(A great recap of the CDP Convention. If you aren’t following Sweet Melissa, you’re missing out on some of the most insightful SF political commentary on the web. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Constant Readers,

In my final post about the California Democratic Convention, Ima write about the saga of Carole Migden and Mark Leno and the fight over who would and (perhaps, more importantly) who would not get the Democratic party endorsement for the District 3 State Senate seat.

Saturday

I’ve already written about Friday night, so let’s start with Saturday. Over breakfast, I wrote a post about Migden’s public display of lunacy on Friday night, then dealt with the proxy fiasco. After that, Beth and Brian D. (also proxies) arrived in San Jose and a group of us met up for lunch before we had to go vote. In anticipation of a boring afternoon, the booze flowed liberally as we debated the difference between a “nerd” and a “dork” – which is only something a bunch of nerdy dorks would do. Then we ambled on over to the convention center to engage in some Sauvignon Blanc-fueled heckling.

Here’s how it works: before all of the CA delegates vote on whether to endorse a candidate, the candidate’s Region has to hold an election to endorse the candidate. In this case it was Region 4 whose delegates needed to vote to endorse Migden or Leno. As the incumbent, Migden only needed 50% + 1 of the number of votes cast by delegates. As the challenger, Leno needed 70% +1 of the total number of votes cast by Region 4 delegates to get the endorsement.

It took forever to register to get in to do the Regional vote and Bethy and I passed the time by making fun of people and thinking up new ways to complain about how long everything was taking. We also ran into some familiar faces like Chris Daly and Sarah Low and their two ridiculously adorable children.

As you can imagine, the passive-aggressive “sign wars” were on tilt.  Ultimately Migden won the Regional endorsement with 150 votes to Mark Leno’s 115 and one idiot voted for Joe Nation even though Monsieur Nation didn’t bother to show up.

Normally when a Region votes to endorse a candidate, the matter of whether the rest of the state delegates will vote to endorse the candidate is a done deal. For that reason, regional endorsements go on what is called a “consent calendar” to be considered by all the state delegates on Sunday. The consent calendar consists of a bunch of procedural stuff that does not merit debate. However, Leno’s people went to work on Saturday night getting enough signatures to pull the Region 4 Migden endorsement off of the consent calendar so it would be voted on separately by the entire body of delegates on Sunday. They needed 300, and got over 600 signatures (unofficial count). Sunday’s vote would be interesting. In the meantime, there was dining, drinking, dancing and debating to do with Beth Spotswood, Brian Devine, Luke Thomas, Brian Leubitz, Bob Brigham and Mark Leno.  

SUNDAY

I was in sorry shape on Sunday morning. Nevertheless, I had to go to registration early and turn back over my Kamala credentials because she wanted to vote in the main Leno/Migden event. So, I became Erin again and set up my computer on the press podium next to a writer from the L.A. Times. Hungover, not-Kamala and sitting next to a real journalist, I just wanted the day to be over. Unfortunately, the convention planners seem to believe that democracy includes giving every party official, delegate and janitor the chance to give a speech.

After being told all day that the Leno/Migden vote was “about to happen”- at about 1 pm it finally began. Each candidate had two minutes to make a statement. Someone from the United Farm Workers (whose name I couldn’t hear) spoke for Migden and then Migden made a quick statement. Then it was Leno’s turn. Karen Bass spoke for Leno briefly and then Leno made a short statement, too. Kamala Harris stood at Leno’s side during the statements.  

Overruling the Region 4 vote and preventing the party endorsement of Migden required a simple majority. The final tally was 298 in favor of keeping the Migden endorsement and 742 opposed. (Even Leno supporters were like “daaaaaaamn!”) So, no Democratic party endorsement for Migden – which means no $1.5 million of party money for her campaign, or bail, or whatever.

Note that Leno doesn’t have the endorsement now either (someone made a motion on Sunday that would have resulted in a Leno endorsement but that move requires 75% approval and he only got 60%).  

Procedural maneuvers, local politicos and great friends – it was Nerdtopia. Where can I sign up to go again next year?

–Melissa  

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

Cross posted at the Courage Campaign blog

Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) is one of the co-stars of our Yacht Ad, and apparently he isn’t particularly excited about it.  Steve Wiegand notes a “bemused” Blakeslee claiming that the current $8 billion deficit is somehow related to him first voting for, then voting against, closing the sloophole.

Well unfortuantely for Asm. Blakeslee, when you vote for it before you voted against it, Rick Jacobs is right-“There’s a little John Kerry in there.”  It isn’t up to him to decide when votes are symbolic or substantive, and switching sides on the issue “in a sign of solidarity” with fellow GOPers doesn’t really signal a commitment to moving beyond partisanism for the good of the state.  In fact, it’s the “party solidarity” that’s been the problem all along.

Meaning well doesn’t go to far if the votes can’t stay in line with those good intentions.  And as a member of the budget committee through the past year of negotiations and general insanity, Blakeslee should know better than to throw around dumb lines like:

“The fact that the (Democrats) can’t even figure out who did and didn’t vote explains why the state of California has an $8 billion deficit right now,”

That sounds likely to be closer to the true Blakeslee.  Instead of taking responsibility for the budget mess or instead of offering new ways to generate revenue or re-examine with fresh eyes the budget process in general, Blakeslee falls back on good old solidarity.  Throw substance-less bombs across the aisle, try and fail to sound dismissive, and at the end of the day, be no closer to a budget that actually provides a reasonable level of service to the state of California.

So this is your 2008 Yacht Party at work: Even in a rare case where a member may oppose the sloophole, they can’t get past the petty partisanism to maintain the right vote.  Party first, people second.

