Term Limits Initiative Gets A Boost (Maybe)

As Juls mentioned in Quick Hits, Attorney General Jerry Brown wrote the language of the term limits initiative in a way that appears to favor a “yes” vote.  But are people really that easily swayed by whatever it says on the ballot?  Most experts seem to think so, and certainly when the ballot question is put to people in polls differently, it changes the outcome.  But I am not sure that this is so epochal.

The campaign over this term limits extension (which is exactly what it is for people in office right now, while a reduction for later) hasn’t even begun.  And you can bet that there will be ads excoriating the perceived power grab, no matter what the ballot says.  I don’t think that you can hand an election to one side or the other based on language without putting it in the context of a campaign dynamic.  What we know about initiatives in the past couple elections is that the default position is no.  And the “Yes” people now have a really odd argument to make.  They have to say that term limits should be relaxed for the 128 lawmakers serving right now, but tightened for everybody else.  They have to talk about the benefits of more experience and wisdom in the California legislature, while defending a proposition that, according to the ballot, will guarantee LESS experience in that body.  It’s a bit incoherent.  And the opening for opponents of the measure is so wide you can drive a truck through it.

In addition, is the Governor on board yet?  That could be crucial.

The Secret is Stockton

( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The fact of the matter is that Blue California is mostly quite blue and Red California is quite red. But there is a thin strip of politically semi-arid but not yet desert land, like the Sahel region just to the south of the Sahara in Africa, which we can call Purple California. This land could be fertile terrain for political progressives, as long as it received a modest irrigation flow of money and political expertise. This land is called Stockton.

With a working class population bolstered by some ancestrally Democratic Okies (though not as many as settled in the southern Valley) during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s, San Joaquin County was traditionally Democratic – though quite conservative. Over the last 2-3 decades Republicans gained greatly in registration numbers and actual votes. This happened because working class Valley residents felt abandoned as the Democratic party, especially under Bill Clinton, moved away from its FDR/Truman tradition of carrying the banner for working class people. This led to  Valley residents’ innate social conservatism asserting itself and impelling Valley voters, almost by default, to the Republican party. But now affordable housing-starved San Francisco Bay Area residents are moving in droves to the parts of the Valley nearest to the Bay Area, especially San Joaquin County. Enough people have moved to change the politics of San Joaquin County and restore a Democratic party registration advantage among San Joaquin County voters, although it’s a quite narrow one. The people moving from the Bay Area to San Joaquin County, especially the Democrats, are much more progressive on average than long time residents.

The harsh truth is that the overwhelming majority of San Joaquin County elected officials who are Democrats (still a minority of elected officials in the county) have horrible voting records from the perspective of progressives. But there are progressive opportunities. The finely balanced partisan registration margins in San Joaquin County overall mask dramatic differences within different parts of the county. The rural areas and the smaller incorporated cities, especially Lodi, are still quite Republican. Stockton is by far and away the largest population center of San Joaquin County. Stockton itself has a fairly strong Democratic voter registration advantage.

But there’s not anyone doing partisan electoral work from a progressive perspective on the ground in Stockton. California coastal progressives from places like the Bay Area need to think strategically. We shouldn’t be channeling scarce resources to the sparsely populated Gold Country Congressional districts of Doolittle & Lungren, however much their stench offends our nostrils. Those districts are just too Red. Even if we defeat Doolittle because he’s indicted (the only way it’ll happen), we’d lose the seat back two years later.

On the other hand, Stockton just elected a very progressive Latina lesbian to the city council in a harsh race where she was viciously attacked by the old boy power structure. Of the five supervisorial districts in San Joaquin County, one is strongly Democratic and one strongly Republican with the other three closely balanced (two with a narrow Dem advantage/one with a narrow Republican advantage). The predominantly Democratic supervisorial district is the one that includes most of Stockton. This supervisorial district in turn is at the core of the 17th state Assembly district represented by Cathleen Galgiani and the 18th Congressional district represented by Dennis Cardoza, both of whom are fairly wretchedly reactionary Democrats. Fortunately Galgiani will be pushed elsewhere (one hopes to political oblivion) by term limits. By percolating her up through the political ranks, our progressive member of the Stockton City Council COULD wind up being a progressive member of the U.S. Congress. But it won’t happen by accident, and – quite possibly – not without our help.

