Daily Archives: February 12, 2008

San Francisco

Feb 12: A Momentous Day for Marriage Equality

Four years ago, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses. Mayor Gavin Newsom wrote a letter on 2/10 asking the clerk to issue the licenses:

Dear Ms. Alfaro,

Upon taking the Oath of Office, becoming the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California.  Article I, Section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that “[a] person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the laws.”  The California courts have interpreted the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to apply to lesbians and gay men and have suggested that laws that treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals are suspect.  The California courts have also stated that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is invidious.  The California courts have held that gender discrimination is suspect and invidious as well.  The Supreme Courts in other states have held that equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit discrimination against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and obligations flowing from marriage.  It is my belief that these decisions are persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such discrimination.

Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause, I request that you determine what changes should be made to the forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses in order to provide marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.

Respectfully,

Mayor Gavin Newsom

What followed was one of the most inspirational months in my life. People stood outside City Hall for hours in the rain to get married. It brought a real face to what had been a nebulous concept. It made people understand that the LGBT community are not some source of evil, but rather real people that want to build lives together.

As Mayor Newsom says in the video, there is only one consistent and moral position here. Eventually all of America will come to see that as well. The full transcript of the video over the flip.

Q. So to pivot a little bit towards something more local — coming up in a little less than two weeks from now is the four year anniversary of —

A. Yeah, it’s four years.

Q. — of the marriage debate.

A. Yeah.

Q. You brought up in a letter —

A. Yeah, I got in trouble.  

Q. Yeah.  That’s on there too.  You might have gotten blamed in 2004.

A. Yeah.  How do you like that?  I woke up after Election Day and then had to deal with that one.  Looking around, seeing 6 billion people on the planet are pointing fingers.  It’s pretty extraordinary, let me tell you.  I was thinking about this the other day.  You have every single presidential candidate save maybe one — I haven’t frankly checked in with Huckabee on this, though someone quickly can find out — that all appear reasonably open to civil unions.  And I remember, it wasn’t that long ago, when Howard Dean in his book referenced a conversation he had with Bill Clinton, who said — Bill Clinton did, and I didn’t appreciate this, but we can agree to disagree — he said, “You have given up your right ever to be president of the United States, Governor Dean, because of your support of civil unions.”  He was the maverick, remember, on civil unions.  

Now it’s the mainstream position. Dick Cheney shares it, we know that, as do all the presidential candidates on the Democratic side.  So we have come an enormous way in just a few years; an extraordinary way.  We had a hard time in San Francisco when I started in local politics.  Domestic partnership was just — people were going insane.  Catholic charities had — they said, “We’re going to pull out of investing in your city.”  The Salvation Army got out of the city.  The sky was going to fall in.  These big multinational corporations saying, “This is the end of the world as we know it.” That was domestic partnership.  That wasn’t many years ago; Democrats had a hard time with it.  

Now a domestic partnership seems insulting.  I mean, talk about separate and unequal.  Now it’s civil unions.  I’m convinced we’re going to look back at civil unions as we did domestic partnerships; that’s separate and unequal.  Boy, that’s insulting.  You can’t have two institutions for the same thing.  Marriage is marriage.  Civil unions are civil unions.  I don’t see any presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, that supports civil unions.  That is calling to get rid of their marriage certificate and call for a civil union.  There’s something about marriage.  And as long as there’s something about an institution that not everyone can join, only on the basis of sexual orientation, let alone race, ethnicity, that is fundamentally flawed, fundamentally wrong, and for me fundamentally unconstitutional.  Until we have a Constitution that is advanced for all Americans, and then we can have a foundation on which to grow all these other proposals that we’re talking about. So to me this is sacrosanct, and I’m very intense about it.  And again, I disagree with my good Democrats on this, but I think it’s politics more than it is (IA)  

Q. It’s a big leap of faith and a leap of courage to actually go out and say this is what’s right, and good policy and good politics.

