, to advance your own thesis that a liberal candidate is strong. Try it sometime. Instead of the undergrad gibberish  —  George Lakosh  —  you boys trot out.

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 17:09:28 PM PST

Wrong as usual, on repeated counts …

Unbelievably stupid on your part. I didn’t sell NWN. I own it. They PAY ME to have it on their network. They also pay for all the upkeep. I know that is hard for you to grasp, but, …  ROTFL Now let’s see if you can grasp the point of this item, which you failed to grasp before. ** ADVANTAGE JOHN EDWARDS AS OBAMA TRIES TO MATCH HILLARY AS A TRIANGULATOR? That’s what Dick Morris, the quirky yet brilliant longtime Bill Clinton guru-turned-Hillary Clinton-hater-and-Fox News commentator seems to think. He thinks the second term U.S. senator and former first lady still has the edge for the Democratic presidential nomination. But he sees Edwards as running in the open field with his clearcut opposition to the Iraq War. The former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee leads all the polls I have seen from the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. And although Hillary leads in the private polling I’ve seen from second-in-the-nation Nevada, I know from also having done Nevada that an attractive and articulate trend presidential candidate, which Edwards is, can sweep to victory in the Silver State. And that is without factoring in the union support that Edwards will have in the Las Vegas market, which should comprise about 70% of the Democratic vote in Nevada come next January 19th.

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 17:19:35 PM PST

Actually, wrong again, as usual

You boys are very slow students in the class. I control and own everything I do. Which is obvious if you can read. But your penurious envy overrides your moderate intellect. Since no one is paying you for your thoughts, which, are, well, we’ll leave it at that. I also don’t suffer from a sophomoric ignorance. Incidentally, as you and your kiddie boy associates would grasp if you could read, I think Hillary is a very strong candidate. I say great things about her. I say great things about Obama. I say great things about Edwards. Etc. The only Democrats I DON’T say good things about happen to be really bad candidates. Hmm, any guesses there? And generally ones I actually know, unlike you. I have friends with Hillary as with all the major Democrats. She may very well be the next president. In fact, if I had to bet  …  I wouldn’t tell you  …  🙂

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 17:56:35 PM PST

Oddly, my correction to your stuff didn’t show up

We’ll try it one more time, all that it’s worth. Wrong again. I own and control the site. That is the way the contract, and the law, works. Since you’re not a professional, you don’t understand it. I write what I want when I want. As is obvious to anyone who can read. They pay me for the privilege of having me on the network. In fact, I just gave the CEO of PJM shit again for never correcting that idiotic Ledeen “report.” I’ve already debunked it half a dozen times on NWN. And I reminded him I have an unpublished column exclusive to them about it. You kiddie boys spend too much time conning yourselves into the fallacy of argument by association. Unclever people on the right wing try that all the time, too. Now grow up, get some sources, and learn. I have sources in the Middle East. You should be able to get some in Hollywood. Incidentally, as is also obvious, I think this is a strong Democratic field. Three or four could easily be the next president.

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 18:28:26 PM PST

Oh, and speaking of Netwits …

…  Some of your doppelgangers on the hyperpartisan right say NWN is a front for the Clintons, since Bill in particular was so often featured on it during the fall. My best man is one of Hillary’s biggest supporters. So it goes.

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 18:31:11 PM PST

You guys can talk yourselves into anything …

I always enjoy how the handful of you egg each other on into a “consensus” position. Gavin Newsom is a smart guy. I suspect he will figure this out.

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 19:03:14 PM PST

Try not to distort so badly …

…  Oh perpetual student. What you should do is work in some actual campaigns before pretending like this. You should also stop deleting responses correcting total distortions of fact. If you don’t learn, you will learn that that is a mistake.

