The merged resolution that came out of negotiations between the Progressive Caucus and the Labor Caucus (specifically Brad Parker of PDA and Jim Gordon of CWA) yielded a very favorable document that was passed through the Resolutions Committee.  In addition, a resolution in support of parole and sentencing reform passed the committee and is on its way to passage.  There’s definitely a different feeling at this meeting; because it’s not as high-profile as a convention, the hard work of progressive activists is being rewarded.  I think that the whole resolutions process is a SYMBOLIC exercise that gives you a sense of where the rank and file of the party is going ideologically, and certainly it’s becoming more progressive.  There’s still a lot of work to be done to turn that symbolism into some real action; it involves making in-roads in county committees and building a progressive bench.  But I think some of the old guard are worried (more on that later).

The new net neutrality language, which I think offers some excellent framing devices, on the flip:

Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality (it’s actually Network Neutrality –ed.)

WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish , Americans are entitled to and require open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;

WHEREAS the United States – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; then United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobytes per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collections of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;

WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communications, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national,  state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of network capable of delivering 10 megabytes per second downstream and 1 megabyte per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabytes per second downstream, 1 megabyte per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all home and businesses in the nation and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites for content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.

Submitted by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

Let me just say that I think this resolutions thing is a much ado about nothing.  More than anything it is instructive for how the party responds to its rank-and-file.  Nevertheless, I’m here, and so your intrepid blogger will follow it for you.

But first of all, let me make a couple remarks about Art Torres’ comments in the general session.  I’m disappointed and annoyed that he resorted to blaming “the blogs” for criticism that the Party received after the last convention, as part of some comments that he made justifying the CDP’s efforts to compete statewide.  It’s an unfair and deliberately vague characterization.  What blogs?  Which bloggers?  Is there anything specific?  And can you say with a straight face that the ONLY or even the main people to take issue with various matters that happened at the convention are bloggers?  The rank-and-file grassroots wrote those resolutions.  The rank-and-file grassroots had the problems with how they were handled in the resolutions committee.  They had the issues with the quorum call.  They led the fight to create an Audit Committee and the resultant fallout.

We REPORTED it.  And I stand behind my belief that reporting the facts and making opinions on policies and events are NOT personal attacks.  It’s a convenient excuse to blame “mean dirty hippie bloggers” for every criticism ever leveled at the Party.  People have substantive questions, and blogs are one way, and really one of the smaller ways, for people to express those questions.  I think that, at least on this site, there was an extremely healthy debate about the convention fallout, and it’s simply unfair for Torres to lash out in that way.

I will add that the fact that Torres felt the need to defend himself, and defend the Party’s goal of electing Democrats statewide and implementing a 58-county strategy, is a win in itself.  I think we all want to work to that end; it’s certainly a major part of what we do here at Calitics.  You can quote me on that, Art.  By name.

I’ll toss some notes about the Resolutions Committee in the extended entry.

So far, not much has really happened.  The Iraq resolution (the real sticking point at last year’s convention) is being worked on through Karen Bernal on the sidelines.  Still waiting on the only resolutions that interest me, one on parole and sentencing reform, and the merged net neutrality resolution.

So I typed up a long transcript of the debate in the Labor Caucus on the two competing net neutrality resolutions, but the computer ate it.  So let me summarize.

When we last left our story at the CDP convention, the various net neutrality resolutions were referred to the Labor Caucus.  The caucus officers got together and put together a resolution that merged some of the elements of the other ones.  The chair of the Caucus is Jim Gordon, a member of CWA (Communications Workers of America).  Now, CWA has been pushing an astroturf campaign called “Speed Matters,” which advocates for building out high-speed networks by reserving a piece of the bandwidth for proprietary video services for the telecoms.  That is ludicrous, and a wormhole into overturning the principle of net neutrality and a completely open Internet for everyone. 

So Brad Parker, of Progressive Democrats of America, submitted a different resolution, one that demands equal access and no two-tiered structure on the Internet, where telecoms can extract payment in return for speedy content delivery.  And in the Labor Caucus this morning, both proposals were heard and a compromise position is in the process of being reached.  This is good news.  The caucus rank-and-file was clearly in support of equal access and net neutrality, and not for reserving any special services for telecoms.  Jim Gordon’s defense was that “if we don’t build out the Internet, it’ll tumble.”  Right, because they’re standing in bread lines at AT&T.  We all believe that it’s pathetic that the United States is 16th in connectivity in the world, but we do not believe that telecoms need another revenue stream to incentivize them to build it.  Indeed, the calcification of our connectivity is a DIRECT result of the laws being written for the benefit of telecoms who have no reason to innovate.  The Internet is the lifeblood of communication in America, and it cannot be controlled in any part by private interests, it should be like a public utility.

At the meeting, a compromise was reached, and the two competing resolutions (both endorsed by the Labor Caucus) is being merged into one.  Brad Parker is writing the new resolution and is confident that the bit about “reserving a portion of the bandwidth” will be struck out.  The people of the CDP have spoken, and I believe we will come out with a resolution we can all get behind.  I found that when you explain this issue in clear terms, people understand it.  It’s a free speech and free press.