Bay Area progressives need to scour Stockton and link up with indigenous activist groups who A) have their act together, B) are progressive & C) are angry with the right wing pro-developer, pro-big-agribusiness, pro-corporate mentality that’s resulted in the San Joaquin Valley (including San Joaquin County) having a variety of negative social indices more like those of a third world country than those of the Bay Area. These groups don’t have to currently be engaged in electoral work. They do need to be dedicated to community organizing – year round, not just in election season. With the credibility gained by doing the hard, dirty work of organizing poor people around getting a stoplight at an intersection where a kid has been hit by a car, etc., i.e. Saul Alinsky-style organizing, these indigenous organizations are the only ones who are in a position to command the respect of the socially/economically disadvantaged and understandably cynical communities that they work in. We should be funding them to hire people who have great experience in both community organizing AND nakedly electoral work as well.

It would take a tremendous amount of work, some expenditure of resources as well as time to take over the Stockton City Council. But it could be done and it would provide a tremendous beacon of hope for progressive organizing in San Joaquin County which in turn would provide a tremendous beacon of hope for progressive organizing in the entire San Joaquin Valley.

California’s coastal progressives ignore the Valley at their peril. It’s rapidly growing while the Bay Area’s population is essentially stable. Without combating Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Valley so that it doesn’t become their 21st century equivalent of what Orange County represented for the right wing in the 1980s and `90s, California will slowly but inexorably slide from being a blue state to being a purple one overall. That’s because the other rapidly growing parts of California, the Inland Empire counties of Riverside and San Bernardino lean to the Republicans and carry increasing heft in California politics as they mushroom in population and Los Angeles stagnates along with the Bay Area.

Maybe I shouldn’t say the secret is Stockton, but rather that the solution is Stockton!

Joshua Grossman, who wrote this posting, will be live blogging and taking questions on FireDogLake this coming Saturday, April 14, from 11 am- 1pm PST.

If you want to help make Stockton the solution, click on the Progressive Kick ActBlue link: http://actblue.com/c…
As a 527 organization, Progressive Kick can take contributions of any size from a dollar to $10 million (if you work in a social change nonprofit you have to be an optimist, at least for the long haul  😉 

CA04: MY SON IS OFF TO SERVE HIS 4th ROTATION IN IRAQ

(This is also up at dkos. – promoted by juls)

Most Americans woke up this morning ready to read the morning paper, listen to the news, and check their computer to see what the day would bring.

Jan and I woke up knowing that today our son deployed for his fourth rotation in Iraq.  We woke up knowing that for the next several months, the last thing we do at night and the first thing we do in the morning will be checking the internet for news out of a war zone…for word from our son. 

We are in the minority:  parents, spouses, and friends with a loved one in Iraq.  Knowing from experience about the true cost of war, we questioned the justification and execution of this policy before it was popular.  We learned first hand about the lack of proper equipment before others read about it in the newspaper.  We checked prices for top quality body armor to send our son while the GOP led Congress fiddled.  And long before the Walter Reed scandal broke, we followed the aftercare problems facing our troops, their families, and surviving dependents as our son talked about the injured and dead his unit flies out of Iraq. 

The truth doesn’t only set you free, it strengthens your resolve to fight for what’s right.

Like many other veterans and military parents, my wife (who served as an Air Force Nurse) and I have borne the burden of far more truth than is typically presented to the general public.  We learned about contractor fraud from an auditor I used to fly helicopters with who monitors contracts in Iraq—about the slower than reported progress on Iraqi civil infrastructure projects from a Marine civil engineer who was stationed in Iraq—about our long since discredited intelligence on the war from people on the ground who I worked with during my own 26 year military career.  And, as a longtime subscriber to `professional’ military publications, I learned years ago that the military has not been quiet about the problems it is facing–you just had to know where to look, and you had to be willing to listen to the experts on the ground. 

Now that this information is more public, most Americans disapprove of U.S. policy in Iraq, and are justifiably outraged over the care given to our troops when they come home. 