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 22:01:29 PM PST

Oh, and “blogswarm”

Check with Nancy Pelosi next time before you get all excited. Incidentally, Antonio has serious problems in LA, too. In case you all had not noticed. I wonder what it all means. 🙂

by: Bill Bradley @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 22:04:01 PM PST

Wrong

Nope, your story is flat wrong.

by: Bill Bradley @ Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 16:02:36 PM PST

Oh, really now, pathetic stuff

You know, “blogswarm,” perhaps you should generate an actual “swarm” before you adopt such a sophomoric name. Or better yet, use your real name instead of hiding behind a childish handle. I’m trying to recall what you have been right about. Go back to school, finish your undergraduate degree, THEN start with the snarky opining about people who actually do things in the world. Not that Ragone can’t be a total pain in the ass. Trust me, I know. But how would you know? You have no experiential or informational base to judge his behavior against. Merely a typical generalized resentment of people who elected about 14 delegates to the state Democratic convention.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 14:33:34 PM PST

Julia Rosen, DO NOT start with me …

…  Do you know how nice I was to you last year? With your endless dissembling? Puh-leeze. Go back to sleep.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 15:04:44 PM PST

You guys are junior varsity

Period. Not journalists. Because your stuff is constantly inaccurate. Not pols. Because it is amateurish. And simply uninteresting and boring. Plus you run lies. And you censor.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 18:07:11 PM PST

If you want to be take seriously …

…  You will acknowledge the many clear inaccuracies here at Calitics. If you don’t want to be taken seriously, well, have a nice day.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 18:12:52 PM PST

lso, BRIAN …

…  You will stop CENSORING the corrections to the distortions that are printed here. If you fail to stop your censorship, well, that will be a problem for you.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 18:14:31 PM PST

And here is my reply to Brian’s thoroughly disingenuous e-mail

Oh, SFBrianCL, whatever. Puh-leeze. Dispense with the nonsense. Your site is anything but civil, accurate, or professional. Don’t start. A word to the wise. On Feb 8, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Brian Leubitz wrote: Mr. Bradley: I’m Brian Leubitz from Calitics.  I’d like to remind you of the policy on comments at Calitics.  We allow comments from everybody, and are very lenient with troll-rating (hiding) comments.  However, I’d appreciate if you could try to keep the tone civil. While I understand that debate can get heated, it is not acceptable to personally berate any other users.  As, I said in my comment on Calitics, we believe in the value of an active town square. Calitics, and many other community blogs, are based on the theory that everybody has the right to talk about politics and people involved in politics. If you feel differently, perhaps Calitics is not an appropriate venue for your efforts. As a reminder, the Calitics Rules are available here: http://www.calitics…. Thank you for your consideration in the future. Brian Leubitz

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 18:16:07 PM PST

Or, maybe he’s trying to get something actually passed …

…  By having people from all sides involved. NAAAH.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 18:33:32 PM PST

As for your psychotic personal attacks …

Incidentally, “SFBrianCL,” it was clearly not within your obviously hypocritical “rules” to publish psychotic personal attacks against me. This is not the amateur hour, hard as it may be as a student for you to grasp. Nor is this patty cake. Straighten up and fly right.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 19:24:12 PM PST

Reality check …

The Bee is trying to cannibalize the institutional position of the Capitol Morning Report with regard to lobbies, corporations, agencies, and some politicians. Its simple, short-term cannibalization. The price point is preposterous, as Bee insiders acknowledge. The anti-Arnold snark of Bob Salladay and the LA Times blog is already several months past its sell-by date. November 7th, 2006. AS 56%, PA 39%. You remember that, Julia Rosen, from your little remarked upon ABC site.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 20:01:39 PM PST

And for the record, impact of $5 million in ABC TV ads …

…  No impact whatsoever on the polls  —  including internal labor and Democratic and Angelides polls  —  or the election.

by: Bill Bradley @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 20:03:30 PM PST

Get some real world experience …

…  by working in a real campaign or 4, “blogswarm.”

by: Bill Bradley @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:37:05 AM PST

(Here’s something we should think about… And act upon! – promoted by atdleft)

Prop 89 may not have passed, but the dialogue fostered by its being on the ballot shows there’s a lot of discontent with the role of big money in politics. Millions of Californians are disenchanted with the political process and the disproportionate influence that special interests have on legislation. And the desire for change that grew during that period last fall isn’t going away. More people now have an increased awareness of the problem and an interest in finding solutions to fix it. So what’s next?