And, you know what, It’s not the fourth of july. But everytime I think Saturday, I want to say, “in jim’s garage”. Oh well. 

Anyway, the meeting started off with a bang this morning. After getting lost in the innards of Sacramento’s northern manufacturing district, I eventua.ly found the Radisson on, I kid you not, Liesure Lane.  Good times.  I got here early to attend the Labor Caucus meeting, where they were talking about the Net Neutrality Resolution. I’ll let dday go into that discussion further.

Elizabeth Edwards (in the picture above, with Sen/Chair Art Torres next to her) spoke in the general session.  As always, she made excellent points, both in her own right, and for her husband’s campaign.  Whether John himself can get some more traction in the primary race, is, of course, another issue.

Following the wonderful Mrs. Edwards, Sen. Darrel Steinberg, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and Board of Equalization Chair Betty Yee addressed the general session.  More will follow, and follow my flickr stream for more.

Back at our hotel in Sacramento with hekebolos after the first day of the executive board meeting of the CDP.  I spent most of my time in the Progressive Caucus, and since Donald Lathbury of the California Majority Report had his laptop with him and I didn’t, I’ll outsource the running commentary to him.

I will say that the caucus was once again the most well-attended, most organized group in the CDP, and I sense that people there are growing more confident in their ability to make real change happen within the party.  There have been setbacks, no doubt, but they continue on.

I will say something about the net neutrality debate tomorrow.  Brad Parker from PDA (Progressive Democrats of America), as I mentioned, will be debating Jim Gordon, chair of the Labor Caucus and a member of CWA (Communications Workers of America), tomorrow morning.  I’ll be liveblogging.  But the outcome of that debate, while entertaining, is irrelevant to what will happen tomorrow.  There will be two resolutions in the Resolutions Committee – one by Brad Parker, and one by Jim Gordon.  I haven’t seen the text of either, but I can safely assume that Parker’s supports the principle of a free and open Internet without discriminating against any content provider, no matter how big or small, while Gordon’s talks about “building out broadband access” and implicitly endorses the telecoms getting additional revenue streams by forcing content providers to pay them for high-speed access.  As Parker put it today, “broadband for the haves, and dial-up for the never-wills” is what the telecoms want.

So this will play out tomorow in resolutions, and Brian will have the inside scoop, I assume.  Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards will address the general session at 9:30 am tomorrow.

And on an unrelated note, our hotel is hosting the largest anime convention in Sacramento.  I’m the only one here without an oversized sword and a lion costume.  Hekebolos has his on right now.

UPDATE: I should mention that there was an informal and highly unscientific Presidential straw poll at the Progressive Caucus, and Edwards won overwhelmingly.

The results: Gravel 0, Dodd 0, Biden 1, Clinton 2, Undecided 6, Richardson 10, Obama 12, Kucinich 17, Gore 27, and Edwards 47.

Well that didn’t take long.  Doolittle raised a lot of eyebrows this week when he announced that he was no longer going to support Bush on Iraq.  One would have naturally expected him to vote yesterday to approve the House resolution on withdrawing troops.  But no.  It turns out those were empty words.  The Bee sure expected he would vote aye.

Rep. John Doolittle removed any thought that he was abandoning his support of President Bush’s policy in Iraq on Thursday when he voted to oppose a Democratic resolution to begin withdrawing U.S. troops within 120 days.

The measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled House. Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September, has threatened to veto it.

Last week, in a meeting with his constituents and with The Bee’s editorial board, the conservative Roseville Republican said the war had turned into a “quagmire” and that his position had evolved to the point where he now favored pulling back U.S. troops from the front lines.

Whoopsies, perhaps it wasn’t the greatest idea to time the big announcement the week and a vote was scheduled.  The editorial board sure has a bone to pick now with the Congressmen.

So, Doolittle has an explanation for all of this right?  Some sort of a statement about how this wasn’t the exact right vehicle for changing the Iraq policy.  Right?  Well…um, no, not exactly.  See it’s all our fault for taking Doolittle at his word.  See what he said, wasn’t what he said.  We have it all wrong.  He really does support the president.

Doolittle said Thursday that he is not responsible for how his remarks were interpreted, but he has not abandoned Bush or given up on the president’s “surge” policy. That policy boosted U.S. troop strength in Iraq to help Iraqi forces battle insurgents in neighborhood-by-neighborhood combat.

“I’ve been a staunch supporter of the president, and I remain that,” Doolittle said. To the extent he has any differences with the president, he said, it would be on the speed with which U.S. troops are pulled off the front lines into support roles.

And what exactly did he sy last week?

But Thursday, Doolittle characterized the war as a “quagmire” and said America should soon step back to a training and advisory role for Iraqi forces.

“We’ve got to get off the front lines as soon as possible,” Doolittle told a gathering at the Rocklin City Hall chambers. “And in my mind, that means something like the end of the year. We just can’t continue to tolerate these kinds of losses.”

Off the front lines as soon as possible you say?  How about 120 days?  Gee, it sure is hard to understand why the Bee is pissed with Doolittle today.  Doolittle is losing it here with those sharks circling.