Welcome to our world.

We thank those of you reading this for caring, for working to spread the truth, and for helping to elect a new Congress in 2006 that is fighting for change.  That’s what “supporting the troops” is all about, but it is only a beginning.

Representatives like my 2006 opponent John Doolittle are still voting to send people like my son into combat without proper equipment, training, or a plan for success.  They are still refusing to make personal sacrifices to support our armed forces, or hold the administration and Iraqi politicians accountable for results instead of rhetoric.

I suppose that’s easy to do as long as it’s someone else’s child fighting and dying, but it is not the American way, and it is certainly not patriotism.

We need good people in the military, and we owe those who serve the benefit of competent civilian leadership, and seamless aftercare when they become veterans.  Families like ours know this truth all to well.  We know that resolving these issues at a human level is not about having all the answers—it’s about having the right priorities and the courage to ask the right questions. 

We are proud of our son and the troops who protect our beloved country.  They truly are our best and brightest.

And that’s why Jan and I are as determined as ever to ensure we have a government that cares as much as we do about the safety and success of our men and women in uniform. 

Be safe son.  And come home soon.

Charlie Brown, Lt. Col. USAF Ret.

www.charliebrownforcongress.org

SD-03: Migden/Leno Debate in its (almost) entirety

I’ve uploaded the entire debate now, and have now had the chance to “mix” them together.  I did have some technical difficulties and missed much of the opening speeches. For that, I apologize.  The video is hosted at eyespot, which has some great features, but can occasionally get a bit finnicky. Let me know if there are any problems.  This video is about an hour long, so give it a few seconds to load before you hit play.

I’ll have some analysis on the debate as I have a chance to focus on it, but, for now, enjoy! Oh, by the way, SFYD Outreach Director Jennifer Longley posted the results yesterday. Mark Leno won the SD-03 endorsement and Tim Steed won the CYD president endorsement. Full endorsements over the flip…

Hi All,
This is Jennifer Longley, Outreach Director for the San Francisco Young Democrats. I just wanted to thank Brian for videoing the event and giving everyone a chance to see the first debate of the SD3 primary! This was not just a debate, but an endorsement meeting for our organization for the SD3 Race, and also for all executive offices for California Young Democrats.
All eligible members voted in these races, and our endorsements are as follows:

SD3: Mark Leno

CYD President: Tim Steed

CYD Vice President of Membership: Edie Irons

CYD Vice President of Finance: Lindsay Hopkins

CYD Secretary: Angelica Gonzalez

CYD Parliamentarian: Owen Stephens

CYD Political Director: John Vigna

CYD National Committeeman: Rocky Fernandez

CYD National Committeewoman: Rachel Kau-Taylor

CYD Bay Area Regional Director: Jennifer Longley

Choose Tim Steed to Lead CYD

OK, I know that there’s an important election coming up. Pretty soon, California Young Democrats will be choosing their next President. But for me, there really isn’t a choice. Tim Steed has what it takes to lead CYD, and to make it stronger than ever. He’s always been a young progressive champion in Orange County, and I’m sure he’d do a great job as CYD President.

He started out working in Joe Dunn’s office. That should be enough for us. But no, there’s much, much more. He reinvigorated the Orange County Young Democrats as OCYD President. He put the pressure on Tom Umberg to support Leno’s marriage equality bill. And in 2004, Tim coordinated the first Democratic precinct captain organization in Orange County in over 20 years with the Orange County Victory Fund. Tim and the other OCVF organizers raised $30,000 and organized hundreds of volunteers, which enabled them turn out countless new voters and impact local elections. Sergio Contreras won a seat on the Westminster School Board as a result of OCVF’s precinct program, and the majority flipped from Republican to Democratic. That’s the type of great results that came out of Tim’s work with OCVF.

And oh yes, how could I ever forget the Peer to Peer program?! Last year, Tim ran the Peer to Peer operation for CYD in SD 34. I saw firsthand as he and other young activists in OC knocked on young SD 34 voters’ doors, called their phones, and got over 1,100 of them to vote last November. Oh yeah, and let’s not forget that Democrat Lou Correa won by 1,392 votes. Tim helped make the difference in keeping Central Orange County blue.