For one thing, California Common Cause, CA Clean Money Campaign and others will be focusing on the same campaign funding issues in our local communities.  They are sponsoring a Clean Money – Clean Cities conference in Pasadena on March 15 and in San Jose on March 23 to educate us on the public campaign funding opportunities that could exist locally, modeled after successful efforts in Albuquerque and Portland. The conference will introduce us to the basics of clean money systems, the legal issues facing their implementation, and stories from clean money local campaigns.

Support for clean money and fair elections is still here. This conference is a great way to get involved in a new way. I know in my little Orange County city, donations in the thousands of dollars by developers and business interests went toward last-minute “independent expenditure” flyers that very likely affected the outcome of the races. We’ve seen bad practices all over the state – including in Modesto and Oceanside. Since when should it be acceptable for a Southern California group to send a mailer to Stanislaus County residents, or for a national Airport Owners and Pilots Association to back a city council candidate? At a minimum, voters need to clearly know which candidates are taking money from these outside groups, and candidates who are hurt from such independent expenditures need infrastructure to fight back. And disclosure laws just haven’t cut it. Good candidates don’t need help from shawdowy committees to get elected. California Clean Cities will help in making sure those good candidates get heard and can compete on a level playing field.

Clean money in local communities helps in two ways – there’s the immediate benefit of better representation and decision-making at the local level. But on top of that, each additional community that goes “clean” becomes another success story to support the ongoing efforts at the local, state and federal level.

Say what you will about Dana Rohrabacher, but at least he’s got high entertainment value. Remember that classic oldie about the termite-caused global warming? Or who can forget everyone’s favorite: “Let the Prisoners Pick The Fruit”. So with everything falling apart around us, perhaps we could all use a little light-hearted cheer.

Like his latest talk about impeaching the president:

Speaking after the Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed that agent Ignacio Ramos was assaulted by inmates in his Mississippi prison at the weekend, California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher had a warning for the White House.

“I tell you, Mr. President, if these men — especially after this assault — are murdered in prison, or if one of them lose their lives, there’s going to be some sort of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill,” he said during a press conference in Washington, D.C.

“The president of the United States talks a lot about his Christian charity, and his religious beliefs,” Rohrabacher said.

“He now is showing a mean-spirited side to him, an arrogance, in which he will turn his back, even after one of these officers in prison has been brutally assaulted.”

Of course, he’s not talking about torture, violating the constitution, or damaging national security – he’s talking about illegal immigration.  But that’s “ok” – because what it shows is that NO ONE likes the job this guy’s doing.  Seriously, check out the comments at freerepublic.com.  A few of the gems:

Bush laughs at us who simply spew posts like this. We do not have power. We do not threaten his funds which come from the very wealthy who support his agrenda and have investments tied up in mexico. We do not threaten bad press or instability that would come with hundreds of thousands of illegals marchings.

Our only hope now is impeachment. And I don;t see enough support in Congress for that.

I can’t believe my President – the man I worked so hard to get in office – who I deeply believed in – has turned such a deaf ear on this issue.

I’d be ashamed if we turned a blind eye to give one of our own a pass on something so despicable in favor of ‘Party Loyalty’.

and my favorite…

Every day I’m feeling screwed.

These folks may differ with us in their views. But you don’t impeach a president for his views. You do it for his failure to do the job he took the oath of office for. On that we all seem to agree. Wake up America – Bush is not out to help anyone but the insanely wealthy. Could it really be up to Dana to show us the way?

Yeah, this has always been the case, but has their bias towards Gavin Newsom ever been so clear as the past week.  I did a search on Examiner.com for “Newsom”.  Of course, many articles came tumbling out, but the Examiner’s position on a man that was once overwhelmingly popular is no mystery.

Here are some of the editorials:
“A Time for Grace at City Hall”, arguing that people should lay off the Gav for his indiscretions and well…I’ll let them say it: “During the coming period we would advise his political competitors to step back and allow the leader The City’s voters picked to grow in moral stature.” 