A. Yeah.  And you know, it shouldn’t be.  The same thing was said in 1967, when 16 states denied inter-racial marriage — ’67, not ’30 something, not ’20 something — 1967.  16 states, until Loving vs. State of Virginia finally threw that out in the Supreme Court.  And it’s very interesting.  It’s a true story; people need to remember this.  Blacks couldn’t marry whites.  Whites, Asians, African-Americans, etc., couldn’t marry in 16 states in the United States in ’67.  An overwhelming majority of Americans opposed inter-racial marriage at the time, because it was not traditional marriage.  What’s next?  Again, the sky is going to fall in.  And there was a famous decision where a judge said the following.  He said — I’m not sure he said this directly to the Loving family, but said it in the lawsuit.  “God, sir, put different races on different continents for a reason.  God never wanted the races to mix.”  Are you kidding me?  That was in my lifetime.

Q. Wow.

A. So we use God, we use religion, we use tradition, we use all those things.  And then we use hyperbole about the world coming to an end, and dogs will marry cats, and pomegranates will marry watermelons, and what’s next?  No one is arguing for anything next.  If you believe in gay rights — and it sounds to me like all these politicians do — they acknowledge inherently something about two people of the same sex having some rights.  If you’re going to acknowledge some, but can’t acknowledge all of them, then you’re running in the 90-yard dash, and that’s not American, and it’s certainly un-Democratic.  And that’s my party’s Democrat, not democratic in the context of America.  

And I don’t think the Democratic Party will long stand on a separate but unequal platform, and that’s why I think we’re in trouble on this unless we just cut to the chase and do what Kucinich, and do what Mrs. Edwards has done, do what everyone else has done and just get it out of the way.  Say we’re for equality, period, move on to the next thing and let’s talk about education, health care and the environment and other things, because that’s what most people care about.

Q. And we might find out soon here in California if the City wins its case.

A. Yeah.  Well, we’ve got those judges there, my friends.  My father was in the Court of Appeals for years.  I wish he was still on there, though he would have to be recused.  He was one of those activist judges.  It’s ironic, most of these activist judges have been Republicans that have read the Constitution.  It’s interesting.

Someone else who apparently has read the Constitution is the President.  And it’s suggestive the President is pretty upset about the Constitution that he always is talking about embracing because he wants to change it.  He wants to write discrimination — I love this.  Here’s these guys, there’s Pat Buchanan and all these serious folks on Fox Network.  We’re going to — you know, and they ask the questions of the Romneys and the McCains, I’m going to appoint constitutional constructionists, not one of these activist judges who are writing laws. Yet their own President is arguing to change their Constitution. Seems to me a little disconnected for Mitt Romney and others that believe these constitutional amendments (IA).  It seems that someone should do a follow-up question and try to square that:  Sir, what is wrong with the Constitution that you need to feel it needs to be changed?

And there’s a reason it needs to be changed.  They’re right.  There is nothing in the Constitution that allows people to be discriminated based on their sexual orientation. And so that’s kind of an unfortunate position for the Republican Right in this country, and that’s why ultimately there’s going to be gay marriage. And that’s a wonderful thing, because everyone should be treated the same way.

Q. Your list to nine judges’ ears.

A. Yeah, please, I know it’s tough, but do the right thing.  You’ll be known in history for having done the right thing.  That’s courage; that’s nobility.

Health Care

Blue Cross: Making Every Doctor Into a Spy against You!

10 Comments

Lisa Girion of the LA Times has covered the health care beat for a while, and she’s done a pretty good job pointing out some of the problems with the health insurance companies.  Her latest, and most frequent, target is Blue Cross. It seems Blue Cross sent all doctors a letter that they would be getting each patient’s application (for individual members) and that they should be making sure that everything possible was disclosed on the health care forms. You see they ask some very broad questions and you better fill in every damn piece of information or they’ll rescind your coverage when you try to get coverage. (h/t Scoutfinch)

The state’s largest for-profit health insurer is asking California physicians to look for conditions it can use to cancel their new patients’ medical coverage.

Blue Cross of California is sending physicians copies of health insurance applications filled out by new patients, along with a letter advising them that the company has a right to drop members who fail to disclose “material medical history,” including “pre-existing pregnancies.”

“Any condition not listed on the application that is discovered to be pre-existing should be reported to Blue Cross immediately,” the letters say. The Times obtained a copy of a letter that was aimed at physicians in large medical groups.(LA Times 2/12/08)

This policy could cause major problems with the doctor-patient relationship. And under any of the presidential plans without community rating, none of this will stop. Even if you have a national pool, the other insurers will still try to drop the unhealthy and move them to the national pool.  This will only make the national pool more cost uncompetitive. And the cherry-picking domino effect begins.