OK, so Tim has done some great things in the past… What does he plan to do with CYD in the future? Well, let me tell you all about it after the flip…

So what exactly would Tim Steed do as CYD President? Well, here is a list of his top priorities.

Expand the number of Young Democrats of America/California Young Democrats partnerships with YDA/CYD chapters to assist them with their own local projects.
CYD and YDA currently have a partnership whereby 50 percent of CYD activities are funded through Young Democrats of America. Expanding this partnership with the local chapters will allow them to more effectively pursue their own local goals. One specific example would be hiring interns for clubs; in essence, hiring an executive director for those clubs. YDA would pay half of the stipend for the intern, with CYD and the local chapter splitting the remaining 50%. This will allow chapters to expand and professionalize with institutional support from CYD, and without a major expenditure on their part.

Expand CYD’s presence in California’s Colleges by working with the Vice President of Membership and California College Democrats President and Membership Director to establish and support chapters at every California State University and University of California campus.
CYD’s slogan is “I am the margin of victory” because we know that when young people vote, Democrats win. Working with the California College Democrats is a critical step into forging our generation into a solid bloc of Democratic voters. Establishing chapters at every UC and CSU will further expand the diversity of CYD, establish a new institutional presence in the Red areas of the state (such as at CSU Stanislaus or UC Merced) and provide the opportunity for new leaders to emerge throughout CYD and the California Democratic Party.

Fully implement CYD’s Action Plan
At the last CYD Executive Board Meeting, CYD voted to adopt its 2007 Action Plan. This 70 page document details a specific strategy for expanding CYD’s base throughout the state, and in particular, focuses on establishing the Peer to Peer campaign model throughout the state. Peer to Peer is a new model for organizing Young Democrats, and is focused on reaching out to young voters through specific issues, and then bringing them to the polls. In 2006, the Peer to Peer campaign proved to be effective in providing the margin of victory for Lou Correa in Orange County.

Appointing Policy Director to assist the Political Director in establish a CYD Policy Council so that CYD can begin taking formal steps to advocate on behalf of policies benefiting young Californians.
One of the critical components to establishing a generational bloc of young voters that vote Democratic is establishing a mechanism for CYD to be the voice of our generation. Establishing a Policy Council, headed by an appointed Policy Director (who works with the elected Political Director) will allow CYD to develop the institutions necessary for us to advocate on behalf of the legislation that is important to young Californians.

Ensure more accountability among CYD’s elected officers by requiring written quarterly reports and mandatory weekly phone calls between the President and Officers so that CYD chapters and activists can be sure that they are being served to the utmost of the officers’ abilities.

OK, so you know what Tim has done in Orange County. And now, you know what Tim will do if he’s elected as CYD President. So how does this prove that Tim Steed is the best person to lead CYD?

Well, I know Tim. He’s a great guy, and one committed Democrat. OCYD would not be what it is today without him, and Lou Correa probably wouldn’t be my State Senator today if it weren’t for him. And Joe Dunn would have never had so much energy in his office if it weren’t for Tim. I am just so excited about what Tim has in store for CYD, and I can hardly wait to see him in action. And I hope you agree with me that Tim Steed should lead CYD.

SD-03: Migden, Leno, and a hot auditorium

I’ve just come back from SFYD’s SD-03 debate.  Oh yeah, the CYD presidential candidates gave 5 minute speeches as well.  SFYD did a great job. That the auditorium was so hot was a testament to how well they put this program together and got people to show up. So, I applaud everybody at SFYD for that.  I also applaud both the Senator and the Assemblyman for taking part in this forum at SFYD, it was a great learning experience in politics.  Sure, I have a few disagreements with a statement here or there.  But the debate happened, and that’s a really good thing for our democracy.

I am uploading the videos right now, but this internet connection has got some slow upload speeds.  So, the first video is Asm. Mark Leno’s closing speech. For some reason, eyepot chose to upload the videos in some random order. But, I believe Sen. Carole Migden’s opening speech is uploaded next, so I’ll get those on this diary ASAP.