When we first brought you the story of the CSU East Bay teacher who was fired for refusing to sign the state’s antiquated loyalty oath (she later got her job back) I called for a legislator to “write a law to repeal this waste of paper.”

Yesterday’s Mercury News reports that State Sen. Alan Lowenthal has stepped up to the task:

The Long Beach Democrat has introduced a bill that would scrap statutes allowing teachers and other public employees to be fired for being members of the Communist Party.

The measure, scheduled to be considered Wednesday by the Senate Education Committee, also would drop a requirement that representatives of organizations seeking to use school facilities sign a form stating they do not have communist affiliations.

Lowenthal said the measure would drop old laws that were adopted at the height of the Red Scare following World War II and that have been found unconstitutional by the courts.

“Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the threat between us and communism just isn’t there…,” he said in an interview. “They are not a danger to our liberty, and the courts have uniformly said that.”

It’s been nearly 20 years since Communism ceased to be a threat to the United States, and 60 years since the height of the Red Scare that produced the current version of the oath. It has absolutely no value or relevance to the present day, and even in the 1950s was really just a tool to remove politically incorrect educators from the UC system, as well as a political opportunity for Earl Warren’s reelection bid.

Even a member of the Yacht Party, Chuck DeVore, agrees with this – last year he proposed eliminating the anti-communist language from the oath, only to replace it with language allowing the firing of teachers who “support terrorist groups.” That last part is very slippery language indeed, as both “support” and “terrorist group” are so vague and undefined as to be a threat to civil liberties (and besides, there are numerous federal laws dealing with the matter).

Still, most California wingnuts are apoplectic at the very idea of rolling back their beloved McCarthyism:

But some conservative groups and bloggers have sharply criticized the measure, contending it would lead to the indoctrination of students.

“Less than 20 years after the fall of the communist Soviet Union, California lawmakers are eager to once again begin advancing a political ideology responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people,” Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Family Impact, said in a statement.

“Instead of promoting communism in our schools, lawmakers should be focused on actually teaching students to read, write and think for themselves.”

Right, because there are just SO many Communist teachers out there just waiting to turn their innocent young students into cadres for Raul Castro and Hu Jintao. But then again, if these wingnuts want to make these kinds of silly arguments, who am I to stop them? The more they expose themselves as so radical that they’ve lost touch with reality, the less Californians will listen to their ideas.

So kudos to Sen. Lowenthal for wanting to restore some sanity to state employment. As to groups like Capitol Resource Family Impact, don’t you have some more pressing concerns?

Some reflections now that I’m back home on the shores of the Monterey Bay:

– The Leno-Migden fight certainly reached a dramatic climax today, and the result was stunning. After the vote was finalized Eden James argued that it was a representation of the power of the grassroots within the party, and I think that analysis is absolutely right. Migden had pulled out all the stops and leaned on every party official she could find to get this endorsement, but the rank and file delegates overwhelmingly refused to go along. I wish I could have stuck around to interview some of these delegates and get a sense of why they voted as they did. If anyone did ask those questions, or if we have any delegates here who wish to discuss the vote, please weigh in with a comment.

– Migden’s failed endorsement is also further evidence, along with the rescinded AD-40 endorsement and the split over Prop 93 earlier in the year, to a huge divide between the party grassroots and the Sacramento leadership in particular. Senate Democrats and their staffers had worked hard over the weekend to get a Migden endorsement and the delegates would not go along with it. To their credit, Speaker Núñez and his office have been reaching out more to the netroots, and a lot of the delegates are eagerly awaiting Karen Bass’ speakership, so this divide may not be difficult to bridge. The Senate seems to have more work to do on this, and Darrell Steinberg’s ascension to the leadership might well bring some welcome change.

– Speaking of the new speaker, Karen Bass is a rising star within the party – and someone who already has a lot of support from the delegates. She got a rapturous welcome at the Progressive Caucus Friday night, and her name was on many lips all weekend long. Her endorsement of and speech for Mark Leno today right before the vote may well have played a decisive role in denying Migden the party endorsement, which would be an interesting sign of how much respect she is already being given by party members. It’s a shame that her term will be so short, but it may be a transformative two years.

– I also sense growing disapproval of the party making an endorsement in contested primaries. Nobody I talked to could remember the last time even one endorsement was pulled from the consent calendar and overturned by delegates, not to mention two – and there were a few other instances where the district endorsement caucuses overturned the pre-endorsement vote (such as in AD-80). The Progressive Caucus was exploring a motion to reduce incumbents’ advantages in the voting process, and a lot of delegates I talked to felt that the party shouldn’t be endorsing at all. Look for this issue to take a higher profile in the coming months and years.

– Overall I am left wondering whether the party convention is a good use of time and resources. Delegates seemed bored with most of the speeches and few paid attention to the party business. If endorsements were done away with, there wouldn’t have been much going on at all, aside from the caucus meetings, which were popular and well-attended. That suggests to me that the party should explore ways to use the convention to spur activism and training – to help catalyze political action.

– On a personal level it was great to hang out with the California blogosphere, whether I’d met you before, hadn’t seen you in a few years (like Dante Atkins) or met you for the first time (like Lucas). I want to give a special shout-out to the unsung but important and valuable Caliticians, such as soyinkafan and Caligirl, who were very active and engaged at the convention and helped bring some of those stories to your attention here; and to friends of Calitics such as Frank Russo and Dave Johnson. Matt Lockshin, Penny Denenberg, and Crystal Strait were all excellent hosts who helped make this first-time attendee feel welcome and supported.

Other thoughts? Share them in the comments.

[Update by Robert] I have some high speed rail specific thoughts over at my new high speed rail blog.