I think some plans include a prohibition on rescission, but none of the plans include a prohibition on price increases. If it hasn’t been clear that Blue Cross is an impediment to a stable health care system, perhaps now it’s clear? Maybe? Anybody?

Budget, California

Political Suicide

Conventional wisdom considers it political suicide for a candidate to talk about the need to raise taxes so the state can pay its bills — especially if it involves reforming Proposition 13.  

Much of the public thinks that government “spends too much” and that much of the state’s budget goes to “waste, fraud and abuse.”  

Much of the pubic also thinks that the primary beneficiaries of Prop. 13 were little old ladies who otherwise would lose their homes to increasing property taxes.

Reality, rarely consulted, understands things very differently.  

California faces another budget crisis.  The Governor proposes solving the problem with budget cuts.

California’s budget pays teachers, fights crime, maintains roads and bridges and other necessary activities.  There simply is no room for cuts to balance the budget. In fact, budget cuts just make following year shortfalls worse.  If you lay off teachers they aren’t paying taxes.  If you don’t fix roads the economy gets worse.  In the long term, if you don’t educate kids employers move jobs to states and countries that do.  And, of course, it is always a really bad idea to cut back on police and courts — especially after years and years of cuts in education.

Budget cuts don’t work, so how about the modern solution to budget problems?  I mean, of course, just borrowing the needed money.  But Governor Schwarzenegger proved that the state can’t borrow its way out of budget crunches: A major reason for this year’s budget problems is the interest owed on Schwarzenegger’s past easy fixes of issuing bonds.

The reality is that the budget cannot be fixed with budget cuts or more borrowing.  We need to increase taxes.  We need to start by reforming Proposition 13, raising corporate taxes, closing tax loopholes and taxing oil that is pumped from the ground.  If we decide to do these things we might find that we not only fix California’s budget problems for good, we might even be able to lower income taxes.

Reality also shows that the major beneficiaries of Proposition 13 were not little old ladies but large commercial real estate holders.  It would be so easy to put a “little old lady” exception into property tax rules so they are not forced from their homes.  But it would be political suicide to even discuss reforming Proposition 13 because of the power of the large commercial real estate owners.  They want their tax break and don’t care if the whole state goes broke and everyone else suffers.  They are able to put a lot more money into the election process than regular people.  That is why it is political suicide to talk about raising property taxes.

Why is it political suicide for a candidate to propose ways to fix problems, but not political suicide to cause them or make them worse?  

Click to continue.

Uncategorized

Registrar Still Refusing to Count “Double Bubble Trouble” Ballots

2 Comments

(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)

Dean Logan, the acting Registrar of Voters in Los Angeles issued a detailed

report (pdf) yesterday evening, following a 1% sampling of the Decline-to-State vote.  Unfortunately, he is still refusing to count every possible ballot.  Following his report, the number of uncounted ballots is estimated at 49,500, since the sampling showed that a significant portion intended to just vote non-partisan.  We do not know the hard number, since he has only done a sampling, not pulled and examined all of the ballots.  AP

Registrar Dean Logan said those improperly filled out ballots are impossible to count by hand because of the county’s complicated voting system, which requires crossover voters to fill in two “bubbles”: one to choose a political party and one to indicate their presidential choice.

“There’s no way in looking at the ballot to discern voters’ intent,” Logan said after releasing preliminary findings about the flawed voting system.

Wrong.  Voter intent, as the Courage Campaign has argued all along is clear.  These voters requested a Democratic ballot, voted for a Democrat and just because they missed an extra bubble does not mean that you can’t determine voter intent.

28,000 people have signed our petition to the Registrar demanding he count every possible vote.  Have you signed yet?

Check the flip for more, including excerpts from a letter our lawyers sent back to Logan that specifically discuss voter intent and his obligations under the state Constitution to count every vote.

The full letter from Steven Reyes, a lawyer for the Courage Campaign is available for download in pdf.  Here are the main sections:

First, the “universe of ballots impacted by the cross-over issue” while smaller than some media reports, is nonetheless staggering: 49,500 voters will, unless additional action is immediately taken, have their votes discarded. Twenty-six percent of all DTS voters in Los Angeles County are estimated to have cast ballots that will not count. In some districts, that rate climbs to 41% (in the 46th Congressional District); 45% (in the 27th Congressional District); and 56% (in the 37th Congressional District). We remind the Board that requiring DTS voters to take additional steps to cast their ballots – such as filling in a party selection bubble — is neither required, nor permitted, by law.