So, click “There’s More” to see some videos from the debate.

Mark Leno’s closing speech:

Carole Migden’s opener:

U.S. Senate Passes Stem Cell Legislation…Bush Promises To Veto

As debate opened in the Senate this week on a bill that would expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and reject the restrictions put in place by Bush’s 2001 executive order, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said:

“This bill eventually will become law. If not this year then next year. If not next year then the following year.”

If the Democrats (and a good amount of Republicans) had their way, of course, it would be law already. Back in January the House passed their version and today the U.S. Senate voted 63-34 in favor of expanding stem cell research funding (last year’s 63-37 vote for a similar bill prompted the first veto of Bush’s presidency.)

Unfortunately, the 2006 elections did not garner us a veto-proof majority in either house. But we’re getting closer. In the Senate, the Nays have been reduced by 3 since last year’s vote (Dodd, Landrieu and Johnson, all Ayes last year, did not vote this time.) And in the House, 2005’s 238-194 vote in favor of expanding funding shifted dramatically to this year’s 253-174.

Further evidence that the wind is at our backs on this issue came in the form of some good news for diabetes patients…

Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago released results of a study that shows great promise for stem cells in halting the progression of type 1 diabetes.

Researchers have demonstrated for the first time that the progression of Type 1 diabetes can be halted – and possibly reversed – by a stem-cell transplant that preserves the body’s diminishing ability to make insulin.

Remarkably…

The experimental therapy eliminated the need for insulin injections for months or even years in 14 of 15 patients recently diagnosed with the disease. One subject, a 30-year-old male, hasn’t taken insulin since his stem-cell transplant more than three years ago.

These are the sorts of advancements we’ll see more and more of over the coming years, making opposition to federal funding of stem cell research a political liability.

Right here at home, Geron of Menlo Park, CA intends to begin human trials of an embryonic stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries by the end of this year.

Prop 90 vs. New Initiative

You all remember Prop 90, the proposition that would have severely limited eminent domain and the government’s ability to do land-use planning, zoning, etc…

Here is the comparison: http://calpropertyri…

I’m not going to pretend this only regulates eminent domain. This also provides a 3-year phase out of rent controls, as the sponsors will readily admit. I will admit would have preferred these two things be separate

Prop 90 was not voted down because of its goal to restrict eminent domain to only public use. It was voted down because it went far beyond that.

I’m glad that this time, when it qualifies, we will be able to have a straight-up debate on eminent domain and rent controls. Does anyone here seriously think eminent domain should be allowed for private use? (i.e. taking a home so a Starbucks can set up there, or taking a small coffee shop so a Starbucks can set up there)

Vote Builder in California

I was just reading an article in this month’s issue of Campaigns & Elections Magazine on a new Democratic voter database the DNC is introducing called Vote Builder (see page 54).  The database is designed to compete with the formidable Republican voter targeting database that was so integral to Bush’s successful targeting effort in 2004.  It uses a web interface that gets a  great review from the author of the article. 

The trick will be populating the database with information about voters.  That’s where the various state parties are supposed to come in: they’re the ones who will do the canvassing and the voter ID.  But the DNC, by providing this platform, is effectively doing something extremely helpful for almost every race in the country, especially those downballot races it otherwise wouldn’t have the resources or inclination to support.

But a couple of states aren’t participating, and one of them is California.  (more)

The only information I can find on why California isn’t participating comes from a blurb on Hotline:

California is one state that says it’s sticking to its own system for now and not using Vote Builder, says their spokesperson Bob Mulholland. He said the state party has no plans to switch over because they’re already using “iPod of voter files in America.”

“We know where the Jewish disabled woman lives with the Irish husband,” said Mulholland. “And if they have a magazine subscription.”

I don’t know what the “iPod of voter files” is supposed to mean, but when I hear that it makes me think “the one that everybody’s using but that isn’t really the best you can get”.  Mr. Mulholland probably intended to say that the California system is superior to the national system.  But it seems to me that Democrats would benefit greatly from a 50 state voter file, and parochial concerns would be better left aside on this issue.  California should join Vote Builder.