“Mayor must overcome self-doubt”: Ken Garcia explains to the world why the Mayor should quit doubting himself and um, Let Gavin be Gavin? Or something like that. On the other hand, Garcia did write this piece calling the rehab “sort-of excuse…getting as tired as the politicians themselves.”

But the letters section, well, let’s just check out the Feb 7 letters section as an example. In addition to putting a letter about municipal wifi from a SF Republican Party leader, they also put in a letter from Mike DeNunzio.  Yeah, the GOP candidate for Nancy Pelosi’s seat.  They saw it fit to publish Mr. DeNunzio’s screed against…well…anybody who isn’t a Republican.  Oh, and he managed to get his little dig on 8 supervisors who don’t pass muster with him in the paper as well. An Examiner two-fer.  Apparently nobody in the City was at all critical of the Mayor, everybody just hates the big bad progressive Supervisor meanies.  A quality publication, indeed.

(cross-posted from my recently neglected Ruck Pad)

My free two week trial to the SacBee’s CapitolAlert just expired.  It is time to take a look at what exactly they are offering and why this venture is doomed to fail.  I have to admit, I am a little reticent to actually write this, for fear they pick up on some of my criticisms and make the thing better.  See, I want them to fail.  Like most bloggers I despise paywalls.

The Bee, like most newspapers is attempting to find an online revenue model to make up for the declining revenue streams in print.  The impact of Craigslist, shrinking circulation numbers and other problems have been well documented.  Most newspapers are taking a long hard look at how they are going to survive.  The LAT has generated more than a few headlines with their own online shakeup, as of late.

The Bee decided to play to their strengths as a capitol area newspaper and make a buck on their political coverage.  The concept of creating premium coverage in itself is not a terrible idea, but I am of the strong opinion that there should be a way around the charge by watching an ad like Salon does.  I understand the need to make money and believe me, as a professional blogger, I really do rely on journalists for my work.

Not only did the Bee not create a way around the paywall, but they put the price point way outside of most people’s range.  Only lobbyists and organizations will be able to afford the $499 a year price tag.  Even then, I don’t believe that they have put together an attractive enough service to warrant paying even a 1/10th of that cost.

For $499 a year, you get the honor of getting an email every night at 8 pm that has a bunch of teasers from tomorrow’s newspaper columns.  You do not have the option of getting the full articles emailed to you, nor is there direct links to the articles in the body of the email.  It takes way too long to get to them.  If you are going to charge people that much money, there needs to be much more attention payed to convenience.  The morning email is no better.  I suspect that they fear that emails will be too easily forwarded around and they will lose out on potential customers, but I contend they will lose more by putting out a crappy product.

So, what else do you get for your $499 a year?  Well, they are yanking Dan Weintraubs’ ground breaking blog and placing it behind the paywall.  The immediate effect is that his readership will plummet.  While, he does often have unique tidbits of information, the current proliferation of reporter bloggers means that won’t happen all that often.  Anything that is really interesting behind that paywall will not take long to be spread around the rest of the blogs.  It only means a bit of a lag time.  I really do not have much confidence that Walters will really get into the new school of media and create unique content for the web.  Perhaps Weigand will have some gossip, but that is not particularly of interest of me.  The hiring of Shane Goldmacher means that we lose two reporter bloggers in this deal.  Then again, Salladay has come into his own, so I am not that worried.

The last thing that they are offering is a calendar and information on what is going on in and around the capitol.  Most political professionals already subscribe to the Capitol Morning Report, which is a quality publication that comes in an easy to read email every morning.  Everyone knows to send their information to them and it is unlikely that the CapitolAlert will surpass it, especially with their reticence to deliver their content in email form.  Their roundup of political coverage does nothing new from what Rough & Tumble does or Frank’s opinion collection.  In fact, I think it is less user friendly than both.

After using the service for two weeks, I have no desire to even figure out a way to get a log in to it.  I went back less and less each day.  It was just too hard to get at the content.  In the days of RSS readers and email subscriptions having to poke around through a bunch of links for not that much exclusive content just isn’t worth it.  They may have done a bunch of research and did some cute marketing, but this thing is a dud.