Second, we strongly disagree that the “limitations of our voting system and the ballot design impede an ability to determine voter intent on those ballots that were impacted . . . .”  The report states that “there is no way to definitively rule out the distinct possibility that a non-partisan voter used, for example, a Republican Party or minor party vote recorder and marked their ballot for one of those party candidates.”

If this were true, all ballots cast at the polls would be suspect unless poll workers personally escorted each voter to the correct voting booth and ensured that a correct ballot was cast.  Thus, for example, if a registered Green Party voter inadvertently cast a ballot in the Republican Party voting booth, the Inka-Vote system would record that voter’s ballot for the corresponding Green Party candidate. The mere possibility that such a voter might cast a Republican ballot should not cause those ballots to be thrown out.  Moreover, we find the likelihood of this “distinct possibility” extremely remote. Ultimately, when a DTS voter cast his or her ballot for a candidate in positions 11-15 – ballot positions for which DTS voters were only authorized to vote for Democratic candidates – it is contrary to the State Constitution and to the state Elections Code to disregard that vote.

In response to the Florida electoral fiasco in 2000, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 43 on March 5, 2002. Proposition 43 inserted one simple line into Article II of the California Constitution:  A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted. (Emphasis added.)  Further, state law clearly states that when reviewing votes and voting systems, Election Code requirements “shall be liberally construed so that the real will of the electors will not be defeated by any informality or failure to comply with all of the provisions of the law.” (See Cal. Elec. Code Sec. 19001.)

Logan is coming up with excuses not to count all possible votes.  Our lawyers are arguing that these voters cast legal votes, since the additional bubble is not required to be filled out under the law.  Our state constitution requires that every vote be counted.  Therefore Logan should count every vote.

Here are the actions that the Courage Campaign has demanded be taken in response to the report.

  1. The Registrar must take all necessary steps to identify the precise number of DTS voters that were adversely affected by the ballot design flaw and identify the candidates for whom these DTS voters cast a ballot or, alternatively, the range of candidates for whom these voters may have cast a ballot.
  2. The Registrar must ascertain voter intent, in a manner consistent with the Elections Code and the State Constitution.
  3. The Registrar must count the votes of all DTS voters who cast a ballot for a presidential candidate, but did not mark the party selection, where voter intent is clear.
  4. The Registrar must, as identified in his preliminary report, take all necessary steps to ensure that the DTS ballot design flaw is remedied for the June 3, 2008 State Primary Election.

The good news is that Logan is indicating that he will make sure that this will not be a problem when voters head back to the polls in June.  We will make sure he keeps his word.  In the meantime the Courage Campaign will continue to put pressure on the Registrar to count every vote.

Uncategorized

Art Torres Lied To Us

2 Comments

Several months ago, at a time where Dianne Feinstein was facing censure for a series of votes siding with the Bush Administration over Democratic values or the Constitution, Art Torres assured us all, in a highly emotional speech, that he discussed telecom immunity, a forthcoming issue, with her, and that “thanks to her” immunity was stripped from the bill.

“Don’t believe me, ask my friend Senator Dodd, who will tell you that she led the effort along with him to make sure that [immunity] wasn’t in the official bill that emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

That wasn’t true then, of course; Patrick Leahy’s ju-jitsu by putting immunity in Title II of the bill and then dropping it was what did the trick.  But of course, that wasn’t enough.  The Intelligence Committee bill, the one with amnesty for the phone companies, was what made it to the floor.  Feinstein offered some amendments.  Her “exclusivity” amendment to make FISA the exclusive means under which government spying takes place “failed” because only 57 Senators voted for it; under the unanimous consent agreement, that particular amendment needed 60 votes to pass because it had too much support.  This essentially invalidates all laws passed by the Congress, since in the absence of exclusivity, what is implied is that the President has the ability to go outside whatever law is passed.

So in that environment, there was a vote to strip telecom immunity from the bill.  This is something the President alone can’t dictate to the courts.  This is the only opportunity to find the truth about how our government spied on us.  And Dianne Feinstein, hoping that we weren’t paying attention, voted against stripping it out.

It was a few months away from any pressure on her, so she felt OK with allowing the President to break American laws.  Here’s what’s happening today:

The Senate today — led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus — will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration’s years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans. The long, hard efforts by AT&T, Verizon and their all-star, bipartisan cast of lobbyists to grease the wheels of the Senate — led by former Bush 41 Attorney General William Barr and former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick — are about to pay huge dividends, as such noble efforts invariably do with our political establishment.

Every single Senator, all of whom committed to a unanimous consent agreement that precluded any possibility to amend the bill, is responsible.  But everyone in the world knew Dianne Feinstein would sell us out and give the phone companies what they wanted for violating civil liberties.  Everyone, that is, except for Art Torres.

I’d like a personal apology, thanks.  So should everyone who was in that room in Anaheim.

[UPDATE]: In case anyone was wondering, DiFi’s “good faith” amendment fell to defeat, 41-57.  Chris Dodd rightly voted against it, because it was an idiotic compromise.

Uncategorized

Art Torres Lied To Us

16 Comments

Several months ago, at a time where Dianne Feinstein was facing censure for a series of votes siding with the Bush Administration over Democratic values or the Constitution, Art Torres assured us all, in a highly emotional speech, that he discussed telecom immunity, a forthcoming issue, with her, and that “thanks to her” immunity was stripped from the bill.

“Don’t believe me, ask my friend Senator Dodd, who will tell you that she led the effort along with him to make sure that [immunity] wasn’t in the official bill that emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

That wasn’t true then, of course; Patrick Leahy’s ju-jitsu by putting immunity in Title II of the bill and then dropping it was what did the trick.  But of course, that wasn’t enough.  The Intelligence Committee bill, the one with amnesty for the phone companies, was what made it to the floor.  Feinstein offered some amendments.  Her “exclusivity” amendment to make FISA the exclusive means under which government spying takes place “failed” because only 57 Senators voted for it; under the unanimous consent agreement, that particular amendment needed 60 votes to pass because it had too much support.  This essentially invalidates all laws passed by the Congress, since in the absence of exclusivity, what is implied is that the President has the ability to go outside whatever law is passed.

So in that environment, there was a vote to strip telecom immunity from the bill.  This is something the President alone can’t dictate to the courts.  This is the only opportunity to find the truth about how our government spied on us.  And Dianne Feinstein, hoping that we weren’t paying attention, voted against stripping it out.

It was a few months away from any pressure on her, so she felt OK with allowing the President to break American laws.  Here’s what’s happening today:

The Senate today — led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus — will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration’s years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans. The long, hard efforts by AT&T, Verizon and their all-star, bipartisan cast of lobbyists to grease the wheels of the Senate — led by former Bush 41 Attorney General William Barr and former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick — are about to pay huge dividends, as such noble efforts invariably do with our political establishment.

Every single Senator, all of whom committed to a unanimous consent agreement that precluded any possibility to amend the bill, is responsible.  But everyone in the world knew Dianne Feinstein would sell us out and give the phone companies what they wanted for violating civil liberties.  Everyone, that is, except for Art Torres.

I’d like a personal apology, thanks.  So should everyone who was in that room in Anaheim.

Uncategorized

Superdelegate straight talk

27 Comments

Originally posted to the Progressive Caucus list serve of the California Democratic Party by Garry Shay.

I want to open up a debate here.

For the first time since they were conceived, the votes of so-called “super-delegates” may actually matter with regard to the nomination of the Democratic Party candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States.

As a matter of explanation and illumination, super-delegates are either members of Congress or of the DNC. They are un-pledged delegates to the National Convention in Denver. They are either elected by their districts, states, state parties, or other constituencies such as the Democratic State Treasurer’s Association, or the Democratic Municipal Officials Association, or similar organizations. 75 DNC members were appointed by Governor Dean in 2004.

The question I pose is not who super-delegates should vote for, but rather how they should come to their decision.

Edit by Brian: Continued over the flip

The question is not whether or not they should exist, because the fact is, they do. As my torts professor once said, in his thick German accent, if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a Volkswagen, but she doesn’t. What ever you think of the system itself, it is the reality we work in at this time.

And the question is not whether or not the Super-Delegates should come to a decision, because sitting it out is essentially a vote against any candidate, since we are part of the majority needed to nominate. Not voting does not lower the number needed to nominate and also deprives our constituency (whatever that may be) of their representation under the current rules. I don’t think any of us would really advocate for that.

I know the people on this list are quite capable of carrying on a philosophic discussion and not allow it to devolve into a debate of personality, if they choose to do so.

I ask you to participate in this discussion at that level. Please do not refer to Clinton or Obama. Please keep the discussion a step above personality and specific candidates.

This discussion is about the nature of representative democracy. Is one elected to represent their constituency, or to vote their conscience, or some other formula? How does that apply to the present situation?

As pertains to myself, and 18 other elected DNC members, we were elected by the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party four (4) years ago. Our terms run from the day after one convention, to the day after the next. We are among the first elected delegates to a National Convention. Only Senators elected in 2002 were elected earlier. The CDP Executive Board will be electing some of the first delegates to the 2012 National Convention this June. That election has no effect on the current convention decision.

What are we elected to do? Who were we elected to represent?

Other formulations may apply to other super-delegates, but here are the various formulations I have come up with, at least as pertains to the 19 CDP DNC members elected in 2004:

1. I was elected because my electorate trusted my judgement and I should vote my conscience.

2. I was elected to represent those who elected me 4 years ago, who are not the same people who are on the CDP Executive Board at the present time. I should poll the former Executive Board of the CDP, after the last primary and before the convention.

3. I was elected to represent the CDP Executive Board, as an institutional body. I should poll the current Executive Board of the CDP, after the last primary and before the convention.

4. I was elected by the CDP Executive Board to represent the same people they represent, the Democrats of the State of California, and thus should vote however the majority of Democrats voted on February 5, 2008.

5. I should vote for the candidate most likely to win in November, in my opinion.

6. I should vote for the candidate who best exemplifies the Platform of the CDP.

7. I should vote for the candidate who best exemplifies the Platform of the National Convention.

8. I should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, unless for some bizarre reason, I can honestly say that such a candidate is an anathema to the Democratic Party principles as I understand them.

9. I was elected to synthesize all of the above into a decision, which you recognize is an impossible task, but trusted I would do the right thing for the right reason.

10. Vote the way you personally want me to and if I don’t you will hold me personally responsible. (This is not really a choice, but I recognize it is perhaps a reality for some).

I would like your thoughts on this. Seriously. I will pass them on to all members of the CDP DNC delegation, and those of the Western States, as well.

Garry S. Shay

Member, Democratic National Committee (CA) and

Lead Chair Rules Committee, California Democratic Party

Titles for identification purposes only

==========================================

California, San Diego

Nehring vs. Incompetence

2 Comments

In October I wrote an article for San Diego CityBeat called Down PERA-Scope which discussed the bumpy road being encountered by state GOP Chair Ron Nehring relative to the Dirty Tricks Initiative.  In part, the article said

…many GOP activists, strategists and observers expressed concern over the impact of Nehring’s two high-profile personnel problems on party fundraising. Later in the summer, these concerns were seemingly validated when Schwarzenegger was forced to help retire the state party’s debt after rumors surfaced that it could barely cover operating costs.

Well, PERA is super-duper dead now and it looks like Nehring’s tenure is continuing to be a problem for the donor base.  Big time GOP donor Larry Dodge has called out Nehring

Among his complaints, Dodge says the party has not had an effective finance chairman-the key fundraiser-in place for more than a year. He suggests that party officers are squandering money without accountability. Major donors, he said, were promised a hand in the party’s operations committee but “nothing has happened.”

“The party needs professional management,” he writes.

The whole article is like that, and it’s pretty neat.  Dodge is aligned with the Schwarzenegger/McCain outlook on things more than he gets down with the theocon vibe, but nevertheless it’s time to bust out the popcorn if the donor base is rebelling against Nehring’s stewardship of the state party.  Nehring of course goes back like crack to to the 80s with Grover Norquist and used San Diego as the launching pad to his current state-level exploits.  He literally administered the GOP playbook on how to turn an urban area Republican, so with any luck his failures mirror the fundamental failing of GOP urban strategy (such as it is).

Is it just me, or does “Nehring Republican” sound like an enticing electoral slur? Maybe it’s just me. Unless McCain is the GOP nominee. Oh wait…